[Transcriber's Notes:

Inconsistent spellings and hyphenations such as "re-election" and"reëlection" have been conformed, and obvious typographical errorshave been corrected. 

The original contains an index in Volume II covering Volumes I and II. Volume III, which was published later, contains an index covering allthree volumes. Therefore, the Volume II index has been omitted. 

The original of Volume III refers to both "Appleton's _Encyclopedia_"and "Appleton's _Cyclopædia_. " The correct title, as used in Volumes Iand II, is "Appleton's _Cyclopædia_" and has been corrected in VolumeIII. ]

A POLITICAL HISTORY

OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

BY

DeALVA STANWOOD ALEXANDER, A. M. 

_Member of Congress, Formerly United States Attorney for the NorthernDistrict of New York_

VOL. I

1774-1832

[Illustration]

NEW YORKHENRY HOLT AND COMPANY1906

Copyright, 1906ByHENRY HOLT AND COMPANY

PREFACE

The preparation of this work was suggested to the author by thedifficulty he experienced in obtaining an accurate knowledge of themovements of political parties and their leaders in the Empire State. "After living a dozen years in New York, " wrote Oliver Wolcott, whohad been one of Washington's Cabinet, and was afterwards governor ofConnecticut, "I don't pretend to comprehend their politics. It is alabyrinth of wheels within wheels, and it is understood only by themanagers. " Wolcott referred to the early decades of the last century, when Clintonian and Bucktail, gradually absorbing the Federalists, severed the old Republican party into warring factions. In lateryears, Daniel S. Dickinson spoke of "the tangled web of New Yorkpolitics"; and Horace Greeley complained of "the zigzag, waveringlines and uncouth political designations which puzzled and weariedreaders" from 1840 to 1860, when Democrats divided into Conservativesand Radicals, Hunkers and Barnburners, and Hards and Softs; and whenWhigs were known as Conscience and Cotton, and Woollies and SilverGrays. More recently James Parton, in his _Life of Andrew Jackson_, speaks of "that most unfathomable of subjects, the politics of theState of New York. "

There is no attempt in this history to catalogue the prominent publicmen of New York State. Such a list would itself fill a volume. It hasonly been possible, in the limited space given to over a century, tolinger here and there in the company of the famous figures who roseconspicuously above their fellow men and asserted themselvesmasterfully in influencing public thought and action. Indeed, thehistory of a State or nation is largely the history of a few leadingmen, and it is of such men only, with some of their more prominentcontemporaries, that the author has attempted to write. 

It would be hard to find in any Commonwealth of the Union a moreinteresting or picturesque leadership than is presented in thepolitical history of the Empire State. Rarely more than twocontrolling spirits appear at a time, and as these pass into apogeeyounger men of approved capacity are ready to take their places. Nonehad a meteoric rise, but in his day each became an absolute partyboss; for the Constitution of 1777, by creating the Council ofAppointment, opened wide the door to bossism. The abolition of theCouncil in 1821 doubtless made individual control more difficult, butthe system left its methods so deeply impressed upon party managementthat what before was done under the sanction of law, ever aftercontinued under the cover of custom. 

After the Revolution, George Clinton and Alexander Hamilton led theopposing political forces, and while Aaron Burr was forging to thefront, the great genius of DeWitt Clinton, the nephew of GeorgeClinton, began asserting itself. The defeat of Burr for governor, andthe death of Hamilton would have left DeWitt Clinton in completecontrol, had he found a strong man for governor whom he could use. In1812 Martin Van Buren discovered superiority as a manager, and fornearly two decades, until the death of the distinguished canalbuilder, his great ability was taxed to its uttermost in the memorablecontests between Bucktails and Clintonians. Thurlow Weed succeededDeWitt Clinton in marshalling the forces opposed to Van Buren, whosemantle gradually fell upon Horatio Seymour. Clustered about each ofthese leaders, save DeWitt Clinton, was a coterie of distinguished menwhose power of intellect has made their names familiar in Americanhistory. If DeWitt Clinton was without their aid, it was becausestrong men in high position rebelled against becoming errand boys todo his bidding. But the builder of the Erie canal needed nolieutenants, since his great achievement, aiding the farmer andenriching the merchant, overcame the power of Van Buren, thepopularity of Tompkins, and the phenomenal ability of the AlbanyRegency. 

In treating the period from 1800 to 1830, the term "Democrat" ispurposely avoided, since all anti-federalist factions in New Yorkclaimed to be "Republican. " The Clay electors, in the campaign of1824, adopted the title "Democrat Ticket, " but in 1828, and forseveral years after the formation of the Whig party in 1834, thefollowers of Jackson, repudiating the title of Democrats, calledthemselves Republicans. 

For aid in supplying material for character and personal sketches, theauthor is indebted to many "old citizens" whom he met during the yearshe held the office of United States Attorney for the Northern Districtof New York, when that district included the entire State north andwest of Albany. He takes this occasion, also, to express his deepobligation to the faithful and courteous officials of the Library ofCongress, who, during the years he has been a member of Congress, assisted him in searching for letters and other unindexed bits of NewYork history which might throw some light upon subjects underinvestigation. 

The author hopes to complete the work in an additional volume, bringing it down to the year 1896. 

D. S. A. 

BUFFALO, N. Y. , March, 1906. 

CONTENTS

VOL. I

CHAPTER PAGE

I. A COLONY BECOMES A STATE. 1774-1776 1

II. MAKING A STATE CONSTITUTION. 1777 8

III. GEORGE CLINTON ELECTED GOVERNOR. 1777 17

IV. CLINTON AND HAMILTON. 1783-1789 23

V. GEORGE CLINTON'S FOURTH TERM. 1789-1792 37

VI. GEORGE CLINTON DEFEATS JOHN JAY. 1792-1795 50

VII. RECOGNITION OF EARNEST MEN. 1795-1800 64

VIII. OVERTHROW OF THE FEDERALISTS. 1798-1800 78

IX. MISTAKES OF HAMILTON AND BURR. 1800 94

X. JOHN JAY AND DeWITT CLINTON. 1800 107

XI. SPOILS AND BROILS OF VICTORY. 1801-1803 115

XII. DEFEAT OF BURR AND DEATH OF HAMILTON. 1804 129

XIII. THE CLINTONS AGAINST THE LIVINGSTONS. 1804-1807 147

XIV. DANIEL D. TOMPKINS AND DeWITT CLINTON. 1807-1810 158

XV. TOMPKINS DEFEATS JONAS PLATT. 1810 173

XVI. DeWITT CLINTON AND TAMMANY. 1789-1811 180

XVII. BANKS AND BRIBERY. 1791-1812 186

XVIII. CLINTON AND THE PRESIDENCY. 1812 199

XIX. QUARRELS AND RIVALRIES. 1813 211

XX. A GREAT WAR GOVERNOR. 1812-1815 219

XXI. CLINTON OVERTHROWN. 1815 231

XXII. CLINTON'S RISE TO POWER. 1815-1817 241

XXIII. BUCKTAIL AND CLINTONIAN. 1817-1819 253

XXIV. RE-ELECTION OF RUFUS KING. 1819-1820 263

XXV. TOMPKINS' LAST CONTEST. 1820 273

XXVI. THE ALBANY REGENCY. 1820-1822 283

XXVII. THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 1821 295

XXVIII. SECOND FALL OF DeWITT CLINTON. 1822 312

XXIX. CLINTON AGAIN IN THE SADDLE. 1823-1824 321

XXX. VAN BUREN ENCOUNTERS WEED. 1824 334

XXXI. CLINTON'S COALITION WITH VAN BUREN. 1825-1828 344

XXXII. VAN BUREN ELECTED GOVERNOR. 1828 357

XXXIII. WILLIAM H. SEWARD AND THURLOW WEED. 1830 370

XXXIV. VAN BUREN'S ENEMIES MAKE HIM VICE PRESIDENT. 1829-1832 382

XXXV. FORMATION OF THE WHIG PARTY. 1831-1834 392

A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

CHAPTER I

A COLONY BECOMES A STATE

On the 16th of May, 1776, the second Continental Congress, preparingthe way for the Declaration of Independence, recommended that thoseColonies which were without a suitable form of government, should, tomeet the demands of war, adopt some sufficient organisation. Thepatriot government of New York had not been wholly satisfactory. Itnever lacked in the spirit of resistance to England's misrule, but ithad failed to justify the confident prophecies of those who had beeninstrumental in its formation. 

For nearly a year New York City saw with wonder the spectacle of a fewfearless radicals, organised into a vigilance committee of fifty, closing the doors of a custom-house, guarding the gates of an arsenal, embargoing vessels ladened with supplies for British troops, andremoving cannon from the Battery, while an English fleet, wellofficered and manned, rode idly at anchor in New York harbour. Inspiring as the spectacle was, however, it did not appreciably helpmatters. On the contrary, it created so much friction among the peoplethat the conservative business men--resenting involuntary taxation, yet wanting, if possible with honour, reconciliation and peace withthe mother country--organised, in May, 1774, a body of their own knownas the Committee of Fifty-one, which thought the time had come tointerrupt the assumed leadership of the Committee of Fifty. Thisusurpation by one committee of powers that had been exercised byanother, caused the liveliest indignation. 

The trouble between England and America had grown out of the need fora continental revenue and the lack of a continental government withtaxing power--a weakness experienced throughout the Revolution andunder the Confederation. In the absence of such a government, Parliament undertook to supply the place of such a power; but theAmericans blocked the way by an appeal to the principle that had beenasserted by Simon de Montford's Parliament in 1265 and admitted byEdward I. In 1301--"No taxation without representation. " So the StampAct of 1765 was repealed. The necessity for a continental revenue, nevertheless, remained, and in the effort to adopt some expedient, like the duty on tea, Crown and Colonies became involved in bitterdisputes. The idea of independence, however, had, in May, 1774, scarcely entered the mind of the wildest New York radical. In theirinstructions to delegates to the first Continental Congress, convenedin September, 1774, the Colonies made no mention of it. Even in May, 1775, the Sons of Liberty in Philadelphia cautioned John Adams not touse the word, since "it is as unpopular in all the Middle States asthe Stamp Act itself. "[1] Washington wrote from the Congress thatindependence was then not "desired by any thinking man in America. "[2]

[Footnote 1: E. B. Andrews, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 172. ]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid. _, p. 172. ]

The differences, therefore, between the Committees of Fifty andFifty-one were merely political. One favoured agitation for thepurpose of arousing resistance to the King's summary methods--theother preferred a more orderly but not less forceful way of makingknown their opposition. Members of both committees were patriots inthe highest and best sense, yet each faction fancied itself the onlypatriotic, public spirited and independent party. 

It was during these months of discord that Alexander Hamilton, then alad of seventeen, astonished his listeners at the historic meeting "inthe Fields, "[3] with the cogency of his arguments and the wonderfulflights of an unpremeditated eloquence while denouncing the act ofParliament which closed the port of Boston. Hamilton had already beena year in America attending the Elizabethtown grammar school, conducted under the patronage of William Livingston, soon to becomethe famous war governor of New Jersey. This experience quickened theyoung man's insight into the vexed relations between the Colonies andthe Crown, and shattered his English predilections in favour of thelittle minds that Burke thought so ill-suited to a great empire. Avisit to Boston shortly after the "tea party" seems also to have hadthe effect of crowding his mind with thoughts, deeply andsignificantly freighted with the sentiment of liberty, which were soonto make memorable the occasion of their first utterance. 

[Footnote 3: City Hall Park. ]

The remarkable parallel between Hamilton and the younger Pitt beginsin this year, while both are in the schoolroom. Hamilton "in theFields" recalls Pitt at the bar of the House of Lords, amazing hiscompanions with the ripe intelligence and rare sagacity with which hefollowed the debate, and the readiness with which he skilfullyformulated answers to the stately arguments of the wigged and powderednobles. Pitt, under the tuition of his distinguished father, wasfitted for the House of Commons as boys are fitted for college atExeter and Andover, and he entered Parliament before becoming of age. Hamilton's preparation had been different. At twelve years of age hewas a clerk in a counting house on the island of Nevis in the WestIndies; at sixteen he entered a grammar school in New Jersey; atseventeen he became a sophomore at King's College. It is then that hespoke "in the Fields"--not as a sophomore, not as a precocious youthwith unripe thoughts, not as a boy orator--but as a man speaking withthe wisdom of genius. 

After the meeting "in the Fields" patriotism proved stronger thanprejudice, and in November, 1774, the Committee of Fifty-one gaveplace to a Committee of Sixty, charged with carrying outrecommendations of the Continental Congress. Soon after a Committee ofOne Hundred, composed of members of the Committees of Fifty andFifty-one, assumed the functions of a municipal government. Finally, in May, 1775, representatives were chosen from the several counties toorganise a Provincial Congress to take the place of the longestablished legislature of the Colony, which had become so steeped intoryism that it refused to recognise the action of any body of men whoresented the tyranny of Parliament. Thus, in the brief space ofeighteen months, the government of the Crown had been turned into agovernment of the people. 

For several months, however, the patriots of New York had desired amore complete state government. All admitted that the revolutionarycommittees were essentially local and temporary. Even the hottest Sonof Liberty came to fear the licentiousness of the people on the onehand, and the danger from the army on the other. Nevertheless, theProvincial Congress, whose members had been trained by harshexperience to be stubborn in defence and sturdy in defiance, declinedto assume the responsibility of forming such a government as theContinental Congress recommended. That body had itself come intoexistence as a revolutionary legislature after the Provincial Assemblyhad refused either to approve the proceedings of the first ContinentalCongress, or to appoint delegates to the second; and, although it didnot hesitate to usurp temporarily the functions of the Tory Assembly, to its great credit it believed the right of creating and framing anew civil government belonged to the people; and, accordingly, on May24, 1776, it recommended the election of new representatives whoshould be specially authorised to form a government for New York. 

The members of this new body were conspicuous characters in New York'shistory for the next third of a century. Among them were John Jay, George Clinton, James Duane, Philip Livingston, Philip Schuyler, andRobert R. Livingston. The same men appeared in the Committee ofSafety, at the birth of the state government, as witnesses of thehelplessness of the Confederation, and as backers or backbiters of theFederal Constitution. Among those associated with them were JamesClinton, Ezra L'Hommedieu, Marinus Willett, John Morin Scott, Alexander McDougall, John Sloss Hobart, the Yateses, Abraham, Richardand Robert; the Van Cortlandts, James, John and Philip; the Morrises, Richard, Lewis and Gouverneur, and all the Livingstons. Only twoillustrious names are absent from these early patriotic lists, butalready Alexander Hamilton had won the heart of the people by hiswonderful eloquence and logic, and Aaron Burr, a comely lad ofnineteen, slender and graceful as a girl, with the features of hisbeautiful mother and the refinement of his distinguished grandfather, had thrown away his books to join Arnold on his way to Quebec. Thesemen passed into history in companies, but each left behind his owntrail of light. Where danger called, or civic duties demanded prudenceand profound sagacity, this band of patriots appeared in council andin the camp, ready to answer to the roll-call of their country, and byvoice and vote set the pace which achieved independence. 

The new Provincial Congress met at the courthouse in White Plains onJuly 9, 1776, and, as evidence of the change from the old institutionsto the new, it adopted the name of the "Convention of theRepresentatives of the State of New York. " As further evidence of thenew order of things it declared that New York began its existence as aState on April 20, 1775. It also adopted as the law of the State suchparts of the common and statute law of England as were in force in theColony of New York on April 19, 1775. 

By this time the British forces had become so active in the vicinityof New York that the convention thought it advisable to postpone thenovel and romantic work of state-making until the threatened dangerhad passed; but, before its hasty adjournment, by requesting officersof justice to issue all processes and pleadings under the authorityand in the name of the State of New York, it served notice that Kingand Parliament were no longer recognised as the source of politicalauthority. This appears to have been the first official mention of thenew title of the future government. [4] When the convention reassembledon the first day of the following August it appointed John Jaychairman of a committee to report the draft of a state constitution. 

[Footnote 4: _Memorial History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p. 608. ]

Jay was then thirty-one years old, a cautious, clever lawyer whoseabilities were to make a great impression upon the history of hiscountry. He belonged to a family of Huguenot merchants. The Jays livedat La Rochelle until the revocation of the Edict of Nantes drove thegreat-grandfather to England, where the family continued until 1686, when Augustus, the grandfather, settled in New York. It was not afamily of aristocrats; but for more than a century the Jays had rankedamong the gentry of New York City, intermarrying with the Bayards, theStuyvesants, the Van Cortlandts and the Philipses. To these historicfamilies John Jay added another, taking for his wife Sarah Livingston, the sister of Brockholst, who later adorned the Supreme Court of theUnited States, and the daughter of William, New Jersey's coming wargovernor, already famous as a writer of poems and essays. 

Jay's public career had begun two years before in connection with therevolutionary Committee of Fifty-one. He did not accept office becausehe loved it. He went into politics as he might have travelled on astage-coach at the invitation of a few congenial friends, for theirsake, not for his own. When he took up the work of organisation, therefore, it was with no wish to become a leader; he simply desiredto guide the spirit of resistance along orderly and forceful lines. But soon he held the reins and had his foot on the brake. In draftinga reply to resolutions from a Boston town meeting, he suggested aCongress of all the Colonies, to which should be referred thedisturbing question of non-importation. This letter was not only thefirst serious suggestion of a general Congress, placing its authorintellectually at the head of the Revolutionary leaders; but theplan--which meant broader organisation, more carefully concertedmeasures, an enlistment of all the conservative elements, and oneofficial head for thirteen distinct and widely separatedcolonies--gradually found favour, and resulted in sending the youngwriter as a delegate to the first Continental Congress. 

It was in this Congress that Jay won the right to become aconstitution-maker. Of all the men of that busy and brilliant age, noone advanced more steadily in the general knowledge and favour. Whenhe wrote the address to the people of Canada, his great ability wasrecognised at once; and after he composed the appeal to Ireland and toJamaica, the famous circular letter to the Colonies, and the patrioticaddress to the people of his own State, his wisdom was more frequentlydrawn upon and more widely appreciated than ever; but he may be saidto have leaped into national fame when he drafted the address to thepeople of Great Britain. While still ignorant of its authorship, Jefferson declared it "a production of the finest pen in America. "

CHAPTER II

MAKING A STATE CONSTITUTION

1777

It was early spring in 1777 before John Jay, withdrawing to thecountry, began the work of drafting a constitution. His retirementrecalls Cowper's sigh for

 ". . . A lodge in some vast wilderness, Some boundless contiguity of shade, Where rumours of oppression and deceit, Of unsuccessful and successful war, Might never reach me more. "

Too much and too little credit has been given Jay for his part in thework. One writer says he "entered an almost unexplored field. " On theother hand, John Adams wrote Jefferson that Jay's "model andfoundation" was his own letter to George Wythe of Virginia. Neither istrue. The field was not unexplored, nor did John Adams' letter containa suggestion of anything not already in existence, except the electionof a Council of Appointment, with whose consent the governor shouldappoint all officers. His plan of letting the people elect a governorcame later. "We have a government to form, you know, " wrote Jay, "andGod knows what it will resemble. Our politicians, like some guests ata feast, are perplexed and undetermined which dish to prefer;"[5] butJay evidently preferred the old home dishes, and it is interesting tonote how easily he adapted the laws and customs of the provincialgovernment to the needs of an independent State. 

[Footnote 5: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p. 68. ]

The legislative branch of the government was vested in two separateand distinct bodies, called the Assembly and the Senate. The firstconsisted of seventy members to be elected each year; the second oftwenty-four members, one-fourth to be elected every four years. Members of the Assembly were proportioned to the fourteen countiesaccording to the number of qualified voters. For the election ofsenators, the State was divided into "four great districts, " theeastern being allowed three members, the southern nine, the middle sixand the western six. To each house was given the powers and privilegesof the Provincial Assembly of the Colony of New York. In creating thisLegislature, Jay introduced no new feature. The old Assembly suggestedthe lower house, and the former Council or upper house of theProvince, which exercised legislative powers, made a model for theSenate. [6] In their functions and operations the two bodies wereindistinguishable. [7]

[Footnote 6: _Memorial History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p. 610. ]

[Footnote 7: _Ibid. _, Vol. 2, p. 610. ]

The qualifications of those who might vote for members of theLegislature greatly restricted suffrage. Theoretically every patriotbelieved in the liberties of the people, and the first article of theConstitution declared that "no authority shall, on any pretencewhatever, be exercised over the people of the State, but such as shallbe derived from and granted by them. " This high-sounding exordiumpromised the rights of popular sovereignty; but in practice the makersof the Constitution, fearing the passions of the multitude as much asthe tyranny of kings, deemed it wise to keep power in the hands of afew. A male citizen of full age, possessing a freehold of the value oftwenty pounds, or renting a tenement of the yearly value of fortyshillings, could vote for an assemblyman, and one possessing afreehold of the value of one hundred pounds, free from all debts, could vote for a senator. 

But even these drastic conditions did not satisfy the draftsman of theConstitution. The legislators themselves, although thus carefullyselected, might prove inefficient, and so, lest "laws inconsistentwith the spirit of this Constitution, or with the public good, may behastily or unadvisedly passed, " a Council of Revision was created, composed of the governor, chancellor, and the three judges of theSupreme Court, or any two of them acting with the governor, who "shallrevise all bills about to be passed into laws by the Legislature. " Ifthe Council failed to act within ten days after having possession ofthe bill, or if two-thirds of each house approved it after the Councildisapproved it, the bill became law. This Council seems to have beensuggested by the veto power possessed by the King's Privy Council. 

The supreme executive power and authority of the State were vested ina governor, who must be a freeholder and chosen by the ballots offreeholders possessed of one hundred pounds above all debts. His termof office was three years, and his powers similar to those ofpreceding Crown governors. He was commander-in-chief of the army, andadmiral of the navy. He had power to convene the Legislature inextraordinary session; to prorogue it not to exceed sixty days in anyone year; and to grant pardons and reprieves to persons convicted ofcrimes other than treason and murder, in which cases he might suspendsentence until the Legislature acted. In accordance with the custom ofhis predecessors, he was also expected to deliver a message to theLegislature whenever it convened. To aid him in his duties, theConstitution provided for the election of a lieutenant-governor, whowas made the presiding officer of the Senate. 

The proposition that no authority should be exercised over the peopleexcept such as came from the people necessarily opened the door to anelection of the governor by the people; but how to restrict his powerseems to have taxed Jay's ingenuity. He had reduced the number ofvoters to its lowest terms, and put a curb on the Legislature, as wellas the governor, by the creation of the Council of Revision; but howto curtail the chief executive's power in making appointments, presented a problem which gave Jay himself, when governor, good reasonto regret the manner of its solution. 

The only governors with whom Jay had had any experience were Britishgovernors, and the story of their rule was a story of astonishingmistakes and vexing stupidities. To go no farther back than LordCornbury, the dissolute cousin of Queen Anne, not one in the longlist, covering nearly a century, exhibited gifts fitting him for thegovernment of a spirited and intelligent people, or made the slightestimpression for good either for the Crown or the Colony. Theirdisposition was to be despotic, and to prevent a repetition of sucharbitrary conduct, Jay sought to restrict the governor's power inmaking appointments to civil office. 

The new Constitution provided for the appointment of sheriffs, mayorsof cities, district attorneys, coroners, county treasurers, and allother officers in the State save governor, lieutenant-governor, statetreasurer and town officers. Some members of the convention wished thegovernor to make these appointments; others wanted his power limitedby the Legislature's right to confirm. Jay saw objections to bothmethods. The first would give the governor too much power; the latterwould transfer too much to the Legislature. To reconcile thesedifferences, therefore, he proposed "Article XXIII. That all officers, other than those who, by this Constitution, are directed to beotherwise appointed, shall be appointed in the manner following, towit: The Assembly shall, once in every year, openly nominate andappoint one of the senators from each great district, which senatorsshall form a Council for the appointment of the said officers, ofwhich the governor shall be president and have a casting vote, but noother vote; and with the advice and consent of the said Council shallappoint all of the said officers. "[8]

[Footnote 8: "The clause directing the governor to _nominate_ officersto the Legislature for their approbation being read and debated, wasgenerally disapproved. Many other methods were devised by differentmembers, and mentioned to the house merely for consideration. Imentioned several myself, and told the convention at the time, that, however I might then incline to adopt them, I was not certain, butthat after considering them, I should vote for their rejection. Whilethe minds of the members were thus fluctuating between variousopinions, I spent the evening of that day with Mr. Morris at yourlodgings, in the course of which I proposed the plan for theinstitution of the Council as it now stands, and after conversing onthe subject we agreed to bring it into the house the next day. It wasmoved and debated and carried. "--John Jay, _Correspondence and PublicPapers_, Vol. 1, p. 128. Letter of Jay to Robert R. Livingston andGouverneur Morris, April 29, 1777. ]

This provision was simply, as the sequel showed, a bunglingcompromise. Jay intended that the governor should nominate and theCouncil confirm, and in the event of a tie the governor should havethe casting vote. But in practice it subordinated the governor to theCouncil whenever a majority of the Assembly was politically opposed tohim, and the annual election of the Council greatly increased thechances of such opposition. When, finally, the Council of Appointmentset up the claim that the right to nominate was vested concurrently inthe governor and in each of the four senators, it practically strippedthe chief executive of power. 

The anomaly of the Constitution was the absence of provision for thejudicature, the third co-ordinate branch of the government. One courtwas created for the trial of impeachments and the correction oferrors, but the great courts of original jurisdiction, the SupremeCourt and the Court of Chancery, as well as the probate court, thecounty court, and the court of admiralty, were not mentioned exceptincidentally in sections limiting the ages of the judges, the officeseach might hold, and the appointment of clerks. Instead of recreatingthese courts, the Constitution simply recognised them as existing. Thenew court established, known as the Court of Errors and Impeachment, consisted of the president of the Senate, the senators, thechancellor, and the three judges of the Supreme Court, or a major partof them. The conception of vesting supreme appellate jurisdiction inthe upper legislative house was derived from the former practice ofappeals to the Council of the Province, [9] which possessed judicialas well as legislative power. The Constitution further followed thepractice of the old Council by providing that judges could not vote onappeals from their own judgments, although they might deliverarguments in support of the same--a custom which had obtained in NewYork from the earliest times. [10]

[Footnote 9: _Memorial History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p. 612. ]

[Footnote 10: _Duke's Laws_, Vol. 1, Chap. 14. ]

In like manner provincial laws, grants of lands and charters, legalcustoms, and popular rights, most of which had been in existence for acentury, were carried over. The Constitution simply provided, in ageneral way, for the continuance of such parts of the common law ofEngland, the statute law of England and Great Britain, and the acts ofthe legislature of the Colony of New York, as did not yield obedienceto the government exercised by Great Britain, or establish anyparticular denomination of Christians, or their priests or ministers, who were debarred from holding any civil or military office under thenew State; but acts of attainder for crimes committed after the closeof the war were abrogated, with the declaration that such acts shouldnot work a corruption of the blood. 

The draft of the Constitution in Jay's handwriting was reported to theconvention on March 12, 1777, and on the following day the firstsection was accepted. Then the debate began. Sixty-six membersconstituted the convention, a majority of whom, led by John MorinScott, believed in the reign of the people. The spirit that nerved ahandful of men to embargo vessels and seize munitions of war coveredby British guns never wanted courage, and this historic band nowprepared to resist a conservatism that seemed disposed simply tochange the name of their masters. Jay understood this feeling. "It isprobable that the convention was ultra-democratic, " says William Jay, in the biography of his father, "for I have heard him observe thatanother turn of the winch would have cracked the cord. "[11]

[Footnote 11: William Jay, _Life of John Jay; Jay MSS. _, Vol. 1, p. 72. ]

Jay was not without supporters. Conservatives like the Livingstons, the Morrises, and the Yateses never acted with the recklessness ofdespair. They had well-formed notions of a popular government, andtheir replies to proposed changes broke the force of the opposition. But Jay, relying more upon his own policy, prudently omitted severalprovisions that seemed to him important, and when discussion developedtheir need, he shrewdly introduced them as amendments. Upon onequestion, however, a prolonged and spirited debate occurred. Thiscentred upon the freedom of conscience. The Dutch of New Netherland, almost alone among the Colonies, had never indulged in fanaticism, andthe Constitution, breathing the spirit of their toleration, declaredthat "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession andworship without diminution or preference shall forever hereafter beallowed within the State to all mankind. " Jay did not dissent fromthis sentiment; but, as a descendant of the persecuted Huguenots, hewished to except Roman Catholics until they should deny the Pope'sauthority to absolve citizens from their allegiance and to grantspiritual absolution, and he forcefully insisted upon and secured therestriction that "the liberty of conscience hereby granted shall notbe so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justifypractices inconsistent with the safety of the State. " The question ofthe naturalisation of foreigners renewed the contention. Jay'sHuguenot blood was still hot, and again he exacted the limitation thatall persons, before naturalisation, shall "abjure and renounce allallegiance to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, andstate, in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil. "

Jay intended reporting other amendments--one requiring a similarrenunciation on the part of all persons holding office, and oneabolishing domestic slavery. But before the convention adjourned hewas, unfortunately, summoned to the bedside of his dying mother. Otherwise, New York would probably have had the distinction of beingfirst to set the example of freedom. "I should have been for a clauseagainst the continuance of domestic slavery, " he said, in a letterobjecting to what occurred after his forced retirement. [12]

[Footnote 12: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p. 126. "Such a recommendation was introduced by Gouverneur Morris andpassed, but subsequently omitted. "--_Ibid. _, p. 136, _note_. ]

Although the Constitution was under consideration for more than amonth, haste characterised the close of the convention'sdeliberations. As soon as Jay left, every one seemed eager to getaway, and on Sunday, April 20, 1777, the Constitution was adopted as awhole practically as he left it, and a committee appointed to report aplan for establishing a government under it. Unlike the Constitutionof Massachusetts, it was not submitted to the voters for ratification. The fact that the delegates themselves had been elected by the peopleseemed sufficient, and two days after its passage, the secretary ofthe convention, standing upon a barrel in front of the courthouse atKingston, published it to the world by reading it aloud to those whohappened to be present. As it became known to the country, it wascordially approved as the most excellent and liberal of the Americanconstitutions. "It is approved even in New England, " wrote Jay, "wherefew New York productions have credit. "[13]

[Footnote 13: _Ibid. _, p. 140. ]

The absence of violent democratic innovations was the Constitution'sremarkable feature. Although a product of the Revolution, framed tomeet the necessities growing out of that great event, its generalprovisions were decidedly conservative. The right of suffrage was sorestricted that as late as 1790 only 1303 of the 13, 330 male residentsof New York City possessed sufficient property to entitle them to votefor governor. Even the Court of Chancery remained undisturbed, notwithstanding royal governors had created it in opposition to thewishes of the popular assembly. But despite popular dissatisfaction, which evidenced itself in earnest prayers and ugly protests, theinstrument, so rudely and hastily published on April 22, 1777, remained the supreme law of the State for forty-four years. 

Before adjournment the convention, adopting the report of itscommittee for the organisation of a state government, appointed RobertR. Livingston, chancellor; John Jay, chief justice of the SupremeCourt; Robert Yates, Jr. , and John Sloss Hobart, justices of theSupreme Court, and Egbert Benson, attorney-general. To a Council ofSafety, composed of fifteen delegates, with John Morin Scott, chairman, were confided all the powers of the State until supersededby a regularly elected governor. 

CHAPTER III

GEORGE CLINTON ELECTED GOVERNOR

1777

After the constitutional convention adjourned in May, 1777, theCouncil of Safety immediately ordered the election of a governor, lieutenant-governor, and members of the Legislature. The selection ofa governor by ballot interested the people. Although freeholders whocould vote represented only a small part of the male population, patriots of every class rejoiced in the substitution of a neighbourfor a lord across the sea. And all had a decided choice. Of thosesuggested as fittest as well as most experienced Philip Schuyler, JohnMorin Scott, John Jay and George Clinton were the favourites. Justthen Schuyler was in the northern part of the province, watchingBurgoyne and making provision to meet the invasion of the MohawkValley; George Clinton, in command on the Hudson, was equally watchfulof the movements of Sir Henry Clinton, whose junction with Burgoynemeant the destruction of Forts Clinton and Montgomery at the lowerentrance to the Highlands; while Scott and Jay, as members of theCouncil of Safety, were directing the government of the new State. 

Schuyler's public career began in the Provincial Assembly of New Yorkin 1768. He represented the people's interests with great boldness, and when the Assembly refused to thank the delegates of the firstContinental Congress, or to appoint others to a second Congress, heaided in the organisation of the Provincial Congress which usurped theAssembly's functions and put all power into the hands of the people. Chancellor Kent thought that "in acuteness of intellect, profoundthought, indefatigable activity, exhaustless energy, pure patriotism, and persevering and intrepid public efforts, Schuyler had nosuperior;" and Daniel Webster declared him "second only to Washingtonin the services he rendered the country. "[14] But there was inSchuyler's make-up a touch of arrogance that displayed itself inletters as well as in manners. The soldierly qualities that made him acommander did not qualify him for public place dependent upon thesuffrage of men. People respected but did not love him. If they wereindignant that Gates succeeded him, they did not want him to governthem, however much it may have been in his heart to serve themfaithfully. 

[Footnote 14: While in command of the northern department, embracingthe province of New York, Schuyler was known as "Great Eye, " sowatchful did he become of the enemy's movements; and althoughsubsequently, through slander and intrigue, superseded by HoratioGates, history has credited Burgoyne's surrender largely to his wisdomand patriotism, and has branded Gates with incompetency, in spite ofthe latter's gold medal and the thanks of Congress. ]

John Morin Scott represented the radical element among the patriots. By profession he was an able and wealthy lawyer; by occupation apatriotic agitator. John Adams, who breakfasted with him, speaks ofhis country residence three miles out of town as "an elegant seat, with the Hudson just behind the house, and a rural prospect all aroundhim. " But the table seems to have made a deeper impression upon theYankee patriot than the picturesque scenery of the river. "A moreelegant breakfast I never saw--rich plate, a very large silvercoffee-pot, a very large silver teapot, napkins of the very finestmaterials, toast and bread and butter in great perfection. Afterwardsa plate of beautiful peaches, another of pears, another of plums, anda musk melon. " As a parting salute, this lover of good things spoke ofhis host as "a sensible man, one of the readiest speakers upon thecontinent, but not very polite. "[15] This is what the Tories thought. According to Jones, the Tory historian, Scott had the misfortune tograduate at Yale--"a college remarkable for its republican principlesand religious intolerance, " he says, and to belong to a triumviratewhose purpose was "to pull down church and state, and to raise theirown government upon the ruins. "[16]

[Footnote 15: John Adams, _Life and Works_, Vol. 2, p. 349 (Diary). ]

[Footnote 16: Thomas Jones, _History of New York_, Vol. 1, p. 3. ]

Scott, no doubt, was sometimes mistaken in the proper course topursue, but he was always right from his point of view, and his pointof view was bitter hostility to English misrule. Whatever he did hedid with all the resistless energy of a man still in his forties. Hewas of distinguished ancestry. His great-great-grandfather, Sir JohnScott, baronet, of Ancrum, Scotland, had been a stalwart Whig beforethe revolution of 1688, and his grandfather, John Scott, coming to NewYork in 1702, had commanded Fort Hunter, a stronghold on the Mohawk. Both were remarkable men. Tory blood was foreign to their veins. YoungJohn, breathing the air of independence, scorned to let his life andproperty depend upon the pleasure of British lords and a Britishministry, or to be excluded from the right of trial by a jury of hisneighbours, or of taxation by his own representatives. In 1775 he wentto the Continental Congress; in 1776, to the Provincial Congress ofNew York; and later he participated in the battle of Long Island as abrigadier-general. After the adoption of the State Constitution hebecame secretary of state, and from 1780 to 1783 served in theContinental Congress. He lived long enough to see his country free, although his strenuous life ended at fifty-four. 

George Clinton possessed more popular manners than either Schuyler orScott. Indeed, it has been given to few men in New York to inspiremore passionate personal attachment than George Clinton. A patriotnever lived who was more bitter in his hostility to English misrule, or more uncompromising in his opposition to toryism. He was a typicalIrishman--intolerant, often domineering, sometimes petulant, andoccasionally too quick to take offence, but he was magnetic andgenerous, easily putting himself in touch with those about him, andready, without hesitation, to help the poorest and carry the weakest. This was the kind of man the people wanted for governor. 

Clinton came of a good family. His great-grandfather, a too devotedadherent of Charles I. , found it healthful to wander about Europe, andfinally to settle in the north of Ireland, out of reach of Cromwell'ssoldiers, and out of sight of his ancestral patrimony. By the timeCharles II. Came to the throne, the estate was lost, and this friendof the Stuarts lived on in the quiet of his secluded home, and afterhim, his son; but the grandson, stirred by the blood of a Puritanmother, exchanged the North Sea shore for the banks of the Hudson, where his son breathed the air that made him a leading spirit in thewar for American independence. Clinton's youth is one record ofprecocity. Before the war began he passed through a long, a varied, even a brilliant career, climbing to the highest position in the Statebefore he had reached the age when most men begin to fill responsibleplaces. At fifteen he manned an American privateer; at sixteen, as alieutenant, he accompanied his father in a successful assault uponFort Frontenac; at twenty-six, in the colonial legislature, he becamethe rival of Philip Schuyler in the leadership and influence thatenabled a patriotic minority to resist the aggressions of GreatBritain; at thirty-six, holding a seat in the Second ContinentalCongress, he voted for the Declaration of Independence, and commandeda brigade of Ulster County militia. 

The election which occurred in June was not preceded by a campaign ofspeaking. People were too busy fighting to supplement a campaign ofbullets with one of words. But Jay sent out an electioneering letterrecommending Philip Schuyler for governor and George Clinton forlieutenant-governor. This was sufficient to secure for thesecandidates the conservative vote. It showed, too, Jay's unconcern forhigh place. He was modest even to diffidence, an infirmity that seemsto have depressed him at times as much as it did Nathaniel Hawthornein a later day. 

The returns were made to the Council of Safety, and Jay carefullyscanned them as they came in. On June 20 he wrote Schuyler: "Theelections in the middle district have taken such a turn as that, if atolerable degree of unanimity should prevail in the upper counties, there will be little doubt of having, ere long, the honour ofaddressing a letter to your excellency. Clinton, being pushed for bothoffices, may have neither; he has many votes for the first and not afew for the second. Scott, however, has carried a number from him, andyou are by no means without a share. You may rely on receiving byexpress the earliest notice of the event alluded to. "[17] When thevoters from Orange and other southern counties came in, however, Jaydiscovered that the result did not follow the line either of hiswishes or of his suggestions. On the contrary, Clinton was elected toboth offices by a considerable plurality. [18]

[Footnote 17: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p. 142. ]

[Footnote 18: "A fragment of the canvass of 1777 shows the returnsfrom Albany, Cumberland, Dutchess, Tryon, and Westchester, as follows:Clinton, 865; Scott, 386; Schuyler, 1012; Jay, 367; Philip Livingston, 5; Robert R. Livingston, 7. The votes from Orange and other southerncounties gave the election to Clinton. "--_Civil List, State of NewYork_ (1886), p. 164. Subsequently, when the Legislature met atKingston on September 1, Pierre Van Cortlandt as president of theSenate performed the duties of lieutenant-governor. ]

The result of the election proved a great surprise and something of ahumiliation to the ruling classes. "Gen. Clinton, I am informed, has amajority of votes for the Chair, " Schuyler wrote to Jay, on June 30. "If so he has played his cards better than was expected. "[19] A fewdays later, after confirmation of the rumour, he betrayed considerablefeeling. "Clinton's family and connections do not entitle him to sodistinguished a pre-eminence, " he wrote, showing that Revolutionaryheroes were already divided into more democratic and less democraticwhigs, and more aristocratic and less aristocratic patriots; but thedivision was still in the mind rather than in any settled policy. "Heis virtuous and loves his country, " added Schuyler, in the next line;"he has ability and is brave, and I hope he will experience from everypatriot support, countenance and comfort. "[20] Washington understoodhis merits. "His character will make him peculiarly useful at the headof your State, " he wrote the Committee of Safety. 

[Footnote 19: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p. 144. ]

[Footnote 20: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p. 146. ]

Clinton's inauguration occurred on July 30, 1777. He stood in front ofthe courthouse at Kingston on top of the barrel from which theConstitution had been published in the preceding April, and in theuniform of his country, with sword in hand, he took the oath ofoffice. Within sixty days thereafter Sir Henry Clinton had carried theHighland forts, scattered the Governor's troops, dispersed the firstLegislature of the State, burned Kingston to the ground, and verynearly captured the Governor himself, the latter, under cover ofnight, having made his escape by crossing the river in a smallrowboat. Among the captured patriots was Colonel McClaughry, theGovernor's brother-in-law. "Where is my friend George?" asked SirHenry. "Thank God, " replied the Colonel, "he is safe and beyond thereach of your friendship. "

CHAPTER IV

CLINTON AND HAMILTON

1777-1789

During the war Governor Clinton's duties were largely military. Everyimportant measure of the Legislature dealt with the public defence, and the time of the Executive was fully employed in carrying out itsenactments and performing the work of commander-in-chief of themilitia. A large proportion of the population of the State was eitheravowedly loyal to the Crown or secretly indisposed to the cause ofindependence. "Of all the Colonies, " wrote William Jay, "New York wasprobably the least unanimous in the assertion and defence of theprinciples of the Revolution. The spirit of disaffection was mostextensive on Long Island, and had probably tainted a large majority ofits inhabitants. In Queens County, in particular, the people had, by aformal vote, refused to send representatives to the colonial congressor convention, and had declared themselves neutral in the presentcrisis. "[21]

[Footnote 21: William Jay, _Life of John Jay_, Vol. 1, p. 41. ]

The Governor sought to crush this spirit by methods much in vogue inthe eighteenth century. At the outset of his career he declared thathe had "rather roast in hell to all eternity than be dependent uponGreat Britain or show mercy to a damned Tory. " To add to his fame, heenforced this judgment with heavy fines, long imprisonments, summarybanishments, and frequent coats of tar and feathers. 

Very soon after the adoption of the Constitution, the Legislaturepassed a law requiring an oath of allegiance to the State; and underthe vigorous enforcement of this act the Governor sent many Toriesfrom the rural districts into the city of New York or expelled themfrom the State. Others were required to give a pledge, with security, to reside within prescribed limits. At times even the churches werefilled with prisoners, some of whom were sent to jails in Connecticut, or exchanged for prisoners of war. In 1779 the Legislature increasedthe penalty of disloyalty to the State, by passing the ConfiscationAct, declaring "the forfeiture and sale of the estates of persons whohad adhered to the enemy. "

Up to this time only one political party had existed among the Whigcolonists. The passage of the Confiscation Act, however, encounteredthe opposition of many sincere lovers of the cause of independence, who favoured a more moderate policy toward loyalists, since they wereprobably as sincere in their opinions as those opposed to them. Besides, a generous and magnanimous course, it was argued, wouldinduce the return of many desirable citizens after hostilities hadceased. To this the ultra-Whigs replied that the law ofself-preservation made a severe policy necessary, and if any onesuffered by its operation he must look to the government of his choicefor comfort and reimbursement. As for the return of the Tories, theultras declared that only citizens sincerely loyal to an independentcountry would be acceptable. 

This division into moderate and ultra Whigs was emphasised in 1781 bythe legislative grant to Congress of such import duties as accrued atthe port of New York, to be levied and collected "under such penaltiesand regulations, and by such officers, as Congress should from time totime make, order, and appoint. " Governor Clinton did not cordiallyapprove the act at the time of its passage, and as the money beganflowing into the national treasury, he opposed the method of itssurrender. In his opinion, the State, as an independent sovereignty, had associated itself with other Colonies only for mutual protection, and not for their support. At his instance, therefore, the Legislaturesubstituted for the law of 1781 the act of March, 1783, granting theduties to Congress, but directing their collection by officers of theState. Although this act was subsequently amended, making collectorsamenable to Congress, another law was enacted in 1786 grantingCongress the revenue, and reserving to the State, as in the law of1783, "the sole power of levying and collecting the duties. " WhenCongress asked the Governor to call a special session of theLegislature, that the right to levy and collect might be yielded asbefore, he refused to do so. 

Governor Clinton understood the commercial advantages of New York'sgeographical location, which were greatly enhanced by the navigationacts of other States. The peace treaty had made New York the port ofentry for the whole region east of the Delaware, and into its cofferspoured a revenue so marvellous as to excite hopes of a prospectivewealth which a century, remarkable as was its productiveness, didlittle more than realise. If any State, therefore, could survivewithout a union with other Colonies, it was New York, and it is notsurprising that many, perhaps a majority of its people, under theleadership of George Clinton, settled into a policy unfriendly to anational revenue, and later to a national government. 

The Governor had gradually become mindful of an opposition as stubbornas it was persistent. He had encountered it in his treatment of theTories, but not until Alexander Hamilton became an advocate of amnestyand oblivion, did Clinton recognise the centre and future leader ofthe opposing forces. Hamilton did not appear among those interested inthe election of governor in 1777. His youth shut him out of Assemblyand Congress, out of committees and conventions, but it did not shuthim out of the army; and while Governor Clinton was wrestling with newproblems of government in the formation of a new State, Hamilton wasacting as secretary, aide, companion, and confidant of Washington, accepting suggestions as commands, and acquiescing in his chief'sjudgment with a fidelity born of love and admiration. In the historyof war nothing is more beautiful than the friendship existing betweenthe acknowledged leader of his country and this brave young officer, spirited and impulsive, brilliant and able, yet frank and candid, without ostentation and without egotism. It recalls a later-dayrelationship between Ulysses S. Grant and John A. Rawlins, his chiefof staff. 

In July, 1781, Hamilton, in command of a corps, accompanied Washingtonin the forced march of the American army from New York to Yorktown. This afforded him the opportunity, so long and eagerly sought, ofhandling an independent command at a supreme moment of danger, andbefore the sun went down on the 14th of October, he had led his troopswith fixed bayonets, under a heavy and constant fire, over abatis, ditch, and palisades; then, mounting the parapet, he leaped into theredoubt. Washington saw the impetuosity of the attack in the face ofthe murderous fire, the daring leap to the parapet with three of hissoldiers, and the almost fatal spring into the redoubt. "Few cases, "he says, "have exhibited greater proofs of intrepidity, coolness, andfirmness. " Three days later Cornwallis surrendered. 

In the summer of 1782 Hamilton was admitted to the bar in Albany, butsoon afterward settled in New York City, where he seems to have comeinto practice and into fame by defending the rights of Tories. Forfour years after the war ended, the treatment of British sympathiserswas the dominant political issue in New York. Governor Clintonadvocated disfranchisement and banishment, and the Legislature enactedinto law what he advised; so that when the British troops, under thepeace treaty, evacuated New York, in November, 1783, loyalists who hadthus far escaped the wrath of this patriot Governor, flocked to NovaScotia and New Brunswick like birds seeking a more congenial clime, recalling the flight of the Huguenots after the revocation of theEdict of Nantes one hundred years earlier. It is not easy to estimatethe number who fled before this savage and violent action of theLegislature. Sir Guy Carleton, in command at New York, fixes theemigration at one hundred thousand souls. For many years the "Landingof the Loyalists" was annually commemorated at St. John, and in thecemeteries of England and Scotland are found the tombstones of theseunfortunate devotees of the mother country. 

It is likely Clinton was too intolerant, but it was the intolerancethat follows revolution. Hamilton, on the other hand, became an earlyadvocate of amnesty and oblivion, and, although public sentiment andthe Legislature were against him, he finally succeeded in modifyingthe one and changing the other. "Nothing is more common, " he observed, "than for a free people in times of heat and violence to gratifymomentary passions by letting in principles and precedents whichafterwards prove fatal to themselves. If the Legislature candisfranchise at pleasure, it may soon confine all the votes to a smallnumber of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; ifit may banish at discretion, without hearing or trial, no man can besafe. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be amockery of common sense. "[22]

[Footnote 22: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 3, p. 450. ]

The differences between Congress and the Legislature respecting thecollection of duties also brought Clinton and Hamilton into conflict. As early as 1776 Hamilton had considered the question whether Congressought not to collect its own taxes by its own agents, [23] and, when amember of Congress in 1783, he urged it[24] as one of the cardinalfeatures of an adequate federal system. In 1787 he was a member of theLegislature. Here he insisted upon having the federal revenue systemadopted by the State. His argument was an extended exposition of thefacts which made such action important. [25] Under the lead of Clinton, however, New York was willing to surrender the money, but not thepower of collection to Congress. 

[Footnote 23: _Republic_, Vol. 1, p. 122. ]

[Footnote 24: _Madison Papers_, Vol. 1, pp. 288, 291, 380. ]

[Footnote 25: _Works_, Vol. 2, p. 16. ]

Meantime, the pitiable condition to which the Confederation had come, accented the need of a stronger central government. To this endClinton and Hamilton seemed for several years to be working inharmony. In 1780 Clinton had presented to the Legislature the "defectof power" in the Confederation, and, in 1781, John Sloss Hobart andEgbert Benson, representing New York at a convention in Hartford, urged the recommendation empowering Congress to apportion taxes amongthe States in the ratio of their total population. The next year, Hamilton, although not a member of the Legislature, persuaded it toadopt resolutions written by him, declaring that the powers of thecentral government should be extended, and that it should beauthorised to provide revenue for itself. To this end "it would beadvisable, " continued the resolutions, "to propose to Congress torecommend, and to each State to adopt, the measure of assembling ageneral convention of the States, specially authorised to revise andamend the Constitution. " To Washington's farewell letter, appealingfor a stronger central government, Governor Clinton sent a cordialresponse, and in transmitting the address to the Legislature in 1784, he recommended attention "to every measure which has a tendency tocement the Union, and to give to the national councils that energywhich may be necessary for the general welfare. "[26]

[Footnote 26: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 1, p. 277. ]

Nevertheless, Clinton was not always candid. His officialcommunications read like the utterances of a friend; but hisinfluence, as disclosed in the acts of 1783 and 1786, reserving to theState the sole power of levying and collecting duties, clearlyindicate that while he loved his country in a matter-of-fact sort ofway, it meant a country divided, a country of thirteen States eachberating the other, a country of trade barriers and commercialresentments, a country of more importance to New York and to Clintonthan to other Commonwealths which had made equal sacrifices. 

Thus matters drifted until New York and other middle Atlantic Statesdiscovered that it was impossible under the impotent Articles ofConfederation to regulate commerce in waters bordered by two or moreStates. Even when New York and New Jersey could agree, Pennsylvania, on the other side of New Jersey, was likely to withhold its consent. Friction of a similar character existed between Maryland and Virginia, North Carolina and Virginia, and Maryland and Pennsylvania. Thiscompelled Congress to call the convention, to which commissioners fromNew York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia, assembledat Annapolis in 1786, to consider the trade and commerce of the UnitedStates, and to suggest measures for the action of Congress. Hamiltonand Egbert Benson were members of this body, the former of whom wrotethe address, afterward adopted, which declared the federal governmentinefficient, and proposed a convention to revise the Articles ofConfederation, [27] in order to render them adequate to the exigenciesof the Union. This was the resolution unanimously adopted by the NewYork Legislature in 1782, but to the surprise of Hamilton and thefriends of a stronger government, the Legislature now disapproved sucha convention. The idea did not please George Clinton. As Hamiltonsummed up the opposition, it meant disinclination to taxation, fear ofthe enforcement of debts, democratic jealousy of important officials, and the influence of foreign powers. [28]

[Footnote 27: _Journal of Congress_, Vol. 12, p. 12. ]

[Footnote 28: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 1, p. 401. ]

In 1787, however, the Legislature adopted a joint resolutioninstructing members of Congress from the State to urge that aconvention be held to amend the Articles of Confederation, and, whenCongress issued the call, [29] Robert Yates, John Lansing, Jr. , andAlexander Hamilton were elected delegates "for the sole purpose ofrevising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress andthe several Legislatures such alterations as shall, when agreed to byCongress and confirmed by the several States, render the FederalConstitution adequate to the exigencies of government and thepreservation of the Union. " Hamilton's election to this convention wascited as proof of Clinton's disposition to treat fairly the opponentsof state supremacy, since it was well understood that his presence atPhiladelphia would add the ablest and most ultra exponent of a strong, central government. It was certainly in Clinton's power to defeatHamilton as he did John Jay, but his liberality carried a highcheck-rein, for Robert Yates and John Lansing were selected toovercome Hamilton's vote. 

[Footnote 29: In _Madison Papers_, Vol. 2, Introductory to Debates of1787, is a history of previous steps toward union. ]

Clinton's first choice for a delegate was Yates, whose criticism ofthe work of the convention manifests hostility to a Union. He seemedto have little conception of what would satisfy the real needs of astrong government, preferring the vague doctrines of the old Whigs inthe early days of revolution. Lansing was clearer, and, perhaps, lessextreme in his views; but he wanted nothing more than an amendment ofthe existing Confederation, known as the New Jersey plan. [30] Themoment, therefore, that a majority favoured the Virginia plan whichcontemplated a national government with an executive, legislature, and judiciary of its own, Lansing and Yates, regarding it a violationof their instructions, and with the approval of Governor Clinton, withdrew[31] from the convention and refused to sign the Constitutionafter its adoption. [32]

[Footnote 30: "After an amendment of the first, so as to declare that'the government of the United States ought to consist of a supremelegislative, judiciary, and executive, ' Lansing moved a declaration'that the powers of legislation be vested in the United StatesCongress. ' He stated that if the Jersey plan was not adopted, it wouldproduce the mischiefs they were convened to obviate. That theprinciples of that system were an equality of representation, anddependence of the members of Congress on the States. That as long asstate distinctions exist, state prejudices would operate, whether theelection be by the States or the people. If there was no interest tooppress, there was no need of an apportionment. What would be theeffect of the other plan? Virginia would have sixteen, Delaware onerepresentative. Will the general government have leisure to examinethe state laws? Will it have the necessary information? Will theStates agree to surrender? Let us meet public opinion, and hope theprogress of sentiment will make future arrangements. He would like thesystem of his colleague (Hamilton) if it could be established, but itwas a system without example. "--_Hamilton's MSS. Notes_, Vol. 6, p. 77. Lansing's motion was negatived by six to four States, Marylandbeing divided. ]

[Footnote 31: Yates and Lansing retired finally from the convention onJuly 10. ]

[Footnote 32: "That they acted in accordance with Clinton was provedby his deportment at this time. Unreserved declarations were made byhim, that no good was to be expected from the appointment ordeliberations of this body; that the country would be thrown intoconfusion by the measure. Hamilton said 'Clinton was not a mangoverned in ordinary cases by sudden impulses; though of an irritabletemper, when not under the immediate influence of irritation, he wascircumspect and guarded, and seldom acted or spoke withoutpremeditation or design. ' When the Governor made such declarations, therefore, Hamilton feared that Clinton's conduct would induce theconfusion he so confidently and openly predicted, and to exhibit itbefore the public in all its deformity, Hamilton published a pointedanimadversion, charging these declarations upon him, and avowing areadiness to substantiate them. "--John C. Hamilton, _Life of AlexanderHamilton_, Vol. 2, p. 528. ]

Hamilton doubted if Madison's plan was strong enough to secure theobject in view. He suggested a scheme continuing a President andSenate during good behaviour, and giving the federal government powerto appoint governors of States and to veto state legislation. In thenotes of a speech presenting this plan, he disclaimed the belief thatit was "attainable, " but thought it "a model which we ought toapproach as near as possible. "[33] After the Madison plan had beenpreferred, however, Hamilton gave it earnest support, and although hecould not cast New York's vote, since a majority of the State'srepresentatives had withdrawn, he was privileged to sign theConstitution. If he had never done anything else, it was glory enoughto have subscribed his name to that immortal record. When Hamiltonreturned home, however, he found himself discredited by a majority ofthe people. "You were not authorised by the State, " said GovernorClinton. [34] Richard Morris, the chief justice, remarked to him: "Youwill find yourself, I fear, in a hornet's nest. "[35]

[Footnote 33: _Works_, Vol. 1, p. 357. G. T. Curtis, _Commentaries onthe Constitution_, pp. 371, 381, presents a very careful analysis ofHamilton's plan. For fac-simile copy of Hamilton's plan, see_Documentary History of the Constitution_ (a recent Governmentpublication), Vol. 3, p. 771. ]

[Footnote 34: M. E. Lamb, _History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p. 318. ]

[Footnote 35: _Ibid. _, Vol. 2, p. 318. ]

On September 28, 1787, Congress transmitted a draft of theConstitution, which required the assent of nine of the thirteenStates, to the several legislatures. At once it became the sole topicof discussion. In New York it was the occasion of riots, of mobs, andof violent contests. It was called the "triple-headed monster, " anddeclared to be "as deep and wicked a conspiracy as ever was inventedin the darkest ages against the liberties of a free people. " Itsopponents, numbering four-sevenths of the community--although theirstrength was mainly in the country[36]--and calling themselves FederalRepublicans, organised a society and opened correspondence withleading men in other States. "All the old alarm about liberty was nowrevived, " says W. G. Sumner, "and all the elements of anarchy andrepudiation which had been growing so strong for twenty years werearrayed in hostility. "[37] But its bitterest opponent in the thirteenColonies was George Clinton. [38] "He preferred to remain the mostpowerful citizen of New York, rather than occupy a subordinate placeunder a national government in which his own State was notforemost. "[39] On the other hand, the _Federalist_, written largely byHamilton, carried conviction to the minds of thousands who hadpreviously doubted the wisdom of the plan. In the last number of theseries, he said: "The system, though it may not be perfect in everypart, is upon the whole a good one, is the best that the present viewsand circumstances will permit, and is such an one as promises everyspecies of security which a reasonable people can desire. "[40]

[Footnote 36: W. G. Sumner, _Life of Hamilton_, p. 137. ]

[Footnote 37: _Ibid. _, p. 135. ]

[Footnote 38: John Fiske, _Critical Period of American History_, p. 340. ]

[Footnote 39: John Fiske, _Essays Historical and Literary_, Vol. 1, p. 118. ]

[Footnote 40: _Works of Hamilton_, Vol. 9, p. 548. ]

When the Legislature opened, Governor Clinton delivered the usualspeech or message, but he said nothing of what everybody else wastalking about. Consideration of the Constitution was the onlyimportant business before that body; four States had already ratifiedit, and three others had it under consideration; yet the Governor saidnot a word. His idea was for New York to hold off and let the otherstry it. Then, if the Union succeeded, although revenue difficultieswere expected to break it up immediately, [41] the State could come in. Meantime, like Patrick Henry of Virginia, he proposed another generalconvention, to be held as soon as possible, to consider amendments. Thus matters drifted until January, 1788, when Egbert Benson, now amember of the Legislature, offered a resolution for holding a stateconvention to consider the federal document. Dilatory motions blockedits way, and its friends began to despair of better things; but Bensonpersisted, until, at last, after great bitterness, the resolution wasadopted. 

[Footnote 41: W. G. Sumner, _Life of Hamilton_, p. 137. ]

Of the sixty-one delegates to this convention, which assembled at thecourthouse in Poughkeepsie on June 17, two-thirds were opposed to theConstitution. [42] The convention organised with Governor Clinton forpresident. Among the champions of the Constitution appeared Hamilton, Jay, Robert R. Livingston, Robert Morris, James Duane, then mayor ofNew York, John Sloss Hobart, Richard Harrison, and others of likecharacter. Robert Yates, Samuel Jones, Melancthon Smith, and JohnLansing, Jr. , led the fight against it. Beginning on June 19, thediscussion continued until July 28. Hamilton, his eloquence at itsbest, so that at times there was not a dry eye in the assembly, [43]especially emphasised the public debt. "It is a fact that shouldstrike us with shame, that we are obliged to borrow money in order topay the interest of our debt. It is a fact that these debts areaccumulating every day by compound interest. "[44] In the oldConfederation, he declared, the idea of liberty alone was considered, but that another thing was equally important--"I mean a principle ofstrength and stability in the organisation of our government, and ofvigour in its operations. "[45] Professor Sumner, in his admirablebiography, expresses surprise that nothing is said about debts in the_Federalist_, and comparatively little about the Supreme Court. "Thisis very remarkable, " he says, "in view of the subsequent history; forif there is any 'sleeping giant' in the Constitution, it has proved tobe the power of the Supreme Court to pass upon the constitutionalityof laws. It does not appear that Hamilton or anybody else foresaw thatthis function of the Court would build upon the written constitution abody of living constitutional law. "[46]

[Footnote 42: _Ibid. _, 137. ]

[Footnote 43: M. E. Lamb, _History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p. 320. ]

[Footnote 44: _Hamilton's Works_, Vol. 1, p. 491. ]

[Footnote 45: _Ibid. _, p. 449. ]

[Footnote 46: W. G. Sumner, _Life of Hamilton_, p. 139. ]

Melancthon Smith was the ablest opponent of the Constitution. Familiarwith political history, and one of the ablest debaters in the country, he proved himself no mean antagonist even for Hamilton. "He must havebeen a man of rare candour, too, " says John Fiske, "for after weeks ofdebate he owned himself convinced. "[47] Whatever could be said againstthe Constitution, Smith voiced it; and there was apparent merit insome of his objections. To a majority of the people, New York appearedto be surrendering natural advantages in much larger measure thanother Commonwealths, while its concession of political power struckthem as not unlikely to endanger the personal liberty of the citizenand the independence of the State. They disliked the idea of a far-offgovernment, with many officers drawing large salaries, administeringthe army, the navy, and the diplomatic relations with nations of theOld World. It was so different from anything experienced since theirseparation from England, that they dreaded this centralised power;and, to minimise it, they proposed several amendments, among them onethat no person should be eligible to the office of President for athird term. Time has demonstrated the wisdom of some of thesesuggestions; but commendable as they now appear after the lapse ofmore than a century, they were of trifling importance compared to thenecessity for a closer, stronger union of the States in 1787. 

[Footnote 47: John Fiske, _Essays Historical and Literary_, Vol. 1, p. 125. ]

Federalists were much alarmed over the failure of New York to ratify. Although the State ranked only fifth in population, commercially itwas the centre of the Union. From the standpoint of militarymovements, too, it had been supremely important in the days ofMontcalm and Burgoyne, and it was felt that a Federal Union cut intwain by the Mohawk and Hudson valleys must have a short life. "For myown part, " said Hamilton, "the more I can penetrate the views of theanti-federal party in this State, the more I dread the consequences ofthe non-adoption of the Constitution by any of the other States--themore I fear eventual disunion and civil war. "[48] His fear bred anapparent willingness to agree to a conditional ratification, [49] untilMadison settled the question that there could be no such thing asconditional ratification since constitutional secession would beabsurd. On July 11 Jay moved that "the Constitution be ratified, andthat whatever amendments might be deemed expedient should berecommended. " This, however, did not satisfy the opposition, and thediscussion continued. 

[Footnote 48: _Hamilton's Works_, Vol. 8, p. 187. ]

[Footnote 49: _Ibid. _, p. 191. ]

Hamilton, however, did not rely upon argument alone. He arranged fornews of the Virginia and New Hampshire conventions, and while Clinton, clinging to his demand for conditional ratification, still hesitated, word came from New Hampshire, by a system of horse expresses, tellingthe glad story that the requisite number of States had been secured. This reduced the question to ratification or secession. A few dayslater it was learned that Virginia had also joined the majority. Thesupport of Patrick Henry had been a tower of strength to GovernorClinton, and his defeat exaggerated Clinton's fear that New York Cityand the southern counties which favoured the Constitution might nowexecute their threat to split off unless New York ratified. Then cameMelancthon Smith's change to the federalist side. This was likecrushing the centre of a hostile army. Finally, on July 28, aresolution "that the Constitution be ratified _in full confidence_that the amendments proposed by this convention will be adopted, "received a vote of thirty to twenty-seven. Governor Clinton did notvote, but it was known that he advised several of his friends tofavour the resolution. On September 13, he officially proclaimed theFederal Constitution as the fundamental law of the Republic. 

Posterity has never severely criticised George Clinton's opposition tonational development. His sincerity and patriotism have been accepted. To Washington and Hamilton, however, his conduct seemed like a coldand selfish desertion of his country at the moment of its utmostperil. "The men who oppose a strong and energetic government, " wroteWashington to Hamilton on July 10, 1787, the day of Yates' andLansing's retirement from the Philadelphia convention, "are, in myopinion, narrow-minded politicians, or are under the influence oflocal views. " This reference to "local views" meant George Clinton, upon whose advice Yates and Lansing acted, and who declaredunreservedly that only confusion could come to the country from aconvention and a measure wholly unnecessary, since the Confederation, if given sufficient trial, would probably answer all the purposes ofthe Union. 

The march of events has so clearly proved the wisdom of Hamilton andthe unwisdom of Clinton, that the name of one, joined inseparably withthat of Washington, has grown with the century, until it is as much apart of the history of the Union as the Constitution itself. The nameof George Clinton, on the contrary, is little known beyond the limitsof his native State. It remained for DeWitt Clinton, the Governor'sdistinguished nephew, to link the family with an historic enterprisewhich should bring it down through the ages with increasing respectand admiration. 

CHAPTER V

CLINTON'S FOURTH TERM

1789-1792

At each triennial election for twelve years, ever since the adoptionof the State Constitution in 1777, George Clinton had been chosengovernor. No one else, in fact, had ever been seriously talked of, save John Jay in 1786. Doubtless Clinton derived some advantage fromthe control of appointments, which multiplied in number and increasedin influence as term succeeded term, but his popularity drew itsinspiration from sources other than patronage. A strong, ruggedcharacter, and a generous, sympathetic nature, sunk their roots deeplyinto the hearts of a liberty-loving people who supported theirfavourite with the fidelity of personal friendship. 

The time had, however, come at last when Clinton's right to continueas governor was to be contested. Hamilton's encounter with the NewYork opponents of the Federal Constitution had been vigorous andacrimonious. It was easy to stand with one's State in opposing theConstitution when opposition had behind it the powerful Clintoninterest and the persuasive Clinton argument that federal union meantthe substitution of experiment for experience, and the exchange of asuperior for an inferior position; but it required a splendidstubbornness to face, daringly and aggressively, the desperate oddsarrayed against the Constitution. Every man who wanted to curry favourwith Clinton was ready to strike at Hamilton, and they covered himwith obloquy. Very likely his attitude was not one to tempt theforbearance of angry opponents. He did not fight with gloves. Nevertheless, his success added one more to his list of splendidvictories. He had beaten Clinton in his intolerant treatment ofloyalists; he had beaten him in obtaining for Congress the sole powerof regulating commerce; he had beaten him in the Philadelphiaconvention called to frame a federal constitution; he had beaten himin a state convention called to ratify that constitution; and now heproposed to beat him for governor in a State which would have greatinfluence in smoothing the way for the new federal government. 

After the close of the Revolution, there had been local parties in thevarious Stales, divided on issues of hard and soft money, on imposts, on treatment of Tories, and on state rights, and these issues hadcoincided in many of the States. During the contest growing out of theadoption of the Federal Constitution, all these elements becamesegregated into two great political parties, those who supported theConstitution being known as Federalists--those who were opposed tostrengthening the bond between the States being called anti-Federalists. The latter were clearly in the majority in New York, and Hamiltonrightly inferred that, notwithstanding the people, since the adoptionof the Constitution, manifested a disposition to sustain the generalgovernment, a large majority of freeholders, having heretoforesupported Clinton as a wise, patriotic governor, would not now deserthim for an out-and-out Federalist. To meet this emergency, severalFederalists, at a meeting held February 11, 1789, nominated RobertYates, an anti-Federalist judge of the Supreme Court, hoping thus toform a coalition with the more moderate men of his party. 

In support of such politics, of the doubtful wisdom of which there wasabundant illustration in the recent unnatural coalition between LordNorth and the brilliant Charles James Fox, Hamilton wrote to hisfriends in Albany that in settling upon a candidate, some difficultiesoccurred. "Our fellow citizens in some parts of the State, " he said, "had proposed Judge Yates, others had been advocates ofLieutenant-Governor Van Cortlandt, and others for Chief JusticeMorris. It is well known that the inhabitants of this city are, withfew exceptions, strongly attached to the new Constitution. It is alsowell known that the Lieutenant-Governor and Chief Justice, whom werespect and esteem, were zealous advocates for the same cause. Had itbeen agreed to support either of them for governor, there would havebeen reason to fear that the measure would have been imputed to party, and not to a desire of relieving our country from the evils theyexperience from the heats of party. It appeared, therefore, mostadvisable to elect some man of the opposite party, in whose integrity, patriotism, and temper, confidence might be placed, however little hispolitical opinions on the question lately agitated might be approvedby those who were assembled upon that occasion. 

"Among the persons of this description, there were circumstances whichled to a decision in favour of Judge Yates. It is certain that as aman and a judge he is generally esteemed. And, though his oppositionto the new Constitution was such as his friends cannot but disapprove, yet, since the period of its adoption, his conduct has been temperedwith a degree of moderation, and seems to point him out as a manlikely to compose the differences of the State. Of this at least wefeel confident, that he has no personal revenge to gratify, noopponents to oppress, no partisans to provide for, nor any promisesfor personal purposes to be performed at the public expense. "[50]

[Footnote 50: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 1, p. 509. ]

To many the selection of Robert Yates seemed almost ungracious. TheFederalists wanted Richard Morris, chief justice of the Supreme Court, who had encouraged the establishment of a strong government, and, as amember of the Poughkeepsie convention, had voted to ratify the FederalConstitution. Besides, he was a gentleman of the old school, ofinflexible integrity, firm and decided in character, whose full, rounded face and commanding presence appeared to advantage among thestately and dignified personages who supported knee breeches and silkstockings, and displayed the delicate ruffles of a shirt under thefolds of a rich velvet coat. Hamilton was fond of Morris, andrecognised the justice of his claims. Their views in no wise differed, their families were intimate, and at the Poughkeepsie convention, after listening for three hours to Hamilton's speech, Morris hadpronounced it the ablest argument and most patriotic address everheard in the State of New York. But the great Federalist, determinedto destroy Clinton, wanted availability, not fidelity, and so Morrisdeclined in favour of Yates. 

In everything Robert Yates was an anti-Federalist. He dressed like oneand he talked like one. He had been an opponent of the FederalConstitution, an advocate of the doctrine of state supremacy, and anardent supporter of the Governor. With Clinton's approval he hadwithdrawn from the Philadelphia convention when the majority favoureda strong government wielding supreme authority; with Clinton'sapproval, he had opposed the ratification of the Federal Constitutionin the state convention at Poughkeepsie, and with Clinton's approvalhe declined to change his vote, although New Hampshire's action andHamilton's speech had already settled the question of ratification. What Hamilton proposed, Yates opposed; what Clinton advocated, Yatesapproved. After the ratification of the Constitution, however, RobertYates charged the grand jury that it would be little short of treasonagainst the Republic to disobey it. "Let me exhort you, gentlemen, " hesaid, "not only in your capacity as grand jurors, but in your moredurable and equally respectable character as citizens, to preserveinviolate this charter of our national rights and safety, a chartersecond only in dignity and importance to the Declaration of ourIndependence. "

Upon the bench Yates distinguished himself for impartiality andindependence, if not for learning. He abated the intemperate zeal ofpatriotic juries, and he refused to convict men suspected ofdisloyalty, without proof. On one occasion he sent a jury back fourtimes to reconsider a verdict of guilty unauthorised by the evidence, and subsequently treated with indifference a legislative threat ofimpeachment, based upon a fearless discharge of duty. He could affordto be just, for, like George Clinton, he had early embraced the causeof the Colony against the Crown. From an Albany alderman he became amaker of the State Constitution, and from a writer of patrioticessays, he shone as an active member of the Committee of Safety. Together with John Jay and Robert R. Livingston, he had obstructed thepassage of Lord Howe's ships up the Hudson, and with General Schuylerhe devised measures to repel the British from the northern and westernfrontier. He had helped to fix the dividing line between Massachusettsand New York, and, as one of the Council of Administration, hegoverned southern New York from the withdrawal of the British untilthe assembling of the Legislature. 

Having decided to go outside his own party, Hamilton made no mistakein picking his man. If Clinton was the Hampden of the colonial period, Robert Yates could well be called its Pym. He had toleration as wellas patriotism. But he also had an itching desire for office. Some onehas said that the close connection between man and a child is nevermore clearly illustrated than in the joy and pride which the wiseststatesman feels in the wearing of a ribbon or a star. It could not besaid of Robert Yates then, as it was said, with good reason, six yearslater, that his desire for office extinguished his devotion to partyand his character for political consistency, but it was openly chargedthat, upon the suggestion of Hamilton, he urged the grand jury tosupport the Federal Constitution in order to strengthen himself withthe Federalists. Whether this be true or not, Yates' previous devotionto the anti-Federalist party set his present conduct in sharp contrastto that of other distinguished anti-Federalist statesmen of thetime--to men like Samuel Jones and Melancthon Smith, who accepted theaction of the Poughkeepsie convention, but supported George Clinton. "Men, not principles, are involved, " they declared. 

All that we know of Yates would seem to deny his surrender ofprinciple, or his condescension to any act of baseness, to obtainoffice. It was indeed a question whether Clinton, or Hamilton throughYates, should control the state government; but the gubernatorialcontest involved more than that. The new government, soon to be placedon trial, needed the help of sympathetic governors and legislatures, and Clinton and his supporters, forced to accept the Constitution, could hardly be regarded as its wisest and safest guardians. FromHamilton's standpoint, therefore, it was more principle than men. However agreeable to him it might be to defeat and humiliate Clinton, greater satisfaction must spring from the consciousness that while inits leading-strings, at least, the general government would have thehearty support of New York. 

Hamilton's great coalition, intended to work such wonders, boastedmany brilliant names. Of the younger men Robert Troup, of Hamilton'sage, an early friend of Burr, took a most conspicuous part, whileamong the older members of this galaxy was James Duane, a lawyer ofrare ability, the first mayor of New York, for ten years continuouslyin the Continental Congress, a man of great force, of large wealth, and superb character. He was in his forties when Hamilton, a boy ofseventeen, won his heart by a single speech, denouncing the act ofParliament which closed the port of Boston. The most notable man inthe coalition, next to Hamilton and Jay, was Robert R. Livingston, nowHamilton's devoted friend, before long to be his bitter enemy. He wasstill young, little more than forty, but in everything he was bold andskilful, vigorous as a writer, eloquent as a speaker, deeply learnedas a jurist, and rich in scholarship. Of the same age as Livingstonwas William Duer, [51] who started at eighteen as an aide to Lord Clivein India. Duer was at one time the most useful man in America. Nobodycould cheat him. As soon as Hamilton became secretary of thetreasury, he made Duer assistant secretary, an office which he heldwith credit until 1790, when he resigned to become the chief of a ringof speculators, who, two years later, left him insolvent and in jail. Hamilton's coalition also furnished the only instance of the politicalassociation of himself and Burr, although Burr's support of Yates issaid to have been personal rather than political. The story is thatBurr, seeking admission to the bar after reading law less than a year, induced Judge Yates to suspend the rule requiring three years ofstudy, because of the applicant's term as a soldier, a service thatlaid the foundation of a lasting friendship. 

[Footnote 51: It was his son, William Alexander Duer, the brilliantand accomplished writer, who presided for thirteen years with suchdistinguished ability over Columbia College. ]

On the opposite side were many men who live in history as builders ofthe Empire State. None belong to the gallery of national characters, perhaps, but John Lansing, Livingston's successor as chancellor, andSamuel Jones, [52] the first state comptroller, known, by commonconsent, as the father of the New York bar, find places in the list ofNew York's ablest statesmen. To this memorable company also belongedMelancthon Smith, the head of the anti-Federalist forces at thePoughkeepsie convention, and Gilbert Livingston of Dutchess, whose onepatriotic address was the last blow needed to ratify the Constitution. He was not, like Smith, a great debater, but his ready eloquenceclassed him among the orators who were destined to live in the memoryof a later generation. Beside him was James Clinton, brother of theGovernor and father of DeWitt Clinton. A soldier by profession, he hadtaken part in several important battles and marches, charging withBradstreet at the capture of Fort Frontenac, following the lamentedMontgomery to Quebec, and serving with Sullivan in his famousexpedition against the Indians. Finally, he shared in the glory ofbeing with Washington at the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. He seems tohave been the real soldier of the family, blending the strong, activepowers of the Clinton mind with the gentler virtues which made him assympathetic on the field as he was affectionate in the home. 

[Footnote 52: "No one, " said Chancellor Kent, writing of Samuel Jones, "surpassed him in clearness of intellect and in moderation andsimplicity of character; no one equalled him in his accurate knowledgeof the technical rules and doctrines of real property, and hisfamiliarity with the skilful and elaborate, but now obsolete andmysterious, black-letter learning of the common law. "]

Thus the contest between Yates and Clinton, although the first realpolitical conflict in the history of the State, became one of thesharpest and most bitterly fought. For six weeks the atmosphere wasthick and hot with political passion. Veteran observers declared thattheir generation had seen nothing like it. But the arguments of Duer, the powerful influence of Chancellor Livingston, the leadership ofHamilton, and the phenomenal popularity of John Jay, could not win thevoters who saw nothing more in the arrangement than a question ofindividual preference, and while Yates carried the western district bya large majority and held his own in the southern, Clinton's homecounty gave him 1093 out of 1245 votes, making his majority 429 in atotal vote of 12, 353. 

The call for the Governor was so close that he quickly prepared for arepetition of the contest in 1792. The inauguration of Washington onApril 30 had given Hamilton control of the federal offices in NewYork, and, although of trifling importance compared to statepatronage, they were used to strengthen federalism, and, if possible, to destroy Clinton. John Jay became chief justice of the SupremeCourt, James Duane judge of the District Court, Richard HarrisonUnited States attorney, and William S. Smith United States marshal. Itwas a brilliant array of talent and legal learning. Of the lights andornaments of the law in his day, Richard Harrison excelled in anintimate knowledge of its intricacies and mysteries. Added to theseofficials were Rufus King and Philip Schuyler, United States senators, and three members of Congress, with Egbert Benson at their head. Assecretary of the treasury and the trusted friend of the President, Hamilton had also multiplied his personal influence. 

Governor Clinton felt the full force of the Federalist combination, the fear of which had intensified his hostility to the Union; but hegoverned his conduct with the toleration and foresight of a masterpolitician. He declined to punish those who had deserted his standard, refusing to accept Robert Yates' apostacy as sufficient cause to barhis promotion as chief justice, and appointing to the vacancy JohnLansing, Jr. , who, although a strong anti-Federalist, had alreadyshown an independence of political domination. 

But the master-stroke of Clinton's diplomacy displayed itself in theappointment of Aaron Burr as attorney-general. After Burr left thearmy "with the character of a true knight, " as John Adams put it, hebegan the practice of law at Albany. Later he removed to New York, taking up his home in Maiden Lane. Thus far his political career, limited to two terms in the Legislature, had been insignificant. During the great controversy over the Federal Constitution he remainedsilent. His silence, however, was the silence of concealment. Heshared no confidences, he exploited no principles, he did nothing inthe open. He lived in an air of mystery, writing letters in cipher, using messengers instead of the mails, and maintaining espionage uponthe movements of others. Of himself he wrote to Theodosia, "he is agrave, silent, strange sort of animal, inasmuch that we know not whatto make of him. " In the political parlance of to-day, his methodssavoured of the "still hunt, " and in their exercise he exhibited thepowers of a past-master in stirring up men's prejudices, and creatingdivisions among his rivals; but his methods, whether practised in lawor in politics, were neither modern nor moral. He marshalled forceswith equal celerity under either flag. 

Shortly after Burr moved into Maiden Lane, Hamilton made his home inWall Street. Their first meeting, which occurred on the road fromHarlem bridge to White Plains during the disastrous retreat ofWashington's army from Manhattan in September, 1776, had beencharacterised by mutual dislike. Burr, with the rank of major, actedas aide to General Putnam; Hamilton, as an officer of artillery, wassoon to become an aide to Washington. Both were young then--Hamiltonnot yet twenty, Burr scarcely twenty-one; yet their character, thenfully developed, shines out in their estimate of the commander-in-chief. Burr thought Washington inferior as an officer, and weak, thoughhonest, as a man; Hamilton thought him a great soldier and a greatstatesman, upon whose services the welfare of the country largelydepended. Burr's prejudices settled into positive dislike; Hamilton'sappreciation voiced the sentiment of the people and the judgment ofposterity. 

There is a legend that from the first, destiny seemed determined tooppose the genius and fame of Hamilton with the genius and fame ofAaron Burr. It is certainly a remarkable coincidence that two men, born without the State, so nearly of an age, so similar in brilliantattainments, so notably distinguished in charm of manner andphenomenal accomplishments, and so strikingly alike in ripeness ofintelligence and bent of ambition, should happen to have lived at thesame time, in the same city, and become members of the sameprofession; yet it is not surprising that these men should proveformidable rivals and deadly foes, since difference in character wasfar more real than resemblance of mental attainments. Both werefearless and brave, but the one was candid, frank and resolute; theother subtle, crafty and adventurous. Perhaps their only commoncharacteristic was an ungoverned admiration for the charms of women, though, unlike Burr, Hamilton neither bragged of his amours, norboasted that success attended his pursuit of pleasure. 

It can hardly be supposed that in appointing Burr attorney-general, Clinton did not have in mind the necessity of securing to the ranks ofthe anti-Federalists all talented and spirited young men; but it isnone the less evident that Clinton was thinking more of himself thanof his party. Burr figured as an ugly opponent in the recent campaign. Besides, he possessed the happy faculty of surrounding himself withyoung men who recognised in him a superlative combination of bravery, chivalry, and ability. Hamilton called them "Burr's myrmidons, " butTheodosia, with a daughter's devotion and diplomatic zeal, entitledthem "the Tenth Legion. " They had joined Burr when a violent Whig in1784, sending him to the Assembly for two terms; they had ralliedunder his call to the Sons of Liberty, attracting the fierce fire ofHamilton; and they had broken party bonds to support Robert Yatesbecause of their chief's personal friendship. 

Such a man would attract the attention of any political manager, andalthough Clinton up to this time had had no particular relations withBurr, the latter's enthusiastic support of Yates accentuated hispolitical value. In after years Burr declared that Clinton had alwaysbeen his rival, and Clinton no less frankly avowed his distrust ofBurr, charging him with always being "for sale;" but Burr's rivalryand Clinton's distrust do not date back to 1790. 

If Clinton thought himself fortunate in gaining Burr, he was stillmore fortunate in the defection of the influential Livingstons. WhatCæsar said of Gaul used to be said of the Empire State, that all NewYork was divided into three parts--the Clintons, the Livingstons, andthe Schuylers. Parton said "the Clintons had power, the Livingstonshad numbers, and the Schuylers had Hamilton. "[53] In 1788 sevenmembers of the Livingston family, with the Schuylers, had overthrownthe Clintons, and turned the Confederation into the Union. Robert R. Livingston, standing at their head, was the exponent of a liberalpolicy toward all American citizens, and the champion of a broadernational life. His associates were the leading Federalists; hisprinciples were the pillars of his party; and his ambitions centred inthe success and strength of his country. 

[Footnote 53: James Parton, _Life of Aaron Burr_, Vol. 1, p. 169. "NewYork, much more than New England, was the home of natural leaders andfamily alliances. John Jay, the governor; the Schuylers, led by PhilipSchuyler and his son-in-law, Alexander Hamilton; the Livingstons, ledby Robert R. Livingston, with a promising younger brother, Edward, nearly twenty years his junior, and a brother-in-law, John Armstrong, besides Samuel Osgood, Morgan Lewis and Smith Thompson, otherconnections by marriage with the great Livingston stock; the Clintons, headed by George, the governor, and supported by the energy of DeWitt, his nephew, --all these Jays, Schuylers, Livingstons, Clintons, hadthey lived in New England, would probably have united in the supportof their class; but being citizens of New York they quarrelled. "--HenryAdams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 108-09. ]

Prudence, therefore, if no higher motive, required that theLivingstons be not overlooked in the division of federal patronage. There was much of it to divide. Besides cabinet positions and judicialappointments, the foreign service offered rare opportunities to a fewaccomplished statesmen and recognised scholars. Robert R. Livingston, as chancellor of New York, stood in line of promotion for chiefjustice of the United States Supreme Court, but John Jay stood nearerto Hamilton, just as Philip Schuyler did when United States senatorswere chosen. Other honourable and most desirable positions, however, were open. John Quincy Adams thought a mission to England or Francebetter than the Cabinet, but Gouverneur Morris went to France, ThomasPinckney to England, William Short to Spain, and David Humphreys toPortugal. The Livingstons were left out. 

Hamilton's funding system, especially the proposed assumption of statedebts, then dividing the public mind, afforded plausible cause foropposing federalism; and ostensibly for this reason, the Livingstonsceased to be Federalists. Some of the less conspicuous members, residents of Columbia County, continued their adherence, but thestatesmen who give the family its name in history wanted nothing moreof a party whose head was a "young adventurer, " a man "not native tothe soil, " a "merchant's clerk from the West Indies. " The story isthat the Chancellor convened the family and made the separation socomplete that Washington's subsequent offer of the mission to Francefailed to secure his return. 

The first notice of the Livingston break was in the election of aUnited States senator in 1791. Philip Schuyler, Hamilton'sfather-in-law, confidently expected a re-election. His selection forthe short term was with this understanding. But several members of theAssembly, nominally Federalists, were friendly to Clinton, whopreferred Aaron Burr to Schuyler because of Hamilton's influence overhim;[54] and when the Governor promised Morgan Lewis, the Chancellor'sbrother-in-law, Burr's place as attorney-general, Livingston'sdisposition to injure Hamilton became intensified, and to thedisappointment of Schuyler, the vote of the Legislature disclosed asmall majority for Burr. 

[Footnote 54: In a letter to Theodorus Bailey, Chancellor Kent, then amember of the Assembly, expressed the opinion that "things lookauspicious for Burr. It will be in some measure a question of northernand southern interests. The objection of Schuyler's being related tothe Secretary has weight. "--William Kent, _Memoirs and Letters ofJames Kent_, p. 39. ]

It is easy to conjecture that the haughty, unpopular, aristocratic oldGeneral[55] would not be as acceptable as a young man of thirty-five, fascinating in manner, gifted in speech, and not yet openly andoffensively partisan; but it needed something more than this charm ofpersonality to line up the hard-headed, self-reliant legislatoragainst Hamilton and Philip Schuyler, and Burr found it in his appealto Clinton, and in the clever brother-in-law suggestion to Livingston. 

[Footnote 55: "The defeat of Schuyler was attributed partly to theunprepossessing austerity of his manner. "--_Ibid. _, p. 38. ]

The defeat of Schuyler was a staggering blow to Hamilton. The greatstatesman had achieved success as secretary of the treasury, but as apolitical manager, his lack of tact, impatience of control, andinfirmity of temper, had crippled the organisation. In less than threeyears the party had lost a United States senator, suffered theseparation of a family vastly more important than federal appointees, and sacrificed the prestige of victory, so necessary to politicalsuccess. 

CHAPTER VI

GEORGE CLINTON DEFEATS JOHN JAY

1792-1795

Burr's rapid advancement gave full rein to his ambition. Not contentwith the exalted office to which he had suddenly fallen heir, he nowbegan looking for higher honours; and when it came time to selectcandidates for governor, he invoked the tactics that won him a placein the United States Senate. He found a few anti-Federalists willingto talk of him as a stronger candidate than George Clinton, and a fewFederalists who claimed that the moderate men of both parties wouldrally to his support. In the midst of the talk Isaac Ledyard wroteHamilton that "a tide was likely to make strongly for Mr. Burr, "[56]and James Watson, in a similar strain, argued that Burr's chances, ifsupported by Federalists, would be "strong. "[57]

[Footnote 56: James Parton, _Life of Aaron Burr_, Vol. 1, p. 187. ]

[Footnote 57: _Ibid. _, 188. ]

Clinton's firm hold upon his party quickly checked Burr's hope fromthat quarter, but the increasing difficulty among Federalists to finda candidate offered opportunity for Burr's peculiar tactics, until hisadherents were everywhere--on the bench, in the Legislature, in thedrawing-rooms, the coffee-houses, and the streets. Hamilton had onlyto present him and say, "Here is your candidate, " and Aaron Burr wouldcheerfully have opposed the friend who, within less than two years, had appointed him attorney-general and elected him United Statessenator. But Hamilton deliberately snuffed him out. The greatFederalist had finally induced John Jay to become the candidate of hisparty. This was on February 13, 1792. Two days later, theanti-Federalists named George Clinton and Pierre Van Cortlandt, theold ticket which had done service for fifteen years. 

In inducing John Jay to lead his party, Hamilton made a good start. Heretofore Jay had steadily refused to become a candidate forgovernor. "That the office of the first magistrate of the State, " hewrote, May 16, 1777, "will be more respectable as well as morelucrative than the place I now fill is very apparent; but my object inthe course of the present great contest neither has been nor will beeither rank or money. "[58] After his return from Europe, when GovernorClinton's division of patronage and treatment of royalists had becomeintensely objectionable, Jay was again urged to stand as a candidate, but he answered that "a servant should not leave a good old master forthe sake of more pay or a prettier livery. "[59] If this was goodreasoning in 1786 and 1789, when he was secretary of foreign affairs, it was better reasoning in 1792, when he was chief justice of theUnited States; but the pleadings of Hamilton seem to have set apresidential bee buzzing, or, at least, to have started ambition in amind until now without ambition. At any rate, Jay, suddenly andwithout any apparent reason, consented to exchange the most exaltedoffice next to President, to chance the New York governorship. 

[Footnote 58: William Jay, _Life of John Jay_, Vol. 1, p. 162. ]

[Footnote 59: _Ibid. _, p. 198. ]

There had never been a time since John Jay entered public life that hewas not the most popular man in the city of New York. In 1788 hereceived for delegate to the Poughkeepsie convention, twenty-sevenhundred and thirty-five votes out of a total of twenty-eight hundredand thirty-three. John Adams called him "a Roman" because he resembledCato more than any of his contemporaries. Jay's life divided itselfinto three distinct epochs of twenty-eight years each--study and thepractice of law, public employment, and retirement. During the yearsof uninterrupted public life, he ran the gamut of office-holding. Itis a long catalogue, including delegate to the Continental Congress, framer of the New York Constitution, chief justice of the New YorkSupreme Court, president of the Continental Congress, minister toSpain, member of the Peace Commission, secretary of foreign affairs, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, negotiator of theJay treaty, and finally governor of New York. No other American saveJohn Quincy Adams and John Marshall ever served his country socontinuously in such exalted and responsible place. On his return fromEurope after an absence of five years, Adams said he returned to hiscountry "like a bee to its hive, with both legs loaded with merit andhonour. "[60]

[Footnote 60: To Thos. Barclay, May 24, 1784, _Hist. Mag. _, 1869, p. 358. ]

Jay accepted the nomination for governor in 1792, on condition that hebe not asked to take part in the campaign. "I made it a rule, " hewrote afterward, "neither to begin correspondence nor conversationupon the subject. "[61] Accordingly, while New York was deeply stirred, the Chief Justice leisurely rode over his circuit, out of hearing andout of sight of the political disturbance, apparently indifferent tothe result. 

[Footnote 61: William Jay, _Life of John Jay_, Vol. 1, p. 289. ]

The real political campaign which is still periodically made in NewYork, may be said to have had its beginning in April, 1792. Seldom hasan election been contested with such prodigality of partisan fury. Therhetoric of abuse was vigorous and unrestrained; the campaign lieactive and ingenious; the arraignment of class against class sedulousand adroit, and the excitement most violent and memorable. If a weaponof political warfare failed to be handled with craft and with courage, its skilful use was unknown. 

Indeed, if any one doubts that it was a real time of politicalupheaval, he has only to glance at local histories. Federalists andanti-Federalists were alike convulsed by a movement which was theoffspring of a genuine and irresistible enthusiasm of that strong, far-reaching kind that makes epochs in the history of politics. Thepeople having cut loose from royalty, now proposed cutting loose fromsilk stockings, knee breeches, powdered hair, pigtails, shoe buckles, and ruffled shirts--the emblems of nobility. Perhaps they did not thencare for the red plush waistcoats, the yarn stockings, and theslippers down at the heel, which Jefferson was to carry into the WhiteHouse; but in their effort to overthrow the tyranny of the past, theywere beginning to demand broader suffrage and less ceremony, a larger, freer man, and less caste. To them, therefore, Jay and Clintonrepresented the aristocrat and the democrat. Jay, they said, had beennurtured in the lap of ease, Clinton had worked his way from the mosthumble rank; Jay luxuriated in splendid courts, Clinton dwelt in thehome of the lowly son of toil; Jay was the choice of the rich, Clintonthe man of the people; Jay relied upon the support of the Presidentand the Secretary of the Treasury, Clinton upon the poor villager andthe toiling farmer. 

Newspapers charged Jay with saying that "there ought to be in Americaonly two sorts of people, one very rich, the other very poor, "[62] andto support the misrepresentation, they quoted his favourite maxim that"those who own the country ought to govern it, " pointing to the StateConstitution which he drafted, to prove that only the well-to-do couldvote. The Dutch, largely the slave holders of the State, accused himof wishing to rob them by the abolition of slavery. Dressed in otherrhetorical clothes, these stories did service again in 1795 and 1798. 

[Footnote 62: George Pellew, _Life of John Jay_, p. 275. ]

But the assumption of state debts, and Hamilton's financial system, became the fiercest objects of attack. To them were traced the "reignof speculators" that flowered in the year 1791. "Bank bubbles, tontines, lotteries, monopolies, usury, gambling and swindlingabound, " said the New York _Journal_; "poverty in the country, luxuryin the capitals, corruption and usurpation in the national councils. "Hamilton's system had given the deepest stab to the hopes of theanti-Federalists, since it taught people to look to the Union ratherthan to the State. Internal taxes and import duties were paid to theUnited States; coin was minted by the United States; paper moneyissued by the United States; letters carried and delivered by theUnited States; and state debts assumed by the United States. All thishad a tendency to break state attachments and state importance; and instriking back, Republican orators branded the reports of the Secretaryof the Treasury as "dangerous to liberty, " the assumption of debts as"a clever device for enslaving the people, " and the whole fiscalsystem "a dishonest scheme. " The failure and imprisonment of WilliamDuer, until recently Hamilton's trusted assistant, followed by riotsin New York City, gave colour to the charge, and, although the mostbitter opponents of the great Federalist in no wise connected him withany corrupt transaction, yet in the spring of 1792 Hamilton, thefriend and backer of Jay, was the most roundly abused man in thecampaign. 

The Federalists resented misrepresentation with misrepresentation. Clinton's use of patronage, his opposition to the FederalConstitution, and the impropriety of having a military governor intime of peace, objections left over from 1789, still figured as setpieces in rhetorical fireworks; but the great red light, burned atevery meeting throughout the State, exposed Governor Clinton assecretly profiting by the sale of public lands. The Legislature of1791 authorised the five state officers, acting as Commissioners ofthe Land Office, to sell unappropriated lands in such parcels and onsuch terms as they deemed expedient, and under this power 5, 542, 173acres returned $1, 030, 433. Some of the land brought three shillingsper acre, some two shillings six pence, some one shilling, butAlexander McComb picked up 3, 635, 200 acres at eight pence. McComb wasa friend of Clinton. More than that, he was a real estate dealer andspeculator. In the legislative investigation that followed, resolutions condemning the commissioners' conduct tangled up Clintonin a division of the profits, and sent McComb to jail. This was asweet morsel for the Federalists. It mattered not that the Governordenied it; that McComb contradicted it; that no proof supported it; orthat the Assembly acquitted him by a party vote of thirty-five totwenty; the story did effective campaign service, and lived to tortureAaron Burr, one of the commissioners, ten years afterward. Burr triedto escape responsibility by pleading absence when the contracts weremade; but the question never ceased coming up--if absence included allthe months of McComb's negotiations, what time did the Attorney-Generalgive to public business?

It was a deep grief to Jay that the Livingstons opposed him. TheChancellor and Edward were his wife's cousins, Brockholst her brother. Brockholst had been Jay's private secretary at the embassy in Madrid, but now, to use a famous expression of that day, "the young man's headwas on fire, " and violence characterised his political feelings andconduct. Satirical letters falsely attributed to Jay fanned the sparksof the Livingston opposition into a bright blaze, and, although theChief Justice denied the insinuation, the Chancellor gave battle withthe enthusiasm of a new convert. 

As one glances through the list of workers in the campaign of 1792, heis reminded that the juniors or beginners soon came to occupy higherand more influential positions than some of their elders and leaders. DeWitt Clinton, for instance, not yet in office, was soon to be in theAssembly, in the State Senate, and in the United States Senate--agreater force than any man of his time in New York, save Hamilton. James Kent had just entered the Assembly. As a student in EgbertBenson's office, his remarkable industry impressed clients andteacher, but when his voice sounded the praises of John Jay, few couldhave anticipated that this young man, small in stature, vivacious inspeech, quick in action, with dark eyes and a swarthy complexion, wasdestined to become one of the most famous jurists in a century. Ambrose Spencer had not yet scored his first political honour, but hisherculean frame and stately presence, with eyes and complexion darkerthan Kent's, are to be seen leading in every political contest formore than forty years. 

There were also Smith Thompson, taught in the law by Chancellor Kentand tutored in politics by George Clinton, who was to follow theformer Chief Justice and end his days on the United States Supremebench; Joseph C. Yates, founder of Union College, and Samuel L. Mitchill, scientist and politician, who has been called the Franklinof New York. Younger than these, but equally alert, was Cadwallader A. Colden, grandson of the royal lieutenant-governor of Stamp Act days. He was now only twenty-two, just beginning at the bar, but destined tobe the intimate friend of Robert Fulton, a famous leader of a famousbar, and a political chieftain of a distinguished career. [63]

[Footnote 63: Interested in this exciting campaign was yet a youngergeneration, who soon contested their right-of-way to politicalleadership. Erastus Root was a junior at Dartmouth; Daniel D. Tompkinshad just entered Columbia; Martin Van Buren was in a country school onthe farm at Kinderhook; John Treat Irving was playing on the banks ofthe river to be made famous by his younger brother; and William W. VanNess, the rarest genius of them all, and his younger cousin, WilliamP. Van Ness, were listening to the voices that would soon summon them, one in support of the brilliant Federalist leader, the other as asecond to Aaron Burr in the great tragedy at Weehawken on the 11th ofJuly, 1804. ]

At the election, the people gave Jay a majority of their votes; but atthe count, a majority of the state canvassers gave Clinton thegovernorship. This was the first vicious party precedent establishedin the Empire State. It has had many successors at the polls, in theLegislature, and at the primaries, but none bolder and more harmful, or ruder and more outrageously wrong. Under the law, inspectors ofelection sealed the ballots, delivered them to the sheriff or hisdeputy, who conveyed them to the secretary of state. In Otsego County, Richard R. Smith's term as sheriff had expired, and the new sheriffhad not yet qualified, but Smith delivered the ballots to a personspecially deputised by him. Tioga's sheriff turned the ballots overto his deputy, who, being taken ill on the journey, handed them to aclerk for transmission. In Clinton the sheriff gave the votes to a manwithout deputation. No ballots were missing, no seals were broken, norhad their delivery been delayed for a moment. But as soon as it becameknown that these counties gave Jay a majority of about four hundred, quite enough to elect him, it was claimed that the votes had not beenconveyed to the secretary of state by persons authorised to do sounder the law, and the canvassers, voting as their party preferencesdictated, ruled out the returns by a vote of seven to four inClinton's favour. The discussion preceding this action, however, wasso acrimonious and the alleged violation of law so technical, that theboard agreed to refer the controversy to Rufus King and Aaron Burr, the United States senators. 

Burr had many an uneasy hour. He preferred to avoid theresponsibility, since an opinion might jeopardise his politicalinterests. If he found for Clinton, his Federalist friends would takeoffence; if he antagonised Clinton, the anti-Federalists would casthim out. Thus far it had been his policy to keep in the background, directing others to act for him; now he must come out into the open. He temporised, delayed, sought suggestions of friends, and endeavouredto induce his colleague to join him in declining to act as a referee, but King saw no reason for avoiding an opinion, and in answering thequestion of the canvassers, he took the broad ground that an electionlaw should be construed in furtherance of the right of suffrage. Theact was for the protection of voters whose rights could not bejeopardised by the negligence or misconduct of an agent charged withthe delivery of the ballots, nor by canvassers charged with theircounting. It was preposterous to suppose that the sudden illness of adeputy, or the failure of an official to qualify, could disfranchisethe voters of a whole county. If it were otherwise, then the foolishor intentional misconduct of a sheriff might at any time overturn thewill of a majority. There was no pretence of wrong-doing. The ballotshad been counted, sealed, and delivered to the secretary of state noless faithfully than if there had been a technical adherence to thestrict letter of the law. He favoured canvassing Tioga's vote, therefore, although it was doubtful if a deputy sheriff could deputisea deputy, while the vote of Clinton should be canvassed because asheriff may deputise by parol. As to Otsego, on which the electionreally turned, King held that Smith was sheriff until a successorqualified, if not in law, then in fact; and though such acts of a _defacto_ officer as are voluntarily and exclusively beneficial tohimself are void, those are valid that tend to the public utility. 

Burr was uninfluenced by respect for suffrage. Being statutory law, itmust be construed literally, not in spirit, or because of other rightsinvolved. He agreed with his colleague as to the law governing theClinton case; but following the letter of the act, he held thatTioga's votes ought not to be counted, since a deputy could notappoint a deputy. The Otsego ballots were also rejected because theright of a sheriff to hold over did not exist at common law; and asthe New York statute did not authorise it, Smith's duties ceased atthe end of his term; nor could he be an officer _de facto_, since hehad accepted and exercised for one day the office of supervisor, whichwas incompatible with that of sheriff. In other words, Burr reducedthe question of Jay's election to Smith's right to act, and to avoidthe _de facto_ right, so ably presented by Senator King, he reliedupon Smith's service of a day as supervisor before receiving andforwarding the ballots, notwithstanding sheriffs invariably held overuntil their successors qualified. Seven of such cases had occurred infifteen years, and never before had the right been seriouslyquestioned. In one instance a hold-over sheriff had executed acriminal. When urged to appoint a sheriff for Otsego earlier in theyear, Governor Clinton excused his delay because the old one couldhold over. 

After this decision, only Clinton himself could avert the judgmentcertain to be rendered by a partisan board. Nevertheless, the Governorremained silent. Thus, by a strict party vote of seven to four, thecanvassers, omitting the three counties with four hundred majority inJay's favour, returned 8, 440 votes for Clinton and 8, 332 for Jay. Then, to destroy all evidence of their shame, the ballots were burned, although the custom obtained of preserving them in the office of thesecretary of state. [64]

[Footnote 64: A few days after Clinton's inauguration Burr wrote aFederalist friend: "I earnestly wished and sought to be relieved fromthe necessity of giving any opinion, particularly as it would bedisagreeable to you and a few others whom I respect and wish always togratify; but the conduct of Mr. King left me no alternative. I wasobliged to give an opinion. . . . It would, indeed, be the extreme ofweakness in me to expect friendship from Mr. Clinton. I have too manyreasons to believe that he regards me with jealousy andmalevolence. . . . Some pretend, but none can believe, that I amprejudiced in his favour. I have not even seen or spoken to him sinceJanuary last. " This letter had scarcely been delivered when Clintonappointed him to the Supreme Court, an office which Burr declined, preferring to remain in the Senate. ]

News travelled slowly in those days. There were no telegrams, noreporters, no regular correspondents, no special editions to tell themorning reader what had happened the day before; but when it oncebecame known that John Jay had been counted out, the people of theState were aroused to the wildest passion of rage, recalling thefamous Tilden-Hayes controversy three-quarters of a century later. Areturning board, it was claimed, had overturned the will of thepeople; and to the superheated excitement of the campaign, was addedthe fierce anger of an outraged party. Wild menaces were uttered, andthe citizens of Otsego threatened an appeal to arms. "People arerunning in continually, " wrote Mrs. Jay to her husband, "to vent theirvexation. Senator King says he thinks Clinton as lawfully governor ofConnecticut as of New York, but he knows of no redress. "[65] Hamiltonagreed with King, and counselled peaceful submission. 

[Footnote 65: _Jay MSS. _]

Meantime the Chief Justice was returning home from Vermont by way ofAlbany. At Lansingburgh the people met him, and from thence to NewYork public addresses and public dinners were followed with the roarof artillery and the shouts of the populace. "Though abuse of powermay for a time deprive you and the citizens of their right, " said onecommittee, "we trust the sacred flame of liberty is not so farextinguished in the bosoms of Americans as tamely to submit to theshackles of slavery, without at least a struggle to shake themoff. "[66] Citizens of New York met him eight miles from the city, andupon his arrival, "the friends of liberty" condemned the men who woulddeprive him of the high office "in contempt of the sacred voice of thepeople, in defiance of the Constitution, and in violation of theuniform practice and settled principles of law. "[67]

[Footnote 66: William Jay, _Life of John Jay_, Vol. 1, p. 290. ]

[Footnote 67: _Ibid. _, p. 292. ]

During these days of excitement, Jay conducted himself with remarkableforbearance and dignity. It was the poise of Washington. "Thereflection that the majority of electors were for me is a pleasingone, " he wrote his wife; "that injustice has taken place does notsurprise me, and I hope will not affect you very sensibly. Theintelligence found me perfectly prepared for it. A few years more willput us all in the dust, and it will then be of more importance to meto have governed myself than to have governed the State. "[68] Thisthought influenced his conduct throughout. When armed resistanceseemed inevitable, he raised his voice in opposition to all feeling. "Every consideration of propriety forbids that difference in opinionrespecting candidates should suspend or interrupt that natural goodhumour which harmonises society, and softens the asperities incidentto human life and human affairs. "[69] At a large dinner on the 4th ofJuly, Jay gave the toast: "May the people always respect themselves, and remember what they owe to posterity;" but after he had retired, the banqueters let loose their tongues, drinking to "John Jay, Governor by voice of the people, " and to "the Governor (of right) ofthe State of New York. "

[Footnote 68: _Ibid. _, p. 289. ]

[Footnote 69: _Ibid. _, p. 293. ]

Clinton entered upon his sixth term as governor amidst vituperationand obloquy. He was known as the "Usurper, " and in order to reduce himto a mere figurehead, the Federalists who controlled the Assembly, ledby Josiah Ogden Hoffman, the brilliant New York lawyer, now proposedto choose a new Council of Appointment, although the term of the oldCouncil had not yet expired. The Constitution provided that theCouncil should hold office one year, and that the Governor, with theadvice of the Council, should appoint to office. Up to this time suchhad been the accepted practice. Nevertheless, the Federalists, havinga majority of the Assembly, forced the election of a Council made upentirely of members of their own party, headed by Philip Schuyler, theveteran legislator and soldier, and then proceeded to nominate andconfirm Egbert Benson as a judge of the Supreme Court. Clinton, asgovernor and a member of the Council, refused to nominate Benson, insisting that the exclusive right of nomination was vested in him. Here the matter should have ended under the Constitution as Jayinterpreted it; but Schuyler held otherwise, claiming that the Councilhad a concurrent right to nominate. He went further, and decided thatwhenever the law omitted to limit the number of officers, the Councilmight do it, and whenever an officer must be commissioned annually, another might be put in his place at the expiration of his commission. This would give the Council power to increase at will the number ofofficials not otherwise limited by law, and to displace everyanti-Federalist at the expiration of his commission. 

Clinton argued that the governor, being charged under the Constitutionwith the execution of the laws, was vested with exclusive discretionas to the number of officers necessary to their execution, whereas, ifleft to one not responsible for such execution, too many or too fewofficials might be created. With respect to the continuation of anincumbent in office at the pleasure of the Council, "the Constitutiondid not intend, " he said, "a capricious, arbitrary pleasure, but asound discretion to be exercised for the promotion of the public good;that a contrary practice would deprive men of their offices becausethey have too much independence of spirit to support measures theysuppose injurious to the community, and might induce others from undueattachment to office to sacrifice their integrity to improperconsiderations. "[70] This was good reasoning and good prophecy; buthis protests fell upon ears as deaf to a wise policy as did theprotests of Jay's friends when the board of canvassers counted Jay outand Clinton in. 

[Footnote 70: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 1, p. 84. ]

The action of the Council of Appointment was a stunning blow toClinton. Under Jay's constitution, every officer in city, county, andState, civil and military, save governor, lieutenant-governor, membersof the Legislature, and aldermen, could now be appointed by theCouncil regardless of the Governor; and already these appointmentsmounted up into hundreds. In 1821 they numbered over fifteen thousand. Thus, as if by magic, the Council was turned into a political machine. Under this arrangement, a party only needed a majority of the Assemblyto elect a Council which made all appointments, and the control ofappointments was sufficient to elect a majority of the Assembly. Thusit was an endless chain the moment the Council became a politicalmachine, and it became a political machine the moment Philip Schuylerheaded the Council of 1793. 

This arbitrary proceeding led to twenty years of corrupt methods andpolitical scandals. Schuyler's justification was probably theconviction that poetic justice required that Clinton, having becomegovernor without right, should have his powers reduced to their lowestterms; but whatever the motive, his action was indefensible, and hisreply that the Governor's practices did not correspond to his preceptsfell for want of proof. Clinton had then been in office seventeenyears, and, although he took good care to select members of his ownparty, only one case, and that a doubtful one, could be cited insupport of the charge that appointments had been made solely forpolitical purposes. 

In a published address, on January 22, 1795, Governor Clinton declinedto stand for re-election in the following April because of ill healthand neglected private affairs. Included in this letter was thesomewhat apocryphal statement that he withdrew from an office neversolicited, which he had accepted with diffidence, and from which heshould retire with pleasure. The reader who has followed the story ofhis career through the campaigns of 1789 and 1792 will scarcelybelieve him serious in this declaration, although he undoubtedlyretired with pleasure. At the time of his withdrawal, he had an attackof inflammatory rheumatism, but he was neither a sick man nor an oldone, being then in his fifty-fifth year, with twelve years ofhonourable public life still before him. It is likely the reason inthe old rhyme, "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight anotherday, " had more to do with his retirement than shattered health andcrippled fortune. Defeat has never been regarded helpful to futurepolitical preferment, and this shrewd reader of the signs of thetimes, his ambition already fixed on higher honours and more exaltedplace, saw the coming political change in New York as clearly andunmistakably as an approaching storm announced itself in an increaseof his rheumatic aches. 

CHAPTER VII

RECOGNITION OF EARNEST MEN

1795-1800

With Clinton out of the race for governor in 1795, his party'sweakness discovered itself in the selection of Chief Justice RobertYates, Hamilton's coalition candidate in 1789. It was a makeshiftnomination, since none cared to run after Clinton's declinationsounded a note of defeat. Yates' passion for office led him intostrange blunders. He seemed willing to become the candidate of anyparty, under any conditions, at any time, if only he could step intothe official shoes of George Clinton. He was excusable in 1789, perhaps, when the way opened up a fair chance of success, but in 1795his ambition subjected him to ridicule as well as to humiliation. Itwas said derisively that he was defeated, although every freeholder inthe State had voted for him. 

The Federalists were far from unanimous in their choice of John Jay. He had not yet returned from England, whither Washington had sent himin the preceding year to negotiate a treaty to recover, among otherthings, compensation for negroes who followed English troops acrossthe Atlantic at the close of the war; to obtain a surrender of theWestern military posts not yet evacuated; and to secure an articleagainst impressments. It was believed that a storm of disapprovalwould greet his work, and the timid ones seriously questioned theexpediency of his nomination. The submission of the treaty had alreadyprecipitated a crisis in the United States Senate, and while it mightnot be ratified and officially promulgated before election, gravedanger existed of its clandestine publication by the press. Hamilton, however, insisted, and Jay became the nominee. "It had been so decreedfrom the beginning, " wrote Egbert Benson. 

The campaign that followed was featureless. Chief Justice Yatesaroused no interest, and Chief Justice Jay was in England. From theoutset, Jay's election was conceded; and a canvass of the votes showedthat he had swept the State by a large majority. In 1789 Clintonreceived a majority of 489; in 1792 the canvassers gave him 108; butin 1795 Jay had 1589. [71]

[Footnote 71: John Jay, 13, 481; Robert Yates, 11, 892. _Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

What would have happened had the treaty been published beforeelection, fills one with interested conjecture. Its disclosure on July2, the day after Jay's inauguration, turned the applause of thatjoyous occasion into the most exasperating abuse. Such a sudden andtempestuous change in the popularity of a public official isunprecedented in the history of American politics. In a night thewhole State was thrown into a ferment of intense excitement, the stormof vituperation seeming to centre in New York city. Jay was burned ineffigy; Hamilton was struck in the face with a stone while defendingJay's work; a copy of the treaty was burned before the house of theBritish Minister; riot and mob violence held carnival everywhere. Party spirit never before, and never since, perhaps, ran so high. Oneeffigy represented Jay as saying, while supporting a pair of scales, with the treaty on one side and a bag of gold on the other, "Come upto my price, and I will sell you my country. " Chalked in large whiteletters on one of the principal streets in New York, appeared thesewords: "Damn John Jay! Damn every one that won't damn John Jay!! Damnevery one that won't put lights in his windows and sit up all nightdamning John Jay!!!"[72] This revulsion of public sentiment was notexactly a tempest in a teapot, but it proved a storm of limitedduration, the elections in the spring of 1796 showing decidedlegislative gains for the Federalists. 

[Footnote 72: John Jay, _Second Letter on Dawson's Federalist_, N. Y. , 1864, p. 19. ]

Hamilton divined the cause of the trouble. "There are three persons, "he wrote, [73] "prominent in the public eye as the successor of thePresident--Mr. Adams, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Jefferson. . . . Mr. Jay has beenrepeatedly the object of attacks with the same view. His friends, aswell as his enemies, anticipated that he could make no treaty whichwould not furnish weapons against him; and it were to have beenignorant of the indefatigable malice of his adversaries to havedoubted that they would be seized with eagerness and wielded withdexterity. The peculiar circumstances which have attended the two lastelections for governor of this State have been of a nature to give theutmost keenness to party animosity. It was impossible that Mr. Jayshould be forgiven for his double, and, in the last instance, triumphant success; or that any promising opportunity of detachingfrom him the public confidence, should pass unimproved. . . . Trivialfacts frequently throw light upon important designs. It is remarkablethat in the toasts given on July 4, 1795, whenever there appears adirect or indirect censure of the treaty, it is pretty uniformlycoupled with compliments to Mr. Jefferson, and to our late governor, Mr. Clinton, with an evident design to place those gentlemen incontrast to Mr. Jay, and, decrying him, to elevate them. No one can beblind to the finger of party spirit, visible in these and similartransactions. It indicates to us clearly one powerful source ofopposition to the treaty. "

[Footnote 73: Hamilton's _Camillus_, July 23, 1795, _Works_, Vol. 4, p. 371. ]

The treaty was undoubtedly a disappointment to the country, and notgreatly pleasing to Washington. Perhaps Jay said the best thing thatcould be said in its favour: "One more favourable was not attainable. "The thing he was sent especially to do, he failed to accomplish, except the evacuation of the posts, and a concession as to the WestIndian trade, which the Senate rejected. Nevertheless the country wasgreatly and permanently benefited. The treaty acquired extraditionfor criminals; it secured the collection of debts barred by theRevolution, amounting to ten million dollars; it established theprinciple that war should not again be a pretext for the confiscationof debts or for the annulment of contracts between individuals; and itavoided a war with England, for which the United States was never moreunprepared. "As the first treaty negotiated under the new government, "says John W. Foster, "it marked a distinct advance in internationalpractice. "[74] In a recent biography of Andrew Jackson, ProfessorSumner says: "Jay's treaty was a masterpiece of diplomacy, consideringthe times and the circumstances of this country. " Even themuch-criticised commercial clause, "the entering wedge, " as Jay calledit, proved such a gain to America, that upon the breaking out of warin 1812, Lord Sheffield declared that England had "now a completeopportunity of getting rid of that most impolitic treaty of 1794, whenLord Grenville was so perfectly duped by Jay. "[75]

[Footnote 74: _A Century of American Diplomacy_, p. 165. ]

[Footnote 75: To Mr. Abbott, November 6, 1812, _Correspondence of LordColchester_, Vol. 2, p. 409. ]

John Jay's first term as governor was characteristically cautious andconservative. He began with observing the proprieties, gracefullydeclining the French Consul's invitation to a republicanentertainment, and courageously remaining at his post during theyellow fever epidemic of 1795. With equal ease he settled the growingconflict between the severity of the past and the sympathy of thepresent, by changing the punishment in cases of ordinary felony, fromdeath to imprisonment. Up to that time men might have been executedfor stealing a few loaves of high-priced bread to relieve thesufferings of a hungry family. Under Jay's humane plea for mercy thedeath penalty was limited to treason, murder, and stealing from achurch. A quarter of a century passed before Sir James Mackintoshsucceeded in carrying a similar measure through the BritishParliament. 

In his first message Jay recommended neither the abolition ofslavery, nor the discontinuance of official changes for politicalreasons, "since the best and most virtuous men, " he said, "must, inthe distribution of patronage, yield to the influence of partyconsiderations. " As the only important questions before him just theninvolved the freedom of slaves and reform in the civil service, hissilence as to the one and his declaration as to the other werecertainly sufficient to allay any suspicion that he was to become aradical reformer. He did recommend a legislative interpretation of theConstitution relating to the governor's exclusive right to nominate tooffice; but in the blandest and most complimentary words, theLegislature invited the Governor to let well enough alone. "Theevidence of ability, integrity and patriotism, " so the answer ran, "which has been invariably afforded by your conduct in the dischargeof the variety of arduous and important trusts, authorise us toanticipate an administration conducive to the welfare of yourconstituents. " This amiable answer betrayed the deft hand of AmbroseSpencer, who, to make it sweeter and more acceptable, moved theinsertion of the word "invariably. "[76] Thus ended the suggestion of alaw that might have undone the mischief of Schuyler, and prevented thescandal and corrupt methods that obtained during the next two decades. At least, this is the thought of a later century, when civil servicereform has sunk a tap-root into American soil, still frosty, perhaps, yet not wholly congealed as it seems to have been one hundred yearsago. 

[Footnote 76: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 1, p. 97. ]

Jay's administration might be called the reward days of earnest, ablemen, whose meritorious service became their passport to office. Uponthe retirement in 1798 of Robert Yates and John Sloss Hobart from theSupreme bench, he appointed James Kent and Jacob Radcliff. If Jay hadnever done anything else, the appointment of Kent would immortalisehim, just as the selection of John Marshall placed a halo about thehead of President Adams. Kent, now thirty-five years old, a greatlawyer and a strong partisan, had the conservatism of Jay, and heldto the principles of Hamilton. He was making brilliant way inpolitics, showing himself an administrator, a debater, and a leader ofconsummate ability; but he steadily refused to withdraw from theprofessional path along which he was to move with such distinction. Until Kent's appearance, the administration of the law had beeninefficient and unsatisfactory. Men of ability had occupied the bench;but the laborious and business methods which subsequently gavestrength and character to the court, had not been applied. The customof writing opinions in the most important cases did not then obtain, while the principles and foundation of the law were seldom explored. But Kent began at once, after a most laborious examination of thecases and the law, to bring the written opinions which enrich thereports of Caines and Johnson, to the consultations of the judges, thus setting an example to his associates, and opening the way forthat admirable and orderly system of jurisprudence that has adornedthe judiciary of New York for more than a century. The men of theolder school had had their day. The court of Hobart was closed; theage of Kent had opened. 

Radcliff, the other judicial appointee, was not a new name in 1798;but it was destined to become dearer to every lover of a chancerylawyer. He had a natural gift for chancery, and no natural inclinationwhatever for politics or the bench. So, after serving a single term inthe Assembly, two years as an assistant attorney-general, and sixyears on the Supreme Court, he returned to the practice, to which hedevoted the remaining forty years of his life, save when holding theoffice of mayor of New York in 1810, and again in 1815 during thebrief retirement of DeWitt Clinton. Wherever he appeared, Radcliff'serect, dignified bearing and remarkably handsome face, illuminatedwith large eyes and a highly intellectual expression, marked him as aman of distinction. He set the custom of dictating bills in chanceryto an amanuensis, doing it with such accuracy that a word had seldomto be changed. Of the same age as Kent, he must have been of greathelp to that distinguished jurist, had he continued with the court. While hovering somewhat uncertain between the bench and the bar, heremoved to New York City, where the opportunities for one of his giftssoon settled the question. 

Other appointments of Jay were equally satisfactory. Thecomptrollership of state, recently created, went to Samuel Jones inreturn for having patiently worked out this more perfect method ofcontrolling and disbursing state funds. Ambrose Spencer became anassistant attorney-general, and the appointment of Rufus King asminister to England made room for the election of John Lawrence to theUnited States Senate. Lawrence had little claim, perhaps, to beentered in the class with Rufus King, since he was neither leader norstatesman; but he had been the faithful adjutant-general ofWashington, and a steady, fearless supporter of Hamilton. Lawrence, anEnglishman by birth, had settled in New York at an early period inlife, and by his marriage to the daughter of Alexander McDougall, quickly came into conspicuous sympathy with the radical wing of thepatriotic party. He will always be remembered in history asjudge-advocate of the court that tried Major André. He held officealmost continuously from 1775 until his death in 1810, serving eightyears in the army, one in the State Senate, six in Congress, four asjudge of the United States District Court, and four as a United Statessenator, closing his honourable career as president pro tem. Of thatbody. 

As a rebuke to Aaron Burr's snap game so successfully played in 1791, Philip Schuyler succeeded him in the United States Senate in 1797, anevent that must have sweetened the closing years of the Revolutionaryveteran. But Schuyler was now a sick man, and in January, 1798, heresigned the senatorial toga to others, upon whose shoulders it restedbriefly, and possibly with less ease and grace. John Sloss Hobart woreit for three months. After him, for ten months, came William North, followed by James Watson, who, in turn, resigned in March, 1800. Thus, in the short period of thirty-six months, four men tasted the sweetsof the exalted position so brilliantly filled by the erratic grandsonof Jonathan Edwards. North and Watson were men of certain ability andcertain gifts. Both had been soldiers. North had followed Arnold toQuebec, had charged with his regiment at Monmouth, had served withcredit upon Baron Steuben's staff, [77] and had acquitted himself withhonour at Yorktown. He belonged to that coterie of brilliant youngmen, noted for bravery and endurance, who quickly found favour withthe fighting generals of the Revolution. Watson resigned his captaincyin 1777, and engaged successfully in mercantile pursuits, subsequentlyentering the Assembly with North, the former becoming speaker in 1794and the latter in 1795 and 1796. At the time of North's election tothe United States Senate, Watson was a member of the State Senate. Like Lawrence, both were perfervid Federalists, zealous champions ofHamilton, and profound believers in the wisdom of minimising, if notabrogating, the rights of States. 

[Footnote 77: At twenty-two years of age, while witnessing thedisgraceful rout of General Lee at Monmouth, North attracted theattention of Steuben, whose tactics and discipline the young officersubsequently introduced throughout the Continental army. Thecordiality existing between the earnest aide and the brave Prussian, so dear to his friends, so formidable to his enemies, ripened into anaffectionate regard that recalls the relation between Washington andHamilton. After the war, with an annuity of twenty-five hundreddollars and sixteen thousand acres of land in Oneida County, the giftof New York, Steuben built a log house, withdrew from society, andplayed at farming, until in 1794 his remains were borne to the spot, not far from Trenton Falls, where stands the monument that bears hisname. The faithful North visited and cared for him to the end, andunder the terms of the will parcelled out the great estate among histenants and old staff officers. ]

Watson's resignation from the United States Senate enabled theFederalists to elect Gouverneur Morris just before the politicalchange in 1800 swept them from power. Morris was a fit successor toSchuyler. His family had belonged to the State for a century and ahalf. The name stood for tradition and conservatism--an embodiment ofthe past amid the changes of revolution. His home near Harlaem, anestate of three thousand acres, with a prospect of intermingledislands and water, stretching to the Sound, which had been purchasedby a great-grandfather in the middle of the preceding century, reflected the substantial character of its founder, a distinguishedofficer in Cromwell's army. 

Gouverneur was the child of his father's second marriage. Thefamily, [78] especially the older children, of whom Richard, chiefjustice of the State, was the third and youngest boy, resented theunion, making Gouverneur's position resemble that of Joseph among hisbrethren. Twenty-two years intervened between him and Richard. Beforethe former left the schoolroom, the latter had succeeded his father asjudge of the vice-admiralty; but as for being of any assistance to thefatherless lad Richard might as well have been vice-admiral of theblue, sailing the seas. There would be something pathetic in thisestrangement, if independence and self-reliance had not dominated theyoungest son as well as the older heirs of this noble family. Lewis, the eldest, served in the Continental Congress and became a signer ofthe Declaration of Independence, while Staats Long, the second son, wandered to England, married the Countess of Gordon, became a generalin the British army, and a member of Parliament in the days of LordNorth and Charles James Fox. It was a strange coincidence, one brotherresisting Parliament in Congress, the other resisting Congress inParliament. 

[Footnote 78: There was a slight vein of eccentricity running throughthe Morris family, with its occasional outcroppings accentuated in thepresence of death. The grandfather, distinguished as chief justice ofNew York and governor of New Jersey, forbade in his will the paymentof any one for preaching his funeral sermon, but if a personvolunteered, he said, commending or blaming his conduct in life, hiswords would be acceptable. Gouverneur's father desired no notice ofhis dissolution in the newspapers, not even a simple announcement ofhis death. "My actions, " he wrote, "have been so inconsiderable in theworld, that the most durable monument will not perpetuate my follywhile it lasts. " It is evident that Gouverneur did not inherit fromhim the almost bumptious self-confidence which was to mar more thanhelp him. That inherent defect came from his mother, who gave him, also, a brilliancy and versatility that other members of the familydid not share, making him more conspicuously active in high placesduring the exciting days of the Revolution. Gouverneur Morris was anational character; Richard and Lewis belonged exclusively to NewYork. ]

The influences surrounding Gouverneur's youth were decidedly Tory. Hismother warmly adhered to George the Third; his professors at King'staught loyalty to the Crown; his distinguished tutor in the law, William Smith, New York's Tory historian, magnified the work and thestrength of Parliament; while his associates, always his mother'swelcomed guests at Morrisania, were British officers, who talked ofWolfe and his glorious struggles for England. But there never was amoment from the time Gouverneur Morris entered the Provincial Congressof New York on May 22, 1775, at the age of twenty-three, that he wasnot conspicuously and brilliantly active in the cause of America. Whenever or wherever a Revolutionary body was organised, or forwhatever purpose, Congress, Convention, or Committee of Safety, hebecame a member of it. Six years younger than Jay, and six years olderthan Hamilton, he seemed to complete that remarkable New York trio, sofertile in mental resources and so successful in achievement. He didnot, like Jay, outline a constitution, but he believed, with Jay, inbalancing wealth against numbers, and in contending for the protectionof the rights of property against the spirit of democracy. It isinteresting to study these young men, so different in temperament, yetthinking alike and acting together for a quarter of a century--Jay, gentle and modest; Hamilton, impetuous and imperious; Morris, self-confident and conceited; but on all essential matters of state, standing together like a tripod, firm and invincible. In his distrustof western influences, however, Morris was more conservative than Jayor Hamilton. He was broad and liberal toward the original thirteenStates, but he wanted to subordinate the balance of the country totheir control. He regarded the people who might seek homes west of theAlleghanies with something of the suspicion Jay entertained for thepropertyless citizens of New York. The day would come, he believed, when those untutored, backwoods settlers would outnumber theirbrethren on the Atlantic coast, and he desired some provision in theConstitution which would permit the minority to rule such a majority. If these views shrivelled his statesmanship, it may be said to hiscredit that they discovered a prophetic gift most uncommon in thosedays, giving him the power to see a great empire of people in thefertile valley of the Mississippi and its tributaries. [79] Fifteenyears later Robert R. Livingston expressed the belief that not in acentury would a white man cross the Father of Waters. 

[Footnote 79: Gouverneur Morris seemed to find history-making places. With Washington and Greene he opposed the Conway cabal; with Jay andLivingston he drafted the Constitution of the State; with Hamilton andMadison he stood for the Federal Constitution, the revision of itsstyle being committed to his pen. Then Washington needed him, first inEngland, afterward as minister to France; and when Monroe relieved himin 1794 he travelled leisurely through Europe for four years, meetingits distinguished writers and statesmen, forming friendships withMadame De Staël and the Neckers, aiding and witnessing the release ofLafayette from Olmutz prison, and finally assisting the young andmelancholy, but gentle and unassuming Duke of Orleans, afterward Kingof France, to find a temporary asylum in the United States. Hereturned to America ten years after he had sailed from the Delawarecapes, just in time to be called to the United States Senate. ]

Into the life of Jay's peaceful administration came anotherinteresting character, the champion of every project known to theinventive genius of his day. We shall hear much of Samuel LathamMitchill during the next three decades. He was now thirty-five yearsold, a sort of universal eccentric genius, already known asphilosopher, scientist, teacher, and critic, a professor in Columbia, the friend of Joseph Priestley, the author of scientific essays, andthe first in America to make mineralogical explorations. Perhaps ifhe had worked in fewer fields he might have won greater renown, makinghis name familiar to the general student of our own time; but hebelonged to an order of intellect far higher than most of hisassociates, filling the books with his doings and sayings. Althoughhis influence, even among specialists, has probably faded now, heinspired the scientific thought of his time, and established societieswhich still exist, and whose history, up to the time of his death in1831, was largely his own. Mitchill belonged to the Republican partybecause it was the party of Jefferson, and he followed Jeffersonbecause Jefferson was a philosopher. For the same reason he became thepersonal friend of Chancellor Livingston, with whom, among otherthings, he founded the Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, Manufactures, and the Useful Arts. It was said of Mitchill that "hewas equally at home in studying the geology of Niagara, or the anatomyof an egg; in offering suggestions as to the angle of a windmill, orthe shape of a gridiron; in deciphering a Babylonian brick, or inadvising how to apply steam to navigation. "

Mitchill became a member of the Assembly in 1798, and it was hisinterest in the experiments then being made of applying steam tonavigation, that led him to introduce a bill repealing the act of1787, giving John Fitch the sole right to use steamboats on theHudson, and granting the privilege to Chancellor Livingston for a termof twenty years, provided that within a year he should build a boat oftwenty tons capacity and propel it by steam at a speed of four milesan hour. John Fitch had disappeared, and with him his idea of applyingsteam to paddles. He had fitted a steam engine of his own inventioninto a ferry-boat of his own construction, and for a whole summer thiscreation of an uneducated genius had been seen by the people ofPhiladelphia moving steadily against wind and tide; but money gaveout, the experiment was unsatisfactory, and Fitch wandered to thebanks of the Ohio, where opium helped him end his life in an obscureKentucky inn, while his steamboat rotted on the shores of theDelaware. Then John Stevens of Hoboken began a series of experimentsin 1791, trying elliptical paddles, smoke-jack wheels, and otheringenious contrivances, which soon found the oblivion of Fitch'sinventions. Subsequently Rumsey, another ingenious American, soughtwith no better success to drive a boat by expelling water from thestern. When it was announced that the great Chancellor also had ascheme, it is not surprising, perhaps, that the wags of the Assemblyridiculed the project as idle and whimsical. "Imagine a boat, " saidone, "trying to propel itself by squirting water through its stern. "Another spoke of it as "an application of the skunk principle. " EzraL'Hommedieu, then a state senator, declared that Livingston's"steamboat bill" was a standing subject of ridicule throughout theentire session. 

But there were others than legislators who made sport of theseapparently visionary projects to settle the value of steam as alocomotive power. Benjamin H. Latrobe, the most eminent engineer inAmerica, did not hesitate to overwhelm such inventions with objectionsthat, in his opinion, could never be overcome. "There are indeedgeneral objections to the use of the steam engine for impellingboats, " he wrote, in 1803, "from which no particular mode ofapplication can be free. These are, first, the weight of the engineand of the fuel; second, the large space it occupies; third, thetendency of its action to rack the vessel and render it leaky; fourth, the expense of maintenance; fifth, the irregularity of its motion andthe motion of the water in the boiler and cistern, and of thefuel-vessel in rough water; sixth, the difficulty arising from theliability of the paddles or oars to break, if light, and from theweight, if made strong. Perhaps some of the objections against it maybe obviated. That founded on the expense and weight of the fuel maynot for some years exist in the Mississippi, where there is aredundance of wood on the banks; but the cutting and loading will bealmost as great an evil. "[80]

[Footnote 80: Rep. To the Am. Philosophical Society, Phila. , May, 1803. Within four years the steamboat was running. Latrobe wasarchitect of the Capitol at Washington, which he also rebuilt afterthe British burned it in 1814. ]

Mitchill, however, would not be suppressed by the fun-makinglegislators or the reasoning of a conservative engineer. "I had toencounter all their jokes and the whole of their logic, " he wrote afriend. His bill finally became a law, and Livingston, with the helpof the Doctor, placed a horizontal wheel in a well in the bottom andcentre of a boat, which propelled the water through an aperture in thestern. The small engine, however, having an eighteen-inch cylinder andthree feet stroke, could obtain a speed of only three miles an hour, and finding that the loss of power did not compensate for theencumbrance of external wheels and the action of the waves, which hehoped to escape, Livingston relinquished the plan. Four years later, however, the Chancellor's money and Robert Fulton's genius were toenrich the world with a discovery that has immortalised Fulton andplaced Livingston's name among the patrons of the greatest inventors. 

CHAPTER VIII

OVERTHROW OF THE FEDERALISTS

1798-1800

It is difficult to select a more popular or satisfactoryadministration than was Jay's first three years as governor. Opposition growing out of his famous treaty had entirely subsided, salutary changes in laws comforted the people, and with Hamilton'sfinancial system, then thoroughly understood and appreciated, cameunprecedented good times. To all appearances, therefore, Jay'sre-election in 1798 seemed assured by an increased majority, and theannouncement that Chancellor Livingston was a voluntary rival provedsomething of a political shock. [81] For many years the relationsbetween Jay and Livingston were intimate. They had been partners inthe law, associates in the Council of Revision, colleagues inCongress, co-workers in the formation of a state constitution, andcompanions in the Poughkeepsie convention. Jay had succeededLivingston in 1784 as secretary of foreign affairs under theConfederation, and while the charming Mrs. Jay was giving her nowhistoric dinners and suppers at 133 Broadway, her cousin, Robert R. Livingston, of No. 3 Broadway, was among her most distinguishedguests. In her home Livingston made those arrangements with Hamiltonand Jay, the Morrises and the Schuylers, that resulted in theoverthrow of Governor Clinton and his supporters in the conventionwhich ratified the Federal Constitution. 

[Footnote 81: William Jay, _Life of John Jay_, Vol. 1, p. 400. ]

But after Washington's inauguration, and Jay's appointment as chiefjustice of the United States Supreme Court, the Chancellor had been asintense, if not as violent an opponent of Federalism as BrockholstLivingston. In their criticism of Jay's treaty these two cousins hadbeen especially bitter. The Chancellor attacked it as "Cato, "Brockholst as "Decius;" the one spoke against it on the platform withAaron Burr, the other voluntarily joined the mob--if he did notactually throw the stone--that wounded Hamilton; while the Chancellorsaw a copy of the treaty slowly destroyed at Bowling Green, Brockholstcoolly witnessed its distinguished author burned in effigy "in theFields. " Relationship did not spare John Jay. Cousin andbrother-in-law had the "love frenzy for France, " which finallyculminated in celebrating the ninth anniversary of the treaty ofalliance between France and America, at which Brockholst becameproudly eloquent, and the Chancellor most happy in the felicity of anhistoric toast: "May the present coolness between France and Americaproduce, like the quarrels of lovers, a renewal of love. "

Chancellor Livingston was now in the fifty-first year of his age, talland handsome, with an abundance of hair already turning gray, whichfell in ringlets over a square high forehead, lending a certaindignity that made him appear as great in private life as he was whengowned and throned in his important office. [82] In the estimation ofhis contemporaries he was one of the most gifted men of his time, andthe judgment of a later age has not reversed their decision. He addedlearning to great natural ability, and brilliancy to profound thought;and although so deaf as to make communication with him difficult, henearly concealed the defect by his remarkable eloquence andconversational gifts. Benjamin Franklin called him "the Cicero ofAmerica. " His love for the beautiful attracted Edmund Burke. It isdoubtful if he had a superior in the State in the knowledge ofhistory and the classics, and in the study of science Samuel L. Mitchill alone stood above him. He lacked the creative genius ofHamilton, the prescient gifts of Jay, and the skill of Burr to marshalmen for selfish purposes, but he was at home in debate with the ablestmen of his time, a master of sarcasm, of trenchant wit, and offelicitous rhetoric. 

[Footnote 82: "The tall and graceful figure of Chancellor Livingston, and his polished wit and classical taste, contributed not a little todeepen the impression resulting from the ingenuity of his argument, the vivacity of his imagination, and the dignity of hisstation. "--Chancellor Kent's address before The Law Association of NewYork, October 21, 1836. George Shea, _Life of Alexander Hamilton_, Appendix. ]

Livingston's candidacy for governor was clearly a dash for thePresidency. He reasoned, as every ambitious New York statesman hasreasoned from that day to this, that if he could carry the State in anoff year, he would be needed in a presidential year. This reasoningreduces the governorship to a sort of spring-board from which to vaultinto the White House, and, although only one man in a century hasperformed the feat, it has always figured as a popular and potentfactor in the settlement of political nominations. George Clintonthought promotion would come to him, and Hamilton inspired Jay with asimilar notion, although it is doubtful if the people ever seriouslyconsidered the candidacy of either; but Livingston, sanguine of bettertreatment, was willing voluntarily to withdraw from the professionalpath along which he had moved to great distinction, staking more thanhe had a right to stake on success. In his reckoning, as the sequelshowed, he miscalculated the popularity of Jay as much as Hamilton didthat of George Clinton in 1789. 

The Chancellor undoubtedly believed the tide of Federalism, which hadbeen steadily rising for six years, was about to ebb. There weresporadic indications of it. Perhaps Livingston thought it had alreadyturned, since Republicans had recently won several significantelections. Two years before DeWitt Clinton and his associates hadsuffered defeat in a city which now returned four assemblymen and onesenator with an average Republican majority of more than one thousand. This indicated that the constant talk of monarchical tendencies, ofHamilton's centralising measures, and of the court customs introducedby Washington and followed by Adams, was beginning to influence thetimid into voting with Republicans. 

But counteracting influences were also at work, which Livingston, inhis zeal for political honours, possibly did not observe. New EnglandFederalists, attracted by the fertile valleys of the Hudson and theMohawk, had filled the western district, and were now holding itfaithful to the party of Jay and Hamilton. Just at this time, too, Federalists were bound to be strengthened by the insulting treatmentof American envoys sent to France to restore friendly intercoursebetween the two republics. President Adams' message, based upon theircorrespondence, asserted that nothing could be accomplished "on termscompatible with the safety, honour, and essential interests of theUnited States, " and advised that immediate steps be taken for thenational defence. What the President had withheld for prudentialreasons, the public did not know; but it knew that the Cabinetfavoured an immediate declaration of war, and that the friends of theAdministration in Congress were preparing for such an event. This ofitself should have taken Livingston out of the gubernatorial contest;for if war were declared before the April election, the result wouldassuredly be as disastrous to him as the publication of Jay's treatyin April, 1795, would have been hurtful to the Federalists. ButChancellor Livingston, following the belief of his party that Francedid not intend to go to war with America, accepted what he had beenseeking for months, and entered the campaign with high hopes. 

Jay had intended retiring from public life at the close of his firstterm as governor. [83] For a quarter of a century he had been lookingforward to a release from the cares of office, and to the quiet of hiscountry home in Westchester; but "the indignities which France was atthat time heaping upon his country, " says William Jay, his son andbiographer, "and the probability that they would soon lead to war, forbade him to consult his personal gratification. "[84] On the 6th ofMarch, therefore, he accepted renomination on a ticket with StephenVan Rensselaer for lieutenant-governor. 

[Footnote 83: William Jay, _Life of John Jay_, Vol. 1, p. 400. ]

[Footnote 84: _Ibid. _]

It is significant that the anti-Federalists failed to nominate alieutenant-governor on the ticket with Livingston. Stephen VanRensselaer was a Federalist of the old school, a brother-in-law ofHamilton, and a vigorous supporter of his party. It is difficult toaccept the theory that none of his opponents wanted the place; it iseasier to believe that under existing conditions no one of sufficientprominence cared to make the race, especially after President Adamshad published the correspondence of the American envoys, disclosingTalleyrand's demand for $240, 000 as a gift and $6, 000, 000 as a loan, with the threat that in the event of failure to comply, "steps will betaken immediately to ravage the coast of the United States by Frenchfrigates from St. Domingo. " The display of such despicable greed, coupled with the menace, acted very much as the fire of a file ofBritish soldiers did in Boston in 1770, and sent the indignant andeloquent reply of Charles C. Pinckney, then minister to France, ringing throughout the country--"Millions for defence, but not a centfor tribute. " Within four weeks Congress authorised the establishmentof a navy department, the construction of ten war vessels, therecapture of American ships unlawfully seized, the purchase of cannon, arms, and military stores, and the raising of a provisional army often thousand, with the acceptance of militia volunteers. The Frenchtri-colour gave place to the black cockade, a symbol of patriotism inRevolutionary days, and "Hail Columbia, " then first published and setto the "President's March, " was sung to the wildest delight ofAmerican audiences in theatres and churches. 

In the midst of this excitement occurred the election for governor. The outcome was a decided change, sending Jay's majority up to2380. [85] It is not easy to estimate how much of this result wasinfluenced by the rising war cloud, and how much is to be credited tothe individuality of the candidates. Both probably entered into theequation. But the fact that Jay carried legislative districts in whichRepublicans sent DeWitt Clinton and Ambrose Spencer to the Senate, would indicate that confidence in Jay, if not dislike of Livingston, had been the principal factor in this sweeping victory. "The result ofthis election terminated, as was foreseen, " wrote William P. Van Ness, four years later, "in the defeat and mortification of Mr. Livingston, and confirmed the conviction of the party, that the people had noconfidence in his political integrity, and had been disgusted by hisunwarrantable expectations. His want of popularity was so well knownthat nothing could have induced this inexpedient measure, but a desireto show the futility of his pretensions, and thus in future avoid hishitherto unceasing importunities. "[86]

[Footnote 85: John Jay, 16, 012; Robert Livingston, 13, 632. _CivilList, State of New York_, (1887), p. 1166. ]

[Footnote 86: William P. Van Ness, _Examination of Charges againstAaron Burr_, p. 12. ]

Livingston's search for distinction in the political field seems tohave resulted in unhappiness. The distinguished ability displayed aschancellor followed him to the end, but the joy of public lifevanished when he entered the domain of partisan politics. Had hepossessed those qualities of leadership that bind party and friends byties of unflinching services, he might have reaped the reward hisambition so ardently craved; but his peculiar temper unfitted him forsuch a career. Jealous, fretful, sensitive, and suspicious, he was asrestless as his eloquence was dazzling, and, although generous to thepoor, his political methods savoured of selfishness, making enemies, divorcing friends, and darkening his pathway with gathering clouds. 

The story of John Jay's second term is not all a record of success. Strenuous statesmen, catching the contagion of excitement growing outof the war news from France, formed themselves into clubs, madeeloquent addresses, and cheered John Adams and his readiness to fightrather than pay tribute, while the Legislature, in extra session, responded to Jay's patriotic appeal by unanimously pledging thePresident the support of the State, and making appropriations for therepair of fortifications and the purchase of munitions of war. Fromall indications, the Federalists seemed certain to continue in powerfor the next decade, since the more their opponents sympathised withthe French, the stronger became the sentiment against them. If everthere was a period in the history of the United States when theopposite party should have been encouraged to talk, and to talk loudlyand saucily, it was in the summer of 1798, when the American peoplehad waked up to the insulting treatment accorded their envoys inFrance; but the Federalist leaders, horrified by the bloody record ofthe French Revolution, seemed to cultivate an increasing distrust ofthe common people, whom they now sought to repress by the historicmeasures known as the Naturalisation Act of June 18, 1798, the AlienAct of June 25, and the Sedition Act of July 14. 

The briefest recital of the purpose of these laws is sufficient toprove the folly of the administration that fathered them, and when oneconsiders the possible lengths to which an official, representing thePresident, might go if instigated by private or party revenge, EdwardLivingston's declaration that they "would have disgraced the age ofGothic barbarity" does not seem too strong. [87] Under the Alien Actpersons not citizens of the United States could be summarily banishedat the sole discretion of the President, without guilt or evenaccusation, thus jeopardising the liberty and business of the mostpeaceable and well-disposed foreigner. Under the Act of Sedition acitizen could be dragged from his bed at night and taken hundreds ofmiles from home to be tried for circulating a petition asking thatthese laws be repealed. The intended effect was to weed out theforeign-born and crush political opponents, and, the better toaccomplish this purpose, the Alien Act set aside trial by jury, andthe Sedition Act transferred prosecutions from state courts to federaltribunals. 

[Footnote 87: "Let us not establish a tyranny, " Hamilton wrote OliverWolcott. --_Works of_, Vol. 8, p. 491. "Let us not be cruel orviolent. "--_Ibid. _, 490. He thought the Alien Law deficient inguarantees of personal liberty. --_Ibid. _, 5, 26. ]

Governor Jay approved these extreme measures because of alleged secretcombinations in the interest of the French; and, although no proof oftheir existence appeared except in the unsupported statements of thepress, he submitted to the Legislature, in January, 1799, severalamendments to the Federal Constitution, proposed by Massachusetts, increasing the disability of foreigners, and otherwise limiting theirrights to citizenship. The Legislature, still strongly Federal in bothits branches, did not take kindly to the amendments, and the Assemblyrejected them by the surprising vote of sixty-two to thirty-eight. Then came up the famous Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. TheVirginia resolves, drafted by Madison and passed by the VirginiaLegislature, pronounced the Alien and Sedition laws "palpable andalarming infractions of the Constitution;" the Kentucky resolutions, drafted by Jefferson, declared each act to be "not law, but altogethervoid and of no force. " This was nullification, and the States north ofthe Potomac hastened to disavow any such doctrine, although the votein the New York Assembly came perilously near indorsing it. 

The discussion of these measures gave opportunity for the publicopening of a great career in New York legislation--a career that wasto continue into the years made memorable by Martin Van Buren andWilliam L. Marcy. The record of New York party politics for fortyyears is a record of long and brilliant contests in which ErastusRoot, if not a recognised party chieftain, was one of the ablestlieutenants that marshalled on the field of combat. He was a man ofgigantic frame, scholarly and much given to letters, and, althoughsomewhat uncouth in manner and rough in speech, his forceful logic, coupled with keen wit and biting sarcasm, made him a dreaded opponentand a welcomed ally. He resembled Hamilton in his independence, relying less upon organisation and more upon the strength of hispersonality, yet shrewdly holding close relations with those whosecareful management and adroit manipulation of the spoils kept men inline whatever the policy it seemed expedient to adopt. For elevenyears he served in the Assembly, and thrice became speaker; for eightyears he served in the Senate, and twice became its president; fortwelve years he served in the lower house of Congress, and once becamelieutenant-governor. Wherever he served, he was recognised as amaster, not always consistent, but always earnest, eloquent, andpopular, fighting relentlessly and tirelessly, and compelling respecteven when unsuccessful. 

Just now Root was an ardent admirer of Aaron Burr and a bitteropponent of Alexander Hamilton. He was only twenty-six years old. During the contest over the Federal Constitution he was a leader inboyish sports at his Connecticut home, thinking more of the nextwrestling match and the girl he should escort from the lyceum than ofthe character of the constitution under which he should live; but hecame to the Assembly in 1798 a staunch supporter of republicanism, believing that Federalists should give place to men inclined to trustthe people with larger power, and in this spirit he led the debateagainst the Alien and Sedition laws with such brilliancy that heleaped into prominence at a single bound. Freedom and fearlessnesscharacterised the work of this young orator, singling him out as thepeople's champion, and giving him the confidence of five thousand"Wild Irishmen, " as Otis called them, who had sought America as anasylum for the oppressed of all nations. Unrestrained by precedent andunruled by fear for the future, he spoke with confidence to a peoplewhom he delighted with the breadth and liberality of his views, lifting them onto heights from which they had never before surveyedtheir political rights. 

In the debate in the Assembly on the indorsement of the Kentuckyresolutions Root maintained with great force the right of the people'srepresentatives in the Legislature to express an opinion upon an actof Congress, however solemn, and he ridiculed the argument thatquestions limited to the judiciary were beyond the jurisdiction ofany other body of men to criticise and condemn. This touched a popularchord, and if the mere expression of an opinion by the Assembly hadbeen the real question at issue, young Root might have carried hispoint as he did the fight against the amendments proposed byMassachusetts. But there was one question Root did not successfullymeet. Although Jefferson's eighth and ninth resolutions--declaringthat whenever the general government assumed powers not delegated, "anullification of the act is the rightful remedy" of every State--hadbeen stricken out, the dangerous doctrine was still present in thepreamble, making it apparent to the friends of the Constitution thatthe promulgation of such a monstrous heresy would be worse than theacts sought to be annulled. It is not clear that Root's understandingof these resolutions went so far; for the question discussed by himconcerned only the right of the Legislature to express an opinionrespecting the wisdom or unwisdom of an act of Congress. Nor does itappear that he favoured what afterward became known as "nullification;"for it is certain that when, thirty-four years later, the doctrinecame up again under John C. Calhoun's leadership, Erastus Root, thenin Congress, struck at it as he would at the head of a viper, becomingthe fearless expounder of principles which civil war permanentlyestablished. 

While young Root was leading the debate in the Assembly, AmbroseSpencer led it in the Senate. Spencer's apostacy produced a profoundsensation in political circles. He had given no intimation of a changeof political principles. Although still a young man, barelythirty-three, he had ranked among the foremost leaders of theFederalist party, having been honoured as an assistant attorney-general, a state senator, a member of the Council of Appointment, a friend ofHamilton, and the confidential adviser of Jay. The latter's heartmight well sink within him to be abandoned by such a colleague at atime when the stability of the Union was insidiously attacked; norought Spencer to have been surprised that public rumour immediatelyset to work to find some reason for his change less simple and lesshonest, perhaps, than a dislike of the Federalist policy. Variouscauses have been given for his mysterious behaviour. Some thought himeager for a high mark of presidential favour, possibly a missionabroad, which was not warmly advocated by Hamilton; others believedthat the bitter quarrel between Adams and Hamilton influenced him todesert a sinking party; but the rumour generally accepted by theFederalists ascribed it to his failure to become state comptroller inplace of Samuel Jones, an office which he sought. It was recalled thatshortly after Jones' appointment, Spencer raised the question, withsome show of bitterness, that Jones' seat in the Senate should bedeclared vacant. 

Spencer denied the charges with expletives and with emphasis, treatingthe accusations as a calumny, and insisting that his change ofprinciples occurred in the spring of 1798 before his re-election assenator. This antedated the alien and sedition measures, but not theappointment of Samuel Jones, making his conversion contemporary withthe candidacy for governor of Chancellor Livingston, to whom he wasrelated. It is not unlikely that he shared Livingston's confidence inan election and thought it a good time to join the party of hisrelative; but whether his change was a matter of principle, ofself-interest, or of resentment, it bitterly stung the Federalists, who did not cease to assail him as a turncoat for the flesh-pots. [88]

[Footnote 88: "Ambrose Spencer's politics were inconsistent enough todestroy the good name of any man in New England; but he became achief-justice of ability and integrity. "--Henry Adams, _History of theUnited States_, Vol. 1, p. 112. ]

The début of the brilliant Root and the St. Paul-like conversion ofAmbrose Spencer were not, however, needed to overthrow a partyresponsible for the famous alien and sedition laws. No one has everyet successfully defended this hasty, ill-considered legislation, norhas any one ever admitted responsibility for it, except PresidentAdams who approved it, and who, up to the last moment of his longlife, contended that it was "constitutional and salutary, if notnecessary. " President Adams had, indeed, refrained from using thepower so lavishly given him; but rash subordinates listened to thedictate of unwise party leaders. The ridiculous character of theseprosecutions is illustrated by a fine of one hundred dollars becauseone defendant wished that the wadding used in a salute to John Adamshad lodged in the ample part of the President's trousers. 

But the sedition law had a more serious enemy than rash subordinates. John Armstrong, author of the celebrated "Newburgh Letters, " and untilrecently a Federalist, wrote a vitriolic petition for its repeal, which Jedediah Peck circulated for signatures. This incited theindiscreet and excitable Judge Cooper, father of the distinguishednovelist, to begin a prosecution; and upon his complaint, the UnitedStates marshal, armed with a bench-warrant, carried off Peck to NewYork City for trial. It is two hundred miles from Cooperstown to themouth of the Hudson, and in the spring of 1800 the marshal and hisprisoner were five days on the way. The newspapers reported Peck as"taken from his bed at midnight, manacled, and dragged from his home, "because he dared ask his neighbours to petition Congress to repeal anoffensive law. "The rule of George Third, " declared the press, "wasgracious and loving compared to such tyranny. " In the wildest deliriumof revolutionary days, when patriots were refusing to drink tea, andfeeding it to the fishes, New York had not been more deeply stirredthan now. "A hundred missionaries in the cause of democracy, stationedbetween New York and Cooperstown, " says Hammond, the historian, "couldnot have done so much for the Republican cause as this journey ofJedediah Peck from Otsego to the capital of the State. It was nothingless than the public exhibition of a suffering martyr for the freedomof speech and the press, and for the right of petition. "[89]

[Footnote 89: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 1, p. 132. ]

This was the political condition when Aaron Burr, in the spring of1800, undertook to gain twelve electoral votes for the Republicans bycarrying the Legislature of New York. It required seventy electoralvotes to choose a President, and outside of New York theanti-Federalists could count sixty-one. The capture of this State, therefore, would give them a safe majority. Without advertising hispurposes, Burr introduced the sly methods that characterised hisformer campaigns, beginning with the selection of a ticket that wouldcommend itself to all, and ending with an organisation that would docredit to the management of the later-day chiefs of Tammany. To avoidthe already growing rivalry between the Clinton and Livingstonfactions, George Clinton and Brockholst Livingston headed the ticket, followed by Horatio Gates of Revolutionary fame, John Broome, soon tobe lieutenant-governor, Samuel Osgood, for two years Washington'spostmaster-general, John Swartout, already known for his vigorousrecord in the Assembly, and others equally acceptable. Burr himselfstood for the county of Orange. For the first time in the history ofpolitical campaigning, too, local managers prepared lists of voters, canvassed wards by streets, held meetings throughout the city, andintroduced other methods of organisation common enough nowadays, butdecidedly novel then. 

Hamilton was alive to the importance of the April election, butscarcely responsible for the critical character of the situation. Hehad not approved the alien and sedition measures, nor did he commithimself to the persecuting policy sanctioned by most Federal leaders, and although he favoured suppressing newspaper libels against thegovernment, he was himself alien-born, and of a mind too broad not tounderstand the danger of arousing foreign-born citizens against hisparty on lines of national sentiment. "If we make no false step, " hewrote Oliver Wolcott, "we shall be essentially united, but if we pushthings to extremes, we shall then give to faction body andsolidity. "[90] It was hasty United States attorneys and indiscreetlocal politicians rather than the greatest of the Federal leaders, who gave "to faction body and solidity. "

[Footnote 90: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 491. ]

Hamilton threw himself with energy into the desperate fight. For fourdays, from April 29 to May 2, while the polls were open, he visitedevery voting precinct, appealing to the public in his wonderfullypersuasive and captivating manner. On several occasions Burr andHamilton met, and it was afterward recalled that courtesycharacterised the conduct of each toward the other, one championwaiting while the other took his turn. Rarely if ever in the historyof the country have two men of such ability and astutenessparticipated in a local canvass. The rivalry was all the more excitingbecause it was a rivalry of styles as well as of capacities. Burr wassmooth, polished, concise, never diffuse or declamatory, alwaysserious and impressive. If we may accept contemporary judgment, he wasa good speaker whom everybody was curious to hear, and from whom noone turned away in disappointment. On the other hand, Hamilton was anacknowledged orator, diffuse, ornate, full of metaphor, with flashesof poetical genius, revelling in exuberant strength, and endowed witha gift of argumentative eloquence which appealed to the intellect andthe feelings at the same time. Erastus Root says Hamilton's words wereso well chosen, and his sentences so finely formed into a swellingcurrent, that the hearer would be captivated if not convinced, whileBurr's arguments were generally methodised and compact. To this Rootadded a judgment, after thirty years' experience in public life atWashington and in New York, that "they were much the greatest men inthe State, and perhaps the greatest men in the United States. "

When the polls closed the Republicans had carried the Legislature bytwenty-two majority on joint ballot. This secured to them the electionof the needed twelve presidential electors. To recover their loss theFederalists now clamoured for a change in the law transferring theelection of presidential electors from the Legislature to districtscreated for that purpose. Such an amendment would give theFederalists six of the twelve electors. 

This was Hamilton's plan. In an earnest plea he urged Jay to convenethe Legislature in extraordinary session for this purpose. "Theanti-Federal party, " he wrote to the Governor, "is a compositionindeed of very incongruous materials, but all tending to mischief;some of them to the overthrow of the government by stripping it of itsdue energies; others of them by revolutionising it after the manner ofBonaparte. The government must not be confided to the custody of itsenemies, and, although the measure proposed is open to objection, apopular government cannot stand if one party calls to its aid all theresources which vice can give, and the other, however pressing theemergency, feels itself obliged to confine itself within the ordinaryforms of delicacy and decorum. "[91]

[Footnote 91: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 549. ]

Jay's response to Hamilton's proposal is not of record, but some timeafterward the great Federalist's letter was found carefully filedamong the papers in the public archives, bearing an indorsement in theGovernor's handwriting: "This is a measure for party purposes which Ithink it would not become me to adopt. "

The sincerity of Jay's action has been doubted. He was about to retirefrom public life, it was said, with no political future before him, and with that courage which inspires a man under such circumstances, he declined to act. But Jay's treatment of Hamilton's suggestionstands out conspicuously as his best judgment at the most tryingmoment in a long and eventful life. Jay was a stalwart Federalist. Hehad supported Washington and Hamilton in the making of a federalconstitution; he had approved the alien and sedition laws; he hadfavourably reported to the Legislature the proposed amendments ofMassachusetts, limiting service in Congress to native-born citizens;he regarded the advent of Jefferson and his ideas with as much alarmas Hamilton, and he knew as well as Hamilton that the adoption of thedistrict plan of choosing electors would probably defeat theVirginian; but to call an extra session of the Legislature for thepurpose indicated by Hamilton, would defeat the expressed will of thepeople as much as the action of the state canvassers defeated it in1792. Should he follow such a precedent and save his party, perhapshis country, from the dire ills so vividly portrayed by Hamilton? Theresponsibility was upon him, not upon Hamilton, and he wisely refusedto do what the people of the State had so generally and properlycondemned in the canvassers. 

Hamilton's proposition naturally provoked the indignation of hisopponents, and later writers have used it as a text for unlimitedvituperation; but if one may judge from what happened and continued tohappen during the next three decades, not a governor who followed Jayin those eventful years would have declined under similarcircumstances to concur in Hamilton's suggestion. It was undoubtedly adesperate proposal, but it was squarely in line with the practice ofparty leaders of that day. George Clinton countenanced, if he did notabsolutely advise, the deliberate disfranchisement of hundreds ofvoters in 1792 that he might continue governor. A few years later, in1816, methods quite as disreputable and unscrupulous were practised, that Republicans might continue to control the Council of Appointment. Hamilton's suggestion involved no concealment, as in the case of theManhattan Bank, which Jay approved; no violation of law, as in theOtsego election case, which Clinton approved; no deliberate fraud, asin the Allen-Fellows case, which Tompkins approved. All this does notlessen the wrong involved in Hamilton's proposed violation of moralethics, but it places the suggestion in the environment to which itproperly belongs, making it appear no worse if no better than thepolitical practices of that day. 

CHAPTER IX

MISTAKES OF HAMILTON AND BURR

1800

The ten months following the Republican triumph in New York on May 2, 1800, were fateful ones for Hamilton and Burr. It is not easy tosuggest the greater sufferer, Burr with his victory, or Hamilton withhis defeat. Hamilton's bold expedients began at once; Burr's desperateschemes waited until after the election in November; but when theconflict was over, the political influence of each had ebbed likewater in a bay after a tidal wave. Although Jay's refusal to reconvenethe old Legislature in extra session surprised Hamilton as much as theRepublican victory itself, the great Federalist did not despair. Hestill thought it possible to throw the election of President into theHouse of Representatives, and to that end he wrote his friends to giveequal support to John Adams and Charles C. Pinckney, the candidates ofthe Federal party. "This is the only thing, " he said, "that canpossibly save us from the fangs of Jefferson. "[92]

[Footnote 92: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 549. Letter toTheo. Sedgwick. ]

But the relations between Adams and Hamilton were now to break. Fortwelve years Hamilton had kept Adams angry. He began in 1789 with theinconsiderate and needless scheme of scattering the electoral votes ofFederalists for second place, lest Washington fail of the highestnumber, and thus reduced Adams' vote to thirty-four, while Washingtonreceived sixty-nine. In 1796 he advised similar tactics, in order thatThomas Pinckney might get first place. For the past three years thePresident had endured the mortification of having Hamilton controlhis cabinet advisers. After the loss of New York, however, Adamsturned elsewhere for strength, appointing John Marshall secretary ofstate in place of Timothy Pickering, and Samuel Dexter secretary ofwar in place of James McHenry. The mutual dislike of Hamilton andAdams had become so intensified that the slightest provocation on thepart of either would make any form of political reconciliationimpossible, and Adams' reconstruction of his Cabinet furnished thisprovocation. Pickering and McHenry were Hamilton's best supporters. They had done more to help him and to embarrass Adams, and theirdismissal, because of the loss of New York, made Hamilton thirsty forrevenge. Pickering suggested "a bold and frank exposure of Adams, "offering to furnish the facts if Hamilton would put them together, andagreeing to arrange with George Cabot and other ultra Federalists ofNew England, known as the "Essex Junto, " to throw Adams behind CharlesC. Pinckney in the electoral vote. Their plan was to start Pinckney asthe second Federalist candidate, with the hope that parties would beso divided as to secure his election for President. It was nothingmore than the old "double chance" manoeuvres of 1796, when ThomasPinckney was Hamilton's choice for President; but the iniquity of thescheme was the deception practised upon the voters who desired Adams. 

Of course, Adams soon learned of the revival of this old conspiracy, and passionately and hastily opened a raking fire upon the "EssexJunto, " calling them a "British faction, " with Hamilton as its chief, a designation to which the Republican press had made them peculiarlysensitive. This aroused Hamilton, who, preliminary to a quarrel, addressed the President, asking if he had mentioned the writer as onewho belonged to a British faction. Receiving no reply, he again wrotethe President, angrily repelling all aspersions of the kind. This thePresident likewise ignored. 

Then Hamilton listened to Timothy Pickering. Fiery as his temper hadoften proved, and grotesquely obstinate as he had sometimes shownhimself, Hamilton's most erratic impulse appears like the coolness ofJay when contrasted with the conduct upon which he now entered. Theletter he proposed to write, ostensibly in justification of himself, was apparently intended for private circulation at some future dayamong Federal leaders, to whom it would furnish reasons why electorsshould unite in preferring Pinckney. It is known, too, that Hamilton'scoolest and ablest advisers opposed such a letter, recalling thecongressional caucus agreement, which he had himself advised, to votefairly for both Adams and Pinckney. Besides, to impair confidence inAdams just at that moment, it was argued, would impair confidence inthe Federal party, while at best such a letter could only produceconfusion without compensatory results. But between Adams andJefferson, Hamilton now preferred the latter. "I will never beresponsible for him by my direct vote, " he wrote in May, 1800, "eventhough the consequence be the election of Jefferson. "[93] Moreover, Hamilton was accustomed to give, not to receive orders. Had Washingtonlived, Hamilton would doubtless never have written the letter, but nowhe wrote it, printed it, and in a few days was forced to publish it, since garbled extracts began appearing in the press. Many theorieshave been advanced as to how it fell into the hands of a publicprinter, some fanciful, others ridiculous, and none, perhaps, absolutely truthful. The story that Burr unwittingly coaxed aprinter's errand boy to give him a copy, is not corroborated byMatthew L. Davis; but, however the publication happened, it was notintended to happen in that way and at that time. 

[Footnote 93: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 552. ]

It was an ugly letter, not up to Hamilton's best work. The vindicationof himself and the Pinckneys lost itself in the severity of the attackupon Adams, whose career was reviewed from the distant day of anunsound judgment ventured in military affairs during the Revolution, to the latest display of a consuming egotism, vanity, and jealousy asPresident. In a word, all the quarrels, resentments, and antagonismswhich had torn and rent the Federal party for four years, but which, thanks to Washington, had not become generally known, were now, in amoment, officially exposed to the whole country, to the greatastonishment of most Federalists, and to the great delight of allRepublicans. "If the single purpose had been to defeat the President, "said John Adams, "no more propitious moment could have been chosen. "Fisher Ames declared that "the question is not how we shall fight, buthow we shall fall. " In vain did Hamilton journey through New England, struggling to gain votes for Pinckney; in vain did the "Essex Junto"deplore the appearance of a document certain to do their Jacobinopponents great service. The party, already practically defeated byits alien and sedition legislation, and now inflamed with angryfeelings, hastened on to the inevitable catastrophe like a boat suckedinto the rushing waters of Niagara, while the party of Jefferson, united in principle, and encouraged by the divisions of theiradversaries, marched on to easy victory. When the result was known, Jefferson and Burr had each seventy-three electoral votes, Adamssixty-five, Pinckney sixty-four, and Jay one. 

It is difficult to realise the arguments which persuaded Hamilton tofollow the suggestion of the fallen minister. Hot-tempered andimpatient of restraint as he was, he knew Adams' attack had only paidhim in kind. Nor is mitigation of Hamilton's conduct found in thestatement, probably true, that the party could not in any case havecarried the election. The great mass of Federalists believed, asHamilton wrote Jay when asking an extra session of the Legislature, that the defeat of Jefferson was "the only means to save the nationfrom more disasters, " and they naturally looked to him to accomplishthat defeat. Of all men that ever led a political party, therefore, itwas Hamilton's duty to sink personal antipathy, but in this attackupon Adams he seems deliberately to have sinned against the light. This was the judgment of men of his own day, and at the end of acentury it is the judgment of men who cherish his teachings and reverehis memory. 

While Hamilton wrote and worried and wrestled, Aaron Burr rested onthe well-earned laurels of victory. It had been a great fight. GeorgeClinton did not take kindly to Thomas Jefferson, and stubbornlyresisted allowing the use of his name to aid the Virginian'spromotion; Horatio Gates and other prominent citizens who had left thepolitical arena years before, if they could be said ever to haveentered it, were also indisposed to head a movement that seemed tothem certain to end in rout and confusion; but Burr held on untilscruples disappeared, and their names headed a winning ticket. It wasthe first ray of light to break the Republican gloom, and when, sixmonths later, the Empire State declared for Jefferson and Burr itadded to the halo already surrounding the grandson of JonathanEdwards. 

It was known that Jefferson and Burr had run very evenly, and by themiddle of December, 1800, it became rumoured that their vote was atie. "If such should be the result, " Burr wrote Samuel Smith, aRepublican congressman from Maryland, "every man who knows me ought toknow that I would utterly disclaim all competition. Be assured thatthe Federalist party can entertain no wish for such an exchange. As tomy friends, they would dishonour my views and insult my feelings by asuspicion that I would submit to be instrumental in counteracting thewishes and the expectations of the people of the United States. And Inow constitute you my proxy to declare these sentiments if theoccasion should require. "[94] At the time this letter was muchapplauded at public dinners and other Republican gatherings as proofof Burr's respect for the will of the people. 

[Footnote 94: James Parton, _Life of Aaron Burr_, 267. ]

But the Federalists had plans of their own. "To elect Burr would be tocover the opposition with chagrin, and to sow among them the seeds ofa morbid division, " wrote Harrison Gray Otis of Massachusetts. [95]Gradually this sentiment took possession of New England and the MiddleStates, until it seemed to be the prevailing opinion of the Federalparty. "Some, indeed most of our eastern friends are warm in supportof Burr, " said Gouverneur Morris, which James A. Bayard of Delawarecorroborated in a note to Hamilton. "There appears to be a stronginclination in a majority of the Federal party to support Burr, " hesaid. [96] "The current has already acquired considerable force, and ismanifestly increasing. " John Rutledge, governor of South Carolina, thought "his promotion will be prodigiously afflicting to the Virginiafaction, and must disjoint the party. If Mr. B. 's Presidency beproductive of evils, it will be very easy for us to get rid of him. Opposed by the Virginia party, it will be his interest to conciliatethe Federalists. "[97] Theodore Sedgwick, speaker of the House ofRepresentatives, likewise declared that "most of the Federalists arefor Burr. It is very evident that the Jacobins dread this appointmentmore even than that of General Pinckney. If he be elected by theFederalists against the hearty opposition of the Jacobins, the woundsmutually given and received will probably be incurable. Each will havecommitted the unpardonable sin. Burr must depend on good men for hissupport, and that support he cannot receive, but by a conformity totheir views. At first, I confess, I was strongly disposed to giveJefferson the preference, but the more I have reflected, the more Ihave inclined to the other. "[98]

[Footnote 95: _Ibid. _, 267. ]

[Footnote 96: James Parton, _Life of Aaron Burr_, 270. ]

[Footnote 97: _Ibid. _, 275. ]

[Footnote 98: _Ibid. _, 275. ]

To such a course Hamilton was bitterly opposed, not only because hedistrusted Burr more than he did Jefferson, but because theFederalists should leave the responsibility of a selection to theRepublicans and thus in nowise be answerable for the consequences. "Ifthe anti-Federalists who prevailed in the election, " he wrote Bayardof Delaware, "are left to take their own man, they remain responsible, and the Federalists remain free, united, and without stain, in asituation to resist with effect pernicious measures. If theFederalists substitute Burr, they adopt him, and become answerable forhim. Whatever may be the theory of the case, abroad and at home, Mr. Burr must become, in fact, the man of our party; and if he acts ill, we must share in the blame and disgrace. By adopting him, we do all wecan to reconcile the minds of Federalists to him, and we prepare themfor the effectual operation of his acts. He will, doubtless, gain manyof them; and the Federalists will become a disorganised andcontemptible party. Can there be any serious question between thepolicy of leaving the anti-Federalists to be answerable for theelevation of an objectionable man, and that of adopting him ourselves, and becoming answerable for a man who, on all hands, is acknowledgedto be a complete Catiline? 'Tis enough to state the question toindicate the answer, if reason, not passion, presides in thedecision. "[99]

[Footnote 99: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 581. ]

Gouverneur Morris, now a United States senator, had already taken asimilar position. Bayard of Delaware, who carried the vote of thelittle State in his pocket, and several other leading Federalists, listened with profound respect; but the great portion of the party, maddened by reverses, eager for revenge, and not yet mindless ofHamilton's campaign indiscretion, was in no temper to follow suchprudent advice. As already indicated, the disposition was "to coverthe opposition with chagrin, " and "to sow among them the seeds ofmorbid division. " Nor did they agree with Hamilton's estimate of Burr, which seemed to them attributable to professional and personal feuds, but maintained that he was a matter-of-fact man, artful and dexterousto accomplish his ends, and without pernicious theories, whose veryselfishness was a guard against mischievous foreign predilection, andwhose local situation was helpful to his appreciation of the utilityof the country's commercial and federal systems, while his elevationto the Presidency would be a mortal stab to the Jacobins, breedinginvincible hatred and compelling him to lean on the Federalists, whohad nothing to fear from his ambition, since it would be checked byhis good sense, or from any scheme of usurpation that he mightattempt. 

In vain did Hamilton combat these points, insisting that Burr was aman of extreme and irregular ambition, selfish to a degree which evenexcluded social affection, and decidedly profligate. He admitted thathe was far more artful than wise, far more dexterous than able, butheld that artfulness and dexterity were objections rather thanrecommendations, while he thought a systematic statesman should have atheory. "No general principles, " he said, "will work much better thanerroneous ones. "[100] As to foreign predilection, he thought Burr aswarm a partisan of France as Jefferson, and instead of leaning on goodmen, whom he knew would never support his bad projects, he wouldendeavour to disorganise both parties, and from the wreck form a thirdout of conspirators and other men fitted by character to carry out hisschemes of usurpation. As the campaign advanced he became moreemphatic, insisting that Burr's election would disgrace the countryabroad, and that no agreement with him could be relied upon. "As wellthink to bind a giant by a cobweb as his ambition by promises. "[101]

[Footnote 100: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 584. ]

[Footnote 101: _Ibid. _, 581. ]

In the meantime the electoral count, as already anticipated, hadthrown the election into the House of Representatives, where it wouldbe decided on the 11th of February, 1801. In the House the Republicanscontrolled eight States to the Federalists' six, with Maryland andVermont without a majority of either party. To elect Jefferson, therefore, an additional State must be secured, and to prevent it, ifpossible, the Federalists, by a party caucus held in January, resolvedto support Burr, Bayard and three others, any one of whom could decidethe choice for Jefferson, reserving the right to limit the contest toMarch 4, and thus avoid the risk of general anarchy by a failure toelect. 

Very naturally the Republicans became alarmed and ugly. Jeffersonwrote Madison of the deplorable tie, suggesting that it had producedgreat dismay and gloom among Republicans and exultation amongFederalists, "who openly declare they will prevent an election. "[102]James Gunn, a United States senator from Georgia and a Federalist, advised Hamilton that "the Jacobins are determined to resist theelection of Burr at every hazard, and I am persuaded they have takentheir ground with a fixed resolution to destroy the government ratherthan yield their point. "[103] Madison thought if the then House ofRepresentatives did not choose Jefferson, the next House would do so, supported as he was by the great body of the people, who would nolonger submit "to the degradation of America by attempts to make Burrthe President. "[104]

[Footnote 102: James Parton, _Life of Aaron Burr_, 274. ]

[Footnote 103: _Ibid. _, 274. ]

[Footnote 104: _Ibid. _, 274. ]

Not a word came from Burr. Jefferson tried repeatedly to bring him toan explicit understanding without avail. His only published utteranceon the subject, save the letter to Samuel Smith, was in a family noteof January 15 to his son-in-law, Joseph Allston of South Carolina, inwhich he spoke of the tie as exciting great speculation and muchanxiety, adding, "I believe that all will be well, and that Jeffersonwill be our President. "[105] Five days before this, Speaker Sedgwickinformed Hamilton that "Burr has expressed his displeasure at thepublication of his letter by Samuel Smith, "[106] which, wrote Bayardon January 7, "is here understood to have proceeded either from afalse calculation as to the result of the electoral vote, or wasintended as a cover to blind his own party. "[107] But there was nodanger of Joseph Allston publishing his note, at least not until thefight was over. 

[Footnote 105: _Ibid. _, 279. ]

[Footnote 106: _Ibid. _, 272. ]

[Footnote 107: _Ibid. _, 272. ]

Burr's letter to his son-in-law bore date at Albany. Being a member ofthe Legislature he had gone there early in January, where he not onlykept silent but mysteriously aloof, although his lobbyists throngedWashington in such numbers that Senator Morris, on February 14, askedhis colleague, John Armstrong, "how it happened that Burr, who is fourhundred miles off, has agents here at work with great activity, whileMr. Jefferson, who is on the spot, does nothing?"[108] That theseagents understood their mission and were quite as active as Morrisrepresented, was evident by the reports sent from time to time toHamilton, who remained in New York. "Some who pretend to know hisviews, " wrote Morris, "think he will bargain with the Federalists. "[109]Bayard was also approached. "Persons friendly to Mr. Burr statedistinctly that he is willing to consider the Federalists as hisfriends, and to accept the office of President as their gift. "[110] Asearly as January 10 Governor Rutledge wrote that "we are assured by agentleman who lately had some conversation with Mr. Burr on thissubject that he is disposed to maintain and expand our systems. "[111]

[Footnote 108: _Jefferson's Diary_, Feb. 14, 1801. ]

[Footnote 109: James Parton, _Life of Aaron Burr_, p. 272. ]

[Footnote 110: _Ibid. _, 272. ]

[Footnote 111: _Ibid. _, 275. ]

As the campaign proceeded it became evident to Burr that Republicanswere needed as well as Federalists, and a bright young man, William P. Van Ness, who had accompanied Burr to Albany as a favourite companion, wrote Edward Livingston, the brilliant New York congressman, that "itis the sense of the Republicans in this State that, after some trialsin the House, Mr. Jefferson should be given up for Mr. Burr. "[112]This was wholly conjectural, and Burr and his young friend knew it;but it was a part of the game, since Burr, so Hamilton wrote Morris, "perfectly understands himself with Edward Livingston, who will be hisagent at the seat of government, " adding that Burr had volunteered thefurther information "that the Federalists might proceed in thecertainty that, upon a second ballot New York and Tennessee would joinhim. "[113] There is no doubt Burr believed then, and for some timeafterward, that Edward Livingston was his friend, but he did not knowthat Jefferson had offered the secretaryship of the navy to Edward'sbrother, the powerful Chancellor, [114] or that the Chancellor's youngbrother was filling Jefferson's diary with the doings and sayings ofthose who were interested in Burr's election. Edward got a UnitedStates attorneyship for his treachery, and soon after became adefaulter for thirty thousand dollars under circumstances of culpablecarelessness, as the Treasury thought. [115]

[Footnote 112: William P. Van Ness, _Examination of Charges againstAaron Burr_, p. 61. ]

[Footnote 113: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 586. ]

[Footnote 114: Jefferson to Livingston, Feb. 24, 1801; _Jefferson'sWorks_, Vol. 4, p. 360. ]

[Footnote 115: Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 173. _Ibid. _, Vol. 1, p. 113. ]

The voting began on February 11. On the first ballot eight Statesvoted for Jefferson and six for Burr, Vermont and Maryland beingneutralised by an even party division. In this manner the votingcontinued for six days, through thirty-five ballots, the House takingrecesses to give members rest, caucuses opportunity to meet, and thesick time to be brought in on their beds. Finally, on the thirty-sixthballot, the Vermont Federalist withdrew, and the four MarylandFederalists, with Bayard of Delaware, put in blanks, giving Jeffersonten States and Burr five. 

Burr had played his game with the skill of a master. The tactics thatelected him to the United States Senate in 1791 and made him agubernatorial possibility in 1792 were repeated on a larger scale andshrouded in deeper mystery. He had appeared to disavow any intentionof supplanting Jefferson, and yet had played for Federalist andRepublican support so cleverly that Jefferson pronounced his conduct"honourable and decisive, and greatly embarrassing" to those who triedto "debauch him from his good faith. " In the evening of theinauguration, President and Vice President received together thecongratulations of their countrymen at the presidential mansion. AtAlbany banqueting Republicans drank the health of "Aaron Burr, VicePresident of the United States; his uniform and patriotic exertions infavour of Republicanism eclipsed only by his late disinterestedconduct. "

But when soberer thoughts came the Republican mind was disturbed withthe question why Burr, after the Federalists had openly resolved tosupport him, did not proclaim on the housetop what he had written toSamuel Smith before the tie was known. Gradually the truth began todawn as men talked and compared notes, and before three months hadelapsed Jefferson's estimate of Burr's character corresponded withHamilton's. It is of record that from 1790 to 1800 Jeffersonconsidered him "for sale, " and when the Virginians, after twicerefusing to vote for him, finally sustained him for Vice President, they did so repenting their act. [116]

[Footnote 116: Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 229. Jefferson's _Anas_; _Works_, Vol. 9, p. 207. ]

It is not easy to indicate the source of Burr's inherent badness. Hisfather, a clergyman of rare scholarship and culture, became, at theage of thirty-two, the second president of Princeton College, whileJonathan Edwards, his maternal grandfather, whose "Freedom of theWill" made him an intellectual world-force, became its thirdpresident; but if one may accept contemporary judgment, Aaron Burr hadscarcely one good or great quality of heart. Like Lord Chesterfield, his favourite author, he had intellect without truth or virtue; likeChesterfield, too, he was small in stature and slender. [117] Here, however, the comparison must end if Lord Hervey's description ofChesterfield be accepted, for instead of broad, rough features, andan ugly face, Burr's personal appearance, suggested by the delicatelychiselled features in the marble, was the gift of a mother noted forbeauty as well as for the inheritance of her father's greatintellectuality. Writers never forget the large black eyes, keen andpenetrating, so irresistible to gifted and beautiful women. They camefrom the Edwards side; but from whence came the absence of honour thatdistinguished this son and grandson of the Princeton presidents, tradition does not inform us. 

[Footnote 117: "When the Senate met at ten o'clock on the morning ofMarch 4, 1801, Aaron Burr stood at the desk, and having duly sworn tosupport the Constitution took his seat in the chair as Vice President. This quiet, gentlemanly and rather dignified figure, hardly tallerthan Madison, and dressed in much the same manner, impressed withfavour all who first met him. An aristocrat imbued in the morality ofLord Chesterfield and Napoleon Bonaparte, Colonel Burr was the chosenhead of Northern democracy, idol of the wards of New York City, andaspirant to the highest offices he could reach by means legal orbeyond the law; for, as he pleased himself with saying after themanner of the First Consul of the French Republic, 'great souls carelittle for small morals. '"--Henry Adams, _History of the UnitedStates_, Vol. 1, p. 195. ]

CHAPTER X

JOHN JAY AND DeWITT CLINTON

1800

The election that decided the contest for Jefferson, returned DeWittClinton to the State Senate, and a Republican majority to theAssembly. As soon as the Legislature met, therefore, Clinton proposeda new Council of Appointment. Federalists shrieked in amazement atsuch a suggestion, since the existing Council had served little morethan half its term. To this Republicans replied, good naturedly, thatalthough party conditions were reversed, arguments remained the same, and reminded them that in 1794, when an anti-Federalist Council hadserved only a portion of its term, the Federalists compelled animmediate change. Whatever was fair for Federalists then, they argued, could not be unfair for Republicans now. If it was preposterous, asJosiah Ogden Hoffman had asserted, for a Council to serve out its fullterm in 1794, it was preposterous for the Council of 1800 to serve outits full term; if Schuyler was right that it was a dangerous andunconstitutional usurpation of power for the anti-Federalist Councilto continue its sittings, it was a dangerous and unconstitutionalusurpation of power for the Federalist Council of 1800 to continue itssittings. Of course Federalists were wrong in 1794, and Republicanswere wrong in 1800, but there was as much poetic justice in thesituation as a Republican could desire. As soon as the Assembly hadorganised, therefore, DeWitt Clinton, Ambrose Spencer, RobertRoseboom, and John Sanders became the Council of Appointment. Sanderswas a Federalist, but Roseboom was a Republican, whose pliancy andweakness made him the tool of Clinton and Spencer. 

DeWitt Clinton had at last come to his own. Until now his life hadbeen uncheckered by important incident and unmarked by politicalachievement. He had run rapidly through the grammar school of LittleBritain, his native town; through the academy at Kingston, the onlyone then in the State; through Columbia College, which he entered as ajunior at fifteen and from which he graduated at the head of hisclass; and through his law studies with Samuel Jones. In 1789 came anappointment as private secretary to his uncle, George Clinton. WhenGovernor Jay sought the assistance of another in 1795, Clinton resumedthe law; but he continued to practise politics for a living, and atlast found himself in the Assembly of 1797. He was then twenty-eight, strong, handsome, and well equipped for any struggle. He had devotedhis leisure moments to reading, for which he had a passion that lastedhim all his lifetime. He was especially fond of scientific studies, and of the active-minded Samuel L. Mitchill, six years his senior, whogave scientific reputation to the whole State. 

In spite of his love for science, DeWitt Clinton was a bornpolitician, with all the characteristic incongruities incident to sucha life. He had the selfishness of Livingston, the inconsistency ofSpencer, the imperiousness of Root, and the ability of a statesman. Unlike most other men of his party, he did not rely wholly upondiscipline and organisation, or upon party fealty and courtesy. Hamilton had cherished the hope that Clinton might become aFederalist, not because he was a trimmer, or would seek a party inpower simply for the spoils in sight, but because he had the breadthand liberality of enlightened opinions, the prophetic instinct, andthe force of character to make things go his way, without driftinginto success by a fortunate turn in tide and wind. He was not a mereday-dreamer, a theorist, a philosopher, a scholar, although hepossessed the gifts of each. He was, rather, a man of action--self-willed, self-reliant, independent--as ambitious as Burr without his slipperyways, and as determined as Hamilton with all his ability to criticisean opponent. Clinton relied not more upon men than upon measures, andin the end the one thing that made him superior to all hiscontemporaries of the nineteenth century was a never-failing belief inthe possibility of success along lines marked out for his life's work. He had faults and he committed errors. His one great political defectfilled him with faults. He would be all or nothing. Attachment to hisinterests was the one supreme and only test of fitness for favours orfriendship, and at one time or another he quarrelled with every friendwho sought to retain independence of action. 

Just now Clinton was looking with great expectancy into the politicalfuture. From defeat in 1796 he had reached the Assembly in 1797, andthen passed to the State Senate in 1798; and from defeat in 1799 hepassed again into the Senate in 1800. Thus far his record was withoutblemish. As a lad of eighteen he sided with his uncle in the contestover the Federal Constitution; but once it became the supreme law ofthe land he gave it early and vigorous support, not even soiling hiscareer by a vote for the Kentucky resolutions. Unlike the Livingstons, he found little to commend in the controversy with Genet and theFrench, and in Jay's extra session of the Legislature he voted armsand appropriations to sustain the hands of the President and thehonour of the flag. But he condemned the trend of Federalism asunwise, unpatriotic, and dangerous to the liberty of the citizen andto the growth of the country; and with equal force he opposed theinfluence of the French Revolution, maintaining that deeds of violencewere unnecessary to startle the public into the knowledge thatsuffering exists, and that bad laws and bad social conditions resultin hunger and misery. If he had been a great orator he would havecharmed the conservatives who hated Federalism and dreaded Jacobinism. Like his uncle he spoke forcibly and with clearness, but without graceor eloquence; his writing, though correct in style and sufficientlypolished, lacked the simplicity and the happy gift of picturesquephrase which characterised the letters of so many of the public menof that day. Yet he was a noble illustration of what may beaccomplished by an indomitable will, backed by a fearless independenceand a power to dominate people in spite of antagonism of great andsuccessful rivals. 

Clinton was now only at the opening of his great career. Even at thistime his contemporaries seem to have made up their minds that he had agreat career before him, and when he and Governor Jay met as membersof the new Council of Appointment, on February 11, 1801, it was likeGreek meeting Greek. If Jay was the mildest mannered man in the State, he was also one of the firmest; and on this occasion he did nothesitate to claim the exclusive right of nomination for office as hadGovernor Clinton in 1794. Clinton, on the other hand, following thecourse pursued by Philip Schuyler, boldly and persistently claimed aconcurrent right on the part of the senatorial members. The break camewhen Jay nominated several Federalists for sheriff of Orange County, all of whom were rejected. Then Clinton made a nomination. Instead ofputting the question Jay made a further nomination, on which theCouncil refused to vote. This ended the session. Jay asked for time toconsider, and never again convened the Council; but two days later hesent a message to the Assembly, reviewing the situation and asking itsadvice. He also requested the opinion of the Chancellor and theSupreme Court Judges. The Assembly replied that it was aconstitutional question for the Governor and the Council; the Judgesdeclined to express an opinion on the ground that it wasextra-judicial. Three weeks later Clinton, Spencer, and Roseboomreported to the Assembly, with some show of bitterness, that they hadsimply followed the precedent of Egbert Benson's appointment to theSupreme Court in 1794, an appointment, it will be remembered, whichwas made on the nomination of Philip Schuyler and confirmed, over theprotest of Governor Clinton, by a majority of the Council. 

Jay's failure to reconvene the Council seemed to gratify Clinton--if, indeed, his action had not been deliberately taken to provoke theGovernor into such a course. Appointments made under such conditionscould scarcely satisfy an ambitious leader who had friends to reward;and, besides, the election of a new governor in the following monthwould enable him to appoint a corps of men willing to do the biddingof their new master. On the other hand, Governor Jay closed hisofficial career as he began it. His first address to the Legislaturediscovered an intention of adhering to the dogmas of civil service, and so far as directly responsible he seems to have maintained theprinciple of dismissing no one for political reasons. 

The closing days of Jay's public life included an act for the gradualabolition of domestic slavery. It cannot be called an importantfeature of his administration, since Jay was entitled to little creditfor bringing it about. Although he had been a friend of emancipation, and as president of an anti-slavery society had characterised slaveryas an evil of "criminal dye, " his failure to recommend emancipation inhis messages emphasises the suggestion that he was governed by thefear of its influence upon his future political career. However thismay be, it is certain that he resigned the presidency of the abolitionsociety at the moment of his aroused ambition immediately precedinghis nomination for governor in 1792. His son explains that the peopleof the State did not favour abolition; yet the reform apparentlyneeded only the vigorous assistance of the Governor, for in 1798 ameasure similar to the act of 1799 failed in the Assembly only by thecasting vote of the chairman in committee of the whole. 

One thing, though, may be assumed, that a man so animated by highprinciples as John Jay must have felt amply justified in taking thecourse he did. Of all distinguished New Yorkers in the formativeperiod of the government, John Jay, perhaps, possessed in fullestmeasure the resplendent gifts that immortalise Hamilton. Nevertheless, it was the purity of his life, the probity of his actions, theexcellence of his public purposes, that commended him to theaffectionate regard of everybody. "It was never said of him, " wroteJohn Quincy Adams, "that he had a language official and a languageconfidential. " During a political career of eight and twenty years, ifhe ever departed from the highest ideal of an irreproachableuprightness of character, it is not of record. His work wascriticised, often severely, at times justly, but his character forhonesty and goodness continued to the end without blemish. 

It is difficult to say in what field Jay did the best work. Heexcelled in whatever he undertook. He had poise, forcefulness, moderation, moral earnestness, and mental clearness. Whether at homeor abroad the country knew his abiding place; for his well-doingmarked his whereabouts as plainly as smoke on a prairie indicates thepresence of a camp. He has been called the draftsman of theContinental Congress, the constitution-maker of New York, thenegotiator of the peace treaty, and dictator under the Confederation, and he came very near being all that such designations imply. In aword, it may be said that what George Washington was in the field, incouncil, and as President, John Jay was in legislative halls, indiplomatic circles, and as a jurist. 

The crowning act of his life was undoubtedly the peace treaty of 1783. But great as was this diplomatic triumph he lived long enough torealise that the failure to include Canada within the young Republic'sdomain was ground for just criticism. In his note to Richard Oswald, preliminary to any negotiations, Franklin suggested the cession ofCanada in token "of a durable peace and a sweet reconciliation, "having in mind England's desire that loyalists in America be restoredto their rights. This was one of the three essentials to peace, and tomeet it Franklin's note proposed that compensation be paid theseloyalists out of the sale of Canada's public lands. Subsequentrevelations made it fairly certain that had such cession, with itsconcessions to the loyalists, been firmly pressed, Canada would havebecome American territory. Why it was not urged remains a secret. There is no evidence that Franklin ever brought his suggestion toOswald to the attention of Jay, [118] but it is a source of deep regretthat Jay's profound sagacity did not include a country whose existenceas a foreign colony on our northern border has given rise to continuedembarrassment. The feeling involuntarily possesses one that he, whoowned the nerve to stop all negotiations until Englishman and Americanmet on equal terms as the representatives of equal nations, and daredto break the specific instructions of Congress when he believed Francefavoured confining the United States between the Atlantic and theAlleghanies, would have had the temerity to take Canada, had the greatforesight been his to discern the irritating annoyances to which itsindependence would subject us. 

[Footnote 118: "Mr. Oswald returned to Paris on the fourth of May(1782), having been absent sixteen days; during which Dr. Franklininformed each of his colleagues of what had occurred--Mr. Jay, atMadrid, Mr. Adams, in Holland--Mr. Laurens, on parole, inLondon. "--James Parton, _Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin_, Vol. 2, p. 461. Franklin wrote to Adams and Laurens on April 20, suggestingthat he had "hinted that, if England should make us a voluntary offerof Canada, expressly for that purpose, it might have a good effect. "_Works of Franklin_ (Sparks), Vol. 9, pp. 253-256. But his letter toJay simply urged the latter's coming to Paris at once. _Works ofFranklin_ (Bigelow), Vol. 8, p. 48. Also, _Works of Franklin_(Sparks), Vol. 9, p. 254. ]

Jay's brief tenure of the chief-justiceship of the United StatesSupreme Court gave little opportunity to test his real ability as ajurist. The views expressed by him pending the adoption andratification of the Federal Constitution characterised his judicialinterpretation of that instrument, and he lived long enough to see hisdoctrine well established that "government proceeds directly from thepeople, and is ordained and established in the name of the people. "His distinguishing trait as chief justice was the capacity toconfront, wisely and successfully, the difficulties of any situationby his own unaided powers of mind, but it is doubtful if the Court, under his continued domination, would have acquired the strength andpublic confidence given it by John Marshall. Jay believed that "undera system so defective it would not obtain the energy, weight, anddignity essential to its affording due support to the generalgovernment. " This was one reason for his declining to return to theoffice after he ceased to be governor; he felt his inability toaccomplish what the Court must establish, if the United Statescontinued to grow into a world power. Under these circumstances, itwas well, perhaps, that he gave place to John Marshall, who made it agreat, supporting pillar, strong enough to resist state supremacy onthe one side, and a disregard of the rights of States on the other;but Jay did more than enough to confirm the wisdom of Washington, whodeclared that in making the appointment he exercised his "bestjudgment. "

CHAPTER XI

SPOILS AND BROILS OF VICTORY

1801-1803

John Jay, tired of public life, now sought his Westchester farm toenjoy the rest of an honourable retirement, leaving the race forgovernor in April, 1801, to Stephen Van Rensselaer. On the other hand, George Clinton, accepting the Republican nomination, got onto hisgouty legs and made the greatest run of his life. [119] Outside of NewEngland, Federalism had become old-fashioned in a year. FollowingJefferson's sweeping social success, men abandoned knee breeches andbecame democratic in garb as well as in thought. Henceforth, New YorkFederalists were to get nothing except through bargains and anoccasional capture of the Council of Appointment. 

[Footnote 119: George Clinton, 24, 808; Stephen Van Rensselaer, 20, 843. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

The election of George Clinton gave the party of Jefferson entirecontrol of the State. It had the governor, the Legislature, and theCouncil of Appointment. It only remained to empower the Council tonominate as well as to confirm, and the boss system, begun in 1794, would have the sanction of law. For this purpose delegates, elected bythe people, met at Albany on the 13th of October, 1801, and organiseda constitutional convention by the election of Aaron Burr aspresident. Fortune had thus far been very good to Burr. At forty-fivehe stood one step only below the highest place in the nation, and nowby a unanimous vote he became president of the second constitutionalconvention of the Empire State. His position was certainly imposing, but when the convention declared, as it did, that each member of theCouncil had the right to nominate as well as to confirm, Burr sealedDeWitt Clinton's power to overthrow and humiliate him. 

In its uncompromising character DeWitt Clinton's dislike of Burrresembled Hamilton's, although for entirely different reasons. Hamilton thought him a dangerous man, guided neither by patriotism norprinciple, who might at any moment throttle constitutional governmentand set up a dictatorship after the manner of Napoleon. Clinton'shostility arose from the jealousy of an ambitious rival who saw noroom in New York for two Republican bosses. Accordingly, when theCouncil, which Jay had refused to reassemble, reconvened under thesummons of Governor Clinton, it quickly disclosed the policy ofdestroying Burr and satisfying the Livingstons. [120] PresidentJefferson had already sent the Chancellor to France, and theLegislature had made John Armstrong, his brother-in-law, a UnitedStates senator. But enough of the Chancellor's family remained to fillother important offices, and the Council made Edward, a brother, mayorof New York; Thomas Tillotson, a brother-in-law, secretary of state;Morgan Lewis, a fourth brother-in-law, chief justice, and BrockholstLivingston, a cousin, justice of the Supreme Court. 

[Footnote 120: "Young DeWitt Clinton and his friend Ambrose Spencercontrolled this Council, and they were not persons who affectedscruple in matters of political self-interest. They swept theFederalists out of every office even down to that of auctioneer, andwithout regard to appearances, even against the protests of theGovernor, installed their own friends and family connections inpower. "--Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 228, 229. "DeWitt Clinton was hardly less responsible than Burr himself forlowering the standard of New York politics, and indirectly that of thenation. "--_Ibid. _, p. 112. ]

Out of the spoils that remained, and there was an abundance, DeWittClinton and Ambrose Spencer helped themselves; and then they dividedthe balance between their relatives and supporters. Sylvanus Miller, an ardent and lifelong friend of the former, became surrogate of NewYork; Elisha Jenkins, who deserted the Federalists in company withSpencer, took John V. Henry's place as state comptroller; RichardRiker, the friend and second of Clinton in his famous duel with JohnSwartout, became district attorney in place of Cadwallader D. Colden, a worthy grandson of "Old Silver Locks, " the distinguished coloniallieutenant-governor; John McKisson, a protégé of Spencer, took theclerkship of the Circuit Court from William Coleman, subsequently thebrilliant editor of the _Evening Post_, established by Jay andHamilton; and William Stewart, a brother-in-law of George Clinton, displaced Nathan W. Howell as assistant attorney-general. Thus thework of the political guillotine went on. It took sheriffs andsurrogates; it spared neither county clerks nor justices of the peace;it left not a mayor of a city, nor a judge of a county. Even theresidence of an appointee did not control. Sylvanus Miller of Ulsterwas made surrogate of New York with as much disregard of the people'swishes as Ruggles Hubbard of Rensselaer, who had visited the city buttwice and knew nothing of its people or its life, was afterward madeits sheriff. 

When Clinton and Spencer finished their work a single Federalist, Josiah Ogden Hoffman, the attorney-general, remained in office, and hesurvived only until Ambrose Spencer could take his place. Soonafterward Spencer was advanced to the Supreme Court in place of JacobRadcliff, a promotion that filled Federalists with the greatest alarm. Looking back upon the distinguished career of Chief Justice Spencer, it seems strange, almost ridiculous, in fact, that his appointment tothe bench should have given rise to such fears; but Spencer had beenthe rudest, most ferocious opponent of all. The Federalists wereafraid of him because they believed with William P. Van Ness, theyoung friend of Burr, that he was "governed by no principles orfeelings except those which avarice and unprincipled ambitioninspired. "[121] Van Ness wrote with a pen dipped in gall, yet, ifcontemporary criticism be accepted, he did not exaggerate the feelingentertained for Spencer by the Federalists of that day. Like DeWittClinton, he was a bad hater, often insolent, sometimes haughty, andalways arbitrary. After he left the Federalist party and became amember of the celebrated Council of 1801, he seemed over-zealous inhis support of the men he had recently persecuted, and unnecessarilysevere in his treatment of former associates. "The animosity of theapostate, " said Van Ness, "cannot be controlled. Savage andrelentless, he thirsts for vengeance. Such is emphatically the temperof Ambrose Spencer, who, after his conversion, was introduced to aseat in the Legislature, by his new friends, for the express purposeof perplexing and persecuting his old ones. "[122] Spencer never gotover being a violent partisan, but he was an impartial, honest judge. The strength of his intellect no one disputed, and if his politicalaffiliations seemed to warp his judgment in affairs of state, it wasnone the less impartial and enlightened when brought to bear ondifficult questions of law. 

[Footnote 121: _Letters of "Aristides"_, p. 42. ]

[Footnote 122: _Letters of "Aristides"_, p. 42. ]

The timely resignation of John Armstrong from the United States Senatemade room for DeWitt Clinton, who, however, a year later, resigned thesenatorship to become mayor of New York. The inherent strength of theUnited States Senate rested, then as now, upon its constitutionalendowment, but the small body of men composing it, havingcomparatively little to do and doing that little by general assent, with no record of their debates, evidently did not appreciate that itwas the most powerful single chamber in any legislative body in theworld. It is doubtful if the framers of the Constitution recognisedthe enormous power they had given it. Certainly DeWitt Clinton and hisresigning colleagues did not appreciate that the combination of itslegislative, executive, and judicial functions would one daypractically dominate the Executive and the Congress, for the reasonthat its members are the constitutional advisers of the President, without whose assent no bill can become a law, no office can befilled, no officer of the government impeached, and no treaty madeoperative. 

In taking leave of the United States Senate, Clinton probably gavelittle thought to the character of the place, whether it was a step upor a step down to the mayoralty. Just then he was engaged in thepolitical annihilation of Aaron Burr, and he felt the necessity ofentering the latter's stronghold to deprive him of influence. Out ofsix or seven thousand appointments made by the Council of Appointmentnot a friend of Aaron Burr got so much as the smallest crumb from thewell-filled table. Even Burr himself, and his friend, John Swartout, were forced from the directorate of the Manhattan Bank that Burr hadorganised. "With astonishment, " wrote William P. Van Ness, "it wasobserved that no man, however virtuous, however unspotted his life orhis fame, could be advanced to the most unimportant appointment, unless he would submit to abandon all intercourse with Mr. Burr, vowopposition to his elevation, and like a feudal vassal pledge hispersonal services to traduce his character and circulateslander. "[123]

[Footnote 123: _Letters of "Aristides"_, p. 69. ]

Governor Clinton feebly opposed this wholesale slaughter by refusingto sign the minutes of the Council and by making written protestsagainst its methods; but greater emphasis would doubtless have availedno more, since the constitutional convention had reduced the governorto the merest figurehead. His one vote out of five limited the extentof his prerogative. Power existed in the combine only, and so well didDeWitt Clinton control that when the famous Council of 1801 hadfinished its work nothing remained for succeeding Councils to do untilClinton, the prototype of the party boss, returned in 1806 to crushthe Livingstons. 

Occasionally a decapitated office-holder fiercely resented theCouncil's action, and, to make it sting the more, complimented theGovernor for his patriotic and unselfish opposition. John V. Henryevidenced his disgust by ever after declining public office, thoughhis party had opportunities of recognising his great ability andrewarding his fidelity. Ebenezer Foote, a bright lawyer, who took hisremoval from the clerkship of Delaware County very much to heart, opened fire on Ambrose Spencer, charging him with base and unworthymotives in separating from the Federalists. To this Spencer repliedwith characteristic rhetoric. "Your removal was an act of justice tothe public, inasmuch as the veriest hypocrite and the most malignantvillain in the State was deprived of the power of perpetuatingmischief. If, as you insinuate, your interests have by your removalbeen materially affected, then, sir, like many men more honest thanyourself, earn your bread by the sweat of your brow. "[124]

[Footnote 124: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 1, p. 177. ]

At Washington, Jefferson had rewarded friends as openly as DeWittClinton took care of them in Albany. In telling the story, James A. Bayard of Delaware produced an oratorical sensation in the House ofRepresentatives. "And now, sir, let me ask the honourable gentleman, "said the congressman, in reply to William Giles' defence of theVirginia President, "what his reflections and belief will be when heobserves that every man on whose vote the event of Mr. Jefferson'selection hung has since been distinguished by presidential favour. Mr. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina was one of the most active, efficient and successful promoters of the election of the presentchief magistrate, and he has since been appointed ministerplenipotentiary to the court of Madrid--an appointment as high andhonourable as any within the gift of the Executive. I know what wasthe value of the vote of Mr. Claiborne of Tennessee; the vote of aState was in his hands. Mr. Claiborne has since been raised to thehigh dignity of governor of the Mississippi Territory. I know howgreat, and how greatly felt, was the importance of the vote of Mr. Linn of New Jersey. The delegation of the State consists of fivemembers; two of the delegation were decidedly for Mr. Jefferson, twowere decidedly for Mr. Burr. Mr. Linn was considered as inclining toone side, but still doubtful; both parties looked up to him for thevote of New Jersey. He gave it to Mr. Jefferson; and Mr. Linn hassince had the profitable office of supervisor of his districtconferred upon him. Mr. Lyon of Vermont was in this instance animportant man; he neutralised the vote of Vermont; his absence alonewould have given the State to Mr. Burr. It was too much to give anoffice to Mr. Lyon; his character was low; but Mr. Lyon's son has beenhandsomely provided for in one of the executive offices. I shall addto the catalogue but the name of one more gentleman, Mr. EdwardLivingston of New York. I knew well--full well I knew--the consequenceof this gentleman. His means were not limited to his own vote; nay, Ialways considered more than the vote of New York within his power. Mr. Livingston has been made the attorney for the district of New York;the road of preferment has been opened to him, and his brother hasbeen raised to the distinguished place of minister plenipotentiary tothe French Republic. "[125]

[Footnote 125: Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 294-5. ]

Albert Gallatin, Jefferson's secretary of the treasury, thought Burrless selfish than either the Clintons or the Livingstons, and, on thescore of office-seeking, Gallatin was probably correct. But Burr, ifwithout relatives, had several devoted friends whom he pressed forappointment, among them John Swartout for marshal, Daniel Gelston forcollector, Theodorus Bailey for naval officer, and Matthew L. Davisfor supervisor. Swartout succeeded, but DeWitt Clinton, getting windof the scheme, entered an heroic protest to Jefferson, who quicklyconcurred in Clinton's wishes without so much as a conference withGallatin or Burr. The latter, hearing rumours of the secretunderstanding, sent a sharp letter to Gallatin, pressing Davis'appointment on the ground of good faith, with a threat that he wouldno longer be trifled with; but Gallatin was helpless as well asignorant, and the President silent. Davis' journey to Monticellodeveloped nothing but Jefferson's insincerity, and on his return toNew York the press laughed at his credulity. 

This ended Burr's pretended loyalty to the Administration. On hisreturn to Washington, in January, 1802, he quietly watched hisopportunity, and two weeks later gave the casting vote which sentJefferson's pet measure, the repeal of the judiciary act of 1801, to aselect committee for delay, instead of to the President for approval. Soon after, at a Federalist banquet celebrating Washington's birthday, Burr proposed the toast, "The union of all honest men. " This was thefatal stab. The country didn't understand it, but to Jefferson and theClintons it meant all that Burr intended, and from that moment DeWittClinton's newspaper, the _American Citizen and Watchtower_, owned byhis cousin and edited by James Cheetham, an English refugee, took upthe challenge thus thrown down, and began its famous attack upon theVice President. 

Burr's conduct during those momentous weeks when Federalists did theirutmost to make him President, gave his rivals ample ground forcreating the belief that he had evidenced open contempt for theprinciples of honest dealing. Had he published a letter after theFederalists decided to support him, condemning their policy as aconspiracy to deprive the people of their choice for President, andrefusing to accept an election at their hands if tendered him, it musthave disarmed his critics and smoothed his pathway to furtherpolitical preferment; but his failure so to act, coupled with hiswell-known behaviour and the activity of his friends, gave opponentsan advantage that skill and ability were insufficient to overcome. 

James Cheetham handled his pen like a bludgeon. Even at this distanceof time Cheetham's "View of Aaron Burr's Political Conduct, " in whichis traced the Vice President's alleged intrigues to promote himselfover Jefferson, is interesting and exciting. Despite its bittersarcasm and torrent of vituperation, Cheetham's array of facts anddates, the designation of persons and places, and the bold assumptionsbased on apparent knowledge, backed by foot-notes that promisedabsolute proof if denial were made, impress one strongly. There ismuch that is weak, much that is only suspicion, much that is fanciful. A visit to an uncle in Connecticut, a call upon the governor of RhodeIsland, a communication sent under cover to another, letters incipher, pleasant notices in Federalist newspapers, a journey ofTimothy Green to South Carolina--all these belong to the realm ofinference; but the method of blending them with well established factswas so artful, the writer's sincerity so apparent, and the strokes ofthe pen so bold and positive, that it is easy to understand the effectwhich Cheetham's accusation, taken up and ceaselessly repeated byother papers, would have upon the political fortunes of Burr. 

Nevertheless the Vice President remained silent. He did not feel, orseem to feel, newspaper criticism with the acuteness of a sensitivenature trying to do right. "They are so utterly lost on me that Ishould never have seen even this, " he wrote Theodosia, "but that itcame inclosed to me in a letter from New York. " Still Cheetham kepthis battery at work. After his "Narrative" came the "View, " and then, in 1803, "Nine Letters on the Subject of Burr's Defection, " a heaviervolume, a sort of siege-gun, brought up to penetrate an epidermisheretofore apparently impregnable. Finally, the Albany _Register_ tookup the matter, followed by other Republican papers, until theirpurpose to drive the grandson of Jonathan Edwards from the party couldno longer be mistaken. [126]

[Footnote 126: "All the world knew that not Cheetham, but DeWittClinton, thus dragged the Vice President from his chair, and that notBurr's vices but his influence made his crimes heinous; that behindDeWitt Clinton stood the Virginia dynasty, dangling Burr's office inthe eyes of the Clinton family, and lavishing honours and money on theLivingstons. All this was as clear to Burr and his friends as thoughit was embodied in an Act of Congress. "--Henry Adams, _History of theUnited States_, Vol. 1, pp. 331, 332. ]

Burr's coterie of devoted friends so understood it, and when thegentle Peter Irving, whose younger brother was helping the newlyestablished _Chronicle_ into larger circulation by his JonathanOldstyle essays, showed an indisposition as editor of the Burritepaper to vituperate and lampoon in return, William P. Van Ness, thefamous and now historic "Aristides, " appeared in the politicalfirmament with the suddenness and brilliancy of a comet that dims thelight of stars. 

Van Ness coupled real literary ability with political audacity, putting Cheetham's fancy flights and inferences to sleep as if theywere babes in the woods. It was quickly seen that Cheetham was nomatch for him. He had neither the finish nor the venom. Compared tothe sentences of "Aristides, " as polished and attractive as they werebitter and ill-tempered, Cheetham's periods seemed coarse and tame. The letters of Junius did not make themselves felt in Englishpolitical life more than did this pamphlet in the political circles ofNew York. It was novel, it was brilliantly able, and it drove theknife deeper and surer than its predecessors. What Taine, the greatFrench writer, said of Junius might with equal truth be said of"Aristides, " that if he made his phrases and selected his epithets, itwas not from the love of style, but in order the better to stamp hisinsult. No one knew then, nor until long afterward, who "Aristides"was--not even Cheetham could pierce the _incognito_; but every oneknew that upon him the full mind of Aaron Burr had unloaded a volumeof information respecting men, their doings and sayings, whichenriched the work and made his rhetoric an instrument of torture. Itbristled with history and character sketches. Whatever the VicePresident knew, or thought he knew, was poured into those eighty pageswith a staggering fulness and disregard of consequences that startledthe political world and captivated all lovers of the brilliant andsensational in literature. Confidences were revealed, conversationsmade public, quarrels uncovered, political secrets given up, and thegossip of Council and Legislature churned into a story that pleasedevery one. What Hamilton's attack on Adams did for Federalists, "Aristides'" reply to Cheetham did for the Republicans; but the latterwrote with a ferocity unknown to the pages of the great Federalist'sunfortunate letter. 

"Aristides" struck at everybody and missed no one. The Governor "hasdwindled into the mere instrument of an ambitious relative;"Tillotson was "a contemptible shuffling apothecary, without ingenuityor devise, or spirit to pursue any systematic plan of iniquity;"Richard Riker was "an imbecile and obsequious pettifogger, a vain andcontemptible little pest, who abandoned the Federal standard on thethird day of the election, in April, 1800;" John McKisson, "anexecrable compound of every species of vice, " was the man whom Clinton"exultingly declared a great scoundrel. " The attack thus daringlybegun was steadily maintained. Ambrose Spencer was "a man asnotoriously infamous as the legitimate offspring of treachery andfraud can possibly be;" Samuel Osgood, "a born hypocrite, propagatedfalsehood for the purpose of slander and imposition;" ChancellorLivingston, "a capricious, visionary theorist, " was "lamentablydeficient in the practical knowledge of a politician, and heedless ofimportant and laborious pursuits, at which his frivolous mindrevolted. "

The greatest interest of the pamphlet, however, began when"Aristides, " taking up the cause of Burr, struck at higher game thanRichard Riker or Ambrose Spencer. DeWitt Clinton was portrayed as"formed for mischief, " "inflated with vanity, " "cruel by nature, " "anobject of derision and disgust, " "a dissolute and desperateintriguer, " "an adept in moral turpitude, skilled in all thecombination of treachery and fraud, with a mind matured by thepractice of iniquity, and unalloyed with any virtuous principle. " "Wasit not disgraceful to political controversy, " continues "Aristides, "with an audacity of denunciation and sternness of animosity, "I woulddevelop the dark and gloomy disorders of his malignant bosom, andtrace each convulsive vibration of his wicked heart. He may justly beranked among those, who, though destitute of sound understandings, arestill rendered dangerous to society by the intrinsic baseness ofcharacter that engenders hatred to everything good and valuable in theworld; who, with barbarous malignity, view the prevalence of moralprinciples, and the extension of benevolent designs; who, foes tovirtue, seek the subversion of every valuable institution, andmeditate the introduction of wild and furious disorders among thesupporters of public virtue. His intimacy with men who have long sincedisowned all regard to decency and have become the daring advocates ofevery species of atrocity; his indissoluble connection with those, who, by their lives, have become the finished examples of profligacyand corruption; who have sworn enmity, severe and eternal, to thealtar of our religion and the prosperity of our government, mustinfallibly exclude him from the confidence of reputable men. Whatsentiments can be entertained for him, but those of hatred andcontempt, when he is seen the constant associate of a man whose namehas become synonymous with vice, a dissolute and fearless assassin ofprivate character, of domestic comfort, and of social happiness; whenhe is known to be the bosom friend and supporter of the profligate andabandoned libertine, who, from the vulgar debauches of night, hastensagain to the invasion of private property. Who, through the robbery ofthe public revenue, and the violation of private seals, hurries downthe precipice of deep and desperate villainy. "

This parting shot at Cheetham penetrated the most secret corners ofprivate life, and leaves an impression that Cicero's denunciation ofCatiline had delighted the youth of "Aristides. " It would be fruitlessto attempt the separation of the truth from the undeserved reproachesof Van Ness, but at the end of the discussion, Burr's character hadnot benefited. However unscrupulous and selfish the Clintons and theLivingstons might be, Burr's unprincipled conduct was fixed in themind of his party, not by Cheetham's indulgence in fancy andinference, but by the well known and well established facts ofhistory, which no rhetoric could wipe out, and no denunciationstrengthen. 

In the days of the duello such a war of words could hardly go on fortwo or three years without a resort to the pistol. Cheetham's pen hadstirred up the tongues of men who resented charge with countercharge, and the high spirited United States marshal, John Swartout, the onlyfriend of Burr in office, was quick to declare that DeWitt Clinton'sopposition to the Vice President was based upon unworthy and selfishmotives. Clinton answered promptly and passionately. The Governor'snephew displayed a fondness for indulging the use of epithets even inmature years, after he had quarrelled with William L. Marcy and MartinVan Buren. In those calmer days when age is supposed to bring a desirefor peace, he was accustomed to call Erastus Root "a bad man, " SamuelYoung "much of an imbecile, " Marcy "a scoundrel, " and Van Buren "theprince of villains. " Just now, however, Clinton was younger, onlythirty-two years old, about the age of Swartout, and on hearing of thelatter's criticism he trebled his epithets, pronouncing him "a liar, ascoundrel and a villain. " Swartout quickly demanded a retraction, which Clinton declined unless the Marshal first withdrew his offensivewords. Thereupon, the latter sent a challenge, and Clinton, calling inhis friend, Richard Riker, the district attorney, met his adversarythe next day at Weehawken and exchanged three shots without effect. Onthe fourth Clinton's bullet struck Swartout's left leg just below theknee, and while the surgeon was cutting it out, the Marshal renewedhis demand for an apology. Clinton still refused, although expressingentire willingness to shake hands and drop the matter. On the fifthshot, the Marshal caught Clinton's ball in the same leg just above theankle. Still standing steadily at his post and perfectly composed, Swartout demanded further satisfaction; but Clinton, tired of fillinghis antagonist with lead, declined to shoot again and left the field. In the gossip following the duel, Riker reported Clinton as saying inthe course of the contest, "I wish I had the principal here. "[127] Theprincipal, of course, was Burr, to whose house the wounded Swartoutwas taken. "No one ever explained, " says Henry Adams, [128] "why Burrdid not drag DeWitt Clinton from his ambush and shoot him, as twoyears later he shot Alexander Hamilton with less provocation. "

[Footnote 127: Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 332. ]

[Footnote 128: _Ibid. _, 332. 

Writing to Henry Post of the duel, Clinton (using the name, "Clinton, "instead of the pronoun "I") said: "The affair of the duel ought not tobe brought up. It was a silly affair. Clinton ought to have declinedthe challenge of the bully, and have challenged the principal, who wasBurr. There were five shots, the antagonist wounded twice, and fell. C. Behaved with cool courage, and after the affair was over challengedBurr on the field. "--_Harper's Magazine_, Vol. 50, p. 565. "HowClinton should have challenged Burr on the field, " writes JohnBigelow, in _Harper's New Monthly Magazine_ for May, 1875, "withoutits resulting in a meeting is not quite intelligible to us now. Thoughnot much given to the redress of personal grievances in that way, Burrwas the last man to leave a hostile message from an adversary likeClinton, then a Senator of the United States, unanswered. "]

Out of this quarrel grew another, in which Robert Swartout, John'syounger brother, fought Riker, wounding him severely. William Colemanof the _Evening Post_, in letting fly some poisoned arrows, also gottangled up with Cheetham. "Lie on Duane, lie on for pay, and Cheetham, lie thou too; more against truth you cannot say, than truth can say'gainst you. " The spicy epigrams ended in a challenge, but Cheethammade such haste to adjust matters that a report got abroad of hishaving shown the white feather. Harbour-Master Thompson, an appointeeof Clinton, now championed Cheetham's cause, declaring that Colemanhad weakened. Immediately the young editor sent him a challenge, and, without much ado, they fought on the outskirts of the city, now thefoot of Twenty-first Street, in the twilight of a cold winter day, exchanging two shots without effect. Meantime, the growing darknesscompelled the determined combatants to move closer together, and atthe next shot Thompson, mortally wounded, fell forward into thesnow. [129]

[Footnote 129: "Thompson was brought, " says William Cullen Bryant in_Reminiscences of the Evening Post_, "to his sister's house in town;he was laid at the door; the bell was rung; the family came out andfound him bleeding and near his death. He refused to name hisantagonist, or give any account of the affair, declaring thateverything which had been done was honourably done, and desired thatno attempt should be made to seek out or molest his adversary. "]

CHAPTER XII

DEFEAT OF BURR AND DEATH OF HAMILTON

1804

The campaign for governor in 1804 was destined to become historic. Burr was driven from his party; George Clinton, ambitious to becomeVice President, declined re-election;[130] and the Federalists, beateninto a disunited minority, refused to put up a candidate. Thisapparently left the field wide open to John Lansing, with John Broomefor lieutenant-governor. 

[Footnote 130: "DeWitt Clinton was annoyed at his uncle's conduct, andtried to prevent the withdrawal by again calling Jefferson to his aidand alarming him with fear of Burr. But the President declined tointerfere. No real confidence ever existed between Jefferson and theClintons. "--Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, pp. 173, 174. ]

For many years the Lansing family had been prominent in the affairs ofthe State and influential in the councils of their party. TheChancellor, some years younger than Livingston, a large, handsome, modest man, was endowed with a remarkable capacity for public life. The story of his career is a story of rugged manhood and a tragic, mysterious death. He rose by successive steps to be mayor of Albany, member of the Assembly of which he was twice speaker, member ofCongress under the Confederation, judge and chief justice of theSupreme Court, and finally chancellor. Indeed, so long as he did thebidding of the Clintons he kept rising; but the independence thatearly characterised his action at Philadelphia in 1787 and atPoughkeepsie in 1788 became more and more pronounced, until itseparated him at last from the faction that had steadily given himsupport. Perhaps his nearest approach to a splendid virtue was hisstubborn independence. Whether this characteristic, amounting almostto stoical indifference, led to his murder is now a sealed secret. Allthat we know of his death is, that he left the hotel, where he livedin New York, to mail a letter on the steamer for Albany, and was neverafterward seen. That he was murdered comes from the lips of ThurlowWeed, who was intrusted with the particulars, but who died with thesecret untold. Lansing disappeared in 1829 and Weed died in 1882, yet, after the lapse of half a century, the latter did not feel justifiedin disclosing what had come to him as a sort of father confessor, years after the tragedy. "While it is true that the parties are beyondthe reach of human tribunals and of public opinion, " he said, "yetothers immediately associated with them, and sharing in the stronginducement which prompted the crime, survive, occupying high positionsand enjoying public confidence. To these persons, should my proof besubmitted, public attention would be irresistibly drawn. "[131]

[Footnote 131: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 35. ]

Lansing had the instinct, equipment, and training for a chancellor. Ithas been truly said of him that he seemed to have no delights off thebench except in such things as in some way related to the businessupon it. He had the unwearied application of Kent, coupled with theability to master the most difficult details, and, although he lackedLivingston's culture, he was as resolute, and, perhaps, as restlessand suspicious; but it is doubtful if he possessed the trainedsagacity, the native shrewdness, and the diplomatic zeal to havenegotiated the Louisiana treaty. Lansing began the study of law in1774, and from that moment was wedded to its principles and constantin his devotions. His mysterious murder must have been caused by anirresistible longing to trace things to their source, bringing intohis possession knowledge of some missing link or defective title, which would throw a great property away from its owner, but which, byhis death, would again be buried from the ken of men. This, of course, is only surmise; but Weed indicates that property prompted the crime, and that the heirs of the murderer profited by it. Lansing was in hisseventy-sixth year when the fatal blow came, yet so vigorous that oldage had not set its seal upon him. 

In 1804 Lansing hesitated to exchange the highest place on the bench, which would continue until the age limit set him aside in 1814, for apolitical office that would probably end in three years; but hefinally consented upon representations that he alone could unite hisparty. Scarcely, however, had his name been announced before a caucusof Republican legislators named Aaron Burr, with Oliver Phelps ofOntario for lieutenant-governor--nominations quickly ratified atpublic meetings in New York and Albany. Among Burr's most conspicuouschampions were Erastus Root of Delaware, James Burt of Orange, PeterB. Porter of Ontario, and Marinus Willett of New York. 

If it is surprising that these astute and devoted friends did notappreciate, in some measure, at least, the extent to which popularesteem had been withdrawn from their favourite, it is most astonishingthat Burr himself did not recognise the strength of theClinton-Livingston-Spencer machine as it existed in 1804. Its managerswere skilled masters of the political art, confident of success, fearless of criticism, unscrupulous in methods, and indefatigable inattention to details. They controlled the Council of Appointment, itsappointees controlled the Assembly, and the Assembly elected theCouncil, an endless chain of links, equally strong and equallyselfish. To make opposition the more fruitless, the distrust of Burr, hammered into the masses by Cheetham's pen, practically amounted to aforfeiture of party confidence. One cannot conceive a more inopportunetime for Burr to have challenged a test of strength, yet Lansing'sselection had hardly sounded in the people's ears before Burr's"Little Band, " burning with indignation and resentment at histreatment, gathered about the tables in the old Tontine Coffee Houseat Albany and launched him as an independent candidate. 

Rarely has a candidate for governor encountered greater odds; but withBurr, as afterward with DeWitt Clinton, it was now or never. In one ofhis dramas Schiller mourns over the man who stakes reputation, health, everything upon success--and no success in the end. Even Robert Yates, the coalition candidate in 1789, started with the support of aFederalist machine and the powerful backing of Hamilton. But in 1804Burr found himself without a party, without a machine, and bitterlyopposed by Hamilton. 

When the sceptre passed from Federalist to Republican in 1801, Hamilton gave himself to his profession with renewed zeal, earningfifteen thousand dollars a year, and a reputation as a lawyer scarcelysurpassed by Daniel Webster. "In creative power Hamilton wasinfinitely Webster's superior, " says Chief Justice Ambrose Spencer, before whom both had practised. [132] Erastus Root, possibly lookingthrough the eyes of Theodosia, thought Burr not inferior to Hamiltonas a lawyer, although other contemporaries who knew Burr at his best, regarded him as an indefatigable, tireless, adroit lawyer rather thana profound and learned one. This put him in a different class fromHamilton. As well might one compare Offenbach with Mozart as Burr withHamilton. 

[Footnote 132: H. C. Lodge, _Life of Alexander Hamilton_, pp. 276-7. ]

Hamilton journeyed to Albany in February, 1804, to argue the case ofHarry Croswell, so celebrated and historic because of Hamilton'sargument. Croswell, the editor of the _Balance_, a Federalistnewspaper published at Hudson, had been convicted of libellingPresident Jefferson. Chief Justice Lewis, before whom the case wasoriginally tried, declined to permit the defendant to prove the truthof the alleged libel. To this point, in his argument for a new trial, Hamilton addressed himself, contending that the English doctrine wasat variance with common sense, common justice, and the genius ofAmerican institutions. "I have always considered General Hamilton'sargument in this cause, " said his great contemporary, Chancellor Kent, "as the greatest forensic effort he ever made. He had come preparedto discuss the points of law with a perfect mastery of the subject. Hebelieved that the rights and liberties of the people were essentiallyconcerned. There was an unusual solemnity and earnestness on his partin this discussion. He was at times highly impassioned and pathetic. His whole soul was enlisted in the cause, and in contending for therights of the jury and a free press, he considered that he wasestablishing the surest refuge against oppression. He never before inmy hearing made any effort in which he commanded higher reverence forhis principles, nor equal admiration of the power and pathos of hiseloquence. "[133] Such a profound impression did his argument make, that, although the Court declined to depart from the settled rule ofthe common law, the Legislature subsequently passed a statuteauthorising the truth to be given in evidence, and the jury to be thejudges of the law as well as of the facts in libel cases. 

[Footnote 133: H. C. Lodge, _Life of Alexander Hamilton_, pp. 240-1. ]

It was during the argument of this case at Albany that Hamilton, joining his Federalist friends at Lewis' Tavern, gave his reasons forpreferring Chancellor Lansing to Aaron Burr for governor. There wassomething new in these reasons. In 1801 he preferred Jefferson to Burrbecause the latter, as he wrote Gouverneur Morris, "has no principles, public or private; could be bound by no argument; will listen to nomonitor but his ambition; and for this purpose will use the worstportion of the community as a ladder to climb to permanent power, andan instrument to crush the better part. He is sanguine enough to hopeeverything, daring enough to attempt everything, wicked enough toscruple nothing. "[134]

[Footnote 134: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 570. ]

Nothing had occurred in the intervening years to change this opinion, but much was now happening to strengthen it. A Federalist faction inNew England, led by Pickering in the United States Senate and RogerGriswold in the House, thought a dissolution of the Union inevitableto save Federalism, and for months the project had been discussed ina stifled, mysterious manner. "It (separation) must begin inMassachusetts, " wrote Pickering to George Cabot, "but New York must bethe centre of the confederacy. "[135] To Rufus King, Pickering becamemore specific. "The Federalists have in general anxiously desired theelection of Burr--and if a separation should be deemed proper, thefive New England States, New York and New Jersey, would naturally beunited. "[136] But King disapproved disunion. "Colonel Pickering hasbeen talking to me about a project they have for a separation of theStates and a northern confederacy, " he said to Adams of Massachusetts;"and he has also been this day talking with General Hamilton. Idisapprove entirely of the project, and so, I am happy to tell you, does General Hamilton. "[137] But the conspirators were not to bequieted by disapproving words. Griswold, in a letter to OliverWolcott, declared Burr's election and consequent leadership of theFederalist party "the only hope which at this time presents itself ofrallying in defence of the Northern States, "[138] and in order not toremain longer inactive, he entered into a bargain with Burr, of whichhe wrote Wolcott fully. Wolcott sent the letter to Hamilton. [139]

[Footnote 135: January 29, 1804; Lodge's _Cabot_, p. 337. ]

[Footnote 136: _Ibid. _, p. 447. ]

[Footnote 137: _New England Federalism_, p. 148. ]

[Footnote 138: _Hamilton's History_, Vol. 7, p. 781; _New EnglandFederalism_, p. 354. ]

[Footnote 139: Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 180. "Pickering and Griswold could win their game only by barteringtheir souls; they must invoke the Mephistopheles of politics, AaronBurr. To this they had made up their minds from the beginning. Burr'sfour years of office were drawing to a close. He had not a chance ofregaining a commanding place among Republicans, for he was bankrupt inprivate and public character. "--_Ibid. _, p. 171. ]

It was plain to Hamilton that these timid conspirators wanted a boldchief to lead them into secession, and that since he would havenothing to do with them, they had invoked the aid of Aaron Burr. Thus, to his former desire to defeat Burr, was now added a determination todefeat incipient disunion, and in the Lewis Tavern conference heargued that Burr, a Democrat either from principle or calculation, would remain a Democrat; and that, though detested by leadingClintonians, it would not be difficult for a man of his talents, intrigue and address, possessing the chair of government, to rallyunder his standard the great body of the party, and such Federalistsas, from personal goodwill or interested motives, may give himsupport. The effect of his elevation, with the help of Federalistswould, therefore, be to reunite, under a more adroit, able and daringchief, not only the now scattered fragments of his own party, but topresent to the confidence of the people of Federalist New England thegrandson of President Edwards, for whom they had already a strongpredilection. Thus he would have fair play to disorganise the party ofJefferson, now held in light esteem, and to place himself at the headof a northern party favouring disunion. 

"If he be truly, as the Federalists have believed, a man of irregularand insatiable ambition, " continued Hamilton, "he will endeavour torise to power on the ladder of Jacobin principles, not leaning on afallen party, unfavourable to usurpation and the ascendancy of adespotic chief, but rather on popular prejudices and vices, ever readyto desert a government by the people at a moment when he ought, morethan ever, to adhere to it. On the other hand, Lansing's personalcharacter affords some security against pernicious extremes, and, atthe same time, renders it certain that his party, already much dividedand weakened, will disintegrate more and more, until in a recasting ofparties the Federalists may gain a great accession of force. At anyrate it is wiser to foster schism among Democrats, than to give them achief, better able than any they have yet had, to unite and directthem. "[140]

[Footnote 140: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 7, p. 325. "Thestruggle for control between Hamilton and the conspirators lasted tothe eve of the election, --secret, stifled, mysterious; the intrigue ofmen afraid to avow their aims, and seeming rather driven by their ownpassions than guided by lofty and unselfish motives. "--Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 184. ]

Within a week after the Lewis Tavern conference Burr's chancesbrightened by the sudden withdrawal of Lansing, because the latterwould not allow the Clintons to dictate his appointments. This was agreat surprise to Republicans and a great grief to Hamilton--the moreso since it was not easy to find an available successor. The mentionof DeWitt Clinton raised the cry of youth; Ambrose Spencer had toorecently come over from the Federalists; Morgan Lewis lacked capacityand fitness. Thus the contention continued, but with a leaning moreand more toward Morgan Lewis, a brother-in-law of Chancellor andEdward Livingston. 

Lewis' youth had promised a brilliant future. He graduated with highhonours at Princeton, and when the guns of Bunker Hill waked thecountry he promptly exchanged John Jay's law office for John Jay'sregiment. In the latter's absence he retained command as major untilordered to the northern frontier, when he suddenly dropped into aplace as assistant quartermaster-general, useful and important enough, but stripped of the glory usually preferred by the hot blood of agallant youth. In time, the faithful, efficient quartermaster became aplodding, painstaking lawyer, a safe, industrious attorney-general, and a dignified, respectable judge; but he had not distinguishedhimself, nor did he possess the striking, showy characteristics ofmind or manner often needed in a doubtful and bitterly contestedcampaign. Heretofore place had sought him by appointment. He becameattorney-general when Aaron Burr gave it up for the United StatesSenate; and a year later, by the casting vote of Governor Clinton, theCouncil made him a Supreme Court judge. In 1801 the chief-justiceshipdropped into his lap when Livingston went to France and Lansing becamechancellor, just as the chancellorship would probably have come to himhad Lansing continued a candidate for governor. In 1803 he wanted tobe mayor of New York. 

But with all his ordinariness no one else in sight seemed so availablea candidate for governor. The Livingstons, already jealous of DeWittClinton's growing influence, secretly nourished the hope that Lewismight develop sufficient independence to check the young man'sambition. On the other hand, DeWitt Clinton, equally jealous of thepower wielded by the Livingstons, thought the Chief Justice, a kind, amiable man of sixty, without any particular force of character, sufficiently plastic to mould to his liking. "From the moment Clintondeclined, " wrote Hamilton to Rufus King, "I began to consider Burr ashaving a chance of success. It was still my reliance, however, thatLansing would outrun him; but now that Chief Justice Lewis is hiscompetitor, the probability, in my judgment, inclines to Burr. "[141]

[Footnote 141: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 608. ]

Burr's friends, knowing his phenomenal shrewdness in cloaking bargainsand intrigues until the game was bagged, now relied upon him withconfidence to bring victory out of the known discord and jealousy ofhis opponents, and for a time it looked as if he might succeed. Lansing's withdrawal and Hamilton's failure to put up Rufus King as hecontemplated, gave Burr the support of Lansing's sympathy and a clearfield among Federalists, except as modified by Hamilton's influence. In addition, his friends cited his ability and Revolutionary services, his liberal patronage of science and the arts, his distinguished andsaintly ancestry, his freedom from family connections to quarter uponthe public treasury, and his honest endeavour to free himself fromdebt by disposing of his estate. Especially in New York City did hemeet with encouragement. His headquarters in John Street overflowedwith ward workers and ward heelers, eager to elect the man upon whomthey could rely for favours and with whom they doubtless sincerelysympathised. It was the contest of April, 1800, over again, save thatHamilton did not speak or openly oppose. 

As the fight continued it increased in bitterness. Cheetham poundedBurr harder than ever, accusing him of seduction and of dancing with abuxom wench at a "nigger ball" given by one of his coloured servantsat Richmond Hill. Jefferson was quoted as saying that Burr's party wasnot the real democracy, a statement that the _American Citizen_printed in capitals and kept standing during the three days of theelection. With great earnestness Hamilton quietly warned theFederalists not to elevate a man who would use their party only tostrengthen their opponents. In the up-counties, where the influence ofthe Clinton-Livingston-Spencer combine held the party together withcords of steel, every appointee, from judge of the Supreme Court tojustice of the peace, was ranged on the side of Livingston'sbrother-in-law. 

But Burr, too, had powerful abettors. In Orange and Dutchess he hadalways been a favourite; in Delaware, Erastus Root gave all hisinfluence and all his gifts with the devotion that animated JohnSwartout and Marinus Willett in New York; in Ontario, Oliver Phelps, the great land speculator, endowed with an unconquerable energy andthe strategy of a tactician, was backed by Peter B. Porter, the youngand exceedingly popular clerk of that county, soon to be dismissed forhis independence; in Albany, John Van Ness Yates, remembering Burr'ssupport of his father's candidacy in 1789, also came to hisassistance. Zealous and active, however, as these and other friendswere, they were few and weak compared to the army of office-holdersshouting and working for Morgan Lewis. When the returns, therefore, were in, although Burr carried New York by one hundred, he lost theState by over eight thousand. [142] A comparison of the vote with thesenatorial returns of 1803 showed that for every Republican voting forBurr, a Federalist, influenced by Hamilton, voted for Lewis. 

[Footnote 142: Morgan Lewis, 30, 829; Aaron Burr, 22, 139. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

It was Burr's Waterloo. He had staked everything and lost. Bankrupt inpurse, disowned by his party, and distrusted by a large faction of theleading Federalists, he was without hope of recovery so long asHamilton blocked the way. There is no evidence that Burr ever sawHamilton's confidential letters to Morris and other trusted Federalleaders, or knew their contents, but he did know that Hamiltonbitterly opposed him, and that his influence was blighting. To get ridof him, therefore, Burr now seems to have deliberately determined tokill him. [143]

[Footnote 143: "That all Hamilton's doings were known to Burr couldhardly be doubted. He was not a vindictive man, but this was thesecond time Hamilton had stood in his way and vilified his character. Burr could have no reason to suppose that Hamilton was deeply loved;for he knew that four-fifths of the Federal party had adopted his ownleadership when pitted against Hamilton's in the late election, and heknew, too, that Pickering, Griswold, and other leading Federalists hadseparated from Hamilton in the hope of making Burr himself the chiefof a Northern confederacy. Burr never cared for the past, --the presentand future were his only thoughts; but his future in politics dependedon his breaking somewhere through the line of his personal enemies;and Hamilton stood first in his path, for Hamilton would certainlyrenew at every critical moment the tactics which had twice cost Burrhis prize. "--Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, pp. 185, 186. ]

While in Albany in February to argue the Croswell case, Hamilton haddined with John Taylor, in company with Dr. Charles D. Cooper, whowrote a friend that, in the course of the dinner, Hamilton haddeclared, in substance, that he looked upon Burr as a dangerousman--one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government. "Icould detail to you, " continued Cooper, "a still more despicableopinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr. " This letterfound its way into the newspapers, and in a note, dated June 18, 1804, Burr called Hamilton's attention to the words "more despicable, " andadded: "You must perceive, sir, the necessity of a prompt andunqualified acknowledgment or denial of the use of the expressionwhich could warrant the assertions of Dr. Cooper. "[144] This note, purposely offensive in its tone, was delivered by William P. Van Ness, a circumstance clearly indicating an intention to follow it with achallenge. Two days later, Hamilton replied, declining to make theacknowledgment or denial, since he could attach no meaning to thewords used in the letter, nor could he consent to be interrogated asto the inferences drawn by third parties, but he was ready to avow ordisavow any definite opinion with which he might be charged. "I truston further reflection, " concluded Hamilton, "you will see the matterin the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstancesand must abide the consequences. "[145]

[Footnote 144: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 617. ]

[Footnote 145: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 618. ]

Burr's answer, which plainly shows the rhetoric of "Aristides, " wasmore offensive than his initial letter. After replying to it, Hamiltonprepared a note to be informally communicated to Burr, in which hestated that if the latter chose to inquire into the purport of anyconversation between himself and Dr. Cooper, he would be able to replywith truth that it turned wholly on political topics, and had norelation to Burr's private character, adding that he was ready to makean equally frank answer with regard to any other conversation whichBurr would specify. [146] When Burr pronounced this honourableproposition "a mere evasion, " his purpose was as evident as it becameon June 27th, the day he sent the challenge. 

[Footnote 146: _Ibid. _, p. 621. ]

Hamilton's acceptance of the challenge was inevitable. For a hundredyears men have regretted and mourned that he did not dare to standalone against duelling, as he had dared to stand alone for economicand patriotic principles against the clamour of mobs and the malice ofenemies. But absurd and barbarous as was the custom, it flourished inChristian America, as it did in every other Christian country, inspite of Christian ethics; and it would not permit a proud, sensitivenature, jealous of his honour, especially of his military honour, toignore it. Lorenzo Sabine's list of duellists includes a score ofprominent Englishmen, Frenchmen and Americans, many of themcontemporary with Hamilton, and some of them as profoundly admired, who succumbed to its tyranny. Proof of his valour at Monmouth and atYorktown would no more placate the popular contempt and obloquy sureto follow an avoidance of its demands than would the victory atWaterloo have excused Wellington had he declined to challenge LordWinchilsea. All this did not make duelling right, but it excuses anoble soul for yielding "to the force of an imperious custom, " as Dr. Knott put it--a custom that still exists in France and Germany, and insome parts of America, perhaps, though now universally execrated byChristian people and pronounced murder by their laws. Even at thattime Hamilton held it in abhorrence. In a paper drawn for publicationin the event of death, he announced his intention of throwing away hisfire, and in extenuation of yielding, he adds: "To those who, with me, abhorring the practice of duelling, may think that I ought on noaccount to have added to the number of bad examples, I answer that myrelative situation, as well in public as in private, enforcing all theconsiderations which constitute what men of the world denominatehonour, imposed on me, as I thought, a peculiar necessity not todecline the call. The ability to be in the future useful, whether inresisting mischief, or effecting good, in those crises of our publicaffairs which seem likely to happen, would probably be inseparablefrom a conformity with public prejudice in this particular. "[147] Thepathway of history is strewn with the wrecks of customs andsuperstitions which have held men in their grip, compelling obedienceand demanding regularity; but no custom ever had a firmer hold upongifted men than duelling, making them its devotees even when theirintellects condemned it, their hearts recognised its cruelty, andtheir consciences pronounced it wrong. 

[Footnote 147: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, pp. 626-8. ]

Because of Hamilton's engagements in court, the hostile meeting wasdeferred until Wednesday, July 11th. In the meantime the principalswent about their vocations with apparent indifference to the comingevent. On the evening of July 4th, Hamilton and Burr attended theannual dinner of the Society of the Cincinnati, of which the formerhad succeeded Washington as president. The occasion was remembered asthe gayest and most hilarious in the society's history. Hamiltonleaped upon the table and sang "The Drum, " an old camp song thatbecame historic because of his frequent rendition of it. It wasrecalled afterward that Burr withdrew before the festivities hadended. On Saturday evening Hamilton dined Colonel Trumbull, one ofWashington's first aides, and on Monday attended a reception given byOliver Wolcott, John Adams' secretary of the treasury. Tuesday eveninghe prepared the paper already quoted, and addressed a letter toTheodore Sedgwick, one of Pickering's sternest conspirators, warninghim against disunion. "Dismemberment of our empire, " he said, "will bea clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without anycounterbalancing good; administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy--the poison of which, by a subdivision, will onlybe the more concentred in each part, and consequently the morevirulent. "[148]

[Footnote 148: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 8, p. 615. Letter toTheo. Sedgwick. ]

Meantime the secret had been confined to less than a dozen persons, and to none of Hamilton's intimate friends. Troup remained with himuntil a late hour Monday night without suspecting anything, the gaietyof his manner leading his friend to think his health was mending. HadTroup divined the hostile meeting, it might not have occurred. WhenJohn Swartout entered Burr's room at daylight on that fatal 11th ofJuly, he found him sound asleep. 

It was seven o'clock Wednesday morning, a hot July day, that Hamiltoncrossed the Hudson to Weehawken, with Pendleton, his second, and Dr. Hosack, Burr and Van Ness having preceded them. It took but a momentto measure ten paces, load the pistols, and place the principals inposition. As the word was given, Burr took deliberate aim and fired. Instantly Hamilton reeled and fell forward headlong upon his face, involuntarily discharging his pistol. "This is a mortal wound, Doctor, " he gasped, and immediately sank into a swoon. An examinationshowed that the ball had penetrated the right side. Burr, sheltered byVan Ness under an umbrella, hurried from the scene, while Hamilton, conveyed in his boat to the city, gradually recovered consciousness. "My vision is indistinct, " he murmured; but soon after, catchingsight of a pistol near him, cautioned them to take care of it. "It isundischarged and still cocked, " he said; "it may go off and do harm. Pendleton knows I did not intend to fire at him. " As the boat nearedthe wharf, he asked that Mrs. Hamilton be sent for. "Let the event begradually broken to her, " he said, "but give her hopes. " Thus helingered for thirty-one hours in great agony, but retaining hisself-command to the last, and dying in the midst of his strickenfamily and sorrowing friends. 

If Washington and Lincoln be excepted, it is doubtful if an Americanwas ever more deeply mourned. Had he been President, he could not havebeen buried with greater pomp, or with manifestations of more profoundsorrow. Although he had been hated by his enemies, and at timesmisunderstood by some of his friends, at his death the people, withoutdivision, instantly recognised that his life had been passionatelydevoted to his country, and they paid him the tribute only accordedthe memory of a most illustrious patriot. Such demonstrations were notconfined to New York. The sorrow became national; speeches, sermons, and poems without number, were composed in his honour; in every State, some county or town received his name; wherever an American lived, anexpression of sympathy found record. It was the consensus of opinionthat the life which began in January, 1757 and ended in July, 1804, held in the compass of its forty-seven years the epitome of whatAmerica meant for Americans in the days of its greatest peril and itsgreatest glory. "Had he lived twenty years longer, " said ChancellorKent, "I have very little doubt he would have rivalled Socrates orBacon, or any other of the sages of ancient or modern times, inresearches after truth and in benevolence to mankind. The active andprofound statesman, the learned and eloquent lawyer, would probablyhave disappeared in a great degree before the character of the sageand philosopher, instructing mankind by his wisdom, and elevating thecountry by his example. "[149]

[Footnote 149: William Kent, _Life of James Kent_, appendix, p. 328. ]

Burr became a name of horror. [150] When Hamilton's death was announcedthere came a cry of execration on his murderer, which the publicationof the correspondence intensified. A coroner's jury pronounced him amurderer, the grand jury instructed the district attorney toprosecute, and the Vice President found it necessary to take refuge inconcealment until the first fury of the people had subsided. Cheetham's pen, following him remorselessly, charged that he ransackedthe newspapers for the grounds of a challenge; that for three monthshe daily practised with a pistol; and that while Hamilton lay dying, he sat at the table drinking wine with his friends, and apologisingthat he had not shot him through the heart. 

[Footnote 150: "Orators, ministers, and newspapers exhaustedthemselves in execration of Burr. "--Henry Adams, _History of theUnited States_, Vol. 2, p. 190. ]

Within two years Burr was arrested for treason, charged with anattempt to place himself at the head of a new nation formed from thecountry of the Montezumas and the valley of the Mississippi, and, although he was acquitted, his countrymen believed him guilty of atreasonable ambition. In the State where he had found his chiefsupport, he ever after ranked in infamy next to Benedict Arnold. Thenceforth he became a stranger and a wanderer on the face of theearth. His friends left him and society shunned him. "I have notspoken to the damned reptile for twenty-five years, " said formerGovernor Morgan Lewis, in 1830. [151]

[Footnote 151: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 370. ]

For the moment, one forgets the horrible tragedy of July 11, 1804, andthinks only of the lonely man who lived to lament it. He was in hiseighty-first year when he died. On his return from Europe in 1812, only one person welcomed him. This was Matthew L. Davis, his earliestpolitical friend and biographer. Burr made Davis his literaryexecutor, and turned over to him the confidential femalecorrespondence that had accumulated in the days of his popularity asUnited States senator and Vice President, and that he had carefullyfiled and indorsed with the full name of each writer. The treachery, falsehood, and desertion with which these letters charged him, seemedto this unnatural man to add to their value, and he gave them to hisexecutor without instructions, that the extent of his gallantries, hispower of fascination, and the names of the gifted and beautifulvictims of his numerous amours might not become a secret in his grave. One can conceive nothing baser. The preservation of letters to satisfyan erotic mind is low enough, but deliberately to identify eachanonymous or initialled letter with the full name of the writer, forthe use of a biographer, is an act of treachery of which few men arecapable. To the credit of Davis, these letters were either returned totheir writers or consigned to the flames. 

Burr was a politician by nature, habit and education. In his youngerdays he easily enlisted the goodwill and sympathy of his associates, surrounding himself with a large circle of devoted, obedient friends;and, though neither a great lawyer nor a brilliant speaker, hisnatural gifts, supplemented by industry and perseverance, and a veryattractive presence, made him a conspicuous member of the New York barand of the United States Senate. He was, however, the ardent championof nothing that made for the public good. Indeed, the record of hiswhole life indicates that he never possessed a great thought, orfathered an important measure. Throughout the long, and, at times, bitter controversy over the establishment of the Union, his silencewas broken only to predict its failure within half a century. 

It is doubtful if he was ever a happy man. In the very hours when hewas the most famous and the most flattered, he described himself asmost unhappy. So long, though, as Theodosia lived, he was never alone. When she died, he suffered till the end. There has hardly ever been inthe world a more famous pair of lovers than Burr and his gifted, nobledaughter, and there is nothing in history more profoundly melancholythan the loss of the ship, driven by the pitiless wind of fate, onwhich Theodosia had taken passage for her southern home. Yet one isshocked at the unnatural parent who instructs his daughter to read, inthe event of his death in the duel with Hamilton, the confidentialletters which came to him in the course of his love intrigues andaffairs of gallantry. It imports a moral obliquity that, happily forsociety, is found in few human beings. As he lived, so he died, astrange, lonely, unhappy man, out of tune with the beautiful world inwhich he was permitted to exist upward of four score years. He haddone a great deal of harm, and, except as a Revolutionary soldier, nogood whatever. 

CHAPTER XIII

THE CLINTONS AGAINST THE LIVINGSTONS

1804-1807

When Morgan Lewis began his term as governor tranquillitycharacterised public affairs in the State and in the nation. TheLouisiana Purchase had strengthened the Administration with allclasses of people; Jefferson and George Clinton had received 162electoral votes to 14 for Pinckney and Rufus King; Burr had gone intoretirement and was soon to go into obscurity; the Livingstons, fillinghigh places, were distinguishing themselves at home and abroad as ablejudges and successful diplomatists; DeWitt Clinton, happy andeminently efficient as the mayor of New York, seemed to have beforehim a bright and prosperous career as a skilful and triumphant partymanager; while George Clinton, softened by age, rich in favouringfriends, with an ideal face for a strong, bold portrait, was baskingin the soft, mellow glow that precedes the closing of a stormy life. Never before, perhaps never since, did a governor enter upon hisduties, neither unusual nor important, under more favourable auspices;yet the story of Lewis' administration is a story of astonishingmistakes and fatal factional strife. 

The Governor inaugurated his new career by an unhappy act ofpatronage. The appointment of Maturin Livingston, his son-in-law, andthe removal of Peter B. Porter, the friend of Burr, showed a selfish, almost malevolent disregard of public opinion and the public service, a trait that, in a way, characterised his policy throughout. Livingston was notoriously unfitted for recorder of New York. He wasunpopular in his manners, deficient in a knowledge of law, withoutindustry, and given to pleasure rather than business, but, because ofhis relationship, the Governor forced him into that responsibleposition. In like manner, although until then no change had occurredwithin the party for opinion's sake, Lewis voted for the removal ofPeter B. Porter, the young and popular clerk of Ontario County. Porter's youth indicated an intelligence that promised large returnsto his country and his party, and the Governor lived long enough tosee him honourably distinguished in Congress, highly renowned when hisserious career began on the Niagara frontier in the War of 1812, and, afterward, richly rewarded as secretary of war in the Cabinet of JohnQuincy Adams. But in 1805 the Governor cheerfully voted for hisremoval, thus establishing the dangerous precedent that a member ofone's political household was to be treated with as littleconsideration as a member of the opposite party. 

Although Lewis' conduct in the case of Maturin Livingston and Peter B. Porter was not the most foolish act in a career of folly, it served asa fitting preface to his policy in relation to the incorporation ofthe Merchants' Bank of New York, a policy that proved fatal to hisambition and to the influence of the Livingstons. Already doingbusiness under the general laws, two Republican Legislatures hadrefused to incorporate the Merchants' Bank. But during the legislativesession of 1805 the bank people determined to have their way, and inthe efforts that followed they used methods and means common enoughafterward, but probably unknown before that winter. Although in nowise connected with the scandal growing out of the controversy, Lewisfavoured the incorporation of the bank. On the other hand, DeWittClinton opposed it, maintaining that two banks in New York City weresufficient. However, the Governor, backed by the Federalists and asmall Republican majority, was successful. In the Council of Revision, Ambrose Spencer opposed the act of incorporation on the ground thatexisting banks, possessing five million dollars of capital, withauthority to issue notes and create debts to the amount of fifteenmillion more, were sufficient, especially as the United States hadsuffered an alarming decrease of specie, and as no one save a fewindividuals, inspired solely by cupidity, had asked for a new bank. Spencer, however, relied principally in his attack upon affidavits ofObadiah German, the Republican leader of the Assembly, and StephenThorn of the same body, charging that Senator Ebenezer Purdy, thefather of the measure, had offered them large rewards for their votes, German having Purdy's admission that he had become convinced of thepropriety of incorporating the bank after a confidential conferencewith its directors. From this it was to be inferred, argued Spencer, that before such improper means were made use of, Purdy himself, whosevote was necessary to its passage, was averse to its incorporation. "To sanction a bill thus marked in its progress through one branch ofthe Legislature with bribery and corruption, " concluded the Judge, "would be subversive of all pure legislation, and become a reproach toa government hitherto renowned for the wisdom of its councils and theintegrity of its legislatures. "[152] But Spencer's opposition andPurdy's resignation, to avoid an investigation, did not defeat themeasure, which had the support of Chief Justice Kent, a Federalist, and two members of the Livingston family, a majority of the Council. 

[Footnote 152: Alfred B. Street, _New York Council of Revision_, p. 429. ]

DeWitt Clinton had not approved the Governor's course. The flagrantpartiality shown Lewis' family in the unpopular appointment of MaturinLivingston, his son-in-law, displeased him, and the removal of Porterseemed to him untimely and vindictive. In killing Hamilton, Clintonreasoned, Burr had killed himself politically, and out of the wayhimself there was no occasion to punish his friends who would nowrejoin and strengthen the Republican party. Clinton, however, remainedpassive in his opposition until the incorporation of the bankfurnished a plausible excuse for an appeal to the party; then, with adetermination to subjugate the Livingstons, he caused himself and hisadherents to be nominated and elected to the State Senate upon theplatform that "a new bank has been created in our city, and itscharter granted to political enemies. " It was a bold move, as stubbornas it was dangerous. Clinton had little to gain. The Livingstons werenot long to continue in New York politics. Maturin was insignificant;Brockholst was soon to pass to the Supreme Court of the United States;Edward had already sought a new home and greater honours in NewOrleans; and the Chancellor, having returned from France, was withoutambition to remain longer in the political arena. Even thebrothers-in-law were soon to disappear. John Armstrong was in France;Smith Thompson, who was to follow Brockholst upon the bench of theUnited States Supreme Court, refused to engage in party or politicalcontests, and the gifts of Tillotson and Lewis were not of quality orquantity to make leaders of men. On the other hand, Clinton had muchto lose by forcing the fight. It condemned him to a career of almostunbroken opposition for the rest of his life; it made precedents thatlived to curse him; and it compelled alliances that weakened him. 

Lewis resented Clinton's imperious methods, but he made a fatalmistake in furnishing him such a pretext for open opposition. He oughtto have known that in opposing the Merchants' Bank, Clintonrepresented the great majority of his party which did not believe inbanks. Undoubtedly Clinton's interest in the Manhattan largelycontrolled his attitude toward the Merchants', but the controversyover the latter was so old, and its claims had been pressed soearnestly by the Federalists in their own interest, that the questionhad practically become a party issue as much as the contest over theBank of the United States. Already two Republican Legislatures haddefeated it, and in a third it was now being urged to success with thehelp of a solid Federalist vote and a system of flagrant bribery, ofwhich the Governor was fully advised. A regard for party opinion, ifno higher motive, therefore, might well have governed Lewis' action. After the fight had been precipitated, resulting in a warfare fatal toLewis, the Governor's apologists claimed that in favouring the bankhe had simply resisted Clinton's domination. The Governor may havethought so, but it was further evidence of his inability either tounderstand the sentiment dominating the party he sought to represent, or successfully to compete with Clinton in leadership. DeWitt Clinton, with all his faults, and they were many and grave, had in him thegifts of a master and the capacity of a statesman. Lewis seems to havehad neither gifts nor capacity. 

In January, 1806, DeWitt Clinton, securing a majority of the Councilof Appointment by the election of himself and two friends, sounded thesignal of attack upon the Governor and his supporters. He substitutedPierre C. Van Wyck for Maturin Livingston and Elisha Jenkins forThomas Tillotson. The Governor's friends were also evicted from minoroffice, only men hostile to Lewis' re-election being preferred. Nothing could be less justifiable, or, indeed, more nefarious thansuch removals. They were discreditable to the Council and disgracefulto DeWitt Clinton; yet sentiment of the time seems to have approvedthem, regarding Clinton's conduct merely as a stroke of good politics. In the midst of this wretched business it is pleasant to note thatJenkins' transfer from comptroller to secretary of state opened a wayfor the appointment of Archibald McIntyre, whose safe custody of thepurse in days when economies and husbandries were in order, distinguished him as a faithful official, and kept him in office until1821. 

After such drastic treatment of the Governor, it is not withoutinterest to think of Lewis in Albany and Clinton in New York keepingtheir eyes upon the election in April, 1806, both alike hopeful offinding allies in the party breakup. The advantage seemed to be whollywith the Mayor and not with the Governor. Indeed, Republicans of allfactions were so well assured of Clinton's success that it requiredthe faith of a novice in politics to believe that Lewis had anychance. But DeWitt Clinton had to deal with two classes of men, naturally and almost relentlessly opposed to him--the friends of Burrand the Federalists. It was of immense importance that the formershould stand with him, since the Federalists were certain to side withthe Lewisites or "Quids, " as the Governor's friends came to be known, and to secure such an advantage Clinton promptly made overtures to theBurrites, of whom John Swartout, Peter Irving and Matthew L. Daviswere the leaders. 

There is some confusion as to details, but Davis is authority for thestatement that in December, 1805, Theodorus Bailey, as Clinton'sagent, promised to aid Burr's friends through the Manhattan Bank, torecognise them as Republicans, to appoint them to office on the samefooting with the most favoured Clintonian, and to stop Cheetham'sattacks in the _American Citizen_. Clinton pronounced the story false, but it was known that the Manhattan Bank loaned eighteen thousanddollars to a prominent Burrite; that on January 24, 1806, Clinton metSwartout, Irving and Davis at the home of Bailey; and that afterward, on February 20, leading Clintonians banqueted the Burrites at Dyde'sHotel in the suburbs of New York in celebration of their union. Therewere many reasons for maintaining the profoundest secrecy as to thisalliance and Dyde's Hotel had been selected for the purpose ofavoiding publicity, but the morning's papers revealed the secret withan exaggerated account of their doings and sayings. Immediately, otherBurrites, joining the Lewisites at Martling's Long-room, a popularmeeting-place, organised a protestant faction, afterward known asMartling Men, whose enmity was destined to follow Clinton to hisdownfall. 

As election day approached the Quids made a decisive struggle againstClinton. They rehearsed the charges of "Aristides;" they denounced himas cold and imperious; they charged that he had an almost boundlesspolitical ambition; that he maintained his own councils regardless ofhis associates, and accepted no suggestion not in harmony with his ownpolicy. The Martling Men accused him of duplicity, and of a desireonly for place and pay. In aid of Lewis, Chancellor Lansing took thisopportunity of revealing the secret that led him to withdraw from thegubernatorial race in 1804, charging that George Clinton had sought"to pledge him to a particular course of conduct in the administrationof the government of the State. " When the latter denied the statement, Lansing, becoming more specific, affirmed that the venerable statesmanhad mentioned DeWitt Clinton as a suitable person for chancellor. Itis not surprising, perhaps, that DeWitt Clinton's reply that iftendered the office he would have declined it, fell upon incredulousears, since the young man at that very moment was holding threeoffices and drawing three salaries. 

But the contest did not become seriously doubtful until the Quidsreceived the active support of the Federalists, just then led byWilliam W. Van Ness, who seems to have leaped into prominence assuddenly as did "Aristides, " his cousin. If we may estimate the man bythe praises of his contemporaries, William W. Van Ness' eloquencedelighted the Assembly of which he had become a member in 1805, notmore than his pointed and finished wit charmed every social gatheringwhich he honoured with his presence. Indeed, as a popular orator heseems to have had no rival. Though his passion for distinction was tooardent and his fondness for sensual pleasure immoderate, sober mindedmen were carried away with the fascinating effervescence of his publicutterances and the brilliancy of his conversation. He had a commandingpresence, almost a colossal form, and a voice marvellous for itsstrength and for the music of its intonations. He was neither profoundnor learned. The common school at Claverack, where he was born inindependence year, furnished him little more than the rudiments ofEnglish, and at the age of twenty he closed the door to furtheradvancement by prematurely burdening himself with a family; yet heseemed to know without apparent effort everything that was necessaryto know, and to exert a gentle, unconscious, unpretending power thatwas resistless. A sweetness of temper and a native dignity of mannercast a grace and charm about him which acted as a spell upon all whocame within its influence. Hammond, the historian, thought him thepossessor of every gift that nature and fortune could bestow--wit, beauty, good nature, suave manners, eloquence, and admirableconversation. Such a combination gave him leadership, and he led hisfollowers solidly to Lewis, with the result that the coalition ofFederalists and Quids won out by a small majority. 

When the Legislature assembled, in January, 1807, the intensebitterness of the fight exhibited itself in the defeat of SolomonSouthwick for clerk of the Assembly. Southwick possessed the amiable, winning qualities that characterised William W. Van Ness. He wasassociated with his brother-in-law in the management of the Albany_Register_, and from his earliest youth had been as zealous aRepublican as he was warm and disinterested in his friendships. Tofriend and foe he was alike cordial and generous. He possessed an openmind, not so eloquent as Van Ness, and less brilliant, perhaps, inconversation; but the fluent splendour of his speech and the beauty ofhis person and manners went as far toward the attainment of hisambition. He had been elected clerk of the Assembly continuously since1803, until his popularity among the members, whom he served withuniform politeness and zeal, seemed proof against the attacks of anyadversary. Just now, however, the enemies of DeWitt Clinton were theopponents of Solomon Southwick, while his rival, Garret Y. Lansing, the nephew of the Chancellor, had become the bitterest and mostformidable enemy the Clintons had to encounter. Popular as he was, Southwick could not win against such odds, although it turned out thata change of four votes would have elected him. 

A Lewis Council of Appointment made a clean sweep of the Governor'senemies and of DeWitt Clinton's friends. Clinton himself gave up themayoralty of New York, Maturin Livingston again assumed the duties ofrecorder, and Thomas Tillotson was restored to the office of secretaryof state. Perhaps Clinton thought he stood too high to be in dangerfrom Lewis' hand. If he did he found out his mistake, for Lewisstruck him down in the most unsparing and humiliating way. Publicaffront was added to political deprivation. Without warning orexplanation, the first motion put at the first meeting of the newCouncil, on February 6, 1807, made him the first sacrifice. Had hebeen a justice of the peace in a remote western county he could nothave been treated more rudely; and, it may be added, if better reasonthan that already existing were needed to seal the fate of Lewis, Clinton's removal furnished it. New York has seldom been roused togreater passion by a governor's act. It could even then be said ofClinton that his name was associated with every great enterprise forthe public good. Less than a year before, in his efforts to educatethe children of the poor, unprovided for in parochial schools, he hadlaid the foundation of the public school system, heading thesubscription list for the purchase of suitable quarters. In spite ofhis faults he was a great executive, and before the sun went down onthe day of his removal a large majority of the Republican members ofthe Legislature, guided by the deposed mayor, had nominated Daniel D. Tompkins for governor in place of Morgan Lewis. 

In disposing of the mayoralty, Lewis recognised the importance ofkeeping it in the family, and offered it to Smith Thompson, both ofwhose wives were Livingstons; but only once in forty years didThompson's love for the judiciary give way to political preferment, and then Martin Van Buren defeated him for governor. The mayoraltyfinally went to Marinus Willett, an officer of distinguished servicein the Revolutionary war, whose gallantry at Fort Schuyler in thesummer of 1777 won him a sword from Congress and the admiration ofGeneral Washington. But the steadfast, judicious qualities thatcommended him as a soldier seem to have forsaken him as a politician. He supported Burr, he followed Lewis, and he finally ran forlieutenant-governor against DeWitt Clinton, the regular nominee of hisparty, losing the election by a large majority; yet his amiability andwar services kept him a favourite in spite of his political wavering. It was hard for a lover of his country to dislike a real hero of theRevolution, even though he forfeited the confidence of his party. 

Clinton, who had kept his head cool in victory, did not lose it indefeat; but the Governor found himself in an awkward and humiliatingposition. Although the Federalists had made it possible for him toorganise the Legislature and elect a friendly Council, he dared notappoint one of them to office, and the few ambitious Republicans whohad marshalled under his standard proved inferior, inexperienced, orindiscreet. Only one Federalist fared well, and he succeeded in spiteof Lewis. William W. Van Ness aspired to the Supreme Court judgeshipmade vacant by Brockholst Livingston's appointment to the SupremeCourt of the United States. The Governor, favouring, of course, amember of his own family, proposed Maturin Livingston. To this ThomasThomas of the Council agreed, but Edward Savage proposed JohnWoodworth; John Nicholas inclined to Jonas Platt, and James Burt, thefourth member of the Council, preferred Van Ness. Platt was aFederalist, and in his way a remarkable man. His father, ZephaniahPlatt, served in the Continental Congress, and as judge of the CircuitCourt had pushed his way to the northern frontier, founded Plattsburg, and advocated a system of canals connecting the Hudson with the lakes. The son, following his example, studied law and emigrated to thewestern frontier, settling in Herkimer County, at Whitesboro. He hadalready served one term in the Legislature and one in Congress, andwas destined to receive other honourable preferment. But just nowNicholas, his political backer, a recent comer from Virginia, who hadserved with him in Congress, was no match for the adroit Burt, whoseshrewd management in the interest of Aaron Burr had recently sentTheodorus Bailey to the United States Senate over John Woodworth. Burtconvinced Nicholas that Platt's candidacy would result in the electionof Livingston or Woodworth, and having thus destroyed the Herkimerlawyer, he appealed to Savage to drop Woodworth in favour of VanNess. Savage was a Republican of the old school, a supporter of GeorgeClinton, an opponent of the Federal Constitution, who had apparentlyfollowed Lewis for what he could make out of it; but he was indisposedto add to the sin of rebellion against DeWitt Clinton the folly ofvoting for Maturin Livingston, and so he joined Burt and Nicholas insupport of Van Ness. Thus it happened that the popular young oratorbecame a member of the Supreme Court at the early age of thirty-one, being the youngest member of the court, save Daniel D. Tompkins, toserve on the old, conservative Council of Revision. 

News of this bad business intensified the angry feeling against theGovernor. A place on the Supreme Court, valued then even more highlythan now, had been lost to the party because of his arrogant andconsuming nepotism, and men turned with enthusiasm to Daniel D. Tompkins, whose nomination for governor brought him champions that hadheretofore avoided all appearance of violent partisanship. Tompkinswas accepted as the exponent of all that Republicans most prized;Lewis as their most obstinate and offensive opponent. Thus, at last, the Clintons faced the Livingstons on a fair field. 

CHAPTER XIV

DANIEL D. TOMPKINS AND DeWITT CLINTON

1807-1810

Had DeWitt Clinton succeeded to the governorship in 1807, his way tothe Presidency, upon which his eye was already fixed, might haveopened easily and surely. But the bitterness of the Livingstons andthe unfriendly disposition of the Federalists compelled him to flankthe difficulty by presenting a candidate for governor who was void ofoffence. If it was humiliating to admit his own ineligibility, it wasno less so to meet the new condition, for Lewis' election in 1804 haddiscovered the scarcity of available material, and developed thedanger of relying upon another to do his bidding. Just now Clintonwanted a candidate with no convictions, no desires, no ambitions, andno purposes save to please him. There were men enough of this kind, but they could neither conceal their master's hand, nor command thesuffrages of a majority on their own account. In this crisis, therefore, he selected, to the surprise of all and to the disgust ofsome, Daniel D. Tompkins, the young and amiable justice of the SupremeCourt, who had taken the place of James Kent on the latter's promotionto chief justice. 

Thus it happened that the day which witnessed DeWitt Clinton's removalfrom the New York mayoralty, welcomed into larger political life thisman of honourable parentage, who was destined to play a veryconspicuous part in affairs of state. Daniel D. Tompkins, a youth ofpromise and a young man of ripening wisdom, had been for some years inthe public eye, first as a member of the constitutional convention of1801, afterward as a successful candidate for Congress, and later asa judge of the Supreme Court. His rise had been phenomenally rapid. Hepassed from the farm to the college at seventeen, from college to thelaw office at twenty-one, from the law office to the constitutionalconvention at twenty-seven, and thence to Congress and the SupremeCourt at thirty. He was now to become governor at thirty-three. Butwith all his promise and wisdom and rapid advancement, no one dreamedin 1807 that he was soon to divide political honour and power withDeWitt Clinton, five years his senior. 

Tompkins was on the farm when Clinton was in Columbia College; but ifthe plow lengthened his days, study shortened his nights, and fiveyears after Clinton graduated, Tompkins entered the same institution. Just then it was a stern chase. Clinton had the advantage of family, Tompkins the disadvantage of being a stranger. When the former enteredthe Legislature, the latter had only opened a law office. Then, butfour years later, they met in the constitutional convention, Clintonon the winning side and Tompkins on the right side. The purpose ofthis convention, it will be recalled, had been to give each member ofthe Council of Appointment the power to nominate candidates foroffice--Clinton holding that the Council had the right to nominate aswell as to confirm appointments; Tompkins, with barely a dozenassociates, took the ground, maintained by Governors Clinton and Jay, that its power was limited to confirmation. This position showed thenerve as well as the independence of the younger man, and he was ableproudly to refer to it when, twenty years later, the constitutionalconvention of 1821, inspired by the popular contempt, achieved theabolition of the Council, and with it the political corruption andfavouritism to which it had given rise. 

The record of New York politics is a record of long and bittercontests between these chiefs of two antagonistic Republican factions. What the struggle between Stalwarts and Half Breeds was to our owntime, the struggle between Clinton and Tompkins was to our ancestorsof two and three generations ago. Two men could hardly be moresharply contrasted. The one appeared cold and reserved, the other mostgracious and gentle; Clinton's self-confidence destroyed the fidelityof those who differed in opinion, Tompkins' urbanity disarmed theirdisloyalty; Clinton was unrelenting, dogged in his tenacity, quick tospeak harshly, moving within lines of purpose regardless of those ofleast resistance. Although he often changed his associates, like LordShaftesbury, he never changed his purposes. Tompkins, always firm anddignified, was affable in manner, sympathetic in speech, overflowingwith good nature, and unpretending to all who approached him. It usedto be said that Tompkins made more friends in refusing favours thanClinton did in granting them. 

The two men also differed as much in personal appearance as in manner. Tompkins, shapely and above the ordinary height, had large, full eyes, twinkling with kindness, a high forehead wreathed with dark, curlyhair, and an oval face, easily and usually illuminated with a smile;Clinton had a big frame, square shoulders, a broad, full forehead, short, pompadour hair, dark penetrating eyes, and a large mouth withlips firmly set. It was a strong face. A dullard could read hischaracter at a glance. To his intimate friends Clinton was undoubtedlya social, agreeable companion; but the dignified imperiousness of hismanner and the severity of his countenance usually overcame theordinary visitor before the barriers of his reserve were broken. Tompkins, on the contrary, carried the tenderness of a wide humanityin his face. 

It was hardly creditable to Clinton's knowledge of human nature thathe selected Daniel D. Tompkins for a gubernatorial candidate, if hesought a man whom he might control. The memory of the constitutionalconvention, or a glance into the history of the elder Tompkins, whohad stood firm and unyielding in the little settlement of Fox Meadowsin Winchester after the American defeat on Long Island, when all hisneighbours save two had faltered in the cause of independence, wouldhave enlightened him respecting the Tompkins character. The farmerboy's determined, patient preparation for public life, and hisfortitude in the face of conscious disadvantages, ought also to havesuggested that the young man was made of sterner stuff than theobedient Theodorus Bailey. Still more surprising is it that Clintonshould overlook, or insufficiently consider the fact that Tompkins wasnow the son-in-law of Mangle Minthorne, a wealthy citizen of New York, and the leader of the Martling Men, of whose opposition he had alreadybeen apprised, and whose bitter hostility he was about to experience. If he thought to disarm the enmity of Minthorne by helping theson-in-law, his hopes were raised only to be dashed to earth again. 

It is certain DeWitt Clinton had no one save himself to thank fortaking this Hercules, whose political direction was conspicuouslyinevitable from the first. But Clinton wanted an assured victoragainst Morgan Lewis and the Livingstons, with their Federalistsupporters, and, although some people inclined to the opinion thatTompkins had already been promoted too rapidly, Clinton believed hisservices on the bench had made him the most available man in theparty. For three years this young judge, substituting sympathy forseverity, had endeared himself to all who knew him. The qualities offairness and fitness which Greek wisdom praised in the conduct of lifewere characteristic of his life. From what we know of his work it isfair to presume, had he tarried upon the bench until 1821, he wouldhave been a worthy associate of Smith Thompson and Ambrose Spencer. 

Sixty-five Republican members of the Legislature signed the address, drawn by DeWitt Clinton, putting Tompkins into the race for governor;forty-five indorsed the platform on which Governor Lewis stood forre-election. The Clinton address gave no reason for preferringTompkins to Lewis, but the latter's weakness as an executive, foreshadowed a defeat which each day made plainer, and when the votes, counted on the last day of April, gave Tompkins 4085 majority, theresult was as gratifying to Clinton as it was disastrous toLewis. [153] It was not a sweeping victory, such as Lewis had won overBurr three years before, for the former's weakness was less offensivethan the latter's wickedness, but it launched the successful candidateon his long period of authority, which was not to be ended until hewas broken in health, if not in character. 

[Footnote 153: Daniel D. Tompkins, 35, 074; Morgan Lewis, 30, 989. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

Daniel D. Tompkins had the good fortune to begin his administration ata time when England and the United States were about to quarrel overthe former's insistence on impressing American seamen into itsservice, thus giving the people something to think about save offices, and dividing them again sharply into two parties. Indeed, while theelection was pending in April, three deserters from the _Melampus_, aBritish sloop-of-war, by enlisting on the _Chesapeake_, a UnitedStates frigate of thirty-eight guns, became the innocent cause ofsubjecting the United States to gross insult. The American government, smarting under England's impressment of its seamen, refused tosurrender these deserters, inquiries showing that they were colouredmen of American birth, two of whom had been pressed into the Britishservice from an American vessel in the Bay of Biscay. When the_Chesapeake_ sailed, therefore, the _Leopard_, an English man-of-warmounting fifty guns, followed her to the high seas and demanded areturn of the deserters. Receiving a prompt refusal, the Englishmanraked the decks of the _Chesapeake_ for the space of twelve minutes, killing three men and wounding eighteen, among them the commander. The_Chesapeake_ was not yet ready for action. Her crew was undrilled inthe use of ordnance, her decks littered, appliances for reloading werewanting, and at the supreme moment neither priming nor match could befound. Under these distressing circumstances, the boarding officer ofthe _Leopard_ took the deserters and sailed for Halifax. The sight ofthe dismantled _Chesapeake_, with its dead and dying, aroused thepeople irrespective of party into demanding reparation or war. "Thiscountry, " wrote Jefferson, "has never been in such a state ofexcitement since the battle of Lexington. "[154] Immediately the mostexposed ports were strengthened, and the States were called upon toorganise and equip 100, 000 militia ready to march. Among other things, Jefferson ordered British cruisers to depart from American waters, forbidding all aid and intercourse with them. 

[Footnote 154: Jefferson to Colonel Taylor, August 1, 1807; _Works_, v. , 148. ]

On the day of Governor Tompkins' inauguration the crippled_Chesapeake_ sailed back into Norfolk; and before the New YorkLegislature assembled in the following January, England had publishedits Orders in Council, forbidding all neutral trade with France. Napoleon had also promulgated his Milan Decree, forbidding all neutraltrade with England, and the Congress of the United States, with closeddoors, in obedience to the recommendation of the President, hadordered an embargo forbidding all foreign-bound American vessels toleave United States ports. 

For several years American commerce, centring chiefly in New Englandand New York, and occupying a neutral position toward Europeanbelligerents, had enjoyed unparalleled prosperity. Reaching all partsof the world, it had, indeed, largely engrossed the carrying trade, especially of France and the European powers. As restraints increased, the Yankee skippers became sly and cunning--risking capture, usingneutral flags, and finding other subterfuges for new restrictions. Theembargo would tie up the ships to rot, throw seamen out of employment, destroy perishable commodities like breadstuffs, and paralyse trade. From the moment of its passage, therefore, merchants and shipownersresisted it, charging that Napoleon's Decree had provoked the BritishOrders, and that if the former would recede, the latter would bemodified. It revived the old charge of Jefferson's enmity to commerce. In the excitement, DeWitt Clinton opposed it, and Cheetham, with hisbitter, irritating pen, sustained him. He thought American commercemight be left to solve the difficulty for itself, by allowingmerchants to arm their vessels or otherwise encounter the risks andperils at their own discretion, rather than be compelled to abandonthe highway of nations to their British rivals, whose sole purpose, hemaintained, was to drive us from the ocean and capture French suppliesbeing transported in French vessels. 

But the Republicans in Congress stood firmly by the embargo, holdingthat if George Canning would modify the Orders in Council, which wereintended to drive American commerce from the ocean, Napoleon wouldmodify his decrees, which were provoked by the British Orders. It wasnot a question of avoiding sacrifices, said Governor Tompkins, in hisspeech to the Legislature, in January, 1808, but whether one sacrificemight not better be borne than another. The belligerents had issueddecrees regardless of our rights. If we carried for England, Francewould confiscate; if for France, England would confiscate. Englandexacted tribute, and insisted upon the right of search; Francedemanded forfeiture if we permitted search or paid tribute; betweenthe two the world was closed to us. But the belligerents needed ourwheat and breadstuffs, and while the embargo was intended only for atemporary expedient, giving the people time for reflection, andkeeping our vessels and cargoes from spoliation, it must prevail inthe end by making Europe feel the denial of neutral favours. "Whatpatriotic citizen, " he concluded, "will murmur at the temporaryprivations and inconveniences resulting from this measure, when hereflects upon the vast expenditure of national treasure, the sacrificeof the lives of our countrymen, the total and permanent suspension ofcommerce, the corruption of morals, and the distress and miseryconsequent upon our being involved in the war between the nations ofEurope? The evils which threaten us call for a magnanimous confidencein the efforts of our national councils to avert them, and for a firm, unanimous determination to devote everything that is dear to us tomaintain our right and national honour. "[155]

[Footnote 155: _Governor's Speeches. _ January 26, 1808, p. 98. ]

Governor Tompkins' views, sustained by decided majorities in bothbranches of the Legislature, hastened DeWitt Clinton's change ofattitude; and, to the great disgust of Cheetham, he now swung intoline. Deceived by the first outcry against Jefferson's policy, Clintonhad presided at an opposition meeting, while Cheetham, following hislead, had assailed it in the _American Citizen_. In the same spiritGeorge Clinton, the Vice President, imprudently and impulsivelyattacked it in letters to his friends; but DeWitt Clinton, seeing hismistake, quickly jumped into line with his party, leaving Cheetham andhis uncle to return as best they could. It was an ungracious act, since Cheetham, who had devoted the best of his powers in justifyingthe conduct of Clinton, was now left in the air, without the means ofgracefully getting down. 

Meantime, the new Council of Appointment, elected in February, andcontrolled by DeWitt Clinton, had reversed the work of Lewis. MarinusWillett surrendered the mayoralty to DeWitt Clinton, MaturinLivingston gave up the recordership, Thomas Tillotson turned over thesecretaryship of state to Elisha Jenkins, Sylvanus Miller again becamesurrogate of New York, and John Woodworth was dismissed from theoffice of attorney-general. Under the Constitution, the Legislatureelected the treasurer of the State, an office which Abraham G. Lansing, brother of the Chancellor and father of Garrett, had heldcontinuously since the defalcation of McClanan in 1803. Lansing waswealthy, and, like his brother, a man of the highest character forintegrity and correct business methods, but he had followed Lewis todefeat and now paid the penalty by giving place to David Thomas, who, like McClanan, was also to prove a defaulter. Thus, within a yearafter Tompkins' inauguration, an entire change of persons holdingcivil offices in the State had taken place, the Governor shrewdlystrengthening himself by assuming to have helped the winners, andweakening Clinton by permitting the disappointed to charge theirfailure to the Mayor. 

The nomination of a Republican candidate to succeed Jefferson, gaveTompkins further opportunity of strengthening himself at the expenseof DeWitt Clinton. For months the latter had been urging the claims ofGeorge Clinton for President, on the ground of the Vice President'shitherto undisputed right to promotion, and because Virginia had heldthe office long enough. But a congressional caucus, greatly to thedisgust of Monroe and the Clintons, and without the knowledge of theVice President, hastily got together according to the custom of theday and nominated James Madison for President and George Clinton forVice President. The disappointed friends of Monroe and Clinton chargedthat the caucus was irregular, only eighty-nine out of one hundred andthirty-nine Republican representatives and senators having attendedit, and could they have agreed upon a candidate among themselvesMadison must have been beaten. Leading Federalists waited until latein April for DeWitt Clinton to make some arrangement which their partymight support, but, while Federalists waited, the threatenedRepublican bolt wasted itself in a fruitless endeavour to unite upon acandidate for first place. Monroe's friends would not have GeorgeClinton, whom they pronounced too old and too infirm, and Clinton'sfriends declined to accept Monroe, who was objectionable, if for noother reason, because he was a Virginian. Finally, the Federalistsnominated Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina for President andRufus King of New York for Vice President, making Madison's electionabsolutely certain. 

This ought to have ended the strife in Republican ranks. Under similarcircumstances any ordinary politician would have hastened tore-establish himself with his party. But DeWitt Clinton, carrying thecontest to the New York Legislature, called to appoint presidentialelectors, insisted that the vote of the State be given to his uncle. The strong affection for the venerable statesman insured thesuggestion favourable consideration by a large portion of theRepublican party, but Tompkins assailed it with unanswerableargument. Without being of the slightest use to George Clinton, hecontended, such a course would exhibit an unhappy division inRepublican ranks, excite the jealousy of Madison's friends, impair theinfluence of New York Republicans with the Administration, and makethem appear ridiculous to their brethren in other States. This was thetalk of a wise politician. The contest was squarely between JamesMadison, regularly nominated by the method then accepted, and CharlesC. Pinckney, the candidate of the Federalists; and a vote for Clintonmeant a Republican vote thrown away out of pique. DeWitt Clintonunderstood this; but he could not curb a disposition to have thingshis way, and, upon his insistence, it was finally agreed that eachelector should vote his preference. Under this arrangement, GeorgeClinton received six votes out of the nineteen, Ambrose Spencerleading the minority. Of the votes cast for President, Madisonreceived 122, Clinton 6, and Pinckney 48; for Vice President, GeorgeClinton had 113, Rufus King 48, John Langdon of New Hampshire 9, andMadison and Monroe three each, the votes of Judge Spencer and his fiveassociates. 

Within a twelvemonth DeWitt Clinton had plainly made a series ofserious mistakes. He had opposed the embargo, he had antagonisedMadison, who still resented the Clintons' opposition to the FederalConstitution, and he had forced a discovery of Tompkins' superiormanagement and political wisdom. To add to his embarrassment, theLewisites, the Burrites, and the Martling Men now openly charged himwith hostility to Madison and with insincere support of Jefferson andTompkins, since he continued on friendly terms with Cheetham, whostill bitterly opposed the embargo. If these three political groups ofmen, having a bond of union in their common detestation of DeWittClinton, could have found a leader able to marshal them, they musthave compassed the latter's political overthrow long before heprostrated himself. Already it was whispered that Tompkins approvedtheir attacks, a suspicion that found many believers, since Minthornehad set to work to destroy Clinton. But the Governor was too wise tobe drawn openly into gladiatorial relations with DeWitt Clinton atthis time, although, as it afterward appeared, Madison and Tompkinseven then had an understanding to which Clinton was by no means astranger. 

Clinton, however, continued seemingly on good terms with Tompkins; andto disprove the attacks of the Martling Men he introduced a series ofresolutions in the State Senate, to which he had been elected in thepreceding April, approving the administration of President Madison andpledging support to Governor Tompkins. To make his defence the morecomplete, he backed the resolutions with an elaborately preparedspeech, in which he bitterly assailed the Federalists, who, hedeclared, thought it "better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. "Clinton may be excused for getting in accord with his party; but sincehis change disclosed an absence of principle, it was bad manners, tosay the least, to denounce, with Miltonic quotation, those whoconsistently held to the views formerly entertained by himself. OfClinton it could scarcely be said, that he was a favourite in theLegislature. He frequently allowed his fierce indignation to get thebetter of his tongue. His sharp sarcasms, his unsparing ridicule, andhis heedless personalities, sometimes withered the effect of hisoratory; yet it is quite certain that the fury of his assaults and theexuberance of his anger aroused the keenest interest, and that whenthe Martling Men finally prevented his return to the Legislature hisabsence was generally regretted. 

Clinton's speech did not convince Federalists that embargo was theproduct of profound statesmanship. Abraham Van Vechten, the leader ofthe Federalists in the Legislature, was a powerful and logicalreasoner, and an orator of singular eloquence. His success as anadvocate at the bar followed him to the Assembly, and in every debatehe proved a formidable antagonist. He had a gift of sarcasm that madean adversary exceedingly uncomfortable; and as he shattered thereasoning of Clinton, he exposed the imperious and domineeringtrimmer to ridicule and jest. Van Vechten ranked among the ablest menof New York. His tall, erect, and dignified figure was well knownthroughout the State, and although he did not assume to lead hisparty, the Federalists recognised his right to share in itsleadership. Governor Jay offered him a place on the Supreme bench; buthe preferred the bar and the brief sessions of the Legislature. 

By the side of Van Vechten sat Daniel Cady, at that time thirty-sixyears of age, already renowned as a lawyer, the rival of Ogden Hoffmanand Marcus T. Reynolds, and, in the estimation of his contemporaries, one of the most generous and gifted men of his time. Three terms inthe Legislature and one in Congress measured, until his election tothe Supreme Court in 1847, his career in public life; but brief as wasthis service, his great ability adorned the State and strengthened hisparty. His distinguished daughter, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, whoseachievements covered more than half of the last century, representedin a marked degree his gifts, his accomplishments, and the sweetnessof his nature. 

Under the lead of Van Vechten and Cady, the Federalists tormentedDeWitt Clinton and the friends of embargo, by contrasting the busywharves in 1807, covered with bales of cotton, barrels of flour, andhogsheads of sugar, with the stagnation that characterised all avenuesof commerce in 1809. Ropewalks were deserted, sailmakers idle, draymenwithout business, and sailors without bread. If England bled, theydeclared, the United States bled faster. An ocean whitened withAmerican sails had been turned over to British ships which wereabsorbing the maritime trade. France showed an indifference toAmerica's commerce and England boasted an independence of America'strade. As a weapon of coercion, exclaimed Cady, embargo has been afailure--as a measure of defence it has been suicidal. What wouldhappen if our ships were suffered to go to Europe and the Indies? Somewould reach Europe and find a market; others would go to England, obtain a license to sail to a Baltic port, and then sell at greatprofit. Out of a hundred ships, two would probably be seized by theFrench. Better to lose two by seizure than the destruction of all byembargo. 

Obadiah German had much to say in defence of the justice and prudenceof the embargo. There was nothing brilliant about German; but ampleevidence of his parliamentary ability lines the pathway of his publiccareer. Without eloquence or education, he had the full courage of hisconvictions and an intellectual vigour sufficient to back them. Hecame to the Legislature in 1798, and, in 1809, very unexpectedlysucceeded Samuel L. Mitchill as United States senator. Later he servedone term as speaker of the Assembly. Just now he was the recognisedleader of the Republican majority in that body, and in his wise, uncouth way dealt many a hard blow with telling effect. 

Nathan Sanford also assisted in repelling the assaults of Cady and VanVechten. Sanford was the pet of the Martling Men and the enemy ofDeWitt Clinton. He had been appointed United States attorney upon theresignation of Edward Livingston in 1803, holding the office until hiselection to the United States Senate to succeed Obadiah German in1815. In the meantime he served two terms in the Assembly, one of themas speaker, and three terms in the State Senate. Afterward, he becamechancellor for two or three years, and then took another term asUnited States senator. His activity gave him strength, and his loyaltyto the Martling Men, now known as Tammany, supplied him with backersenough to keep him continuously in office for thirty years. Despitehis titles of Senator and Chancellor, however, and his long publicservice, he did not leave a memory for eloquence, scholarship, or forgreat ability; though he was a ready talker and a willing friend, quick to catch the favouring breeze and ready to adopt any politicalmethod that promised success. In upholding embargo, Sanford admittedits seriousness, but emphasised its necessity. He recalled how Englandhad searched our ships, impressed our seamen, killed our citizens, and insulted our towns. The ocean, he argued, had become a place ofrobbery and national disgrace, since Great Britain, by its orders inCouncil, had provoked France into promulgating the Berlin Decree ofNovember, 1806, and the Milan Decree of December, 1807, whichdenationalised any ship that touched an English port, or suffered anEnglish search, or paid an English tax--whether it entered a Frenchport, or fell into the power of a French privateer. Thus, sinceEngland had blockaded one-half of Europe and France the other half, hethought it time for dignified retirement, until England felt the needof additional supplies, and France awoke to the loss of its luxuries. 

At the close of the spirited debate, DeWitt Clinton's resolutions wereadopted by both houses--in the Senate without a division; in theAssembly by a vote of sixty-one to forty-one. But almost before theresult was announced, American wheat dropped from two dollars toseventy cents a bushel, turning the election of April, 1809, into aFederalist victory. It was a great surprise to Tompkins and his party, whose only gleam of hope grew out of the failure of the Federalists toreturn senators from the middle and eastern districts, thuspreventing, as they assumed, a Federalist majority in the new Councilof Appointment and a wholesale removal of Republican officials. Butthe Federalists understood their work. After welcoming to thespeakership their old friend, William North of Duansburgh, who hadserved in the same capacity in 1795 and again in 1796, the Assemblyelected to the Council, two Federalists and two Republicans, includingRobert Williams of the middle district. Williams had been a Lewisite, a Burrite, and a Clintonian. With the help of a Federalist governor in1799, he became sheriff of Dutchess County, and, although he bore thereputation of a trimmer, he seems to have concealed the real basenessof his character until the meeting of the new Council, when hiscasting vote turned out of office every Republican in the State. Bythis treachery his son-in-law, Thomas J. Oakley, of whom we shall hearmuch hereafter, became surrogate of Dutchess County; Jacob Radcliff, the great chancery lawyer, mayor of New York; Abraham Van Vechten, attorney-general, and Abraham G. Lansing, treasurer of state. From themoment of his apostacy Robert Williams, classified by his neighbourswith Judas Iscariot and ignored by men of all parties, passed intoobscurity. 

CHAPTER XV

TOMPKINS DEFEATS JONAS PLATT

1810

Though DeWitt Clinton again lost the mayoralty of New York, he wasstill in the Senate; and to maintain an appearance of friendship withthe Governor, he wrote the address to the people, signed by theRepublican members of the Legislature, placing Tompkins in the racefor re-election. The Federalists, encouraged by their gains in April, 1809, had with confidence nominated Jonas Platt for governor, andNicholas Fish for lieutenant-governor. Fish is little known to thepresent generation except as the father of Hamilton Fish, the ablesecretary of state in President Grant's Cabinet; but in his dayeverybody knew of him, and everybody admitted his capacity andpatriotism. His distinguished gallantry during the Revolution won himthe confidence of Washington and the intimate friendship of Hamilton, after whom he named his illustrious son. For many years he wasadjutant-general of the State, president of the New York Society ofthe Cincinnati, and a representative Federalist. It is said that AaronBurr felt rebuked in his presence, because he recognised in him thosehigh qualities of noble devotion to principle which the grandson ofJonathan Edwards well knew were wanting in his own character. Just nowFish was fifty-two years old, a member of the New York Board ofAldermen, and an inveterate opponent of Republicanism, chafing underDeWitt Clinton's dictatorship in the State and Tammany's control inthe city. 

Jonas Platt had borne an important part in propping up fallingFederalism. He was a born fighter. Though somewhat uncouth inexpression and unrefined in manner, he had won for himself a proudposition at the bar of his frontier home, and was rapidly writing hisname high on the roll of New York statesmen. He had proved hispopularity by carrying his senatorial district in the precedingelection; and he had demonstrated his ability as a debater by replyingto the arguments of DeWitt Clinton with a power that comes only fromwide information and a consciousness of being in the right. He couldnot be turned aside from the real issue. Whatever or whoever hadprovoked the British Orders in Council, he declared, one thing wascertain, those orders could not have driven American commerce from theocean had not the embargo established British commerce in its place. This was the weak point in the policy of Jefferson, and the strongpoint in the argument of Jonas Platt. Five hundred and thirty-sevenvessels, aggregating over one hundred and eighty thousand tons, hadbeen tied up in New York alone; and the public revenues collected atits custom house had dropped from four and a half millions to nothing. History concedes that embargo, since it required a much greatersacrifice at home than it caused abroad, utterly failed as a weaponfor coercing Europe; and with redoubled energy and prodigious effect, Platt drove this argument into the friends of the odious andprofitless measure, until the Governor's party in the election of 1809had gone down disastrously. 

To Obadiah German, a living embodiment of the Jeffersonian spirit, themost extravagant arguments in support of the embargo came naturallyand clearly. To a man of DeWitt Clinton's high order of intellect, however, it must have been difficult, in the presence of Jonas Platt'slogic, backed as it was by an unanswerable array of facts, to believethat the arguments in favour of embargo were those which history wouldapprove. As if, however, to establish Platt's position, Congress, inthe midst of the New York campaign, voted to remove the embargo, andto establish in its stead, non-intercourse with Great Britain andFrance--thus reopening trade with the rest of Europe and indulgingthose merchants who desired to take the risks of capture. For themoment, this was a great blow to Clinton and a great victory forPlatt, giving him a prestige that his party thought entitled him tothe governorship. 

In the legislative session of 1810, however, Jonas Platt developedneither the strength nor the shrewdness that characterised his conducton the stump during the campaign of 1809. William Erskine, the Britishminister, a son of the distinguished Lord Chancellor, whose attachmentto America was strengthened by marriage, had negotiated a treaty withthe United States limiting the life of the Orders in Council to June10, 1809. This treaty had been quickly disavowed by the Englishgovernment, and, in referring to it in his message, Governor Tompkinsaccused England of wilfully refusing to fulfil its stipulations. "WithGreat Britain an arrangement was effected in April last, " wrote theGovernor, "which diffused a lively satisfaction through the nation, and presaged a speedy restoration of good understanding and harmonybetween the two countries. But our hopes were blasted by an unexpecteddisavowal of the agreement, and an unqualified refusal to fulfil itsstipulations on the part of England. Since the recall of the ministerwho negotiated the arrangement, nothing has occurred to brighten theprospect of an honourable adjustment of our differences. On thecontrary, instead of evincing an amicable disposition by substitutingother acceptable terms of accommodation in lieu of the disavowedarrangement, the new minister has persisted in impeaching the veracityof our Administration, which a sense of respect for themselves, andfor the dignity of the nation they represent, forbade them to brook. "

There was nothing in this statement to rebuke. Young Erskine had beendisplaced by an English minister who had acquired the reputation ofbeing an edged-tool against neutral nations, a curiously narrow, hide-bound politician, whose language was as insolent as his mannerswere offensive. The Governor's reference, therefore, had not been toosevere, nor had his statement overleaped the truth; yet Jonas Plattattacked it with great asperity, arraigning the nationaladministration and charging that the country had more cause for warwith France than with Great Britain. This was both unwise anduntenable. The Governor had aimed his criticism at France as well asat England. He spoke of one as controlling the destinies of theEuropean continent, of the other as domineering upon the ocean, and ofboth as overleaping "the settled principles of public law, whichconstituted the barriers between the caprice, the avarice, or thetyranny of a belligerent, and the rights and independence of aneutral. " But Jonas Platt, betrayed by his prejudices againstJefferson and France, went on with an argument well calculated to givehis opponents an advantage. His language was strong and clear, hissarcasm pointed; but it gave DeWitt Clinton the opportunity ofcharging Federalists with taking sides with the British against theirown country. 

There never was a time when the Federalists, as a national party, werewilling to join hands with England to the disadvantage of theircountry. They had the same reasons for disliking England that animatedtheir opponents. But their antipathy to Jacobins and to Jefferson, andthe latter's partiality for France, drove them into sympathy withGreat Britain's struggle against Napoleon, until the people suspectedthem of too great fondness for English institutions and Englishprinciples. Several events, too, seemed to justify such a suspicion, notably the adherence of British Tories to the Federalist party, andthe latter's zeal to allay hostile feelings growing out of theRevolutionary war. To such an extent had this sentimental sympathybeen carried, that, in the summer of 1805, the Federalists of Albany, having a majority in the common council, foolishly refused to allowthe Declaration of Independence to be read as a part of the exercisesin celebration of the Fourth of July. Naturally, such a policy quicklyaroused every inherited and cultivated prejudice against the British, strengthening the belief that the Federalists, as a party, werewilling to suppress the patriotic utterances of their own countrymenrather than injure the feelings of America's hereditary foe. 

When DeWitt Clinton, therefore, charged the party of Jonas Platt withtaking the side of the British against their own country, the debaterevived old tales of cruelty and massacre, growing out of England'salliance with the Indians in the early days of the Revolution; and itgave John Taylor opportunity to recount the horrors which he hadwitnessed in the days of his country's extreme peril. Taylor wassixty-eight years old. For nearly twenty years he had been a member ofthe Legislature, and was soon to be lieutenant-governor for nearly tenyears more. Before the Revolutionary war, he served in the ProvincialCongress; and in Arnold's expedition to Canada, in 1775, he hadsuperintended the commissary department, contributing to the comfortof the shattered remnant who stood with Montgomery on the Plains ofAbraham on that ill-fated last day of the year. 

Taylor was a man of undoubted integrity and great political sagacity. His character suffered, perhaps, because a fondness for money keptgrowing with his growing years. "For a good old gentlemanly vice, "says Byron, "I think I must take up with avarice. " Taylor did not waitto be an old gentleman before adopting "the good old gentlemanlyvice, " but it did not seem to hurt him with the people, for he kept ongetting rich and getting office. He was formed to please. His tall, slender form, rising above the heads of those about him, made hisagreeable manners and easy conversation the more noticeable, gaininghim the affection of men while challenging their admiration for hisability. 

In 1760, Taylor had followed the British army to Oswego, and thereacquired a knowledge of the Indian language. He knew of the alliancebetween the British and Indians in 1776, and had witnessed thehorrible massacres growing out of these treaty relations. The mosttragic stories of Indian atrocities begin with the payment of bountiesby the British for the scalps of women and children, and for thecapture of men and boys who would make soldiers. Often guided byTories, the fierce Mohawks sought out the solitary farmhouse, scalpedthe helpless, and, with a few prisoners, started back on their lonelyreturn journey to Canada, hundreds of miles through the forest, simplyto receive the promised reward of a few Spanish dollars from theirBritish allies. When DeWitt Clinton, therefore, charged theFederalists with loving the English more than their own country, JohnTaylor won the Senate by recalling Indian atrocities set on foot byBritish officers, and often carried out with the assistance of BritishTories, now members of the Federalist party. Daniel Parrish, a senatorfrom the eastern district, having more courage than eloquence, came toPlatt's support with the most exact and honest skill, repelling theinsinuations of Clinton, and indignantly denying Taylor's tactfulargument. But when Taylor, pointing his long, well-formed index fingerat the eastern senator, expressed surprise and grief to hear one pleadthe English cause whose father had been foully murdered by an Indianwhile under British pay and British orders, Parrish lost his temperand Platt his cause. 

It was a sad day for Platt. So successfully did Taylor revive the oldRevolutionary hatred of the British that the Herkimer statesman'sarraignment of Governor Tompkins, offered as a substitute for DeWittClinton's friendly answer, was rejected by a vote of twenty-three tosix. Coming as it did on the eve of the gubernatorial election it wastoo late to retrieve his lost position. Moreover, the repeal of theembargo had materially weakened the Federalists and correspondinglystrengthened the Republicans, since the commerce of New York quicklyrevived, giving employment to the idle and bread to the hungry. Theconviction deepened, also, that a Republican administration wassincerely impartial in sentiment between the two belligerents, andthat the present foreign policy, ineffective as it might be, fittedthe emergency better than a bolder one. Added to this, was the keendesire of the Republicans to recover the offices which had been lostthrough the apostacy of Robert Williams; and although the Federalistsstruggled like drowning men to hold their ill-gotten gains, the stronganti-British sentiment, backed by a determination to approve thepolicy of Madison, swept the State, re-electing Governor Tompkins bysix thousand majority[156] and putting both branches of theLegislature in control of the Republicans. Surely, Jonas Platt wasnever to be governor. 

[Footnote 156: Daniel D. Tompkins, 43, 094; Jonas Platt, 36, 484. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

In the heated temper of the triumphant party, the new Council ofAppointment, chosen soon after the Legislature convened in January, 1811, began removing officials with a fierceness that in our day wouldhave brought shame and ruin upon any administration. It was a ClintonCouncil, and only Clintonians took office. Jacob Radcliff again turnedover the New York mayoralty to DeWitt Clinton; Abraham Van Vechtengave up the attorney-generalship to Matthias B. Hildreth; Daniel Halesurrendered the secretaryship of state to Elisha Jenkins; TheodoreV. W. Graham bowed his adieus to the recordership of Albany as John VanNess Yates came in; and James O. Hoffman, Cadwallader D. Colden, andJohn W. Mulligan, as recorder, district attorney, and surrogate of NewYork, respectively, hastened to make way for their successors. As soonas an order could reach him, Thomas J. Oakley, surrogate of DutchessCounty, vacated the office that the treachery of his father-in-law hadbrought him. It was another clean sweep throughout the entire State. Even Garrett T. Lansing, because he once belonged to the Lewisites, found the petty office of master in chancery catalogued among the"spoils. "

CHAPTER XVI

DeWITT CLINTON AND TAMMANY

1789-1811

The death of Lieutenant-Governor Broome, in the summer of 1810, created a vacancy which the Legislature provided should be filled atthe following election in April. John Broome had been distinguishedsince the olden days when the cardinal policy of New York was theunion of the Colonies in a general congress. He had belonged to theCommittee of Fifty-one with John Jay, to the Committee of One Hundredwith James Duane, and to the Committee of Observation with PhilipLivingston. After the Revolution, he became president of the Board ofAldermen, treasurer of the Chamber of Commerce, and, in 1789, hadstood for Congress against James Lawrence, the trusted adjutant-generalof Washington. Although Broome's overwhelming defeat for Congress inno wise reflected upon his character as a patriot and representativecitizen, it kept him in the background until the Federalists hadfrittered away their power in New York City. Then he came to the frontagain, first as state senator, and afterward, in 1804, aslieutenant-governor; but he never reached the coveted governorship. Inthat day, as in this, the office of lieutenant-governor was notnecessarily a stepping stone to higher preferment. Pierre VanCortlandt served with fidelity for eighteen years without getting thelong wished-for promotion; Morgan Lewis jumped over Jeremiah VanRensselaer in 1804; and Daniel D. Tompkins was preferred to JohnBroome in 1807. Indeed, with the exception of Enos T. Throop, HamiltonFish, David B. Hill, and Frank W. Higgins, none of the worthy men whohave presided with dignity over the deliberations of the State Senatehave ever been elected governor. 

DeWitt Clinton now wished to succeed Broome; and a large majority ofRepublican legislators quickly placed him in nomination. Clinton hadfirst desired to return to Albany as senator, as he would then havepossessed the right to vote and to participate in debate. But theMartling Men, who held the balance of power, put forward Morgan Lewis, his bitterest enemy. It was a clever move on the part of theex-Governor. Clinton had literally driven Lewis from the party, andfor three years his name remained a reminiscence; but, with theassistance of Tammany, he now got out of obscurity by getting onto theticket with Governor Tompkins. To add, too, to Clinton's chagrin, Tammany also put up Nathan Sanford for the Assembly, and thus closedagainst him the door of the Legislature. But to carry out hisambitious scheme--of mounting to the Presidency in 1812--Clintonneeded to be in Albany to watch his enemies; and, although he caredlittle for the lieutenant-governorship, the possession of it wouldfurnish an excuse for his presence at the state capital. 

The announcement of DeWitt Clinton's nomination raised the mostearnest outcries among the Martling Men. They had endeavoured todefeat his reappointment to the mayoralty; but their wild protests hadfallen upon deaf ears. Indeed, the hatred of Minthorne, the intriguinggenius of Teunis Wortman, and the earnestness of Matthew L. Davis, seemed only to have been agencies to prepare the way for Clinton'striumphant restoration. Now, however, these accomplished politicalgladiators proposed to give battle at the polls, and if theirinfluence throughout the State had been as potent as it proved withinthe wards of New York City, the day of DeWitt Clinton's destiny musthave been nearly over. 

Since its organisation in 1789, the Society of St. Tammany had been aninfluential one. It was founded for charitable purposes; itsmembership was made up mostly of native Americans, and its meetingswere largely social in their character. 

 "There's a barrel of porter at Tammany Hall, And the Bucktails are swigging it all the night long; In the time of my boyhood 'twas pleasant to call For a seat and cigar 'mid the jovial throng. "

Thus sang Fitz-Greene Halleck of the social customs that continued farinto the nineteenth century. Originally, Federalists andanti-Federalists found a welcome around Tammany's council fire; andits bucktail badge, the symbol of liberty, hung from the hat ofClintonian and Hamiltonian alike. But toward the end of Washington'ssecond administration the society became thoroughly partisan andthoroughly anti-Federalist, shifting its wigwam to the historic "LongRoom, " at the tavern of Abraham Martling, a favourite hostlery whichthe Federalists contemptuously called "the Pig-Pen. " Then it was, thatAaron Burr made Tammany a power in political campaigns. He does notseem to have been its grand sachem, or any sachem at all; nor is itknown that he ever entered its wigwam or affiliated as a member; butits leaders were his satellites, who began manufacturing publicopinion, manipulating primaries, dictating nominations, and carryingwards. 

Out of Burr's candidacy for President sprang Tammany's long and bitterwarfare against DeWitt Clinton. The quarrel began in 1802 when Clintonand Cheetham charged Burr with intriguing to beat Jefferson; it grewin bitterness when Clinton turned Burr and the Swartouts out of thedirectorate of the Manhattan Bank; nor was it softened after thesecret compromise, made at Dyde's Hotel, in February, 1806. Indeed, from that moment, Tammany seemed the more determined to harass theambitious Clinton; and, although his agents, as late as 1809, soughtreconciliation, the society expelled Cheetham and made Clinton anobject of detestation. Cheetham, who died in 1810, did not live towreak full vengeance; but he did enough to arouse a shower ofbrick-bats which broke the windows of his home and threatened thedemolition of the _American Citizen_. 

Though Cheetham's decease relieved Tammany of one of its earliest andmost vindictive assailants, the political death of DeWitt Clintonwould have been more helpful, since Clinton's opposition proved themore harmful. As mayor he lived like a prince distributing bountyliberally among his supporters. He was lavish in the gift of lucrativeoffices, lavish in the loan of money, and lavish in contributions tocharity. His salary and fees were estimated at twenty thousanddollars, an extravagant sum in days when eight hundred dollars met theexpense of an average family, and the possessor of fifty thousanddollars was considered a rich man. Besides, his wife had inheritedfrom her father, Walter Franklin, a wealthy member of the Society ofFriends, an estate valued at forty thousand dollars, making her one ofthe richest women in New York. 

But Clinton had more than rich fees and a wealthy wife. The foreignelement, especially the Irish, admired him because, when a UnitedStates senator, he had urged and secured a reduction of the period ofnaturalisation from fourteen years to five; and because he relievedthe political and financial distress of their countrymen, by aidingthe repeal of the alien and sedition laws. For a score of years, America had invited to its shores every fugitive from Britishpersecution. But the heroes of 'Ninety-eight, who had escaped thegibbet, and successfully made their way to this country through thecordon of English frigates, were welcomed with laws even moreoffensive than the coercion acts which they had left behind. The lastrebellious uprising to occur in Ireland under the Georges, had sentThomas Addis Emmet, brother of the famous and unfortunate Irishpatriot, a fugitive to the land of larger liberty. To receive thisbrother with laws that might send him back to death, was to despisethe national sentiment of Irishmen; and the men, Clinton declared, whohad been indisposed or unable to take account of the force of anational sentiment, were not and never could be fit to carry on thegreat work of government. 

Thoughtful, however, as DeWitt Clinton had been of the oppressed inother lands, he lacked what Dean Swift said Bolingbroke needed--"asmall infusion of the alderman. " If he thought a man stupid he let himknow it. To those who disagreed with him, he was rude and overbearing. All of what is known as the "politician's art" he professed todespise; and while Tammany organised wards into districts, anddistricts into blocks, Clinton pinned his faith on the supremacy ofintellect, and on office-holding friends. The day the news of hisnomination for lieutenant-governor reached New York, Tammany publiclycharged him with attempting "to establish in his person a perniciousfamily aristocracy;" with making complete devotion "the exclusive testof merit and the only passport to promotion;" and with excludinghimself from the Republican party by "opposing the election ofPresident Madison. " There was much truth in some of these charges. Clinton had quarrelled with Aaron Burr; he had overthrown MorganLewis; and he was ready to defeat Daniel D. Tompkins. Even Cheethamhad left him some months before his death, and Richard Riker, whoacted as second in the duel with John Swartout, was soon to ignore thechilly Mayor when he passed. The estrangement of these friends ispathetic, yet one gets no melancholy accounts of Clinton's troubles. The great clamour of Tammany brought no darkening clouds into hislife. He was soon to learn that Tammany, heretofore an object ofcontempt, was now a force to be reckoned with, but he did not show anyqualms of uneasiness even if he felt them. 

Tammany bolted Clinton's nomination, selecting for its candidateMarinus Willett, its most available member, and most brillianthistoric character. Before and during the Revolution, Willett did muchto make him a popular hero. He served the inefficient Abercrombie inhis unsuccessful attack on Ticonderoga in 1758; he was with theresolute Bradstreet at the brilliant charge of Fort Frontenac; he ledthe historic sortie at Fort Schuyler on the 7th of August, 1777. Menwere still living who saw his furious assault upon the camp ofJohnson's Greens, so sudden and sharp that the baronet himself, beforejoining the flight of his Indians to the depths of the thick forest, did not have time to put on his coat, or to save the British flag andthe personal baggage of Barry St. Leger. The tale was strange enoughto seem incredible to minds more sober than those of the Tammanybraves, who listened with pride to the achievements of their sachem. With two hundred and fifty men and an iron three-pounder, Willett hadfallen so unexpectedly upon the English and Indians, that the advanceguard, panic-stricken, suddenly disappeared--officers, men, andsavages--leaving twenty-one wagon loads of rich spoil. This heroicdeed was a part of Willett's stock in trade, and, although he waswobbly in his politics, the people could not forget his courage andgood judgment in war. But Willett's influence was confined to thewards of a city. The rural counties believed in New York's mayorrather than in New York's hero; and when the votes were counted, Clinton had a safe majority. He had fared badly in New York City, being deprived of more than half his votes through the popularcandidacy of Nicholas Fish; but, in spite of Tammany, he was able togo to Albany, and to begin work upon a scheme which, until then, hadbeen only a dream. It was to be a gigantic struggle. Lewis and theLivingstons opposed him, Tammany detested him, Tompkins was jealous ofhim, Spencer deserted him; but he had shown he knew how to wait; andwhen waiting was over, he showed he knew how to act. 

CHAPTER XVII

BANKS AND BRIBERY

1791-1812

During the early years of the last century, efforts to incorporatebanks in New York were characterised by such an utter disregard ofmoral methods, that the period was long remembered as a black spot inthe history of the State. Under the lead of Hamilton, Congressincorporated the United States Bank in 1791; and, inspired by hisbroad financial views, the Legislature chartered the Bank of New Yorkin the same year, the Bank of Albany in 1792, and the Bank ofColumbia, located at Hudson, in 1793. These institutions soon fellunder the management of Federalists, who believed in banks and wereready to aid in their establishment, so long as they remained underFederalist control. 

Republicans, on the other hand, disbelieved in banks. They opposed theUnited States Bank; and by George Clinton's casting vote defeated anextension of its charter, which expired by limitation on March 4, 1811. To them a bank was a combination of the rich against the poor, amoneyed corporation whose power was a menace to free institutions, andwhose secret machinations were to be dreaded. At the same time, Republican leaders recognised the political necessity of havingRepublican banks to offset the influence of Federalist banks, and inorder to overcome the deep seated prejudice of their party and todefeat the opposition of Federalists, inducements were offered andmeans employed which unscrupulous men quickly turned into base andshameless bribery. 

In his partisan zeal Burr began the practice of deception. TheRepublicans needed a bank. The only one in New York City wascontrolled by the Federalists, who also controlled the Legislature, and the necessities of the rising party, if not his own financialneeds, appealed to Burr's clever management. Under the cover ofchartering a company to supply pure water, and thus avoid a return ofthe yellow fever which had so recently devastated the city, he askedauthority to charter the Manhattan Company, with a capital of twomillion dollars, provided "the surplus capital might be employed inany way not inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of the UnitedStates and of the State of New York. " The people remembered theterrible yellow fever scourge, and the Legislature considered only thequestion of relieving the danger with pure and wholesome water; and, although the large capitalisation aroused suspicion in the Senate, andChief Justice Lansing called it "a novel experiment, "[157] the billpassed. Thus the Manhattan Bank came into existence, while wells, brackish and unwholesome, continued the only sufficient source ofwater supply. 

[Footnote 157: "This, in the opinion of the Council, as a novelexperiment, the result whereof, as to its influence on the community, must be merely speculative and uncertain, peculiarly requires theapplication of the policy which has heretofore uniformlyobtained--that the powers of corporations relative to their moneyoperations, should be of limited instead of perpetual duration. "--AlfredB. Street, _New York Council of Revision_, p. 423. ]

That was in 1799. Four years later, the Republicans of Albany, realising the importance of a bank and the necessity of avoiding theopposition of their own party, obtained a charter for the State Bank, by selling stock to Republican members of the Legislature, with anassurance that it could be resold at a premium as soon as theinstitution had an existence. There was a ring of money in thisproposition. Such an investment meant a gift of ten or twenty dollarson each share, and immediately members clamoured, intrigued, andbattled for stock. The very boldness of the proposition seemed to saveit from criticism. Nothing was covered up. To put the stock at apremium there must be a bank; to make a bank there must be a charter;and to secure a charter a majority of the members must own its stock. The result was inevitable. 

It seems incredible in our day that such corruption could go on inbroad daylight without a challenge. At the present time a legislatorcould not carry a district in New York if it were known that his votehad been secured by such ill-gotten gains. Yet the methods of theRepublican promoters of the State Bank seem not to have brought ablush to the cheek of the youngest legislator. No one of prominencetook exception to it save Abraham Van Vechten, and he was lessconcerned about the immorality of the thing than the competition to bearrayed against the Federalist bank in Albany. Even Erastus Root, thenjust entering his first term in Congress, saw nothing in thetransaction to shock society's sense of propriety or to break theloftiest code of morality. "There was nothing of mystery in thepassage of the bank, " he wrote. "The projectors sought to push itforward by spreading the stock among the influential Republicans ofthe State, including members of the Legislature, and carry it throughas a party measure. It was argued by the managers of the scheme thatthe stock would be above par in order to induce the members of theLegislature to go into the measure, but nothing in the transaction hadthe least semblance of a corrupt influence. No one would hesitate frommotives of delicacy, to offer a member, nor for him to take, shares ina bank sooner than in a turnpike or in an old canal. "[158]

[Footnote 158: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 1. Appendix, p. 583, Note J. ]

One can hardly imagine Erastus Root serious in the expression of sucha monstrous doctrine. His life had been pure and noble. He was asincere lover of his country; a statesman of high purpose, and of themost commanding talents. No one ever accused him of any share in thisfinancial corruption. Yet a more Machiavellian opinion could not havebeen uttered. On principle, Republican members of the Legislatureopposed banks, and that principle was overcome by profits; in otherwords, members must be bought, or the charter would fail. That thestock did go above par is evident from Root's keen desire to get someof it. As an influential Republican, he was allowed to subscribe forfifty shares, but when he called for it the papers could not be found. The bank was not a bubble. It had been organised and its stock issued, but its hook had been so well baited that the legislators left nothingfor outsiders. Subsequently the directors sent Root a certificate foreight shares, and John Lamb, an assemblyman from Root's home, gave upeight more; but the Delaware congressman, angry because deprived ofhis fifty shares, refused to accept any. "I had come prepared to takethe fifty, " he wrote, "and in a fit of more spunk than wisdom, Irejected the whole. "[159]

[Footnote 159: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 1. Appendix, p. 582, Note S. ]

Two years after, in 1805, the Federalists desired to charter theMerchants' Bank of New York City. But the Legislature, largelyRepublican, was led by DeWitt Clinton, now at the zenith of his power, who resented its establishment because it must become a competitor ofthe Manhattan, an institution that furnished him fat dividends andlarge influence. Clinton had undoubtedly acquired a reputation forlove of gain as well as of power, but he had never been charged, likeJohn Taylor, with avarice. He spent with a lavish hand, he loanedliberally to friends, and he borrowed as if the day of payment wasnever to come; yet he had no disposition to help opponents of a bankthat must cripple his control and diminish his profits. In thiscontest, too, he had the active support of Ambrose Spencer, who foughtthe proposed charter in the double capacity of a stockholder in theManhattan and the State, and a member of the Council of Revision. Three banks, with five millions of capital and authority to issuenotes and create debts for fifteen millions more, he argued, wereenough for one city. He had something to say also about "an alarmingdecrease of specie, " and "an influx of bills of credit, " which"tended to further banish the precious metals from circulation. "[160]

[Footnote 160: Alfred B. Street, _New York Council of Revision_, p. 427. ]

Governor Lewis would have been wiser had he joined Clinton and Spencerin their opposition. But Lewis would not play second fiddle in anygame with Clinton, and so when he discovered that Clinton opposed thebank, he yielded party principle to personal prejudice and favouredit. With this powerful recruit the managers still lacked a majority, and, to influence others, Ebenezer Purdy, a Republican senator, employed his gifts in offering his legislative associates largerewards and rich benefits. As a statesman, Purdy seems to have beenwithout any guiding principle, or any principle at all. He toiled andpushed and climbed, until he had landed in the Senate; then he pulledand bargained and promised until he became a member of the Council ofAppointment, and, later, chairman of the legislative caucus thatnominated Chancellor Lansing for governor; but not until theMerchants' Bank wanted a charter did Purdy find an opportunity todevelop those aldermanic qualifications which distinguish him inhistory. He was getting on very well until he had the misfortune toconfide his secret to Stephen Thorn, a senator from the easterndistrict, and Obadiah German, the well-known assemblyman fromChenango, whose views were not as liberal as Erastus Root's. "No onewould hesitate, from motives of delicacy, to offer a member shares ina bank, " said Root. This was Purdy's view also; but Thorn and Germanthought such an offer had the "semblance of a corrupt influence, " andthey made affidavits that Purdy had attempted to corrupt their votes. According to these affidavits the Senator promised German fifty sharesof stock, with a profit of twenty dollars a share, and Thorn thirtyshares, with a profit of twenty-five dollars a share. Similaraffidavits were made by other members. 

Erastus Root took exception to such transactions. "The Merchants' Bankin 1805, " he says, "had powerful opposition to encounter, and, ofcourse, made use of powerful means to accomplish the object. Then theshares and the assurance became down-right corruption. "[161] But it isnot easy to observe the difference between the methods of the StateBank managers, which Root affirms "had not the least semblance of acorrupt influence, " and those of the Merchants' Bank, which hepronounces "down-right corruption, " except that the one was openbribery and the other secret bribery. In either case, votes wereobtained by the promise of profits. It is likely the methods of theMerchants' would have escaped notice, as did those of the State Bank, had not Clinton, determined to beat it, complained of Purdy's bribery. The latter resigned to escape expulsion, but the bank received itscharter. This aroused the public conscience, and in the followingwinter the Legislature provided suitable punishment for the crime ofbribery. 

[Footnote 161: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 2. Appendix, p. 582. ]

It was not until 1812 that any one had the hardihood to suggestanother bank. Then the Federalists sought a charter for the Bank ofAmerica, with a capital of six millions, to be located in New YorkCity. The applicants proposed to pay the school fund four hundredthousand dollars, the literature fund one hundred thousand, and theState one hundred thousand, provided no other bank be chartered fortwenty years. In addition to this extravagant bonus, its managersagreed to loan the State one million dollars at five per cent. For theconstruction of canals, and one million to farmers at six per cent. For the improvement of their real estate. This bold and liberalproposal recalls John Law's South Sea Bubble of the century before;for, although the Bank of America sought no monopoly and promised thepayment of no national debt, it did seem to be aiming its flight abovethe clouds, since, counting the Manhattan at two, the united capitalof the banks of the State did not exceed five millions. The promoters, anticipating an outcry against the incorporation of such a giganticinstitution, employed David Thomas of Washington and Solomon Southwickof Albany to visit members of the Legislature at their homes with thehope of enlisting their active support. 

It is doubtful if two men better equipped to supply the necessarylegislative majority could have been found in the State. Both werestalwart Republicans, possessing the confidence of DeWitt Clinton andan extensive acquaintance among local party managers. Thomas hadcaution and rare sagacity. Indeed, his service of four years in theLegislature and eight years in Congress had added to his politicalgifts such shrewdness and craft that he did not scruple, on occasion, to postpone or hasten an event, even though such arrangement was madeat the expense of some one else. This characteristic had manifesteditself in the removal of Abraham G. Lansing as treasurer of state. TheChancellor's brother, by long service, had won the confidence of thepeople as a keeper of the State's money, and, although his family hadfollowed the fortunes of Governor Lewis, it did not occur to theLegislature to dispossess him of his office until David Thomas wanteda position. Then, the silent, crafty Washingtonian developed soartfully the iniquity of Lansing's political perfidy that he succeededin obtaining the office for himself. It was because of thiscraftiness, this unscrupulous use of every weapon of politicalwarfare, that the bank hired him. His gifts, his schemes, his faults, his vices, were alike useful. 

Solomon Southwick belonged to a different type. He lacked the cautionof Thomas, but nature had given him the appearance and manners whichwell fitted him for the task of attracting those who came within therange of his influence. He was singularly handsome and graceful. Nostranger came near him without feeling an instant desire to know him. He was all the more attractive because there seemed to be nothingartificial or made up about him. He had his intimates, but with anunstudied and informal dignity, he was hail-fellow with every one, keeping none at a distance, and concealing his real feelings behind nomask of conventionalism. It was said of him at this time that he knewmore men personally than any other citizen in the State. He had beenfour times elected clerk of the Assembly, he had served as sheriff ofhis county, and he was now sole editor and proprietor of the Albany_Register_, the leading and most influential Republican paper. Toability as a writer he also added eloquence of speech. Southwick couldnot be called a great orator, but he had grace, wit, imagination, anda beauty of style that appealed to the hearts and sympathies of hishearers. In the conduct of his business affairs, nobody could be morecareful, more methodical, more precise. Indeed, we may take it forgranted, without any biographical information on the subject, that in1811 Solomon Southwick was on the road to the highest honours in thegift of his State. 

But his connection with the Bank of America covered him with suspicionfrom which he never entirely recovered. It must have occurred to him, when accepting the bank's retainer, that his opposition to theMerchants' Bank would be recalled to the injury of his consistency. In1805, he had boldly declared in the _Register_ that any Republican whovoted for a Federalist bank was justly censurable; in 1812, he so farchanged his mind as to hold that any one "who supports or opposes abank upon the grounds of Federalism or Republicanism, is eitherdeceiver or deceived, and will not be listened to by any man of senseor experience. " A little later in the contest, when partisan fury andpublic corruption were the opposing forces, several sub-agents of thebank were indicted for bribery, among them a former clergyman who wassent to the penitentiary. Then it was whispered that David Thomas, following the example of Purdy in 1805, had scattered hispurchase-money everywhere, sowing with the sack and not with the hand. Finally, Casper M. Rouse, a senator from Chenango, accused Thomas ofoffering him ten shares of stock, with a profit of one thousanddollars, adding that Thomas had told him to call upon Southwick inAlbany. Southwick had evidently fallen into bad company, and, althoughRouse disclaimed having seen the Albany journalist, a week or twolater Alexander Sheldon, speaker of the Assembly, made a chargeagainst Southwick similar to Rouse's accusation against Thomas. Bothmen were indicted, but the jury preferred accepting the denial of thedefendants, since it appeared that Rouse and Sheldon, instead oftreating the accused as bribers and men unworthy of confidence, hadmaintained their former relations with them, subsequently voting forThomas for treasurer of state, and for Southwick as regent of theState University. As positive proof of bribery was limited in eachcase to the prosecuting witness, we may very well accept thedefendants' repeated declarations of their own integrity anduprightness, although the conditions surrounding them were toopeculiar not to leave a stigma upon their memory. 

These charges of crime, added to the bank's possession of a solidmajority in both branches of the Legislature, aroused the oppositioninto a storm of indignation and resentment. Governor Tompkins hadanticipated its coming, and in a long, laboured message, warnedmembers to beware of the methods of bank managers. Such institutions, he declared, "facilitate forgeries, drain the country of specie, discourage agriculture, swallow up the property of insolvents to theinjury of other creditors, tend to the subversion of government byvesting in the hands of the wealthy and aristocratic classes powerfulengines to corrupt and subdue republican notions, relieve the wealthystockholder from an equal share of contribution to the public service, and proportionally enhance the tax on the hard earnings of the farmer, mechanic and labourer. " He spoke of the "intrigue and hollowpretences" of applicants, insisting that the gratification ofpoliticians ought not to govern them, nor the "selfish anddemoralising distribution of the stock. " "Nor ought we to beunmindful, " he continued, "that the prominent men who seek theincorporation of new banks, are the very same men who have deeplyparticipated in the original stock of most of the previouslyestablished banks. Having disposed of that stock at a lucrativeadvance, and their avidity being sharpened by repeated gratification, they become more importunate and vehement in every fresh attempt toobtain an opportunity of renewing their speculations. " As if this werenot reason enough, he exhorted them not to be deceived by the apparentunanimity of sentiment about the capital, since it "is no realindication of the sentiments of the community at large, " but so tolegislate as "to retain and confirm public confidence, not only in thewisdom, but also in the unbending independence and unsullied integrityof the Legislature. "[162]

[Footnote 162: _Governors' Speeches_, January 28, 1812, pp. 115-8. ]

The Governor's arguments were supplemented by others from AmbroseSpencer, whose bank holdings seemed more likely than ever to suffer ifthis gigantic combination succeeded. Spencer's opposition to theMerchants' Bank in 1805 had been earnest, but now his whole soul wasaflame. To counteract the influence of Southwick's _Register_, heestablished the Albany _Republican_, which ceased to exist at the endof the campaign, but which, during its brief life, struck at everyhead that favoured the bank. Its editorials, following the line of hisobjections in the Council of Revision, lifted into prominence theinjurious effect likely to flow from such an alarming extension ofbanking capital at a time when foreign commerce was stagnant, and whenthe American nation was on the eve of a war in defence of itscommercial rights. This was mixed with a stronger personal refrain, discovering the danger to his bank-holdings and revealing theintensity of a nature not yet inured to defeat. A bank controllingthree times as much capital as any other, he argued, with unlimitedpower to establish branches throughout the State, must be a constantmenace to minor institutions, which were established under theconfidence of governmental protection and upon the legislative faiththat no further act should impair or destroy their security. "A powerthus unlimited, " he declared, "may be exercised not only to prejudicethe interests, but to control the operations, destroy theindependence, and impair the security of every bank north of the cityof New York. A bill thus improvisory and alarming, giving undefinedand unnecessary powers, and leaving the execution of those powers to afew individuals, would materially weaken the confidence of thecommunity in the justice, wisdom, and foresight of the Legislature. "[163]

[Footnote 163: Alfred B. Street, _New York Council of Revision_, p. 432. ]

With Tompkins and Spencer stood John Taylor, whose fear for his stockin the State Bank, of which he was president, made his opposition moreconspicuous than it appeared in 1805, when he assaulted Purdy, knocking him down as he left the senate chamber; but in this contest, he did not strike or threaten. He moved among his associates in theSenate with the grace of a younger man, his tall, spare form bendinglike a wind-swept tree as he reasoned and coaxed. In the same group ofzealous opponents belonged Erastus Root, who had just entered theSenate, and whose speech against the Bank of America was distinguishedfor its suppressed passion and its stern severity. He had waked up, atlast, to the scandalous barter in bank charters. 

There was, however, one Republican in Albany whose course excited moreserious censure than was meted out to all others. At a moment when themethods of bank managers aroused the most bitter hostility of hisclosest political allies, DeWitt Clinton became conspicuous by hissilence. At heart he opposed the Bank of America as bitterly asAmbrose Spencer and for the same reasons; nor did he recognise anydifference in the conditions surrounding it and those which existed in1805 when he drove Ebenezer Purdy from the Senate; but, consumed witha desire to get a legislative indorsement for President, beforeMadison secured a congressional nomination, he refused to take sides, since the bank people, who dominated the Legislature, refused such anindorsement until the passage of their charter. In vain did Spencerthreaten and Taylor plead. He would vote, Clinton said, against thebank if opportunity presented, but he would not be drawn into thebitter contest; he would not denounce Southwick; he would not judgeThomas; he would not even venture to criticise the bank. For fourteenyears Clinton and Spencer had been fast political friends; but now, at the supreme moment of Clinton's ambition, these brothers-in-lawwere to fall under the guidance of different stars. 

Governor Tompkins, whose desire to enter the White House no longerveiled itself as a secret, understood the purpose and importance ofClinton's silence, and to give President Madison an advantage, he useda prerogative, only once exercised under the Constitution of 1777, toprorogue the Legislature for sixty days. Ostensibly he did it todefeat the bank; in reality he desired the defeat of Clinton. It isnot easy to appreciate the wild excitement that followed theGovernor's act. It recalled the days of the provincial governors, whenEngland's hand rested heavily upon the liberties of the people; andthe friends of the bank joined in bitter denunciation of such adespotic use of power. Meantime, a congressional caucus renominatedMadison. But whatever the forced adjournment did for Clinton, it in nowise injured the bank, which was chartered as soon as the Legislaturereassembled on May 21. 

While the Bank of America was engrossing the attention of theLegislature and the nomination of a presidential candidate convulsedCongress, George Clinton closed his distinguished career at Washingtonon the 20th of April, 1812. If he left behind him a memory of longservice which had been lived to his own advantage, it was by no meanslived to the disadvantage of his country or his State. He did much forboth. Perhaps he was better fitted for an instrument of revolutionthan a governor of peace, but the influence which he exercised uponhis time was prodigious. In the two great events of his life--therevolt of the Colonies and the adoption of a Federal Constitution--heundoubtedly swayed the minds of his countrymen to a degree unequalledamong those contemporaries who favoured independence and statesupremacy. He lacked the genius of Hamilton, the scholarly, refinedintegrity of Jay, and the statesmanship of both; but he was by oddsthe strongest, ablest, and most astute man of his party in the State. Jay and Hamilton looked into the future, Clinton saw only the present. The former possessed a love for humanity and a longing for progresswhich encouraged them to work out a national existence, broad enoughand strong enough to satisfy the ambition of a great nation a centuryafter its birth; Clinton was satisfied to conserve what he had, unmoved by the great possibilities even then indistinctly outlined tothe eye of the statesman whose vision was fixed intently upon anundivided America. But Clinton wisely conserved what was given to hiskeeping. As he grew older he grew more tolerant and humane, substituting imprisonment for the death penalty, and recommending acomplete revision of the criminal laws. His administration, too, sawthe earliest attempts made in a systematic way toward the spread ofeducation among the multitudes, his message to the Legislature of 1795urging a generous appropriation to common schools. This was the firstsuggestion of state aid. Colleges and seminaries had been remembered, but schools for the common people waited until Clinton had beengovernor for eighteen years. 

CHAPTER XVIII

CLINTON AND THE PRESIDENCY

1812

For many years DeWitt Clinton had had aspirations to become acandidate for President. He entered the United States Senate in 1802with such an ambition; he became mayor of New York in 1803 with thisend in view; he sought the lieutenant-governorship in 1811 for noother purpose; and, although he had never taken a managing step inthat direction, looking cautiously into the future, he saw his way andonly waited for the passing of the Vice President. DeWitt Clinton, whatever his defects of character and however lacking he may have beenin an exalted sense of political principle, appears to have beensincere in his anxiety to elevate his uncle to the presidential chair. During Jefferson's administration his efforts seem never to have beenintermitted, and only when the infirmities of advanced age admonishedhim that George Clinton's life and career were nearly at an end, didhis mind and heart, acquiescing in the appropriation of his relative'smantle, seize the first opportunity of satisfying his unboundedambition. 

The opening presented in the spring of 1812 was not an unattractiveone. A new party, controlled by a remarkable coterie of brilliantyoung men from the South, whose shibboleth was war with England, hadsprung up in Congress, and, by sheer force of will and intellect, haddragged to the support of its policies the larger part of theRepublican majority. [164] President Madison was thoroughly insympathy with these members. He thought war should be declared beforeCongress adjourned, and, to hasten its coming, he had recommended anembargo for sixty days. "For my own part, " he wrote Jefferson, "I lookupon a short embargo as a step to immediate war, and I wait only forthe Senate to make the declaration. "[165] This did not sound like apeace voice; yet the anti-English party felt little cordiality forhim. His abilities, as the event amply proved, were not those likelyto wage a successful war. He was regarded as a timid man, incapable ofa burst of passion or a bold act. In place of resolute opinion hecourted argument; with an inclination to be peevish and fretful, hewas at times arrogantly pertinacious. Although his health, moreover, was delicate and he looked worn and feeble, he exhibited noconsciousness of needing support, declining to reconstruct his Cabinetthat abler men might lend the assistance his own lack of energydemanded. As time went on Republicans would gladly have exchanged himfor a stronger leader, one better fitted by character and temperamentto select the men and find a way for a speedy victory. It was no lessplain that the conservatives thoroughly disliked him, and if theycould have wrought a change without disrupting the party, it wouldhave suited their spirit and temper to have openly opposed hisrenomination. 

[Footnote 164: Of ninety-eight senators and representatives who voted, on June 18, 1812, for a declaration of war against England, seventy-six, or four less than a majority, resided south of theDelaware. No Northern State except Pennsylvania declared for war, while every Southern State except Kentucky voted solidly for it. ]

[Footnote 165: Madison to Jefferson, April 24, 1812, _Writings_, Vol. 2, p. 532. ]

DeWitt Clinton understood the situation, and his friends pointed withconfidence to his well known character for firmness and nerve. OfClinton, it may be justly said, that he seems most attractive, not asa politician, not as a mayor solicitous for the good government of agrowing city, not as a successful promoter of the canal, but as arugged, inflexible, determined, self-willed personality. Perhaps notmany loved him, or longed for his companionship, or had any feeling oftenderness for him; yet, in spite of his manners or want of manners, there was a fascination about the man that often disarmed censure andturned the critic into a devotee. At this time he undoubtedly stood atthe head of his party in the North. He was still young, having justentered his forties, still ambitious to shine as a statesman of thefirst magnitude. An extraordinary power of application had equippedhim with the varied information that would make him an authority inthe national life. Even his enemies admitted his capacity as a greatexecutive. He had sometimes been compelled, for the sake of his owncareer, to regulate his course by a disregard of party creed, especially at a time when the principles of Republicanism weresomewhat undefined in their character; but amid all the doubts anddistractions of a checkered, eventful political career he was knownfor his absolute integrity, his clear head, and his steady nerve. Hisvery pride made it impossible for him to condescend to any violationof a promise. 

Clinton's New York party friends naturally desired a legislativeindorsement for him before Congress could act. But Governor Tompkins'sudden adjournment of the Legislature had stripped him of thatadvantage, and three days before the houses reassembled, on May 18, Madison was renominated by a congressional caucus, seventeen senatorsand sixty-six representatives, including three from New York, takingpart in its proceedings. Eleven days later, ninety out of ninety-fiveRepublican members of the New York Legislature voted in caucus tosupport Clinton. [166] If the Madison caucus doubted the wisdom of itsaction, the Clinton caucus was no less uncertain of the expediency ofits decision. Governor Tompkins opposed it; the Livingstons assailedit; the Martling Men, led by Sanford and Lewis, refused to attend;Ambrose Spencer and John Taylor went into it because they weredriven; and Erastus Root, in maintaining that Clinton could not, andas a Federal candidate ought not, to succeed, clearly voiced thesentiment of a large minority. In short, the most prominent men in theState opposed the nomination, knowing that Republicans outside of NewYork could not support it because of its irregularity. 

[Footnote 166: "This unusual unanimity among the New York Republicanspointed to a growing jealousy of Virginia, which threatened to end inrevival of the old alliance between New York and New England. "--HenryAdams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 6, p. 215. "GeorgeClinton, who had yielded unwillingly to Jefferson, held Madison incontempt. "--_Ibid. _, Vol. 4, p. 227. ]

But, at the supreme moment, events greatly favoured Clinton. PierreVan Cortlandt, Obadiah German, and other members of Congress appearedupon the scene, bringing the story of Madison's unpopularity andbearing letters from Gideon Granger, the postmaster-general, urgingthe support of Clinton. Granger belonged to Connecticut, and, exceptWilliam Eustis, about to retire as an inefficient secretary of war, was the only cabinet officer from a northern State. He knew that not adozen northern members of Congress sincerely favoured war, and thatnot a man in the party save Madison himself, sincerely favoured thePresident's renomination; but he also knew that the South haddetermined to force the issue; and so in a powerful document hedemanded the nomination of a man who, when conflict came, couldshorten it by a vigorous administration. This appeal lifted theClinton movement above the level of an ordinary state nomination. 

On the day of his selection, DeWitt Clinton believed his chances morethan even. Though the declaration of war had popularised Madison inthe South and West, and, in a measure, solidified the Republicans inthe North, the young aspirant still counted on a majority ofmalcontents and Federalists. The best obtainable information indicatedthat three Republicans in Massachusetts would unite with theFederalists in choosing Clinton electors; that the rest of New Englandwould act with Massachusetts; and that Clinton would also obtainsupport in Maryland, Ohio, North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, and, possibly, Virginia. "If Pennsylvania should be combined, " Clinton saidto Gouverneur Morris, "I would come out all right. " As late, too, asthe middle of September, Rufus King ventured the opinion toChristopher Gore that while North Carolina was still uncertain, Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland would probably become Clintonian, although Pennsylvania and Vermont would be "democratic andMadisonian. "

To the Federalist leaders, Clinton called himself an AmericanFederalist. If chosen President he engaged to make immediate peacewith England, and to oppose the views of those Southern States whichsought to degrade the Northern States by oppressing commerce. [167] Itwas this suggestion that led to a secret conference between Clinton, John Jay, Rufus King and Gouverneur Morris, held at the latter's homeon August 5, to consider the advisability of forming a peace party. Few scenes in political history are more dramatic than this meeting ofClinton and the three Federalist leaders of the Empire State. King atfirst objected to taking any part. He looked on Clinton, he said, asone who could lead only so long as he held the views and prejudices ofhis followers, and who, unless a large body of Republicans came withhim, was not worth accepting. But King finally consented to bepresent, after Jay, although in ill health, promised to join them. Morris was pleased to undertake his part, for association with Clintonupon the Canal Commission had made them somewhat intimate. It wasagreed to exclude every topic except the plan of forming a peaceparty. The hour fixed was two in the afternoon; but it was fiveo'clock before Clinton entered the stately library at Morrisania. 

[Footnote 167: "No canvass for the Presidency was ever less creditablethan that of DeWitt Clinton in 1812. Seeking war votes for the reasonthat he favoured more vigorous prosecution of the war; asking supportfrom peace Republicans because Madison had plunged the country intowar without preparation; bargaining for Federalist votes as the priceof bringing about a peace; or coquetting with all parties in theatmosphere of bribery in bank charters--Clinton strove to make up amajority which had no element of union but himself and money. "--HenryAdams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 6, p. 410. ]

In opening the interview, Morris simply read the resolutions preparedfor a peace meeting. "Then Clinton observed, " says Rufus King, "thathe did not differ from us in opinions respecting public affairs, andthat he entirely approved the resolutions; but, as his friends, comprehending a great majority of the Republican party in the State, were divided in their opinions respecting the war--prejudices againstEngland leading some of them to approve the war--time was necessary tobring them to one opinion. Disastrous events had already happened, andowing to the incapacity of the national administration still furthermisfortunes would occur, and would serve to produce an union ofopinion respecting the war; that for these reasons the proposed peacemeeting should be deferred four or five weeks; in the interim he wouldconfer with his friends for the purpose of bringing about a commonopinion, and apprise the movers of his ulterior views on Monday, August 10, when the canal commissioners would hold a meeting. "[168]

[Footnote 168: Rufus King, _Life and Correspondence_, Vol. 5, p. 269. ]

During the now historic interview, Clinton said that the President'sincapacity made it impossible for him longer to continue his partyrelation; and he pledged his honour that the breach between them wasirreparable. Yet, on account of his friends as well as his ownaccount, he said, he deemed it expedient to avoid publicity on thesubject. He spoke of Spencer with bitterness, styling him "hiscreature, " whom Armstrong governed, and who, in turn, influencedTompkins and John Taylor. "Armstrong, " he repeated, "while engaged inmeasures to procure a peace meeting in Dutchess County over which hehad promised to preside, had been bought off by the miserablecommission of a brigadier-general. "[169]

[Footnote 169: _Ibid. _, Vol. 5, p. 271. ]

As the campaign grew older, the Federalists were perplexed anddistracted by an increasing uncertainty as to what they should do. This was especially true of those who sighed for power and despairedof getting it through the continuance of a Federalist party. RufusKing, clear as to the course which ought to be followed, earnestlyadvised his friends to nominate a respectable Federalist, not with theexpectation of succeeding in the election, but for the purpose ofkeeping the Federal body unbroken in principle; that its character andinfluence might be reserved for the occasion which, in the presentcourse of affairs, he said, could not fail to arrive. King, however, failed to influence his friends. On September 15, in a convention ofsixty or more delegates from all the States north of the Potomac, itwas recommended that, as it would be inexpedient to name a Federalcandidate because impractical to elect one, Federalists shouldco-operate in the election of a President who would be likely topursue a different policy from Madison. 

This resolution was largely due to the eloquence of Harrison GrayOtis. He urged that the defeat of Madison would speedily lead to apeace, for which the door stood open in the repeal of the Orders inCouncil. Rufus King insisted that the name all had in mind be given inthe resolution; although, he admitted, no one knew whether Clintonwould pursue a policy different from Madison's. No man in the country, he said, was more equivocal in his character. He had disapproved theembargo and then receded from his opinion; and, to restore himself tothe confidence of his party, he had published a tirade against theFederalists. "If we succeed in promoting his election, " thundered theorator, "I fear we may place in the chair a Cæsar Borgia instead of aJames Madison. "[170] These were bitter words, recalling Hamilton'sfamous criticism of Aaron Burr, but they were spoken without thewealth of Hamilton's experience to support them. That Clinton wouldsacrifice his own interests and his own ambition for the sake of anypolitical cause no one could believe; that he had played fast andloose for a time with the great question of embargo was too well knownto be denied; but that anything had occurred in his public career tojustify Rufus King's simile, his worst enemies could not seriouslycredit. Even Christopher Gore was compelled to admit that the Federalleaders of Massachusetts "are favourably impressed with the characterand views of Clinton. Indeed, since last spring I have scarcely heardany one speak of him but extolled the excellence of his moralcharacter and the purity of his present political views. "[171] To thisKing simply replied: "I stated my sentiments to the meeting, a greatmajority of whom thought them incorrect. Time, which reveals truth, must decide between us. "[172]

[Footnote 170: Rufus King, _Life and Correspondence_, Vol. 5, p. 281. ]

[Footnote 171: Rufus King, _Life and Correspondence_, Vol. 5, pp. 281-4. ]

[Footnote 172: _Ibid. _, Vol. 5, p. 283. ]

By the middle of September, Clinton exhibited lamentable weakness as apolitical organiser. Opposing him, he had the whole power of state andnational administrations, and the most prominent men of the party, ledby Erastus Root. Besides, a new Legislature, elected in the precedingApril, had a Republican majority on joint ballot divided betweenClintonians and Madisonians; and, still further to perplex thesituation, twenty Republican assemblymen absolutely refused to voteunless Madison were given a fair division of the electors. This meantthe surrender of one elector out of three, an arrangement to whichClinton dared not consent. 

Clinton, though seriously impressed by the gravity of his position, seems to have done nothing to clear the way; but the hour of crisisbrought with it the man demanded. During recent years a new and veryremarkable figure in political life had been coming to the front. Martin Van Buren, afterward President of the United States, wasestablishing his claim to the position of commanding influence he wasdestined to hold during the next three decades. His father, aninnkeeper in the village of Kinderhook, gave him a chance to learn alittle English at the common schools, and a little Latin at theacademy. At the age of fourteen, he began sweeping an office andrunning errands for a country attorney, who taught him the law. Thenhe went to New York City to finish his education in the office ofWilliam P. Van Ness, an old Columbia County neighbour, at that timemaking his brilliant and bitter attack as "Aristides" upon theClintons and the Livingstons. A year later, in 1803, Van Burencelebrated his twenty-first birthday by forming a partnership inKinderhook with a half-brother, James J. Van Alen, already establishedin the practice. In 1808, he became surrogate; and when theLegislature convened in November, 1812, he took a seat in the Senate, the youngest man save one, it is said, until then elected to thatbody. 

Martin Van Buren had shown unusual sagacity as a politician. Bornunder conditions which might have disheartened one of different mould, bred in a county given up to Federalism, and taught in the law for sixyears by an uncompromising follower of Hamilton, he nevertheless heldsteadfastly to the Jeffersonian faith of his father. Nor would he bemoved in his fealty to the Clintons, although Van Ness, hisdistinguished law preceptor, worshipped Burr and hated his enemies. Asa very young man, Van Buren was able to see that the principles ofRepublicanism had established themselves in the minds of the greatmajority of the people interested in political life, and if he hadbeen persuaded that Aaron Burr and his Federalist allies were to berestored to power in 1804, he was far too shrewd to be tempted by theprospects of such a coalition. He had also shown, from his firstentrance into politics, a remarkable capacity for organisation. He hadcourage, a social and cheerful temper, engaging manners, andextraordinary application. He also had the happy faculty of guidingwithout seeming to dictate; he could show the way without pushing onealong the path. Finally, back of all, was the ability that soon madehim the peer of Elisha Williams, the ablest lawyer in a county famousfor its brilliant men, enabling him quickly to outgrow theprofessional limitations of Kinderhook, and to extend his practice farbeyond the limits of the busy city of Hudson. 

Martin Van Buren cannot be ranked as a great orator. He spoke toorapidly, and he was wanting in imagination, without which eloquence ofthe highest character is impossible. Besides, although his head waswell formed and his face singularly attractive, his small figureplaced him at a disadvantage. He possessed, however, a remarkablecommand of language, and his graceful, persuasive manner, oftenanimated, sometimes thrilling, frequently impassioned, inspiredconfidence in his sincerity, and easily classed him among the ablestspeakers. His best qualities consisted in his clearness of exposition, his masterly array of forcible argument, his faculty for balancingevidence, for acquiring and comparing facts, and for appreciatingtendencies. 

When Van Buren entered the State Senate he was recognised as theRepublican leader of his section. A recent biographer says that hisskill in dealing with men was extraordinary, due no doubt to histemper of amity and inborn genius for society. "As you saw him once, "wrote William Allen Butler, "you saw him always--always punctilious, always polite, always cheerful, always self-possessed. It seemed toany one who studied this phase of his character as if, in some earlymoment of destiny, his whole nature had been bathed in a cool, clear, and unruffled depth, from which it drew this lifelong serenity andself-control. "[173] Any intelligent observer of public life must havefelt that Martin Van Buren was only at the opening of a greatpolitical career. Inferior to DeWitt Clinton in the endowments whichobtain for their possessor the title of a man of genius, he could, though thirteen years younger, weigh the strength of conflictingtendencies in the political world with an accuracy to which Clintoncould not pretend. 

[Footnote 173: William Allen Butler, _Address on Martin Van Buren_(1862). ]

On reaching Albany, in November, 1812, Van Buren saw the electoralsituation at a glance; and naturally, almost insensibly, he becameClinton's representative. He slipped into leadership as easily asBonaparte stepped into the history of Europe, when he seized the fatalweakness in the well defended city of Toulon. Van Buren had approvedembargo, non-intercourse, and the war itself. The discontent growingout of Jefferson's severe treatment of the difficulties caused by theOrders in Council and the Berlin and Milan Decrees, seems never tohave shaken his confidence in Republican statesmanship, or arousedthe slightest animosity against the congressional caucus nominee forPresident. But he accepted Clinton as the regular and practically theunanimous nominee of the Republican members of a precedingLegislature. Although Madison's nomination had come in the way thenaccepted, he had a stronger sense of allegiance to the expressed willof his party in the State. His adversaries, of whom he was soon tohave many, charged him with treachery to the President and to theparty. There came a time when it was asserted, and, apparently, withsome show of truth, that he had neither the courage nor the heart tokeep the side of his convictions boldly and finally; that he wasalways thinking of personal interests, and trying to take the positionwhich promised the greatest advantage and the greatest security. Weshall have occasion, in the course of these pages, to study the basisof such criticism. But, in the present crisis, had he not beenthoroughly sincere and single-hearted, he could easily have thrown inhis fortunes with the winning side; for at that time he must have hadlittle faith in the chances of Clinton's election. Vermont had beengiven up, Pennsylvania was scarcely in doubt, and the South showedunmistakable signs of voting solidly for Madison. [174]

[Footnote 174: "DeWitt Clinton was classed by most persons as areckless political gambler, but Martin Van Buren, when he intrigued, preferred to intrigue upon the strongest side. Yet one feeling wasnatural to every New York politician, whether a Clinton or aLivingston, Burrite, Federalist, or Republican, --all equally dislikedVirginia; and this innate jealousy gave to the career of Martin VanBuren for forty years a bias which perplexed his contemporaries, andstood in singular contradiction to the soft and supple nature heseemed in all else to show. "--Henry Adams, _History of the UnitedStates_, Vol. 6, pp. 409, 410. ]

Van Buren's work not only encouraged several Federalists to vote forClinton electors, but it compelled the Madisonians not to vote at all. It seemed easy, when a master hand guided the helm, to bring order outof chaos. Upon joint ballot, the Clintonian electors receivedseventy-four votes to the Federalists' forty-five; twenty-eight blanksrepresented the Madison strength. Van Buren, however, could notcontrol in other States. If some one in Pennsylvania, of equal tact inthe management of men, could have supplemented his work, Clinton musteasily have won. But it is not often given a party, or an individual, to have the assistance of two such men at the same time. After thevotes were counted, it appeared that Clinton had carried NewHampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, NewJersey, Delaware, and had five votes in Maryland--eighty-nine in all. The remaining one hundred and twenty-eight belonged to Madison. 

In estimating the discontent excited by the declaration of war Clintonhad failed to foresee that there is something captivating to aspirited people about the opening of a new war. He had also failed tonotice that military failures could not affect Madison's strength. Thesurrender of Detroit, Dearborn's blunder in wasting time, and theinefficiency of the secretary of war had raised a storm of publicwrath sufficient to annihilate Hull and to shake the earth underEustis; but it passed harmlessly over the head of the President. Theforeign policy of Jefferson and Madison, approved by the Republicanparty, was on trial, and the defeat of the Administration meant a wantof confidence in the party itself. Here, then, was a contingencyagainst which Clinton had never thought of providing, and, as so oftenhappens, the one thing not taken into consideration, proved decisivein the result. 

CHAPTER XIX

QUARRELS AND RIVALRIES

1813

After Clinton's loss of the Presidency, it must have been clear to hisfriends and enemies alike that his influence in the Republican partywas waning. A revolution in sentiment did not then sweep over theState with anything like the swiftness and certainty of the presentera of cheap newspapers and rapid transit. Yet, in spite of hisgenius, which concealed, and, for a time, checked the suddenness ofhis fall, the rank and file of the party quickly understood what hadhappened. Friends began falling away. For several months AmbroseSpencer had openly and bitterly denounced him, and Governor Tompkinstook a decisive part in relieving his rival of the last hope of everagain reckoning on the support of Republicans. 

The feeling against Clinton was intensified by the common belief thatthe election of Rufus King, as United States senator to succeed JohnSmith, on March 4, 1813, paid the Federalists their price for choosingClinton electors. The Republicans had a majority on joint ballot, andJames W. Wilkin, a senator from the middle district, was placed innomination; but when the votes were counted King had sixty-four andWilkin sixty-one. It looked treacherous, and it suggested grossingratitude, since Wilkin had presided at the legislative caucus whichnominated Clinton for President; but, as we have seen, events had beenmoving in different ways, events destined to produce a strange crop ofpolitical results. In buying its charter, the Bank of America hadcontracted to do many things, and the election of a United Statessenator was not unlikely among its bargains. This theory seems themore probable since Clinton, whom Rufus King had denounced as adangerous demagogue, would have preferred putting King into a positionof embarrassment more than into the United States Senate. Wilkinhimself so understood it, or, at least, he believed that the Bank, andnot Clinton, had contributed to his defeat, and he said so in a letterafterward found among the Clinton papers. 

Hostile Republicans were, however, now ready to believe Clinton guiltyof any act of turpitude or ingratitude; and so, on February 4, when alegislative caucus renominated Daniel D. Tompkins for governor byacclamation, Clinton received only sixteen votes for lieutenant-governor. There is no evidence that Van Buren took part in Clinton'shumiliation; but it is certain he did not act with all the fairnessthat might have been expected. He could well have said that Clintonwas no worse than the majority of his party who had nominated him;that his aim, like theirs, was a vigorous prosecution of the war inthe interest of an early peace; that he had no intention of separatinghimself from the Republican party, and that his renomination forlieutenant-governor would reunite the party, making it more potent tocreate and support war measures. But Van Buren himself was not beyonddanger. Tammany's mutterings and Spencer's violent denunciationsthreatened to exclude others from the party, and to escape theirhostility, this rising young statesman found it convenient to dropClinton and shout for Tompkins. A less able and clear-headed man mighthave gone wrong at this parting of the ways, just as did ObadiahGerman and other friends of Clinton; but Van Buren never needed aguide-post to point out to him the safest political road to travel. The better to prove his party loyalty, he consented to draft the usualgrandiloquent address issued by the legislative caucus to Republicanelectors, always a sophomoric appeal, but quite in accord with therhetoric of the time. If any doubt existed as to the orthodoxy of VanBuren's Republicanism, this address must have dissipated it. Itsustained the general government by forcible argument, and it appealedwith fervid eloquence and deep pathos to the patriotism of the peopleto continue their support of the party. 

How great a part Clinton was yet to play in the history of his Stateno one could foresee. Much speculation has been indulged by writers asto the probable course of history had he been elected President, butthe mere fact that he was able to inspire so small a fraction of hisparty with full faith in his leadership is decisive evidence that hewas not then the man of the hour. It is certain that his enemiesbelieved his political life had been brought to an ignoble close. Clinton probably felt that he would have no difficulty in living downthe opprobrium put upon him by partisan hostility; and to prove thathe was still in the political arena, a little coterie of distinguishedfriends, led by Obadiah German and Pierre Van Cortlandt, made a circleabout him. From this vantage ground he defied his enemies, attackingMadison's conduct of the war with great severity, and protestingagainst the support of Tompkins and Taylor as the mere tools ofMadison. 

Clinton's usual good fortune also attended him. As we have seen, theApril elections in 1812 returned a Federalist Assembly, which selecteda Council of Appointment opposed to Clinton's removal from themayoralty. It displaced everybody else throughout the State. Clintonians and Madisonians alike suffered, including the able anddistinguished Thomas Addis Emmet, an ardent friend of Clinton who hadbeen urged to accept the attorney-generalship after the death ofMatthias B. Hildreth in the preceding August. But Clinton had thesupport of Jonas Platt, the leading member of the Council, and Plattrefused to permit his removal. Doubtless the latter hoped to fill upthe Federalist ranks with Clintonian recruits; and so with greaterconfidence than usual the Federalists, when their turn came, nominatedStephen Van Rensselaer for governor and George Huntington of OneidaCounty for lieutenant-governor. 

Aside from the result of the elections of the preceding November, which had given Federalists twenty out of thirty congressmen, it isdifficult to understand upon what the party of Hamilton really basedits confidence. Before the campaign was a month old, it must have beenevident that the defeated candidate for President had as littleinfluence as Van Rensselaer, who, as a major-general of militia incommand at Fort Niagara, was a miserable failure. After shivering withfear for sixty days lest Hull's fate overtake him, Van Rensselaer, apparently in sheer desperation, had suddenly ordered a small part ofhis force across the river to be shot and captured in the presence ofa large reserve who refused to go to the assistance of their comrades. The news of this defeat led Monroe to speak of him as "a weak andincompetent man with high pretensions. " Jefferson thought Hull oughtto be "shot for cowardice" and Van Rensselaer "broke forincapacity. "[175]

[Footnote 175: Jefferson to Madison, Nov. 5, 1812; _Jefferson MSS. Series V. _, Vol. XV. ]

But the Federalists, unmindful of the real seriousness of thatdisaster, contested the election with unusual vehemence, until thebest informed men of both parties conceded their advantage. TheGovernment's incapacity was abundantly illustrated in the failure ofits armies and in the impoverished condition of its treasury, and ifthe home conditions had been disturbed by distress, the confidence ofthe Federalists must have been realised. The people of the State, however, had seen and felt nothing of actual warfare. In spite ofembargoes and blockades, ample supplies of foreign goods had continuedto arrive; and, except along the Niagara frontier, occupied by a fewhundred scattered settlers, the farms produced their usual harvestsand the industries of life were not impaired. Under these conditions, the voters of the country districts saw no reason for defeating agovernor whom they liked, for a man whose military service addednothing to his credit or to the lustre of the State. So, when theelection storm subsided, it was found, to the bitter mortification ofthe Federalists, that while the chief towns, New York, Hudson andAlbany, were strong in opposition, Tompkins and Taylor had triumphedby the moderate majority of 3606 in a total vote of over 83, 000. [176]The Senate stood three to one in favour of the Republicans. TheAssembly was lost by ten votes. 

[Footnote 176: Daniel D. Tompkins, 43, 324; Stephen Van Rensselaer, 39, 718. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

Tompkins was now at the zenith of his political career. He was one ofthose men not infrequently observed in public life, who, withoutconspicuous ability, have a certain knack for the management of men, and are able to acquire influence and even a certain degree of fame bypersonal skill in manipulating patronage, smoothing away difficulties, and making things easy. Nature had not only endowed him with a geniusfor political diplomacy, but good fortune had favoured his march topopularity by disassociating him with any circumstances of birth orenvironment calculated to excite jealousy or to arouse the suspicionof the people. He was neither rich nor highly connected. The peopleknew him by the favourite title of the "farmer's boy, " and he neverappeared to forget his humble beginnings. "He had the faculty, " saysJames Renwick, formerly of Columbia College, who knew him personally, "of never forgetting the name or face of any person with whom he hadonce conversed; of becoming acquainted and appearing to take aninterest in the concerns of their families; and of securing, by hisaffability and amiable address, the good opinion of the female sex, who, although possessed of no vote, often exercise a powerful indirectinfluence. " Thus, while still in the early prime of life, he had risento a position in the State which, even in the case of men withsuperior intellectual endowments, is commonly the reward of matureryears and longer experience. 

From the moment Tompkins became governor in 1807 the strongestambition of his mind was success in the great game of politics; and, although never a good hater, his capacity for friendship dependedupon whether the success of his own career was endangered by theassociation. Having laid Clinton in the dust, his eye rested upon JohnArmstrong, who had recently won the appointment of secretary of war. Armstrong had been recalled from Paris at the request of Napoleon, just in time to get in the way of both Clinton and Tompkins. At firsthe was a malcontent, grumbling at Madison, and condemning the conductof public affairs generally; but, after the declaration of war, hesupported the Administration, and, on July 6, 1812, to the surpriseand indignation of Clinton, he accepted a brigadiership, with commandof New York City and its defences. Then came the period of danger andurgency following the surrender of Detroit, and Armstrong, on the 6thof February, 1813, to the great embarrassment of Tompkins, obtainedquick promotion to the head of the war department. 

There seems to have been no reason why Tompkins should have harbouredthe feeling of rivalry toward Armstrong that he cherished for Clinton. The former was simply a pretentious occupier of high places, withoutreal ability for great accomplishment. His little knowledge of thetheory and practice of war was learned on the staff of General Gates, who, Bancroft says, "had no fitness for command and wanted personalcourage. " It was while Armstrong was dwelling in the tent of thispolitical, intriguing adventurer, that he wrote the celebrated"Newburgh Letters, " stigmatised by Washington. These events, coupledwith his want of scruples and known capacity for intrigue andindolence, made him an object of such distrust that the Senate, inspite of his social and political connections, barely confirmed him. 

Could Tompkins, looking two years into the future, have foreseenArmstrong passing into disgraceful retirement after the capture of thecity of Washington, he might easily have dismissed all rivalry fromhis mind; but just now the two men who seemed to stand most in his waywere Armstrong and Spencer. He thought Spencer in too close andfriendly alliance with Armstrong, and that Armstrong, whose strengthin the State greatly depended upon Spencer's influence, was the onlyobstacle in his path to the White House. Thus there arose in his minda sentiment of rivalry for Armstrong, and a strong feeling of distrustand dislike for Spencer. The latter, who now possessed little morereal liking for Tompkins than Clinton did, soon understood theGovernor's feeling toward him; and he also learned that Van Buren, with an intellect for organisation and control far superior toanything the Republicans of the State had heretofore known, had comeinto the political game to stay. 

By phenomenal luck, DeWitt Clinton's good fortune still continued toattend him. In April, 1813, the Federalists had again carried theAssembly, and, although without senators in the middle and westerndistricts to serve upon the Council of Appointment, Clinton found afriend in Henry A. Townsend, who answered the purpose of a Federalist. Townsend would support Jonas Platt for a judgeship if Clinton wasretained as mayor. 

Townsend had come into the Senate in 1810 as a Clinton Republican, buthis brief legislative career had not been as serene as a summer's day. He fell out with Tompkins and Spencer when he fell in with Thomas andSouthwick, and whether or not the favours distributed by the Bank ofAmerica actually became a part of his assets, the bank's opponentstook such violent exception to his vote that poor Townsend had littleto hope for from that faction of his party. It was commonly believedat the time, therefore, that a desire to please Clinton and possiblyto gain the favour of Federalists in the event of their futuresuccess, influenced him to support Platt, conditional on the retentionof Clinton. It is quite within the range of probability that some suchmotive quickened his instinct for revenge and self-preservation, although it led to an incident that must have caused Clinton keenregret and mental anguish. 

Townsend's Republican colleague in the Council was none other thanMorgan Lewis, who saw an opportunity of creating trouble by nominatingRichard Riker as an opposing candidate to Platt. Tompkins hadprobably something to do with making this nomination--or, at allevents, with giving his friend Lewis the idea of bringing it forwardjust then. Surely, they thought, Clinton would reverence Riker, whoacted as second in the Swartout duel and recently headed the committeeto promote his election to the Presidency. Clinton felt the sting ofhis enemies. There was a time when Clinton had supported Tompkinsagainst Lewis; now Lewis, in supporting Tompkins against Clinton, wasthrusting the latter through with a two-edged knife; for if Townsendvoted for Riker, the Federalists would drop Clinton; if he voted forPlatt, Riker would drop him. In vain did Clinton wait for Riker tosuggest some avenue of escape. The plucky second wanted a judgeshipwhich meant years of good living, as much as Clinton wanted themayoralty that might be lost in another year. Clinton had not yetdrunk the dregs of the bitter cup. False friends and their unpaidsecurity debts were still to bankrupt him; but he had already seenenough to know that the setting sun is not worshipped. Under thesecircumstances his friendship for Riker was not strong enough to inducehim to throw away his last chance of holding the mayoralty and its fatfees; and so when Townsend voted for Platt, Riker's affection forClinton turned to hate. 

CHAPTER XX

A GREAT WAR GOVERNOR

1812-1815

The assumption of extraordinary responsibilities during the War of1812, justly conferred upon Daniel D. Tompkins the title of a greatwar governor. There is an essential difference between a war governorand a governor in time of war. One is enthusiastic, resourceful, withability to organise victory by filling languishing patriotism with newand noble inspiration--the other simply performs his duty, sometimesrespectably, sometimes only perfunctorily. George Clinton illustrated, in his own person, the difference between a great war governor and agovernor in time of war. If he failed to win renown on thebattlefield, his ability to inspire the people with confidence, and tobring glory out of threatened failure and success out of apparentdefeat, made him the greatest war governor the country had yet known. Daniel D. Tompkins served his State no less acceptably. In the momentof greatest discouragement he displayed a patriotic courage inborrowing money without authority of law that made his Administrationfamous. 

Yet Tompkins' patriotism scarcely rose to that sublime height whichsuffers its possessor unselfishly to advance a rival even for thepublic welfare. There is no doubt of DeWitt Clinton's conspicuousdevotion to the interests of his country throughout the entire war. Heexceeded his power as mayor in inducing the Common Council to borrowmoney on the credit of the city and loan it to the United States; atthe supreme moment of a great crisis, when the national treasury wasempty and a British fleet threatened destruction to the coast, animpressive address which he drafted, accompanied by a subscriptionpaper which he headed, resulted in raising a fund of over one milliondollars for the city's defence. The genius of Clinton had never beenmore nobly employed than in his efforts to sustain the war, winninghim universal esteem throughout the municipality for his patrioticunselfishness and unlimited generosity. Tompkins must have known thatsuch a man, already holding the rank of major-general in the militia, would be absolute master of any situation. He was not the one to throwup the cards because the chances of the game were going against him. His was a fighting spirit, and his impulse was ever, like that ofMacbeth, to try to the last. But Tompkins could not fail to observethe party's growing dislike for Clinton, and, much as he wantedmilitary success, he graciously declined Clinton's request, brought tohim by Thomas Addis Emmet, to be assigned to active service in thefield. 

Tompkins had little to encourage him at the outset of the war. Theelection in April, 1812, had turned the Assembly over to theFederalists, who not only wasted the time of an extra session, calledin November of that year, but carried their opposition through theregular session begun in January, 1813. The emergency was pressing. New England Federalists had declined to make the desired loans to thegeneral government, and the governor of New York wished his State torelieve the situation by advancing the needed money. It was apatriotic measure. Whether right or wrong, the declaration of war hadjeopardised the country. Soldiers, poorly equipped, scantily clothed, without organisation, and without pay, were scattered for hundreds ofmiles along a sparsely settled border, opened to the attacks of apowerful enemy; yet the Federalists refused to vote a dollar to equipa man. Why should we continue a war from the prosecution of which wehave nothing to gain, they asked? The Orders in Council have beenrepealed, England has shrunk from facing the consequences of its ownfolly, and America has already won a complete triumph. What furtherneed, then, for bleeding our exhausted treasury?

The Governor's embarrassment, however, did not emanate from theFederalists alone. The northern frontier of New York was to become thegreat battle-ground, and it was conceded that capable generals and asufficient force were necessary to carry the war promptly into Canada. But the President furnished neither. He appointed Henry Dearborn, withthe rank of major-general, to command the district from Niagara to theSt. Lawrence, thus putting all military operations within the Stateunder the control of a man in his sixty-second year, whose onlymilitary experience had been gained as a deputy quartermaster-generalin 1781, and as colonel of a New Hampshire regiment after the end ofthe Revolutionary War. Dearborn was a politician--not a general. Afterserving several years in Jefferson's Cabinet, he graduated into thecustom-house at Boston, where he concerned himself more to beat theFederalists than he ever exerted himself to defeat the British. In hisopinion, campaigning ought to have its regular alternations ofactivity and repose, but he never knew when activity should begin. Tomake the condition more supremely ironic, Morgan Lewis, now in hisfifty-ninth year, whose knowledge of war, like Dearborn's, had beenlearned as a deputy quartermaster-general thirty years before, wasassociated with him in command. 

Dearborn submitted a plan of campaign, recommending that the main armyadvance by way of Lake Champlain upon Montreal, while three corps ofmilitia should enter Canada from Detroit, Niagara and Sackett'sHarbour. This was as near as Dearborn ever came to a successfulinvasion of Canada. War was declared on June 18, 1812, and July hadbeen frittered away before he left Albany. Meantime General Hull, whose success depended largely upon Dearborn's vigorous support fromNiagara, having been a fortnight on British soil, now recrossed theriver and a few days later surrendered his army and Detroit to GeneralBrock. This tragic event aroused Dearborn sufficiently to send StephenVan Rensselaer to command the Niagara frontier, the feeble Generalassuring the secretary of war that, as soon as the force at Lewistonaggregated six thousand men, a forward movement should be made; butDearborn himself, with the largest force then under arms, took goodcare to remain on Lake Champlain, clinging to its shores like abarnacle, as if afraid of the fate visited upon the unfortunate Hull. Finally, after two months of waiting, Van Rensselaer sent a thousandmen across the Niagara to Queenstown to be killed and captured withinsight of four thousand troops who refused to go to the help of theircomrades. Disgusted and defeated, Van Rensselaer turned over hiscommand to Brigadier-General Alexander Smith, a boastful Irish friendof Madison from Virginia, who issued burlesque proclamations about aninvasion of Canada, and then declined to risk an engagement, althoughhe had three Americans to one Englishman. This closed the campaign of1812. 

With the hope of improving the military situation John Armstrong wasmade secretary of war in place of William Eustis. Armstrong was nevera favourite. His association with Gates and his subsequent career inFrance, made him an object of distrust. But, once in office, he pickedup the Eustis ravellings and announced a plan of campaign whichincluded an attack on Montreal from Lake Champlain; the destruction ofKingston and York (Toronto) by the troops from Sackett's Harbour; andthe expulsion of the British from the Niagara frontier. The Kingstonpart of the programme possessed genuine merit. Kingston commanded thetraffic of the St. Lawrence, between Upper and Lower Canada, and noBritish force could maintain itself in Upper Canada without readycommunication with the lower province; but Dearborn decided to reverseArmstrong's plan by taking York, afterward the Niagara frontier, andthen unite a victorious army against Kingston. Dearborn, to do himjustice, offered to resign, and Armstrong would gladly have gotten ridof him, with Morgan Lewis and other incompetents. The President, however, clung to the old men, making the spring and early summercampaign of 1813, like its predecessor, a record of dismal failures. York had, indeed, capitulated after the bloodiest battle of the war, the American loss amounting to one-fifth the entire force, includingPike, the best brigadier then in the service. But the British stillheld Niagara; two brigade commanders had been sorely defeated; a thirdhad surrendered five hundred and forty men to a British lieutenantwith two hundred and sixty; and Sackett's Harbour, with its barracksburned and navy-yard destroyed, had barely escaped capture, whileKingston was unmolested and Dearborn totally incapacitated "with feverand mortification. "

It was now midsummer. Tompkins and a Republican Senate had beenre-elected, but the Federalists, whose policy was to obtain peace onany terms, still held the Assembly. Just at this time, therefore, success in the field would have been of immense value politically, andas sickness had put Dearborn out of commission, it gave Armstrong anopportunity of promoting Winfield Scott and Jacob Brown, both of whomhad shown unusual ability in spite of the shameless incapacity oftheir seniors. The splendid fighting qualities of Jacob Brown hadsaved Sackett's Harbour; and the brilliant pluck of Winfield Scott hadwithstood a force three times his own until British bayonets pushedhim over the crest of Queenstown Heights. Armstrong, however, had aliking for James Wilkinson. They had been companions in arms withGates at Saratoga, and, although no one knew better than Armstrong thefeebleness of Wilkinson's character, he assigned him to New York afterthe President had forced his removal from New Orleans. 

Wilkinson's military life might fairly be described as infamous. Winfield Scott spoke of him as an "unprincipled imbecile. "[177] He hadrecently been several times court-martialled, once for being engagedin a treasonable conspiracy with Spain, again as an accomplice ofAaron Burr, and finally for corruption; and, although each time he hadbeen acquitted, his brother officers regarded him with suspicion andcontempt. Nevertheless, this man, fifty-six years of age, and brokenin health as well as character, was substituted for Dearborn andordered to take Kingston; and Wade Hampton, one year his senior, without a war record, and not on speaking terms with Wilkinson, wasordered to Plattsburg to take Montreal. Folly such as this could onlyend in disaster. Whatever Armstrong suggested Wilkinson opposed, andwhatever Wilkinson advised Hampton resented; but Wilkinson so farprevailed, that, before either expedition started, it was agreed toabandon Kingston; and before either general had passed far beyond thelimits of the State, it was agreed to abandon Montreal, leaving thegenerals and the secretary of war ample time to quarrel over theirresponsibility for the failure. Wilkinson charged Hampton withblasting the honour of the army, and both generals accused Armstrongof purposely deserting them to shift the blame from himself. On theother hand, Armstrong accepted Hampton's resignation, sneered atWilkinson for abandoning the campaign, and, after Hampton's death, saddled him with the responsibility of the whole failure. 

[Footnote 177: Winfield Scott, _Autobiography_, p. 94, _note_. ]

Meantime, while the generals and secretary quarrelled, and theirtwelve thousand troops rested in winter quarters at French Mills andPlattsburg--leaving the country between Detroit and Sackett's Harbourwith less than a regiment--the British were vigorously at work. Theypounced upon the Niagara frontier; reoccupied Fort George; carriedFort Niagara with great slaughter; and burned Black Rock and Buffaloin revenge for the destruction of Newark and Queenstown and the publicbuildings at York. This ended the campaign of 1813. 

On the high seas, however, the American navy, so small that Englandhad scarcely known of its existence, was redeeming the country fromthe disgrace its generals had brought upon it. There are some battlesof that time, fought out in storm and darkness, which taught Americansthe real pleasures of war, and turned the names of vessels and theirbrave commanders into household words; but not until Oliver H. Perry, an energetic young officer, was ordered from Newport to the Niagarafrontier, in the spring of 1813, did conditions change from sacrificeand disgrace to real success. Six vessels were at that time buildingat Erie; and three smaller craft rested quietly in the navy-yard atBlack Rock. Perry's orders included the union of these fleets, carrying fifty-four guns and five hundred men, and the destruction ofsix British vessels, carrying sixty-three guns and four hundred andfifty men. Six months of patient labour on both sides were required toput the squadrons into fighting condition; but when, on the afternoonof September 10, Perry had fought the fight to a finish, the Britishsquadron belonged to him. The War of 1812 would be memorable for this, if it were for nothing else; and the indomitable Perry, whose stubborncourage had wrested victory from what seemed inevitable defeat, isenthroned among the proudest names of the great sea fighters ofhistory. 

After Wilkinson, Morgan Lewis, and other incompetent generals hadretired in disgrace, Armstrong recognised the genius of Jacob Brownand Winfield Scott. Brown was of Quaker parentage, a school teacher byprofession, and a farmer by occupation. After founding the town ofBrownsville, he had owned and lived on a large tract of land nearSackett's Harbour, and for recreation he had commanded a militiaregiment. In 1811, Tompkins made him a brigadier, and when the contestopened, he found his true mission. He knew nothing of the technique ofwar. Laying out fortifications, policing camps, arranging withcalculating foresight for the far future, did not fall within hisknowledge; but for a fighter he must always rank in history with JohnPaul Jones; and as a leader of men he had hardly a rival in thosedays. Soldiers only wanted his word of command to undertake anyenterprise, no matter how hopeless. Winfield Scott, who understoodBrown's limitations, said there was nothing he could not do if he onlygot a fair opportunity. Armstrong commissioned him a major-general inplace of Wilkinson, and assigned Scott to a brigade in his command. These officers, full of zeal and vigor, infused new life into an armythat had been beaten and battered for two years. In twelve weeks, during July, August, and September, the British met stubbornresistance at Chippewa, Lundy's Lane, Fort Erie, and Black Rock, and arepulse as disgraceful as it was complete at Plattsburg. But beforeBrown could establish the new order of things along the whole Canadianborder, the British took Oswego, with its abundant commissarysupplies, and their navy inflicted a wound, in the destruction of the_Chesapeake_ and the _Argus_, that turned the Perry huzzas intosuppressed lamentations. 

Following this calamity, occurred the April elections of 1814. Theuncertain temper of the people gave Tompkins little to expect and muchto fear. He believed it had only needed a bold and spirited forwardmovement to demonstrate that the United States was in a position todictate terms to England; but existing conditions indicated thatEngland would soon dictate terms to the United States. Tompkins may befairly excused, therefore, if he failed to discern in the struggle forpolitical supremacy the slightest indication of that victory so longprayed for. Events, however, had been working silently--differentlythan either Federalist or Republican guessed; and, to the utteramazement of all, the war party swept the State, electing assemblymeneven in New York City, twenty out of thirty congressmen, and everysenator, save one. Under these circumstances Tompkins lost no time insummoning, in September, an extra session of the newly electedLegislature, which began turning out war measures like cloth from aloom. It raised the pay of the militia above that of the regular army;it encouraged privateering; it authorised the enlistment of twelvethousand men for two years and two thousand slaves for three years; itprovided for a corps of twenty companies for coast defence; it assumedthe State's quota of direct tax, and it reimbursed Governor Tompkinsfor personal expenditures incurred without authority of law. Some ofthese measures were drastic, especially the conscription bill; but theact showing the determination of the Republican party to fight thewar to a finish, was that allowing slaves to enlist with the consentof their masters, and awarding them freedom when honourably musteredout of service. 

There was certainly much need for an active and vigorous Legislaturein the fall of 1814. Washington had been captured and burned;Armstrong, threatened with removal, had resigned in disgrace; thenational treasury was empty; and every bank between New Orleans andAlbany had suspended specie payment, with their notes from twenty tothirty per cent. Below par. Although, in ten weeks, from July 3 toSeptember 11, the British had met a bloody and unparalleled check froman inferior force, under the brilliant leadership of Brown and Scott, and a most disgraceful repulse by Macdonough and Macomb at Plattsburg, victorious English veterans, fresh from the battlefields of Spain, continued to arrive, until Canada contained twenty-seven thousandregular troops. On the other hand, Macomb had only fifteen hundred menat Plattsburg, Brown less than two thousand at Fort Erie, and Izardabout four thousand at Buffalo. 

To make bad matters worse, the New England Federalists were renewingtheir talk of a dissolution of the Union. "We have been led by theterms of the Constitution, " said Governor Strong of Massachusetts, addressing the Legislature on October 5, 1814, "to rely on thegovernment of the Union to provide for our defence. We have resignedto that government the revenues of the State with the expectation thatthis object would not be neglected. Let us, then, unite in suchmeasures for our safety as the times demand and the principles ofjustice and the law of self-preservation will justify. "[178] Answeringfor the Legislature, which understood the Governor's words to be aninvitation to resume powers the State had given up when adopting theConstitution, Harrison Gray Otis reported that "this people, beingready and determined to defend themselves, have the greatest need ofthose resources derivable from themselves which the nationalgovernment has hitherto thought proper to employ elsewhere. When thisdeficiency becomes apparent, no reason can preclude the right of thewhole people who were parties to it, to adopt another. "[179] Thereport closed by recommending the appointment of delegates "to meetand confer with delegates from the States of New England or any ofthem, " out of which grew the celebrated Hartford Convention that meton the 15th of December. The report of this convention, made on the24th of the same month, declared that a severance of the Union can bejustified only by absolute necessity; but, following the Virginiaresolution of 1798, it confirmed the right of a State to "interposeits authority" for the protection of its citizens againstconscriptions and drafts, and for an arrangement with the generalgovernment to retain "a reasonable portion" of the revenues to be usedin its own defence and in the defence of neighbouring States. In otherwords, it favoured the establishment of a New England confederacy. Thus, after ten years, the crisis had come which Pickering, the stormpetrel, desired to precipitate in the days when Hamilton declined tolisten and Aaron Burr consented to lead. 

[Footnote 178: Message; _Niles_, Vol. 7, p. 113. ]

[Footnote 179: Report of Oct. 8, 1814; _Niles_, Vol. 7, p. 149. ]

It is doubtful if the great body of Federalists in New York reallysympathised with their eastern brethren. Those who did, likeGouverneur Morris, proclaimed their views in private and confidentialletters. "I care nothing more for your actings and doings, " Morriswrote Pickering, then in Congress. "Your decree of conscription andyour levy of contributions are alike indifferent to one whose eyes arefixed on a star in the east, which he believes to be the dayspring offreedom and glory. The traitors and madmen assembled at Hartford will, I believe, if not too tame and timid, be hailed hereafter as thepatriots and sages of their day and generation. "[180] Looking back onthe history of that portentous event, one is shocked to learn that menlike Morris could have sympathy with the principle sought to beestablished; but if any leading New York Federalist disapproved theconvention's report he made no public record of it at the time. [181]

[Footnote 180: Gouverneur Morris to Timothy Pickering, Dec. 22, 1814, _Morris's Works_, Vol. 3, p. 324. ]

[Footnote 181: "Among the least violent of Federalists was JamesLloyd, recently United States senator from Massachusetts. To JohnRandolph's letter, remonstrating against the Hartford Convention, Lloyd advised the Virginians to coerce Madison into retirement, and toplace Rufus King in the Presidency as the alternative to a fatalissue. The assertion of such an alternative showed how desperate thesituation was believed by the moderate Federalists to be. "--HenryAdams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 8, p. 306. ]

The violent methods of New England governors in withdrawing theirmilitia from the service of the United States, coupled with the actionof the New York Federalists in calling a state convention to determinewhat course their party should pursue, were well calculated to arouseGovernor Tompkins, who welcomed the privilege of upholding the generalgovernment. He did not minimise the gravity of the situation. Perhapshe did not feel the alarm expressed in Jefferson's letter to Gallatin, a year after the crisis had passed; for he now had behind him apatriotic Legislature and the nucleus of an invincible army undertrained leadership. But if the war had continued, and, as theWashington authorities anticipated, the British had prevailed at NewOrleans, he would have found a New England confederacy to the east ofhim as well as an army of English veterans on the north. 

The conditions that faced Madison made peace his last hope. Americancommissioners were already in Europe; but as month after month passedwithout agreement, the darkest hour of the war seemed to have settledupon the country. Suddenly, on the 4th of February, 1815, thestartling and glorious news of General Jackson's decisive victory atNew Orleans electrified the nation. A week later, a British sloop ofwar sailed into New York harbour, announcing that the treaty of Ghenthad been signed on the 24th of the preceding December. InstantlyMadison's troubles disappeared. The war was over, the Hartfordcommissioners were out of employment, and the happy phrase of CharlesJ. Ingersoll of Pennsylvania became the popular summing up of thetreaty--"not an inch ceded or lost. " Jackson's victory had not enteredinto the peace negotiations; but intelligent men knew that the superbfighting along the Canadian frontier during the campaign of 1814, hadhad much to do in bringing about the result. Beginning with the battleof Chippewa, where equal bodies of troops met face to face, in broaddaylight, on an open field, without advantage of position, theAmerican army faced British troops with the skill and desperatecourage that characterised the struggle between the North and theSouth forty years later. 

Among civilians most admired for their part in the struggle, Daniel D. Tompkins stood first. The genius of an American governor had neverbeen more nobly employed, and, although he was sometimes swayed byprejudice and the impulses of his personal ambition, he did enough toshow that he was devotedly attached to his country. 

CHAPTER XXI

CLINTON OVERTHROWN

1815

The election of a Republican Assembly in the spring of 1814 opened theway for a Republican Council of Appointment, composed of JonathanDayton, representing the southern district, Lucas Elmendorff themiddle, Ruggles Hubbard the eastern, and Ferrand Stranahan thewestern. Elmendorff had been two years in the Assembly, six years inCongress, and was now serving the first year of a single term in theState Senate; but like his less experienced colleagues he was on theCouncil simply to carry out the wishes of the leaders. It had beenthree years since Republicans had tasted the sweets of office, and ahungrier horde of applicants never besieged the capital. Yet sodextrous had politicians become in making changes from one party tothe other, that the Council's work must have ended in a week had notthe jealousies, until now veiled by the war, quickly developed into aconflict destined to reconcile Ambrose Spencer and DeWitt Clinton, andto rivet the friendly relations between Governor Tompkins and MartinVan Buren. 

Van Buren desired to become attorney-general. He had beenconspicuously prominent almost from the day he entered the Senate;and, after the Republicans recovered control of the Assembly, he wasthe acknowledged legislative leader of his party. By his persuasiveeloquence, his gift of argument, and his political tact in obtainingsupporters, he secured the passage of a "classification bill" whichdivided the military population of the State into twelve thousandclasses, each class being required to furnish one able-bodied soldierby voluntary enlistment, by bounty, or by draft. "This act, " declaredThomas H. Benton, years afterward, "was the most energetic war measureever adopted in the country. "[182] There appears to be a generalagreement among writers who have commented upon the character of VanBuren and his work at this period of his career, that, next to theGovernor among civilians, Van Buren was most entitled to the gratitudeof his party and his State. Besides, his smooth and pleasing addresshad become more fascinating the longer he continued in the Senate, until his influence among legislators was equalled only by the kindlyand sympathetic Tompkins, whose success in the war had won him a placein the hearts of men similar to that enjoyed by George Clinton afterthe close of the Revolution. 

[Footnote 182: Edward M. Shepard, _Martin Van Buren_, p. 62. ]

But popular and deserving as Van Buren was Ambrose Spencer opposed hispreferment. He saw in the brilliant young legislator an obstacle tohis own influence; and to break his strength at the earliest moment headvocated for attorney-general the candidacy of John Woodworth. Woodworth was filling the position when the Federalists installedAbraham Van Vechten; his right to restoration appealed with peculiarforce to his party friends. Ruggles Hubbard of the Council, representing Woodworth's district, naturally inclined to his support, but Stranahan had no other interest in his candidacy than a desire toplease Spencer. This left the Council a tie. There can be no questionthat Tompkins was in thorough accord with Van Buren's wishes, and thathe regarded Spencer with almost unqualified dislike, but he was acandidate for President and naturally preferred keeping out oftrouble. Nevertheless, when it required his vote to settle thecontroversy he gave it ungrudgingly to Van Buren. In selecting asecretary of state, the Governor applied the same rule. Spencer'sfriend, Elisha Jenkins, had previously held the office, and, likeWoodworth, desired reinstatement; but Tompkins--tossing Jenkins asideand ignoring Samuel Young, speaker of the Assembly, who was promisedand expected the office--insisted upon Peter B. Porter, now a hero ofthe Niagara frontier. 

Spencer had long realised that Tompkins was turning against him. It isdoubtful if the Governor ever felt a personal liking for thispolitical meddling judge, although he accepted his services during thewar with a certain degree of confidence. But now that hostilities wereat an end, he proposed to distribute patronage along lines of his ownchoosing. Porter had recently been elected to Congress, and hispresence in Washington would help the Governor's presidentialaspirations, especially if the young soldier's friendship was sealedin advance by the unsolicited honour of an appointment as secretary ofstate. For the same reason, he desired the election of Nathan Sanfordto the United States Senate to succeed Obadiah German. Spencerfavoured John Armstrong, late secretary of war, and when the latterwas thrust aside as utterly undesirable, the Judge announced his owncandidacy. But Van Buren, resenting Spencer's opposition, skilfullyresisted his claims until he grew timid and declined to compete "withso young a man as Mr. Sanford. " Fourteen years divided their ages. 

The change Republicans most clamoured for had not, however, come yet. DeWitt Clinton still held the mayoralty. Spencer urged his removal andcontrolled Stranahan; the Martling Men demanded it and controlledDayton; but Elmendorff and Hubbard hesitated, and Tompkins dislikedgiving the casting vote. The Governor realised that no statesman hadlived in his day in whom the people had shown greater confidence; and, in spite of the present clamour, he knew that the iron-willed Mayorstill possessed the friendship of the best men and ripest scholars inthe State. DeWitt Clinton was seen at his best, no doubt, by those whoknew him in private life, among his books; and, though his strongopinions and earnest desire to maintain his side of the controversy, brought him into frequent antagonisms, his guests were encouraged togive free utterance to their own ideas and views. 

These same qualities made him an active, restless leader of men in theworld of politics. No doubt many hated him, for he made enemies moreeasily than friends; but neither enemy nor friend could deny the greatnatural capacity which had gradually gained a commanding place for himin public life. Tompkins must have felt that it was only a question oftime when Clinton would again win the confidence of the people andmake his enemies his footstool. What, therefore, to do with him was aserious question. Chained or unchained he was dangerous. The freemasonry of intellect and education gave him rank; and if compelled tosurrender the mayoralty he might, at any moment, take up some workwhich would bring him greater fame and influence. Nevertheless, Tompkins felt compelled to reach some decision. The Martling Men wereinsistent. They charged that Clinton, inspired by unpatriotic motivesin the interest of Federalism, had opposed the war, and was an enemyof his party; and in demanding his removal they threatened those whocaused delay. Van Buren could probably have relieved Tompkins byinfluencing Elmendorff, but Van Buren, like Tompkins, was too shrewdto rush into trouble. 

It is doubtful if the possibility of a reconciliation between Spencerand Clinton occurred to Van Buren, and, if it did, it must have seemedtoo remote seriously to be considered; for just then Spencer wasindefatigable in his exertions on the opposite side. Van Buren, moreover, understood politics too well to be blind to the danger ofincurring the hostility of such a mind. A man who could bring topolitical work such resources of thought and of experience, who couldlook beneath the surface and see clearly in what direction and by whatmethods progress was to be made, was not one to be trifled with. 

No doubt Ruggles Hubbard had a sincere attachment for Clinton. Insupporting his presidential aspirations Hubbard visited Vermont, wherehe exercised his companionable gifts in an effort to obtain forClinton the vote of that State. But Hubbard had neither firmness norstrength of intellect. Irregular in his habits, lax in his morals, aspendthrift and an insolvent, he could not resist the incessantattacks upon Clinton, nor the offer of the shrievalty of New York, with its large income and fat fees. When, therefore, Elmendorfffinally evidenced a disposition to yield, Hubbard made the vote forClinton's removal unanimous. 

There have been seventy-nine mayors of New York since Thomas Willett, in 1665, first took charge of its affairs under the iron rule of PeterStuyvesant, but only one in the long list, averaging a tenure of threeyears each, served longer than DeWitt Clinton. Richard Varick, themilitary secretary of Schuyler and Washington, and the distinguishedassociate of Samuel Jones in revising the laws of the State, held themayoralty from 1789 to 1801, continuing through the controlling lifeof the Federalist party and the closing years of a century full ofheroic incident in the history of the city. But DeWitt Clinton, holding office from 1803 to 1815--save the two years given MarinusWillett and Jacob Radcliff--saw the city's higher life keep pace withits growth and aided in the forces that widened its achievement andmade it a financial centre. It must have cost this master-spirit ofhis age a deep sigh to give up a position in which his work had beenso wise and helpful. His situation, indeed, seemed painfully gloomy;his office was gone, his salary was spent, and his estate wasbankrupt. It is doubtful if a party leader ever came to a moredistressing period in his career; yet he preserved his dignity andlaughed at the storm that howled so fiercely about him. "Genuinegreatness, " he said, in a memorial address delivered about this time, "never appears in a more resplendent light, or in a more sublimeattitude, than in that buoyancy of character which rises superior todanger and difficulty. "

In the meantime, Governor Tompkins was riding on the crest of thepolitical waves. On February 14, 1816, a legislative caucusunanimously instructed the members of Congress from New York tosupport him for President; a week later it nominated him for governor. Tompkins had no desire to make a fourth race for governor, but theunexpected nomination of Rufus King left him no alternative. WilliamW. Van Ness had been determined upon as the Federalist candidate, until the fraudulent capture of the Council of Appointment by theRepublicans made it inadvisable for the popular young Judge to leavethe bench; and to save the party from disruption Rufus King consentedto head the Federalist ticket. His great strength quickly putRepublicans on the defensive; and the only man whom the party dared tooppose to him was the favourite champion of the war. Tompkins're-election by over six thousand majority[183] once more attested hiswidespread popularity. 

[Footnote 183: Daniel D. Tompkins, 45, 412; Rufus King, 38, 647. --_CivilList, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

For the moment, every one seemed to be carried away by the fascinationof the man. His friends asserted that he was always right and alwayssuccessful; that patriotism had guided him through the long, discouraging war, and that, swayed neither by prejudice, nor by theimpulses of personal ambition, in every step he took and every measurehe recommended, he was actuated by the most unselfish purpose. Ofcourse, this was the extravagance of enthusiastic admirers; but it wasfounded on twelve years of public life, marked by success and by fewerrors of judgment or temper. Even Federalists ceased to be hiscritics. It is not easy to parallel Governor Tompkins' standing atthis time. If DeWitt Clinton's position seemed most wretched, Tompkins' lot appeared most happy. His life had been pure and noble;he was a sincere lover of his country; a brave and often a daringexecutive; a statesman of high purpose if not of the most commandingtalents. 

There was one man, however, with whom he must reckon. Ambrose Spencernot only loved power, but he loved to exercise it. He lacked theaddress of Tompkins, and, likewise, the vein of levity in theGovernor's temperament that made him buoyant and hopeful even whenmost eager and earnest; but he was bold, enterprising, and ofcommanding intellect, with a determination to do with all his mightthe part he had to perform. His failure to become United Statessenator, and the appointment of Van Buren and Porter in place ofWoodworth and Elisha Jenkins, rankled in his bosom. That was his firstdefeat. More than this, it proved that he could be defeated. SinceDeWitt Clinton's defection in 1812, he had been the most powerfulpolitical factor in the State, a man whom the Governor had found itexpedient to tolerate and to welcome. 

The events of the past year had, however, convinced Spencer thatnothing was to be gained by longer adherence to Tompkins, whom he hadnow come to regard with distrust and dislike. When, therefore, acandidate for President began to be talked about he promptly favouredWilliam H. Crawford. The Georgia statesman, high tempered andoverbearing, showed the faults of a strong nature, coupled with anambition which made him too fond of intrigue; but Gallatin declaredthat he united to a powerful mind a most correct judgment and aninflexible integrity. In the United States Senate, with the courageand independence of Clay and the intelligence of Gallatin, he had beenan earnest advocate of war and a formidable critic of its conduct. Compared to Monroe he was an intellectual giant, whose name was asfamiliar in New York as that of the President, and whose character wasvastly more admired. In favouring such a candidate it may be easilyunderstood how the influence of a man like Spencer affected otherstate leaders. Their dislike of the Virginian was as pronounced as in1812, while their faith in the success of Tompkins, of whom Southerncongressmen knew as little as they did of DeWitt Clinton four yearsbefore, was not calculated to inspire them with the zeal ofmissionaries. Spencer's bold declaration in favour of Crawford, therefore, hurt Tompkins more than his hesitation to support hisbrother-in-law in 1812 had damaged Clinton. 

In the early autumn of 1814, the President had invited the Governor tobecome his secretary of state. Madison had been naturally drawntoward Tompkins, who had shown from his first entrance into publiclife a remarkable capacity for diplomatic management; and, although hehad none of the higher faculties of statesmanship, the Presidentprobably saw that he would make just the kind of a minister to suithis purposes. Armstrong had not done this. Although a man of someability and military information, Armstrong lacked conventionalmorals, and was the possessor of objectionable peculiarities. He neverwon either the confidence or the respect of Madison. He not only didharsh things in a harsh way, but he had a caustic tongue, and a toneof irreverence whenever he estimated the capacity of a Virginiastatesman. On the other hand, Tompkins had gentleness, and thatrefined courtesy, amounting almost to tenderness, which seemed sonecessary in successfully dealing with Madison. 

The desire to be first in every path of political success had becomesuch a passion in Tompkins' nature that the question presented by thePresident's invitation found an answer in the immediate impulses ofhis ambition. No doubt his duties as Governor and the importance ofhis remaining through the impending crisis appealed to him, but theydid not control his answer. He wanted to be President, and he waswilling to sacrifice anything or anybody to secure the prize. So, itis not surprising that he declined Madison's gracious offer, since theexperience of Northern men with Virginia Presidents did not encouragethe belief that the Presidency was reached through the Cabinet. [184]Yet, had Tompkins fully appreciated, as he did after it was too late, the importance of a personal and pleasant acquaintance with theVirginia statesman and the other men who controlled congressionalcaucuses, he would undoubtedly have entered Madison's Cabinet. As theranking, and, save Monroe, the oldest of the President's advisers, hewould have had two years in which to make himself popular, asufficient time, surely, for one having the prestige of a great wargovernor, with gentleness of manner and sweetness of temper to disarmall opposition and to conciliate even the fiercest of politicians. Fifteen years later Martin Van Buren resigned the governorship to goto the head of Jackson's Cabinet, and it made him President. 

[Footnote 184: Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 8, p. 163. ]

It is not at all unlikely that Madison had it in mind to make Tompkinshis successor. He had little liking for his jealous secretary of statewho had opposed his nomination in 1808, criticised the conduct of thewar, and forced the retirement of cabinet colleagues and the removalof favourite army officers--who had, in a word, dominated thePresident until the latter became almost as tired of him as ofArmstrong. But, as the time approached for the nomination of a newExecutive, Madison's jealous regard for Virginia, as well as hisknowledge of Monroe's fitness, induced him to sustain the candidatefrom his own State. This was notice to federal office-holders in NewYork to get into line for the Virginian; and very soon some ofTompkins' closest friends began falling away. To add to the Governor'sunhappiness, the Administration, repeating its tactics toward theClintons in 1808 and 1812, began exalting his enemies. In sustainingDeWitt Clinton's aspirations Solomon Southwick had actively opposedthe Virginia dynasty and bitterly assailed Tompkins and Spencer fortheir desertion of the eminent New Yorker. For three years he hadpractically excluded himself from the Republican party, criticisingthe war with the severity of a Federalist, and continuallyanimadverting upon the conduct of the President and the Governor; butMonroe's influence now made this peppery editor of the _Register_postmaster at Albany, turning his paper into an ardent advocate of theVirginian's promotion. The Governor, who had openly encouraged such apolicy when DeWitt Clinton sought the Presidency, now felt theVirginia knife entering his own vitals. 

Van Buren's part in Tompkins' disappointment, although not active, showed the shrewdness of a clever politician. He had learned somethingof national politics since he advocated the candidacy of DeWittClinton so enthusiastically four years before. He knew the Governorwas seriously bent upon being President, and that his friendsthroughout the State were joining in the bitterness of the old Clintoncry that Virginia had ruled long enough--a cry which old John Adamshad taken up, declaring that "My son will never have a chance untilthe last Virginian is laid in the graveyard;" but Van Buren knew, also, that few New Yorkers in Washington had any hope of Tompkins'success. It was the situation of 1812 over again. Tompkins waspersonally unknown to the country; Crawford and Monroe were nationalleaders of wide acquaintance, who practically divided the strength oftheir party. Could Van Buren have made Tompkins the President, hewould have done so without hesitation; but he had little dispositionto tie himself up, as he did with Clinton in 1812, and let Crawford, with Spencer's assistance, take the office and hand the patronage ofNew York over to the Judge. The Kinderhook statesman, therefore, declared for Tompkins, and carried the Legislature for him in spite ofSpencer's support of Crawford; then, with the wariness of an oldcampaigner, he prevented New York congressmen from expressing anypreference, although three-fourths of them favoured Crawford. When thecongressional caucus finally met to select a candidate, Van Buren hadthe situation so muddled that it is not known to this day just how theNew York congressmen did vote. Monroe, however, was not unmindful ofthe service rendered him. After the latter's nomination, Tompkins wasnamed for Vice President; and if he did not resent taking secondplace, as George Clinton did in 1808, it was because the VicePresidency offered changed conditions, enlarged acquaintance, and onestep upward on the political ladder. 

CHAPTER XXII

CLINTON'S RISE TO POWER

1815-1817

There was never a time, probably, when the white man, conversant withthe rivers and lakes of New York, did not talk of a continuous passageby water from Lake Erie to the sea. As early as 1724, when CadwalladerColden was surveyor-general of the colony, he declared the opportunityfor inland navigation in New York without a parallel in any other partof the world, and as the Mohawk Valley, reaching out toward the lakesof Oneida and Cayuga, and connecting by easy grades with the GeneseeRiver beyond, opened upon his vision, it filled him with admiration. Even then the thrifty settler, pushing his way into the picturesquecountry of the Iroquois, had determined to pre-empt the valleys whosemeanderings furnished the blackest loam and richest meadows, and whosegently receding foot-hills offered sites for the most attractive homesin the vicinity of satisfactory and enduring markets. It was thisscene that impressed Joseph Carver in 1776. Carver was an explorer. Hehad traversed the country from New York to Green Bay, and looking backupon the watery path he saw nothing to prevent the great Northwestfrom being connected with the ocean by means of canals and the naturalwaterways of New York. In one of the rhetorical flights of his youngmanhood, Gouverneur Morris declared that "at no distant day the watersof the great inland seas would, by the aid of man, break through theirbarriers and mingle with those of the Hudson. " George Washington hadvisions of the same vast system as he traversed the State, in 1783, with George Clinton, on his way to the headwaters of the Susquehanna. 

These were the dreams of statesmen, whose realisation, however, wasyet far, very far, away. In 1768, long after "Old Silver Locks" hadbecome the distinguished lieutenant-governor, he induced Sir HenryMoore, the gay and affable successor of Governor Monckton, to ascendthe Mohawk for the supreme purpose of projecting a canal around LittleFalls. Sixteen years later, in 1784, the Legislature tenderedChristopher Colles the entire profits of the navigation of the riverif he would improve it; yet work did not follow words. It was easy tosee what might be done, but the man did not appear who could do it. In1791, George Clinton took a hand, securing the incorporation of acompany to open navigation from the Hudson to Lake Ontario. Thecompany completed three sections of a canal--aggregating six miles inlength, with five leaky locks--at a cost of four hundred thousanddollars, but the price of transportation was not cheapened, nor thetime shortened. This seemed to end all money effort. Other canalcompanies were organised, one to build between the Hudson and LakeChamplain, another to connect the Oswego River with Cayuga and Senecalakes; but the projects came to nothing. Finally, in 1805, theLegislature authorised Simeon DeWitt, the surveyor-general, to causethe several routes to be accurately surveyed; and, after he hadreported the feasibility of constructing a canal without seriousdifficulty from Lake Erie to the Hudson, a commission of seven men, appointed in 1810, estimated the cost of such construction at fivemillion dollars. It was hoped the general government would assist inmaking up this sum; but it soon became apparent that the war, intowhich the country was rapidly drifting, would use up the nationalsurplus, while rival projects divided attention and lessened theenthusiasm. Efforts to secure a right of way, developed the avarice oflandowners, who demanded large damages for the privilege. Thus, discouragement succeeded discouragement until a majority of theearlier friends of the canal gave up in despair. 

But there was one man who did not weaken. DeWitt Clinton had beenmade a member of the Canal Commission in 1810, and with GouverneurMorris, Peter B. Porter and other associates, he explored the entireroute, keeping a diary and carefully noting each obstacle in the way. In 1811, he introduced and forced the passage of a bill clothing thecommission with full power to act; and, afterward, he visitedWashington with Gouverneur Morris to obtain aid from Congress. Thencame the war, and, later, in 1815, Clinton's overthrow and retirement. 

This involuntary leisure gave Clinton just the time needed to hastenthe work which was to transmit his name to later generations. Bitterlymortified over his defeat, he retired to a farm at Newton on LongIsland, where he lived for a time in strict seclusion, indulging, itwas said, too freely in strong drink. But if Clinton lacked patience, and temporarily, perhaps, the virtue of temperance, he did not lackforce of will and strength of intellect. He corresponded with men ofinfluence; sought the assistance of capitalists; held public meetings;and otherwise endeavoured to enlist the co-operation of people whowould be benefited, and to arouse a public sentiment which shouldovercome doubt and stir into activity men of force and foresight. Writing from Buffalo, in July, 1816, he declared that "in all humanprobability, before the passing away of the present generation, Buffalo will be the second city in the State. "[185] A month later, having examined "the land and the water with scrutinising eye, superintending our operations and exploring all our facilities andembarrassments" from the great drop at Lockport to the waters of theMohawk at Utica, he again refers to the future Queen City of the Lakeswith prophetic power. "Buffalo is to be the point of beginning, and infifty years it will be next to New York in wealth and population. "[186]

[Footnote 185: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 411. ]

[Footnote 186: _Ibid. _, Vol. 50, p. 411. ]

It is doubtful if any statesman endowed with less genius than Clintoncould have kept the project alive during this period of indifferenceand discouragement. Even Thomas Jefferson doubted the feasibility ofthe plan, declaring that it was a century in advance of the age. "Iconfess, " wrote Rufus King, long after its construction had becomeassured, "that looking at the distance between Erie and the Hudson, and taking into view the hills and valleys and rivers and morassesover which the canal must pass, I have felt some doubts whether theunaided resources of the State would be competent to itsexecution. "[187] But Clinton had a nature and a spirit which inclinedhim to favour daring plans, and he seems to have made up his mind thatnothing should hinder him from carrying out the enterprise he had atheart. 

[Footnote 187: Charles R. King, _Life and Correspondence of RufusKing_, Vol. 6, p. 97. ]

In the end, he compelled the acceptance of his project by a stroke ofhappy audacity. A great meeting of New York merchants, held in theautumn of 1815, appointed him chairman of a committee to memorialisethe Legislature. With a fund of information, obtained by personalinspection of the route, he set forth with rhetorical effect and greatclearness the inestimable advantages that must come to city and toState; and, with the ease of a financier, inspired with sounder viewsthan had been observed in the care of his own estate, he demonstratedthe manner of securing abundant funds for the great work. "If theproject of a canal, " he said, in conclusion, "was intended to advancethe views of individuals, or to foment the divisions of party; if itpromoted the interests of a few at the expense of the prosperity ofthe many; if its benefits were limited to place, or fugitive as toduration; then, indeed, it might be received with cold indifference ortreated with stern neglect; but the overflowing blessings from thisgreat fountain of public good and national abundance will be asextensive as our own country and as durable as time. It may beconfidently asserted that this canal, as to the extent of its route, as to the countries which it connects, and as to the consequenceswhich it will produce, is without a parallel in the history ofmankind. It remains for a free state to create a new era in history, and to erect a work more stupendous, more magnificent, and morebeneficial than has hitherto been achieved by the human race. "

When the people heard and read this memorial, monster mass-meetings, held at Albany and other points along the proposed waterway, gave ventto acclamations of joy; and Clinton was welcomed whenever and whereverhe appeared. These marks of public favour were by no means confined tothe lower classes. Men of large property openly espoused his cause;and when the Legislature convened, in January, 1816, a new commission, with Clinton at its head, was authorised to make surveys andestimates, receive grants and donations, and report to the nextLegislature. 

It was a great triumph for Clinton. He went to Albany a politicaloutcast, he returned to New York gilded with the first rays of a newand rising career, destined to be as remarkable as the most romanticstory belonging to the early days of the last century. To make hissuccess the more conspicuous, it became known, before the legislativesession ended, that his quarrel with Spencer had been settled. Spencer's wife, who was Clinton's sister, had earnestly striven tobring them together; but neither Spencer nor Clinton was made of thestuff likely to allow family affection to interfere with the promotionof their careers. As time went on, however, it became more and moreevident to Spencer that some alliance must be formed against theincreasing influence of Van Buren and Tompkins; and, with peace oncedeclared with Clinton, their new friendship began just where the oldalliance left off. In an instant, like quarrelling lovers, estrangement was forgotten and their interests and ambitions becamemutual. Of all Clinton's critics, Spencer had been the meanest andfiercest; of all his friends, he was now the warmest and mostenthusiastic. To turn Clinton's enemies into friends was as earnestlyand daringly undertaken by Spencer, as the old-time work of turninghis friends into enemies; and before the summer of 1816 had advancedinto the sultry days of August, Spencer boldly proclaimed Clinton hiscandidate for governor to take the place of Tompkins, who was tobecome Vice President on the 4th of March, 1817. It was an audaciouspolitical move; and one of less daring mind might well have hesitated;but it is hardly too much to say of Spencer, that he combined inhimself all the qualities of daring, foresight, energy, enterprise, and cool, calculating sagacity, which must be united in order to makea consummate political leader. 

Tompkins, like Jefferson, had never taken kindly to the canal project. In his message to the Legislature, in February, 1816, he simplysuggested that it rested with them to determine whether the scheme wassufficiently important to demand the appropriation of some part of therevenues of the State "without imposing too great a burden upon ourconstituents. "[188] The great meetings held in the preceding autumnhad forced this recognition of the existence of such a project; buthis carefully measured words, and his failure to express an opinion asto its wisdom or desirability, chilled some of the enthusiasm formerlyexhibited for him. To add to the people's disappointment and chagrin, the Governor omitted all mention of the subject on the 5th ofNovember, when the Legislature assembled to choose presidentialelectors--an omission which he repeated on the 21st of January, 1817, when the Legislature met in regular session, although the constructionof a canal was just then attracting more attention than all otherquestions before the public. If Clinton failed to realise the loss ofpopularity that would follow his loss of the Presidency in 1812, Tompkins certainly failed to appreciate the reaction that would followhis repudiation of the canal. 

[Footnote 188: _Governors' Speeches_, February 2, 1816, p. 132. ]

When the Legislature convened, the new Canal Commission, throughDeWitt Clinton, presented an exhaustive report, estimating the cost ofthe Erie canal, three hundred and fifty-three miles long, forty feetwide at the surface, and twenty-eight feet at the bottom, withseventy-seven locks, at $4, 571, 813. The cost of the Champlain canalwas fixed at $871, 000. It was suggested that money, secured by loan, could be subsequently repaid without taxation; and on the strength ofthis report, a bill for the construction of both canals wasimmediately introduced in the two houses. This action produced aprofound impression throughout the State. The only topics discussedfrom New York to Buffalo, were the magnificent scheme of opening anavigable waterway between the Hudson and the lakes, and thedesirability of having the man build it who had made its constructionpossible. This, of course, meant Clinton for governor. 

Talk of Clinton's candidacy was very general when the Legislatureassembled, in January, 1817; and, although Van Buren had hithertoattached little importance to it, the discovery that a strong andconsiderable part of the Legislature, backed by the stalwart Spencer, now openly favoured the nomination of the canal champion, set him towork planning a way of escape. His suggestion that Tompkins serve asgovernor and vice president found little more favour than the schemeof allowing Lieutenant-Governor Taylor to act as governor; for theformer plan was as objectionable to Tompkins and the people, as thelatter was plainly illegal. It is doubtful if Van Buren seriouslyapproved either expedient; but it gave him time to impress upon partyfriends the objections to Clinton's restoration to power. He did notgo back to 1812. That would have condemned himself. But he recalledthe ex-Mayor's open, bitter opposition to Tompkins in 1813, and thesteady support given him by the Federalists. In proof of thisstatement he pointed to the present indisposition of Federalists tooppose Clinton if nominated, and their avowed declarations thatClinton's views paralleled their own. 

Van Buren had shown, from his first entrance into public life, aremarkable faculty for winning men to his own way of thinking. Hiscriticism of Clinton was now directed with characteristic sagacity andskill. His argument, that the object of those who sustained Clintonwas to establish a conspiracy with the Federalists at home andabroad, for the overthrow of the Republican party in the nation aswell as in the State, seemed justified by the open support of WilliamW. Van Ness, the gifted young justice of the Supreme Court. Further toconfirm his contention, Jonas Platt, now of the Supreme bench, andJacob Rutsen Van Rensselaer of Columbia, a bold, active, and mostzealous partisan, who had served in the Legislature and as secretaryof state, made no secret of their intention to indorse Clinton'snomination, and, if necessary, to ride over the State to secure hiselection. Under ordinary circumstances nothing could discredit theClinton agitation, with the more reasonable part of the Republicanlegislators, more than Van Buren's charge, strengthened by suchsupporting evidence. 

The canal influences of the time, however, were too strong for anyingenuity of argument, or adroitness in the raising of alarm, toprevail; and so the skilful manager turned his attention to Joseph G. Yates, a judge of the Supreme Court, as an opposing candidate whomight be successful. Yates belonged to the old-fashioned American typeof handsome men. He had a large, shapely head, a prominent nose, fulllips, and a face cleanly shaven and rosy. His bearing was excellent, his voice, manner, and everything about him bespoke the gentleman; butneither in aspect nor manner of speech did he measure up to his realdesire for political preferment. Yet he had many popular qualitieswhich commended him to the rank and file of his party. He was a man ofabstemious habits and boundless industry, whose courtesy and squaredealing made him a favourite. Few errors of a political charactercould be charged to his account. He had favoured Clinton forPresident; he had supported Tompkins and the war with great zeal, and, to the full extent of his ability and influence, he had proved anardent friend of the canal policy. 

It had been a trait of the Yates family--ever since its founder, anenterprising English yeoman, a native of Leeds in Yorkshire, hadsettled in the colony during the troublous days of Charles I. --toespouse any movement or improvement which should benefit the people. Joseph had already shown his activity and usefulness in founding UnionCollege; he regarded the proposed canal as a long step in thedevelopment and prosperity of the State; but he did not take kindly toVan Buren's suggestion that he become a candidate for governor againstClinton. In this respect he was unlike Robert, chief justice, hisfather's cousin, who first ran for governor on the Federalist ticketat the suggestion of Hamilton, and, three years later, as ananti-Federalist candidate at the suggestion of George Clinton, suffering defeat on both occasions. He was, however, as ambitious asthe old Chief Justice; and, had the time seemed ripe, he would haveresponded to the call of the Kinderhook statesman as readily as Robertdid to the appeals of Hamilton and George Clinton. 

Peter B. Porter was more willing. He belonged to the Tompkins-VanBuren faction which nourished the hope that the soldier, who hadrecently borne the flag of his country in triumph on severalbattlefields, would carry off the prize, although the caucus was toconvene in less than forty-eight hours. There could be no doubt ofGeneral Porter's strength with the people. He had served his State andhis country with a fidelity that must forever class his name with thebravest officers of the War of 1812. He rode a horse like a centaur;and, wherever he appeared, whether equipped for a fight, or off for ahunt through the forests of the Niagara frontier, his easy, familiarmanners surrounded him with hosts of friends. The qualities that madehim a famous soldier made him, also, a favoured politician. As countyclerk, secretary of state, and congressman, he had taken the keenestinterest in the great questions that agitated the political life ofthe opening century; and as a canal commissioner, in 1811, he hadsupported DeWitt Clinton with all the energy of an enthusiast. 

At this time Porter was forty-four years old. He was a graduate ofYale, a student of the law, and as quick in intelligence as he waspleasing of countenance. His speeches, enlivened with gleams ofhumour, rays of fancy, and flashes of eloquence, expressed thethoughts of an honourable, upright statesman who was justly esteemedof the first order of intellect. Certainly, if any one could take thenomination from DeWitt Clinton it was Peter B. Porter. 

It is possible, had the nomination been left exclusively to Republicanmembers of the Legislature, as it had been for forty years, Portermight have been the choice of his party. Spencer, however, evidentlyfeared Van Buren's subtle control of the Legislature; for, early inthe winter, he began encouraging Republicans living in countiesrepresented by Federalists, to demand a voice in the nominatingcaucus. It was a novel idea. Up to this time, governors andlieutenant-governors had been nominated by members of the Legislature;yet the plan now suggested was so manifestly fair that few daredoppose it. Why should the Republicans of Albany County, it was asked, be denied the privilege of participating in the nomination of agovernor simply because, being in a minority, they were unrepresentedin the Legislature? There was no good reason; and, although Van Burenwell understood that such counties would return delegates generallyfavourable to Clinton, he was powerless to defeat the reform. Theresult was the beginning of nominating conventions, composed ofdelegates selected by the people, and the nomination of DeWittClinton. 

The blow to Van Buren was a severe one. "An obscure painter of theFlemish school, " wrote Clinton to his friend and confidant, HenryPost, "has made a very ludicrous and grotesque representation of Jonahimmediately after he was ejected from the whale's belly. He isrepresented as having a very bewildered and dismal physiognomy, notknowing from whence he came nor to what place bound. Just so looks VanBuren, the leader of the opposition party. "[189] Yet Van Buren seemsto have taken his defeat with more serenity and dignity than mighthave been expected. Statesmen of far nobler character have allowedthemselves to indulge in futile demonstrations of disappointment andanger, but Van Buren displayed a remarkable evenness of temper. Headvocated with ability and sincerity the bill to construct the canal, which passed the Legislature on April 15, the last day of the session. Indeed, of the eighteen senators who favoured the project, five werebitter anti-Clintonians whose support was largely due to Van Buren. 

[Footnote 189: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 412. ]

In this vote, the noes, in both Assembly and Senate, came fromClinton's opponents, including the Tammany delegation and theirfriends. From the outset Tammany, by solemn resolutions, had denouncedthe canal project as impractical and chimerical, declaring it fit onlyfor a ditch in which to bury Clinton. At Albany its representativesgreeted the measure for its construction with a burst of mockery; and, by placing one obstacle after another in its way, nearly defeated itin the Senate. It was during this contest that the friends of Clintoncalled his opponents "Bucktails"--the name growing out of a custom, which obtained on certain festival occasions, when leading members ofTammany wore the tail of a deer on their hats. 

Refusing to accept DeWitt Clinton, Tammany made Peter B. Porter itscandidate for governor. There is ample evidence that Porter neverconcealed the chagrin or disappointment of defeat; but, though thedistinguished General must have known that his name was printed uponthe Tammany ticket and sent into every county in the State, he did notco-operate with Tammany in its effort to elect him. Other defectionsexisted in the party. Peter R. Livingston seemed to concentrate inhimself all the prejudices of his family against the Clintons. MosesI. Cantine of Catskill, a brother-in-law of Van Buren, though perhapsincapable of personal bitterness, opposed Clinton with such zeal thathe refused to vote either for a gubernatorial candidate, or for theconstruction of a canal. Samuel Young, who seemed to nourish adeep-seated dislike of Clinton, never tired of disparaging theex-Mayor. He apparently took keen pleasure in holding up to ridiculeand in satirising, what he was pleased to call his ponderouspedantries, his solemn affectation of profundity and wisdom, hisnarrow-mindedness, and his intolerable and transparent egotism. Butthe canal sentiment was all one way. With the help of the Federalists, who declined to make an opposing nomination, Clinton swept the Statelike a cyclone, receiving nearly forty-four thousand votes out of atotal of forty-five thousand. [190] Porter had less than fifteenhundred. Clinton's inauguration as governor occurred on the first dayof July, 1817, and three days later he began the construction of theErie canal. 

[Footnote 190: DeWitt Clinton, 43, 310; Peter B. Porter, 1479. --_CivilList, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

CHAPTER XXIII

BUCKTAIL AND CLINTONIAN

1817-1819

DeWitt Clinton had now reached the highest point in his politicalcareer. He was not merely all-powerful in the administration, he wasthe administration. He delighted in the consciousness that he waslooked up to by men; that his success was fixed as a star in thefirmament; and that the greatest work of his life lay before him. Hewas still in the prime of his days, only forty-eight years old, with amarvellous capacity for work. It is said that he found a positivedelight in doing what seemed to others a wearisome and exhaustive taxupon physical endurance. "The canal, " he writes to his friend, HenryPost, in the month of his inauguration, "is in a fine way. Ten mileswill be completely finished this season, and all within the estimate. The application of the simple labour-saving machinery of ourcontractors has the operation of magic. Trees, stumps, and everythingvanish before it. "[191] The exceptional work and responsibility putupon him during the construction of his "big ditch, " as his enemiessarcastically called it, might well have made him complain of theofficial burdens he had to bear; but neither by looks nor words did heindicate the slightest disposition to grumble. Nature had endowed himwith a genius for success. He loved literature, he delighted incountry life, he was at home among farmers, and with those inclined toscience he analysed the flowers and turned with zest to a closer studyof rocks and soils. No man ever enjoyed more thoroughly, or wasbetter equipped intellectually to undertake such a career as he hadnow entered upon. His audacity, too, amazed his enemies and delightedhis friends. 

[Footnote 191: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 412. ]

But Clinton had learned nothing of the art of political managementeither in his retirement or by experience. He was the samedomineering, uncompromising, intolerant dictator, helpful only tothose who continually sounded his praises, cold and distant towardthose who acted with independence and spirit. He had made his enemieshis footstool; and he now assumed to be the recognised head of theparty whose destinies were in his keeping and whose fortunes wereswayed by his will. It is, perhaps, too much to say that this waspurely personal ambition. On the contrary, Clinton seems to have actedon the honest conviction that he knew better than any other man howNew York ought to be governed, and the result of his effort inclinesone to the opinion that he was right in the belief. At all events, itis not surprising that a man of his energy and capacity for onwardmovement should refuse to regulate his policy to the satisfaction ofthe men that had recently crushed him to earth, and who, he knew, would crush him again at the first opportunity. In this respect he wasnot different from Van Buren; but Van Buren would have sought toplacate the least objectionable of his opponents, and to bring to hissupport men who were restless under the domination of others. 

Clinton, however, did nothing of the kind. He would not even extendthe olive branch to Samuel Young after the latter had quarrelled withVan Buren. He preferred, evidently, to rely upon his old friends--eventhough some of their names had become odious to the party--and upon acoterie of brilliant Federalists, led by William W. Van Ness, JonasPlatt, and Thomas J. Oakley, with whom he was already upon terms ofconfidential communication. He professed to believe that theprinciples of Republican and Federalist were getting to be somewhatundefined in their character; and that the day was not far off, if, indeed, it had not already come, when the Republican party wouldbreak into two factions, and, for the real business of statesmanship, divide the Federalists between them. Yet, in practice, he did not acton this principle. To the embarrassment of his Federalist friends hefailed to appoint their followers to office, making it difficult forthem to explain why he should profit by Federalist support and turn adeaf ear to Federalist necessities; and, to the surprise of his mostdevoted Republican supporters, he refused to make a clean sweep of themen in office whom he believed to have acted against him. He quicklydropped the Tammany men holding places in New York City, andoccasionally let go an up-state politician at the instance of AmbroseSpencer, but with characteristic independence he disregarded theadvice of his friends who urged him to let them all go. 

Meanwhile, a change long foreseen by those who were in the innerpolitical circle was rapidly approaching. At no period of Americanhistory could such a man as Clinton remain long in power withoutformidable rivals. No sooner, therefore, had the Legislature convened, in January, 1818, than Martin Van Buren, Samuel Young, Peter R. Livingston, Erastus Root, and their associates, began open war uponhim. For a long time it had been a question whether it was to beClinton and Van Buren, or Van Buren and Clinton. Van Buren had beengrowing every day in power and influence. Seven years before ElishaWilliams had sneered at him as Little Matty. "Poor little Matty!" hewrote, "what a blessing it is for one to think he is the greatestlittle fellow in the world. It would be cruel to compel this man toestimate himself correctly. Inflated with pride, flattered for hispertness, caressed for his assurance, and praised for hisimpertinence, it is not to be wondered that in a market where thosequalifications pass for evidence of intrinsic merit he should thinkhimself great. " Williams, great and brilliant as he was, could notbear with patience the supremacy which Van Buren was all too certainlyobtaining. He struggled against him, intrigued against him, andfinally hated and lampooned him, but the superiority of Van Buren'stalents as a managing politician was destined to make him pre-eminentin the State and in the nation. 

That Van Buren was not always honourable, the famous Fellows-Allencontest had recently demonstrated. Henry Fellows, a Federalistcandidate for assemblyman in Ontario County, received a majority ofthirty votes over Peter Allen, a Republican; but because the former'sname appeared in his certificate as Hen. Fellows, the Bucktails, guided by Van Buren, seated Allen, whose vote was absolutely needed toelect a Republican Council of Appointment. Writing "Hen. " for Henrywas not error; it was not even an inadvertence. Van Buren knew that itstood for Henry as "Wm. " did for William, or "Jas. " for James. But VanBuren wanted the Council. It cannot be said that this action wasinconsistent with the sentiment then governing the conduct of parties;for the maxim obtained that "everything is fair in war. " Nevertheless, it illuminated Van Buren's character, and left the impression uponsome of his contemporaries that he was a stranger to a high standardof political morality. 

Probably DeWitt Clinton would have taken similar advantage. But inpractical politics Clinton was no match for the Kinderhook statesman. Van Buren studied the game like a chess-player, taking knights andpawns with the ease of a skilful mover. Clinton, on the other hand, was an optimist, who believed in his destiny. In the performance ofhis official duties he mastered whatever he undertook and relied uponthe people for his support; and so long as he stood for internalimprovements and needed reform in the public service, he did not relyin vain. Force, clearness and ability characterised his state papers. For years he had been a student of municipal and county affairs; and, in suggesting new legislation, he exhibited rare judgment and absoluteimpartiality. A comprehension that sound finance had much to do withdomestic prosperity, entered into his review of the financialsituation--in its relation to the construction of the canals--indicatingfulness of information and great clearness as to existing conditions. Clinton was honestly proud of his canal policy; more than once hedeclared, with exultation, that nothing was more certain to promotethe prosperity of the State, or to secure to it the weight andauthority, in the affairs of the nation, to which its wealth andposition entitled it. Seldom in the history of an Americancommonwealth has a statesman been as prophetic. But in managing thedetails of party tactics--in dealing with individuals for the purposeof controlling the means that control men--he conducted the office ofgovernor much as he did his candidacy for President in 1812, withoutplan, and, apparently, without organisation. With all his courage, Clinton must have felt some qualms of uneasiness as one humiliationfollowed another; but if he felt he did not show them. Conscious ofhis ability, and of his own great purposes, he seems to have borne hisposition with a sort of proud or stolid patience. 

This inattention or inability to attend to details of party managementbecame painfully apparent at the opening of the Legislature inJanuary, 1818. Van Buren and his friends had agreed upon WilliamThompson for speaker of the Assembly. Thompson was a young man, warmin his passions, strong in his prejudices, and of fair ability, whohad served two or three terms in the lower house, and who, it wasthought, as he represented a western district, and, in opposition toElisha Williams, had favoured certain interests in Seneca Countygrowing out of the location of a new courthouse, would have greaterstrength than other more prominent Bucktails. It was known, also, thatThompson had taken a violent dislike to Clinton and could be reliedupon to advance any measure for the latter's undoing. To secure hisnomination, therefore, Van Buren secretly notified his partisans to bepresent at the caucus on the evening before the session opened. 

The Clintonians had talked of putting up John Van Ness Yates, son ofthe former Chief Justice, a ready talker, companionable and brilliant, a gentleman of fine literary taste, with an up-and-down politicalcareer due largely to his consistent following of Clinton. But theGovernor now wanted a stronger, more decided man; and, after advisingwith Spencer, he selected Obadiah German, for many years a leader inthe Assembly, and until recently a member of the United States Senate, with such a record for resistance to Governor Tompkins, and activecomplicity with the Federalists who had aided his election to theAssembly, that the mere mention of his name to the Bucktails was likea firebrand thrown onto the roof of a thatched cottage. Germanhimself doubted the wisdom of his selection. He was an old-timefighter, preferring debate on the floor to the wielding of a gavelwhile other men disputed; but the Governor, with sublime faith inGerman's fidelity and courage, and a sublimer faith in his own powerto make him speaker, turned a deaf ear to the assemblyman's wishes. Had Clinton now conferred with his friends in the Legislature, orsimply urged their presence at the caucus, he might easily havenominated German in spite of his record. On the contrary, he didneither, and when the caucus met, of the seventy-five members present, forty-two voted for Thompson and thirty-three for German. When toolate Clinton discovered his mistake--seventeen Clintonians had beenabsent and all the Bucktails present. The great Clinton had beenoutwitted!

The hearts of the Bucktails must have rejoiced when they heard thecount, especially as the refusal of the Clintonians to make thenomination unanimous indicated an intention to turn to the Federalistsfor aid. This was the one error the Bucktails most desired Clinton tocommit; for it would stamp them as the regular representatives of theparty, and reduce the Clintonians to a faction, irregular in theirmethods and tainted with Federalism. It is difficult to realise thearguments which could persuade Clinton to take such a step. Even ifsuch conduct be not considered a question of principle, and only oneof expediency, he should have condemned it. Yet this is just whatClinton did not do. After two days of balloting he disclosed his handin a motion declaring Obadiah German the speaker, and sixty-sevenmembers, including seventeen Federalists, voted in the affirmative, while forty-eight, including three Federalists, voted in the negative. 

"The Assembly met on Tuesday, " wrote John A. King to his father, onJanuary 8, 1818, "but adjourned without choosing a speaker. The nextday, after a short struggle, Mr. German was chosen by the aid of someof the Federalists. I regret to say that there are some of the Federalgentlemen and influential ones, too, who are deeply pledged to supportthe wanderings fortunes of Mr. Clinton. On this point the Federalparty must, if it has not already, divide. Once separated there can beno middle course; a neutrality party in politics, if not an absurdity, at least is evidence of indecision. We are not yet declared enemies, but if I mistake not, the question of Council and the choice of aUnited States senator must, if these gentlemen persist, decide thematter irrevocably. Mr. W. Duer, Van Vechten, Bunner, Hoffman, andmyself are opposed to Mr. W. Van Ness, Oakley, and J. Van Rensselaer. Mr. Clinton has found means to flatter these gentlemen with theprospect of attaining their utmost wishes by adhering to andsupporting his administration. "[192]

[Footnote 192: Charles R. King, _The Life and Correspondence of RufusKing_, Vol. 6, p. 102. ]

Clinton committed the second great error of his life when he consentedto bolt the caucus nominee of his party. It was an act of consciousbaseness. He had not manfully put forward his strength. Instead ofmanaging, he temporised; instead of meeting his adversaries with awill, he did nothing, while they worked systematically and in silence. Even then he need not have entered the caucus; but, once havingvoluntarily entered it, it was his plain duty to support its nominee. As a question of principle or expediency Clinton's conduct, therefore, admits of no defence. The plea that Van Buren had secretly assembledthe Bucktails in force neither justifies nor palliates it; for theslightest management on Clinton's part would have controlled thecaucus by bringing together fifty members instead of thirty-three, andthe slightest inquiry would have discovered the weakness of havingonly thirty-three present instead of fifty. 

Clinton professed to believe that the Federalists no longer existed asa party; and it is probably true that he desired to create a party ofhis own out of its membership, strengthened by the Clintonians, and toleave Tammany and its Bucktail supporters to build up an oppositionorganisation. But in this he was in advance of his time. Though theday was coming when a majority of the Clintonians and Federalistswould make the backbone of the Whig party in the Empire State, a newparty could not be built up by such methods as Clinton now introduced. New parties, like poets, are born, not made, and a love for principle, not a desire for spoils, must precede their birth. If Clinton hadsincerely desired a new organisation, he should have disclaimed allconnection with the Republican or Federalist, and planted his standardon the cornerstone of internal improvements, prepared to make thesacrifice that comes to those who are tired of existing conditions andeager for new policies and new associations. But Clinton was neitherreformer nor pioneer. He loved the old order of things, the Council ofAppointment, the Council of Revision, the Constitution of 1777 asamended by the convention of 1801, and all the machinery that gavepower to the few and control to the boss. He had been born to power. From his first entrance into the political arena he had exercisedit--first with the help of his uncle George, afterward with theassistance of his brother-in-law, Ambrose Spencer; and now that he hadswung back into power again by means of his canal policy, he had nodisposition to let go any part of it by letting go the Republicanparty. What Van Buren got from him he must take by votes, not bygifts. 

Clinton's flagrant violation of the caucus rule, that a minority mustyield to the majority, not only broke the Republican party into thefamous factions known as Clintonians and Bucktails; it alarmed localleaders throughout the State; made the rank and file distrustful ofthe Governor's fealty, and consolidated his enemies, giving them thebest of the argument and enabling Van Buren to build up anorganisation against which the Governor was ever after compelled tostruggle with varying fortune. Indeed, in the next month, Van Buren somanaged the selection of a Council that it gave Clinton credit forcontrolling appointments without the slightest power of making them, so that the disappointed held him responsible and the fortunate gavehim no thanks. Following this humiliation, too, came the election, byone majority, of Henry Seymour, a bitter opponent of Clinton, to thecanal commissionership made vacant by the resignation of JosephEllicott. The Governor's attention had been called to the danger ofhis candidate's defeat; but with optimistic assurance he dismissed itas impossible until Ephraim Hart, just before the election occurred, discovered that the cunning hand of Van Buren had accomplished hisoverthrow. "A majority of the canal commissioners are now politicallyopposed to the Governor, " declared the Albany _Argus_, "and it willnot be necessary for a person who wishes to obtain employment on thecanal as agent, contractor or otherwise, to avow himself aClintonian. " This exultant shout meant that in future onlyanti-Clintonians would make up the army of canal employees. 

But a greater _coup d'état_ was to come. Van Buren understood wellenough that Clinton's strength with the people was not as a politicianor Republican leader, but as a stubborn, indefatigable advocate of thecanal; and that, so long as the Bucktails opposed his scheme, theircontrol of appointments could not overthrow him. Van Buren, therefore, determined to silence this opposition. Just how he did it is not ofrecord. It was said, at the time, that a caucus was held of Clinton'sopponents; but, however it was done, it must have required all VanBuren's strength of will and art of persuasion to sustain him in themidst of so many difficulties--difficulties which were greatlyincreased by the unfriendly conduct of Erastus Root, and two or threesenators from the southern district, including Peter Sharpe, afterward speaker of the Assembly. Yet the fact that he accomplishedit, and with such secrecy that Clinton's friends did not know how itwas brought about, showed the quiet and complete control exercised byVan Buren over the members of the Bucktail party. The _NationalAdvocate_, edited by Mordecai Manesseh Noah, a conspicuous figure inpolitics for forty years and one of the most unrelenting partisans ofhis day, had supported Tammany in its long and bitter antagonism tothe canal with a malevolence rarely equalled in that or any other day. He measured pens with Israel W. Clarke of the Albany _Register_, whohad so ably answered every point that Noah charged their authorship toClinton himself. But after Van Buren had spoken, the _Advocate_, suddenly, as if by magic, changed its course, and, with the rest ofthe Bucktail contingent, rallied to the support of Clinton's petscheme with arguments as sound and full of clear good sense as theGovernor himself could wish. The people, however, had good reason toknow that statesmen were not all and always exactly as they professedto be; and the immediate effect of the Bucktail change of heartamounted to little more than public notice that the canal policy was acomplete success, and that Tammany and its friends had discovered thatfurther opposition was useless. 

CHAPTER XXIV

RE-ELECTION OF RUFUS KING

1819-1820

Although Clinton's canal policy now dominated Bucktails as well asClintonians, eliminating all differences as to public measures, thebitterness between these factions increased until the effort to electa United States senator to succeed Rufus King resulted in a completeseparation. The Clintonians had settled upon John C. Spencer, whilethe Bucktails thought Samuel Young, a decided friend of Clinton'scanal policy, the most likely man to attract support. Both wererepresentative men, and either would have done honour to the State. 

John C. Spencer needed no introduction or advertisement as the son ofAmbrose Spencer. He was a man of large promise. Everything he did hedid well, and he had already done much. Though scarcely thirty-fouryears of age, he had established himself as a leading lawyer of theCommonwealth, whose strong, vigorous English in support of the war hadfound its way into Parliament as an unanswerable argument to LordLiverpool's unwise policy, winning him an enviable reputation as awriter. Skilful in expression, adroit in attack, calm and resourcefulin argument, with the sarcasm of the younger Pitt, he had presentedAmerican rights and British outrages in a clearer light than others, arousing his countrymen very much as the letters of Junius hadquickened English political life forty years before. He made it plainthat England's insistence upon the right to stop and search anAmerican vessel, and England's persistent refusal to recognise anaturalised American citizen on board an American vessel, were thereal causes of quarrel. "There is not an individual, " said a leadingBritish journal, "who has attended at all to the dispute with theUnited States, who does not see that it has been embittered from thefirst, and wantonly urged on by those who, for the sake of their ownaggrandisement, are willing to plunge their country into all the evilsportrayed by the American writer. "

A single term in Congress had placed Spencer in the ranks of theleaders. He was trenchant in speech, forceful on paper, and helpful incommittee. Intellectually, he took the place of the distinguishedSouth Carolinian, just then leaving Congress to become Monroe'ssecretary of war, whose thin face and firm mouth resembled the NewYorker's. Spencer, like Calhoun, delighted in establishing by thesubtlest train of philosophical reasoning the delicate lines thatexposed sophistry and error, and made clear the disputed point in lawor in legislation. The rhetorical drapery that gave Samuel Young suchsignal success found no place in Spencer's arguments or in hispamphlets; but to a logic that deeply penetrated his subject he addedan ethical interest which captivated the mind, as his reasoningilluminated and made plain. He was a born fighter. Like his father, heasked no quarter and he gave none. His eye had the expression one seesin hawks and game-cocks. At twenty-eight, as district attorney of thefive western counties of the State, he had become a terror toevil-doers, and it is said of him, at his old home in Canandaigua, that men, conscious of their innocence, preferred appealing to themercy of the court than endure prosecution at his hands. Possibly hepossessed the small affections which Disraeli thought necessary to becoupled with large brains to insure success in public life, yet hisnature, in every domestic and social relation, was the gentlest andsimplest. DeWitt Clinton did not always approve Spencer's politicalcourse. He thought him "an incubus on the party, " "the politicalmillstone of the west, " and he attributed the occasional loss ofOntario and neighbouring counties "to his deleterious management. " Theausterity and haughtiness of his manner naturally lessened hispopularity, just as his caustic pen and satirical tongue made himbitter enemies; but his strong will and imperious manner were no moreoffensive than Clinton's. Like Clinton, too, Spencer was ill at easein a harness; he resented being lined up by a party boss. But, at thetime he was talked of for United States senator, the intelligentaction and tireless industry upon which his fame rests, had soimpressed men, that they overlooked unpopular traits in theiradmiration for his great ability. People did not then know that he wasto sit in the Cabinet of a President, and be nominated to a place uponthe Supreme bench of the United States; but they knew he was destinedto become famous, because he was already recognised as a professionaland political leader. 

The genius of Samuel Young had also left its track behind. He was nota great lawyer, but his contemporaries thought him a great man. Hecombined brilliant speaking with brilliant writing. The fragments ofhis speeches that have been preserved scarcely hint at theextraordinary power accorded them in the judgment of his neighbours. It is likely that the magic of presence, voice, and action, exaggerated their merits, since he possessed the gifts of a trainedorator, rivalling the forceful declamation of Erastus Root, the mellowtones and rich vocabulary of William W. Van Ness, and the smoothnessof Martin Van Buren. But, if his speeches equalled his pamphlets, thejudgment of his contemporaries must be accepted without limitation. Chancellor Kent objected to giving joint stock companies the right toengage in privateering, a drastic measure passed by the Legislature of1814 in the interest of a more vigorous prosecution of the war; and inhis usual felicitous style, and with much learning, the stubbornFederalist pronounced the statute inconsistent with the spirit of theage and contrary to the genius of the Federal Constitution. Youngreplied to the great Chancellor in a series of essays, brilliant andreadable even in a new century. He showed that, although America hadbeen handicapped by Federalist opposition, by a disorganised army, and by a navy so small that it might almost as well have not existed, yet American privateers--outnumbering the British fleet, scuddingbefore the wind, defying capture, running blockades, destroyingcommerce, and bearing the stars and stripes to the ends of theearth--had dealt England the most staggering blow ever inflicted uponher supremacy of the sea. This was plain talk and plain truth; and itmade the speaker of the Assembly known throughout the State as "thesword, the shield, and the ornament of his party. " Young was asdauntless as Spencer, and, if anything, a more distinguished lookingman. He was without austerity and easy of approach; and, althoughinclined to reticence, he seemed fond of indulging in jocular remarksand an occasional story; but he was a man of bad temper. He frettedunder opposition as much as Clinton, and he easily became vindictivetoward opponents. This kept him unpopular even among men of his ownfaction. Clinton thought him "much of an imbecile, " and suggested in aletter to Post that "suspicions are entertained of his integrity. "[193]Yet Young had hosts of friends eager to fight his political battles. 

[Footnote 193: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 417. ]

The Bucktails had no serious expectation either of nominating orelecting Samuel Young to the United States Senate. They knew theClintonians had a majority, and their purpose, in attending thecaucus, was simply to prevent a nomination. No sooner had the meetingassembled, therefore, than several Bucktails attacked the Governor, reproaching him for the conduct of his followers and severelycriticising his political methods and character. To this Germanretorted with great bitterness. German made no pretensions to the giftof oratory; he had neither grace of manner nor alluring forms ofexpression. On the contrary, there was a certain quality of antagonismin his manner, as if he took grim satisfaction in letting fly hiswords, seemingly almost coldly indifferent to their effect; and onthis occasion his sledge-hammer blows gave Peter R. Livingston, evidently acting by prearrangement, abundant chance for forcing aquarrel. In the confusion that followed, the caucus hastily adjournedamid mutual recriminations. When too late to mend matters theClintonians discovered the trick. They had the majority and couldeasily have named Spencer as the candidate of the party, but in theexcitement of German's speech and Livingston's attack they lost theirheads. Thus ended forever all caucus relationship between thesewarring factions, and henceforth they were known as two distinctparties. 

At the joint session of the Legislature, on February 2, 1819, theClintonians gave Spencer sixty-four votes, while Young receivedfifty-seven, and Rufus King thirty-four. "A motion then prevailed toadjourn, " wrote John A. King to his father, "so that this Legislaturewill make no choice. " Young King, a member of the Assembly, waslooking after his father's re-election to the Senate. He deeplyresented Clinton's control of the Federalists, because it made hisfather a leader only in name; and to show his dislike of Federalistmethods he associated and voted with the Bucktails. Nor did the fatherdislike Clinton less than the son. Rufus King had felt, what he waspleased to call "the baleful influence of the Clintons, " ever sincehis advent into New York politics. They had opposed the FederalConstitution which he, as a delegate from Massachusetts, helped toframe; they assisted Jefferson in overwhelming Hamilton; and theybenefited by the election trick which defeated John Jay. For more thantwo decades, therefore, Rufus King had watched their control bymethods, which a man cast in a mould that would make no concessions tohis virtue, could not approve. Under his observation, DeWitt Clintonhad grown from young manhood, ambitious and domineering, accustomed todestroy the friend who got in his way with as much ease, apparently, as he smote an enemy. Hence King regarded him much as Hamilton didAaron Burr; and against his candidacy for President in 1812, he usedthe argument that the great Federalist had hurled against theintriguing New Yorker in 1801. He rejoiced that Clinton lost themayoralty in 1815; that he was defeated for elector in 1816; and hedeeply regretted his election as governor in 1817. 

On his part, Clinton had little use for Rufus King; but his need ofFederalist votes made him excessively cautious about appearing tooppose the distinguished Senator; although a deep-laid scheme, understood if not engineered by Clinton, existed to defeat him. JohnKing assured his father that Clinton, inviting Joseph Yates tobreakfast, urged him to become a candidate; and that William W. VanNess had asked Chancellor Kent to enter the race. "I entertain not theslightest doubt, " he continued, referring to Van Ness, "of being ableto produce such testimony of his hypocrisy and infidelity as willrequire more art than ever he is master of to explain or escapefrom. "[194]

[Footnote 194: Charles R. King, _Life and Correspondence of RufusKing_, Vol. 6, p. 251. ]

As the time approached for the reassembling of the Legislature, inJanuary, 1820, these machinations of Clinton caused his opponents manyan uneasy hour. The Bucktails, who could not elect a senator of theirown, would not take a Clintonian, and an alliance between Clinton andthe Federalists, led by Van Ness, Oakley, and Jacob R. Van Rensselaer, threatened to settle the question against them. Van Buren favouredKing, although the Administration at Washington thought his electionimpolitic, because of its effect upon the party in the State; but VanBuren showed great firmness. His party was violently opposed to King. Van Buren, too, was growing tired of the strain of maintaining theleadership of one faction without disrupting the other. But so surewas he of the wisdom of King's support that he insisted upon it, eventhough it sacrificed his leadership. "We are committed to hissupport, " he wrote. "It is both wise and honest. Mr. King's viewstoward us are honourable and correct. I will put my head on itspropriety. "[195]

[Footnote 195: Edward M. Shepard, _Life of Van Buren_, p. 71. ]

Van Buren wanted to share in the division of the Federalists; and torefuse them a United States senator, when Clinton had recently giventhem an attorney-general, an influential, and, at that time, a mostlucrative office, struck him as poor policy--especially since John A. King and other estimable gentlemen had evidenced a disposition to jointhem. Two weeks before the Legislature assembled, therefore, anunsigned letter, skilfully drawn, found its way into the hands ofevery Bucktail, summing up the reasons why they could properly supportRufus King. After recalling his Revolutionary services, this anonymouswriter declared that support of King could not subject Bucktails tothe suspicion of a political bargain, since the Senator had neitheracted with the Federalists who had shown malignity against theAdministration, nor with that numerous and respectable portion whoignorantly thought the war impolitic; but rather with those who aidedin forcing England to respect the rights of American citizens. It wasa cunning letter. There was rough and rasping sarcasm for theClintonians; an ugly disregard for the radical Federalist; a kind wordfor the mere party follower, and winning speech for the gifted sonswho had risen superior to inherited prejudices. The concludingdeclaration to the Bucktails was that King merited support because heand his friends opposed Governor Clinton's re-election, the assertionbeing justified by reference to John King's vote against German andthe Clinton Council. 

Of the authorship of this remarkable paper, there could be no doubt. William L. Marcy had aided in its preparation; but the hand of VanBuren had shaped its character and inspired its winning qualities. Ithad the instant effect that Van Buren plainly invoked for it--theunanimous election of Rufus King. Perhaps, on the whole, nothing inVan Buren's official life showed greater political courage ordiscernment. It is not so famous as his Sherrod Williams letter of1836, or the celebrated Texas letter with which he faced the crisis of1844, but it ranks with the public utterances of those years when hetook the risk of meeting living issues that divided men on smallmargins. There was a strength and character about it that seemed toleave men powerless to answer. Clintonians objected to King, manyBucktails opposed him, Van Ness declared that he could easily bedefeated, Thomas J. Oakley recognised him as the candidate of a manwho spoke of Clinton and his Federalist allies as profligates andpolitical blacklegs. Yet they all voted for Rufus King. Van Buren madeup their minds for them; and, though protesting against the duplicityof Bucktail, the cowardliness of Federalist, and the timidity ofClintonian, each party indorsed him, while proclaiming him not itschoice. 

But Rufus King was not an ordinary candidate. His great experience andexalted character, coupled with his discriminating devotion to thebest interests of the country, yielded strength that no other man inthe State could command. He was now about sixty years of age, and, ofliving statesmen, he had no superior. His life had been a pure one, and his public acts and purposes, measured by the virtues ofpatriotism, honesty and integrity, entitled him to the respect andlasting gratitude of his fellow citizens. The taste for letters whichcharacterised his Harvard College days, followed him into publicaffairs, and if his style lacked the simplicity of Madison's and theprophetic grasp and instinctive knowledge of Hamilton, he shared theirclearness of statement and breadth of view. He displayed similarcapacity in administration and in keeping abreast of the times. Although a lifelong member of the Federal party, whose leadership inNew York he inherited upon the death of its great founder, hesupported the War of 1812 with zeal, giving no countenance to theHartford Convention if he did not openly oppose it, and promisingnothing in the way of aid that he did not amply and promptly fulfil. At the supreme moment of the crisis, in 1814, when the generalgovernment needed money and the banks would loan only upon theindorsement of the Governor, he pledged his honour to support Tompkinsin whatever he did. 

To the society of contemporaries, regardless of party, King was alwayswelcome. He disliked a quarrel. It seemed to be his effort to avoidcontroversy; and when compelled to lead, or to participateconspicuously in heated debate, he carefully abstained from givingoffence. Benton bears testimony to his habitual observance of thecourtesies of life. Indeed, his urbanity made a deep impression uponall his colleagues. Yet King was not a popular man. The people thoughthim an aristocrat; and, although without arrogance, his appearance andmanner gave character to their opinion. His countenance inclined toausterity, forbidding easy approach; his indisposition to talk lent anair of reserve, with the suggestion of coldness, which was unrelievedby the touch of amiability that commended John Jay to the affectionateregard of men. It was his nature to be serious and thoughtful. Amongfriends he talked freely, often facetiously, becoming, at times, peculiarly instructive and fascinating, as his remarkable memory gaveup with accuracy and facility the product of extensive travel, variedexperiences, close observation, and much reading. His statements, especially those relating to historical and political details, wererarely questioned. We read that he was of somewhat portly habit, abovethe middle size, strongly made, with the warm complexion of goodhealth, large, attractive eyes, and a firm, full mouth; that, althoughmen no longer chose to be divided sharply by marked distinction ofattire, he always appeared in the United States Senate in full dress, with short clothes, silk stockings and shoes--having something ofpride and hauteur in his manner that was slightly offensive to plaincountry gentlemen, as well as inconsistent with the republican idea ofequality. Wealthy, he lived at Jamaica, in a stately mansion, surrounded by noble horse chestnut trees, an estate known as KingPark, and kept at public expense as a typical Long Island colonialhomestead. 

It is possible that the extension of slavery into Missouri influencedKing's return to the United States Senate; for the election occurredin the midst of that heated contest, a contest in which he hadalready taken a conspicuous part in the Fifteenth Congress, and inwhich he was destined to earn, in still greater degree, thecommendation of friends, outside and inside the Senate, as thechampion of freedom. But whatever the cause of his election, it iscertain that it was free from suspicion, other than that he preferredVan Buren to Clinton--a choice which necessarily created theimpression that King's prejudice against Clinton resulted more fromjealousy than from aversion to his character. No doubt Clinton'sability to dominate Federalist support, in spite of King's opposition, wounded the latter's pride and created a dislike which graduallydeepened into a feeling of resentment. It had practically left himwithout a party; and he turned to Van Buren very much as Charles JamesFox turned to Lord North in 1782. He cheerfully accepted the mostconfidential relations with the Kinderhook statesman, and when, a yearor two later, Van Buren joined him in the United States Senate, Bentonobserved the deferential regard paid by Van Buren to his venerablecolleague, and the marked kindness and respect returned by King. YetKing did not openly ally himself with the Bucktails. They could relywith certainty upon his support to antagonise Clinton, but he declinedto join a party whose character and principles did not promise suchcompanionship as he had been accustomed to. 

CHAPTER XXV

TOMPKINS' LAST CONTEST

1820

The coming of 1820 was welcomed by the Van Buren forces. It was theyear for the selection of another governor, and the Bucktails, veryweary of Clinton, were anxious for a change. For all practicalpurposes Bucktails and Clintonians had now become two opposingparties, Van Buren's removal as attorney-general, by the Council of1819, ending all semblance of friendship and political affiliation. This Council was known as "Clinton's Council;" and, profiting by thelesson learned in 1817, Clinton had made a clean sweep of the men hebelieved to have acted against him. He gave Van Buren's place toThomas J. Oakley, and Peter A. Jay, eldest son of John Jay, who hadrendered valuable assistance in promoting the construction of thecanal, he made recorder of New York City, an office which RichardRiker had held since 1815. These appointments naturally subjected theGovernor to the criticism of removing Republicans to make places forFederalists. But the new officers were Clinton's friends, while Riker, at least, had been an open enemy since Jonas Platt's appointment tothe Supreme bench in 1814. Jay's appointment was also a thrust at theso-called "high-minded" Federalists, composed of the sons of AlexanderHamilton, Rufus King, and other well known men of the party. 

Clinton's intimates had long known his desire to get rid of Van Buren. In his letters to Henry Post, the Kinderhook statesman is termed "anarch scoundrel, " "the prince of villains, " and "a confirmedknave;"[196] yet Clinton put off the moment of his removal from weekto week, very much as Tompkins hesitated to remove Clinton from themayoralty; that is, not so much to save the feelings of Van Buren asto avert the hostility of James Tallmadge and John C. Spencer, both ofwhom sought the office. Tallmadge had recently returned from Congressfull of honours because of his brilliant part in the great debate onthe Missouri Compromise, and he now confidently expected theappointment. The moment, therefore, the Council, at its meeting inJuly, 1819, named Oakley, Tallmadge ranged himself squarely amongClinton's enemies. Van Buren had expected dismissal, and he seems tohave taken it with the outward serenity and dignity that characterisedthe departure of Clinton from the mayoralty in 1815; but inconfidential communications to Rufus King, he spoke of Clinton and hisfriends as "very profligate men, " "politician blacklegs, " and "a setof desperadoes. "[197]

[Footnote 196: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 412-7, 563-71. ]

[Footnote 197: Martin Van Buren to Rufus King, January 19, 1820;Charles R. King, _Life and Correspondence of Rufus King_, Vol. 6, p. 252. ]

In the Bucktail mind, Daniel D. Tompkins seemed the only mansufficiently popular to oppose DeWitt Clinton in the gubernatorialcontest. He was remembered as the great War Governor; and the up-stateleaders, representing the old war party, thought he could rally andunite the opposing factions better than any one else. In some respectsTompkins' position in 1820 was not unlike that of John A. Andrew inMassachusetts in 1870, the great war governor of the Civil War. Hiswell-doing in the critical days of the contest had passed intohistory, making his accomplishment a matter of pride to the State, andgiving him an assured standing. Everybody knew that he had raisedtroops after enlistments had practically stopped elsewhere; that hehad bought army supplies, equipped regiments, constructedfortifications, manned forts, fitted out privateers, paid bills fromfunds raised on his individual indorsement, and worked with energywhile New England sulked. When the grotesque treaty of Ghent closedthe war, the Governor's star shone brightly in the zenith. At thistime, therefore, Daniel D. Tompkins was undoubtedly the most popularman personally that ever participated in New York politics. Hammond, the historian, relates that a father, desiring the pardon of his son, left the capital better pleased with Governor Tompkins, who refusedit, than with Governor Clinton, who granted it. It is not easy to sayjust wherein lay the charm of his wonderful personality. His voice wasrich and mellow; his face, prepossessing in repose, expressed sympathyand friendship; while his manner, gentle and gracious withoutunnaturalness, appealed to his auditor as if he of all men, was theone whom the Governor wished to honour. His success, too, had beenmarvellous. He had carried the State by the largest majority evergiven to a governor up to that time; larger than Jay's triumphantmajority in 1798; larger than George Clinton's in 1801 after theelection of Jefferson and the organisation of the Republican party;larger even than the surprising vote given Morgan Lewis in 1804, whenAlexander Hamilton and the Clintons combined against Aaron Burr. Tompkins' nomination for governor, therefore, was made on January 16, 1820, without the slightest opposition. 

It was known, at this time, that Tompkins' accounts as governor showeda shortage. He had failed to take vouchers during the war, and it wasthought not unlikely that he had paid for army supplies out of his ownmoney, and for family supplies out of the State's money; but no onebelieved him guilty of intentional misconduct. Nevertheless, hisaccounts, after the comptroller had audited them, after a commissionof expert accountants had sought for missing vouchers, and afterfriends had made explanations, were still $120, 000 short. By an act, approved April 13, 1819, the Legislature authorised the comptroller tobalance this shortage by allowing Tompkins a premium of twelve percent. On $1, 000, 000, and people thought nothing more about it untilTompkins presented an account, demanding a premium of twenty-five percent. , which brought the State in debt to him in the sum of $130, 000. 

The comptroller, overwhelmed by the extravagance of the claim, construed the law to limit the premium on moneys borrowed solely onTompkins' personal responsibility, and out of this a correspondencewas conducted with much asperity. Archibald McIntyre, the comptrollersince 1806, possessed the absolute confidence of the people; and whenhis letters became public a suspicion that the Vice President might bewrong was quickly encouraged by the friends of Clinton. This suspicionwas increased as soon as the Legislature of 1820 got to work. It wasintent on mischief. By a fusion of Clintonians and Federalists John C. Spencer became speaker of the Assembly, and to cripple Tompkins, whohad now been nominated for governor, Jedediah Miller of Schoharieoffered a resolution approving the conduct of the Comptroller insettling the accounts of the former Governor. This precipitated adiscussion which has rarely been equalled in Albany for passion andbrilliancy. A coterie of the most skilful debaters happened to bemembers of this Assembly; and for several weeks Thomas J. Oakley, JohnC. Spencer, and Elisha Williams sustained the Comptroller, whileErastus Root, Peter Sharpe, and others pleaded for Tompkins. 

Meanwhile, on the 9th of March, a Senate committee, with Van Buren aschairman, reported that the Comptroller ought to have allowed Tompkinsa premium of twelve and a half per cent. On $1, 000, 000, leaving abalance due the Vice President of $11, 870. 50. It was a strange mix-up, and the more committees examined it the worse appeared the muddle. After Van Buren had reported, the question arose, should theComptroller be sustained, or should the report of Van Buren'scommittee be accepted? It was a long drop from $130, 000 claimed byTompkins to $11, 780. 50 awarded him by Van Buren, yet it was better totake that than accept a settlement which made him a defaulter, and theSenate approved the Van Buren report. But Thomas J. Oakley, chairmanof the Assembly committee to which it was referred, did not propose tolet the candidate for governor escape so easily. In an able review ofthe whole question he sustained the Comptroller, maintaining that theVice President must seek relief under the law like other parties, andinstructing the Comptroller to sue for any balance due the State, unless Tompkins reimbursed it by the following August. This endedlegislation for the session. 

Van Buren seems to have had no concern about Tompkins' canal record. Possibly he thought the disappearance of Bucktail opposition took thatissue out of the campaign; but he was greatly worked up over theunsettled accounts, and in his usual adroit manner set influences towork to discourage Tompkins' acceptance of the nomination, and tosecure the consent of Smith Thompson, then secretary of the navy, tomake the race himself. He had little difficulty in accomplishing thisend, for Thompson was not at all unwilling. But to get rid of Tompkinswas another question. "The Republican party in this State never wasbetter united, " he wrote Smith Thompson, on January 19, 1820, threedays after Tompkins' nomination; "they all love, honour and esteem theVice President; but such is their extreme anxiety to insure theprostration of the Junto, who have stolen into the seats of power, that they all desire that you should be the candidate. They willsupport Tompkins to the bat's end if you refuse, or he should notdecline; but if he does, and you consent to our wishes, you will behailed as the saviour of New York. "[198] On the same day Van Burenalso wrote Rufus King: "Some of our friends think it is dangerous tosupport the Vice President under existing circumstances. . . . A few ofus have written him freely on the subject and to meet the event of hishaving left the city of Washington, I have sent a copy of our letterto Secretary Thompson, of which circumstance the Secretary is notinformed. There are many points of view in which it would be desirableto place this subject before you, but I am fully satisfied you willappreciate without further explanation. I will, therefore, only say, that if the Vice President is with you, and upon a free discussionbetween you, the Secretary and himself, he should resolve to decline, and you can induce the Secretary to consent to our using his name, youwill do a lasting benefit to the Republican interest of thisState. "[199]

[Footnote 198: Charles R. King, _Life and Correspondence of RufusKing_, Vol. 6, p. 254. ]

[Footnote 199: Charles R. King, _Life and Correspondence of RufusKing_, Vol. 6, p. 252. ]

To this most adroit and cunning letter Rufus King replied on the lastday of the month: "The Vice President left us to-day at noon; on hisway he stopped at the Senate and we had a short conference. . . . Iobserved as between him and Mr. Clinton my apprehension was that amajority, possibly a large majority of Federalists would vote for Mr. Clinton; adding that between the Secretary of the Navy and Mr. ClintonI was persuaded that a majority of the Federalists would prefer theSecretary. . . . Apologising for the frankness with which I expressed myopinion, I added that I hoped he would wait until he reached New Yorkbefore he decided; perhaps he would think it best to delay his answeruntil he arrived in Albany; one thing I considered absolutelynecessary--that his accounts should be definitely closed beforeelection. He answered that he was going immediately to Albany withfour propositions which would lead to a final settlement; that hemight think it best to delay his answer to the nomination until heshould reach Albany. I said in conclusion that my earnest wish was theexclusion of Mr. Clinton, and my preference (knowing the personalsacrifice he would make in consenting to his own nomination) that thecandidate selected should be the man who, in the opinion of those mostcapable to decide, will be the most likely to accomplish thework. "[200]

[Footnote 200: _Ibid. _, Vol. 6, p. 263. ]

Rufus King certainly did his work well. He had abundantly discouragedhim as to the Federalists and had fully advised him as to theimportance of settling his accounts; but all to no purpose. Two dayslater Thompson wrote Van Buren that the Vice President "will stand. "The Kinderhook statesman, however, disinclined to give it up, askedthe Secretary in a note on the same day for authority to use his name"if the Vice President, when he arrives here, should wish to decline. "On the 7th of February, John A. King wrote his father: "Hopes arestill entertained that the Vice President's decision may yet yield tothe wishes of many of his oldest friends. Those, however, who know himbest have no such hopes. Judge Yates has said that he never refused anoffer of any sort in his life. "[201] And so it proved in thisinstance. Tompkins was immovable. Like a race horse trained torunning, he only needed to be let into the ring and given a free rein. When the bell sounded he was off on his fifth race for governor. 

[Footnote 201: Charles R. King, _Life and Correspondence of RufusKing_, Vol. 6, p. 267. ]

If Tompkins was handicapped with a shortage and a canal record, Clinton was harassed for want of a party. To conceal the meagreness ofhis strength in a legislative caucus, Clinton was renominated withJohn Taylor at a meeting of the citizens of Albany. He had a followingand a large one, but it was without cohesion or discipline. Men feltat liberty to withdraw without explanation and without notice. Withineight months after his election as a Clintonian senator, BenjaminMooers of Plattsburg accepted the nomination for lieutenant-governoron the ticket with Governor Tompkins, apparently without loss ofpolitical prestige, or the respect of neighbours. The administrationat Washington recognised the Bucktails as the regular Republicanparty, and showered offices among them, until Clinton later made it amatter of public complaint and official investigation. Otherdisintegrating influences were also at work. The "high minded"Federalists, in a published document signed by forty or fifty leadingmen, declared the Federal party dissolved and annihilated, andpronounced the Clinton party simply a personal one. To belong to itindependence must be surrendered, and to obtain office in it, one mustlaud its head and bow the knee, a system of sycophancy, they said, disgusting all "high minded" men. But DeWitt Clinton's strength wasnot in parties nor in political management. He belonged to the greatmen of his time, having no superior in New York, and, in somerespects, no equal in the country. He possessed a broader horizon, alarger intellect, a greater moral courage, than most of hiscontemporaries. It is probably true that, like a mountain, he appearedbest at a distance, but having confidence in his ability andintegrity, people easily overlooked his rough, unpopular manners. Theshrewd, sagacious Yankee farmers who were filling up the great westerncounties of Ontario and Genesee believed in him. The Bucktails did notknow, until the eastern and western districts responded with fivethousand eight hundred and four majority for Clinton, as against fourthousand three hundred and seventy-seven for Tompkins in the middleand southern districts, what a capital cry Clinton had in the canalissue; what a powerful appeal to selfish interests he could put intovoice; and what a loud reply selfish interests would make to theappeal. It was not, in fact, a race between parties at all; it was nota question of shortage or settlement. It is likely the shortageaffected the result somewhat; but the majority of over fourteenhundred meant approval of Clinton and his canal policy rather thandistrust of Tompkins and his unsettled accounts. The question in 1820was, shall the canal be built? and, although the Bucktails had ceasedtheir hostility, the people most interested in the canal'sconstruction wanted Clinton to complete what he had so gloriously andsuccessfully begun. 

The campaign was fought out with bitterness and desperation until thepolls closed. No national or state issue divided the parties. In fact, there were no issues. It was simply a question whether Clinton and hisfriends, or Tompkins and the Bucktails should control the stategovernment. The arguments, therefore, were purely personal. Clinton'sfriends relied upon his canal policy, his honesty, and hisintegrity--the Bucktails insisted that Clinton was no longer aRepublican; that the canal would be constructed as well without himas with him, and that his defeat would wipe out factional strife andgive New York greater prominence in the councils of the party. "Forthe last ten days, " wrote Van Buren to Rufus King, on April 13, "Ihave scarcely had time to take my regular meals and am at this momentpressed by at least half a dozen unfinished concerns growing out ofthis intolerable political struggle in which we are involved. "[202]Nevertheless, he had no doubt of Tompkins' election. "I entertain thestrongest convictions that we shall succeed, "[203] he wrote later inthe month. On the other hand, Clinton was no less certain. In hisletters to Henry Post he is always confident; but at no time more sothan now. "The canal proceeds wondrously well, " he says. "The Martlingopposition has ruined them forever. The public mind was never in abetter train for useful operations. John Townsend has just come fromthe west. There is but one sentiment. "[204] Yet, when the battleended, it looked like a Clintonian defeat and Bucktail victory; forthe latter had swept the Legislature, adding to their control in theSenate and capturing the Assembly by a majority of eighteen over all. It was only the presence of Tompkins among the slain that transferredthe real glory to Clinton, whose majority was fourteen hundred andfifty-seven in a total vote of ninety-three thousand four hundred andthirty-seven. This exceeded any former aggregate by nearly tenthousand. [205]

[Footnote 202: Charles R. King, _Life and Correspondence of RufusKing_, Vol. 6, p. 331. ]

[Footnote 203: _Ibid. _, Vol. 6, p. 332. ]

[Footnote 204: DeWitt Clinton to Henry Post, in _Harper's Magazine_, Vol. 50, p. 413. ]

[Footnote 205: DeWitt Clinton, 47, 444; Daniel D. Tompkins, 45, 990. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

Daniel D. Tompkins took his defeat much to heart. He believed hisunsettled accounts had occasioned whispered slanders that crushed him. After his angry controversy with Comptroller McIntyre, in thepreceding year, he seriously considered the propriety of resigning asVice President; for he sincerely believed his figures were right andthat the Comptroller's language had classed him in the public mindwith what, in these latter days, would be called "grafters. " "Ourfriend on Staten Island is unfortunately sick in body and mind, "Clinton wrote to Post in September, 1819. "His situation upon thewhole is deplorable and calculated to excite sympathy. "[206] It was, indeed, a most unfortunate affair, for the State discovered, yearsafter it was too late, that it did owe the War Governor ninety-twothousand dollars. 

[Footnote 206: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 413. ]

Tompkins' public life continued four years longer. In the autumn of1820, the Legislature balanced his accounts and the country re-electedhim Vice President. The next year his party made him a delegate to theconstitutional convention, and the convention made him its president;but he never recovered from the chagrin and mortification of hisdefeat for the governorship. Soon after the election, melancholyaccounts appeared of the havoc wrought upon a frame once so full ofanimal spirits. He began to drink too freely even for those days ofdeep drink. His eye lost its lustre; deep lines furrowed the round, sunny face; the unruffled temper became irritable; and, within threemonths after the close of his second term as Vice President, before hehad entered his fifty-second year, he was dead. 

CHAPTER XXVI

THE ALBANY REGENCY

1820-1822

When the Legislature assembled to appoint presidential electors inNovember, 1820, Bucktail fear of Clinton was at an end for thepresent. Before, his name had been one to conjure with; thenceforth itwas to have no terrors. He had, indeed, been re-elected governor, butthe small majority, scarcely exceeding one per cent. Of the totalvote, showed that he was now merely an independent, and a veryindependent member, of the Republican party. To the close of hiscareer he was certain to be a commanding figure, around whom all partydissenters would quickly and easily rally; but it was now anindividual figure, almost an eccentric figure, whose work as apolitical factor seemed to be closed. 

Yet Clinton was not ready to go into a second retirement. On thetheory, as he wrote Henry Post, that "the meekness of Quakerism willdo in religion, but not in politics, "[207] he looked about him forsomething to arouse public attention and to excite public indignation, and, for the want of a better subject, he charged the Monroeadministration with interference in the recent state election. Postadvised caution; but Clinton, stung by the defeat of his friends andby his own narrow escape, had become possessed with the suspicion thatfederal officials had used the patronage of the government againsthim. So, in his speech to the Legislature in November, he protestedagainst the outrage. "If the officers under the appointment of thefederal government, " he declared, "shall see fit as an organised anddisciplined corps to interfere in state elections, I trust there willbe found a becoming disposition in the people to resist these alarmingattempts upon the purity and independence of their localgovernments. "[208] Clinton had no evidence upon which to support thischarge. It was, at best, only a suspicion based upon his own methods;but the Senate demanded proof, and failing to get specifications, itdeclared it "highly improper that the Chief Magistrate of the Stateshould incriminate the administration of the general government, without ample testimony in his possession. " The resolutions closedwith an expression of confidence in the patriotism and integrity ofthe government. 

[Footnote 207: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 413. ]

[Footnote 208: _Governors' Speeches_, November 7, 1820, p. 179. ]

Meanwhile, Clinton was urging Post to help him out of his difficulty. "I want authenticated testimony of the interference of the generalgovernment in our elections, " he wrote on November 19. "Our friendsmust be up and doing on this subject. It is all important. "[209] Eightdays later he stirred up Post again. "What is the annual amount ofpatronage of the national government in this State?" he asked. [210]"Knowing the accuracy of your calculations, I rely much on you. " Thenhe developed his plan: "The course of exposition ought, I think, to bethis--to collect a voluminous mass of documents detailing facts, andto form from them a lucid, intelligible statement. On therepresentation of facts recourse must also be had to inferences, andit ought also to unite boldness and prudence. "[211] It is evident thatthus far inferences outnumbered facts, for far into December Clintonwas still calling upon his friends to collect testimony. "Go on withyour collection of proofs, " he wrote. "I think with a little industrythis matter will stand well. "[212]

[Footnote 209: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 413. ]

[Footnote 210: _Ibid. _, Vol. 50, p. 413. ]

[Footnote 211: _Ibid. _, Vol. 50, p. 414. ]

[Footnote 212: _Ibid. _, Vol. 50, p. 415. ]

When submitted to the Legislature, on January 17, 1821, the documents, according to the Governor's instructions, were indeed very voluminous. It required a bag to take them to the capitol--the green bag message, it was called; but it proved to be smoke, with little fire. It fullyestablished that the naval storekeeper at Brooklyn, and other federalofficials were offensive partisans, just as they had been underClinton's control, and just as they have been ever since. TheBucktails saw distinctly enough that the State could not be arousedinto indignation by such a mass of documents; but there was one letterfrom Van Buren to Henry Meigs, the congressman, dated April 5, 1820, advising the removal of postmasters at Bath, Little Falls, and Oxford, because it seemed impossible to secure the free circulation ofBucktail newspapers in the interior of the State, which provoked muchcriticism. How the Governor got it does not appear, but it gives aglimpse of Van Buren's political methods that is interesting. "Unlesswe can alarm them (the Clintonians) by two or three prompt removals, "he says, "there is no limiting the injurious consequences that mayresult from it. "

Soon after, two of the postmasters were removed. If the charge wastrue, that postmasters were preventing the circulation of Bucktailnewspapers, Van Buren's course was very charitable. Evidently he didnot want places for his friends so much as a proper delivery of themails; for otherwise he would have insisted upon the removal of alloffenders. The gentle suggestion that the removal of two or threewould be a warning to others, explains how this devout lover of menlived through a long life on most intimate terms with his neighbours. If such conditions existed under the modern management of thePost-Office Department, every wrong-doer would be summarily dismissed, regardless of party or creed. Van Buren's methods had no such drasticdiscipline; yet his letter became the subject of much animadversion bythe Clintonians, not so much because they disapproved the suggestionas because Van Buren wrote it. "It is very important to destroy thisprince of villains, " Clinton declared, in a letter to Post of December2, 1820. [213]

[Footnote 213: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 415. 

Clearly discerning Van Buren as his most formidable competitor forpolitical leadership, Clinton's letters to Post from 1817 to 1824abound in vituperative allusions, as, for example: "Whom shall weappoint to defeat the arch scoundrel Van Buren?" November 30, 1820. "Of his cowardice there can be no doubt. He is lowering daily inpublic opinion, and is emphatically a corrupt scoundrel, " August 30, 1820. "Van Buren is now excessively hated out of the State as well asin it. There is no doubt of a corrupt sale of the vote of the State, although it cannot be proved in a court of justice, " August 6, 1824. "We can place no reliance upon the goodwill of Van Buren. In hispolitics he is a confirmed knave. " And again: "With respect to VanBuren, there is no developing the man. He is a scoundrel of the firstmagnitude, . . . Without any fixture of principle or really of virtue. ""Van Buren must be conquered through his fears. He has no heart, nosincerity. "]

Like many other brilliant political leaders, Van Buren was somewhatthin-skinned; he happened, too, to be out of the State Senate, andthus was compelled to endure, in silence, the attacks of theopposition. It is believed that at this time, Van Buren had a stronginclination to accept a Supreme Court judgeship, and thus withdrawforever from political life. But the fates denied him any chance ofmaking this serious anti-climax in his great political career. Whilethe green bag message convulsed the Clintonians with simulatedindignation, the Bucktails declared him, by a caucus vote offifty-eight to twenty-four, their choice for United States senator inplace of Nathan Sanford, whose term expired on March 4, 1821. 

It appeared then as it appears now, that Martin Van Buren was "theinevitable man. " He was thirty-nine years of age, in the earlyripeness of his powers, a leader at the bar, and the leader of hisparty. He had accumulated from his practice the beginnings of thefortune which his Dutch thrift and cautious habits made ample for hisneeds. The simple and natural rules governing his astute politicalleadership seemed to leave him without a rival, or, at least, withoutan opponent who could get in his way. Times had changed, too, sincethe days when United States senators resigned to become postmastersand mayors of New York. A seat in the United States Senate had becomea great honour, because it was a place of great power and greatinfluence; and in passing from Albany to Washington Van Buren wouldadd to state leadership an opportunity of becoming a national figure. It is not surprising, therefore, that Clinton sought to defeat him;for he had ever been ready to retaliate upon men who ventured to crosshis purposes. But Clinton's scheme had no place in the plans ofBucktails. "I am afraid Van Buren will beat Sanford for senator, " hewrote Post as early as the 30th of December, 1820. "He will unless hisfriends stand out against a caucus decision. "[214] This is whatClinton wanted the twenty-four Sanford delegates to do, and, toencourage such a bolt, he compelled every Federalist and Clintonian, save one, to vote for him, although Sanford represented Tammany andits bitter hostility to Clinton. But the Bucktails had at lastestablished a party organisation that could not be divided by Clintonintrigue, and Van Buren received the full party vote. 

[Footnote 214: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 414. ]

When Roger Skinner and his three associates on the new Council ofAppointment got to work, Clinton quickly discovered that he couldexpect little from such a body of Bucktails; and he received less thanhe expected. For, when the Council had finished, only one Clintonianremained in office. Oakley, the able attorney-general; Jay, the giftedrecorder of New York; Colden, the acceptable mayor of New York;Hawley, the ideal superintendent of common schools; Solomon VanRensselaer, the famous and fearless adjutant-general; McIntyre, thetrusted and competent comptroller, had all disappeared in a night. Only Simeon DeWitt, who had been surveyor-general for forty years, wasleft undisturbed. Former Councils had been radical and vigorous intheir action, but the Skinner council cut as deep and swift as thefamous Clinton Council of 1801. At its first meeting, clerks andsheriffs and surrogates and district attorneys fell in windrows. Yetit was no worse than its predecessors; it could not be worse, sinceprecedents existed in support of conduct however scandalous. 

The removal of Hawley, McIntyre, and Van Rensselaer produced a greatersensation throughout the State than any previous dismissals, exceptthat of DeWitt Clinton from the mayoralty in 1815. Gideon Hawley hadheld the office of school superintendent for nine years, organisingthe State into school districts, distributing the school fundequitably, and perfecting the work, so that the entire system could beeasily handled by a superintendent. In 1818, he reported five thousandschools thus organised, with upward of two hundred thousand pupils inattendance for a period of four to six months each year. He did thiswork on a salary of three hundred dollars--only to receive, at last, in place of thanks so richly deserved, the unmerited rebuke of asummary dismissal. 

The removal of Archibald McIntyre made a sensation almost as great. For fifteen years, McIntyre had been such an acceptable comptrollerthat the waves of factional and party strife had broken at his feet, leaving him master of the State's finances. The Lewisites retained himin 1807; the Federalists kept him in 1809; the Republicans continuedhim in 1811; the Federalists again spared him in 1813; while thefrequent changes that followed Clinton's downfall left himundisturbed. He took no part in political contests. It was his duty tosee that the State's money was paid according to law, and he soconducted the office; but the Bucktails deeply resented his treatmentof the Vice President, and a swift removal was the penalty. In somedegree McIntyre may have been responsible for the defeat of Tompkins. The perfervid strength of his convictions as to the injustice of theVice President's claim betrayed him into an intemperance of languagethat suggests over-zeal in a public official. In refusing, too, tobalance the Vice President's accounts, as the Legislature clearlyintended, and as he might have done regardless of the Vice President'sadditional claim, he seems to have assumed an unnecessaryresponsibility, and to have learned what many men have experienced inpublic life, that nothing is so dangerous as being too faithful. ButMcIntyre may have had no reason to regret his removal. He wasimmediately returned to the Legislature as a senator, and the nextyear appointed agent for the state lotteries, a business that enabledhim in a few years to retire with an independent fortune. 

It is unnecessary to introduce here a full list of the newoffice-holders; but there came into notice at this time three younglawyers who subsequently occupied a conspicuous place in the historyof their State and country. Samuel A. Talcott took the place of ThomasJ. Oakley as attorney-general; William L. Marcy became adjutant-generalin place of Van Rensselaer, and Benjamin F. Butler was appointeddistrict attorney of Albany County. Marcy was then thirty-five yearsof age, Talcott thirty-two, and Butler twenty-six. Talcott was talland commanding, with high forehead and large mellow blue eyes thatinspired confidence and admiration. His manners combined dignity andease; and as he swept along the street, or stood before judge or jury, he appeared like nature's nobleman. Marcy had a bold, full forehead, with heavy brows and eyes deep set and expressive. It was decidedly aWebsterian head, though the large, firm mouth and admirably mouldedchin rather recalled those of Henry Clay. The face would have beenaustere, forbidding easy approach, except for the good-natured twinklein the eye and a quiet smile lingering about the mouth. Marcy wasabove the ordinary height, with square, powerful shoulders, andcarried some superfluous flesh as he grew older; but, at the time ofwhich we are writing, he was as erect as the day he captured St. Regis. Butler was slighter than Marcy, and shorter than Talcott, butmuch larger than Van Buren, with fulness of form and perfectproportions. He had an indescribable refinement of face which seemedto come from the softness of the eye and the tenderness andintellectuality of the mouth, which reflected his gentle and generousspirit. 

At the time of Talcott's appointment, though he had not distinguishedhimself as a legal competitor of Van Buren, he displayed the gentlemanners and amiable traits that naturally commended him to one of VanBuren's smooth, adroit methods. The Kinderhook statesman had, however, in selecting him for attorney-general, looked beyond the charmingpersonality to the rapidly developing powers of the lawyer, who waseven then captivating all hearers by the strength of his arguments andthe splendour of his diction. Contemporaries of Talcott were fond oftelling of this remarkable, almost phenomenal gift of speech. One ofthem mentions "those magical transitions from the subtlest argument tothe deepest pathos;" another describes him as "overpowering in theweight of his intellect, who produced in the minds of his audience allthe sympathy and emotion of which the mind is capable. " William H. Dillingham, a classmate and lifelong friend, declared that theextraordinary qualities which marked his career and so greatlydistinguished him in after life--towering genius, astonishing facilityin acquiring knowledge, and surpassing eloquence, were developedduring his college days. The life of Talcott recalls, in its brilliantactivity, the dazzling legal career of Alexander Hamilton. Whereverthe greatest lawyers gathered he was in their midst, the "Erskine ofthe bar. " At his last appearance in the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates he opposed Daniel Webster in the "Sailors' Snug Harbor" case. "Beginning in a low and measured tone, " says Bacon, in his _Early Barof Oneida County_, "he gathered strength and power as he proceeded inhis masterly discourse, and for five hours held the breathlessattention of bench and bar and audience, in an argument which theillustrious Marshall declared had not been equalled in that courtsince the days of the renowned William Pinckney. "

Benjamin F. Butler was very much like Talcott in gentleness of mannerand in power of intellect. He was born in Kinderhook, Columbia County, where his father, starting as a mechanic, became a merchant, and, after a brief service in the Legislature, received the appointment ofcounty judge. But there was no more reason to expect Medad Butler tobring an illustrious son into the world than there was that hisneighbour, Abraham Van Buren, should be the father of the eighthPresident of the United States. Thirteen years divided the ages of VanBuren and Butler; and, while the latter attended the district schooland aided his father about the store, Van Buren was practising law andtalking politics with Butler's father. Young Butler was not a dreamer. He had no wild ambition to be great, and cherished no thought ofsitting in cabinets or controlling the policy of a great party; buthis quiet, respectful manners and remarkable acuteness of mindattracted Van Buren. When Van Buren went to Hudson as surrogate of thecounty, Butler entered the Hudson academy. There he distinguishedhimself, as he had already distinguished himself in the littledistrict school, acquiring a decided fondness for the classics. Histeachers predicted for him a brilliant college career; but, whateverhis reasons, he gave up the college, and, at the age of sixteen, entered Van Buren's law office and Van Buren's family. On hisadmission to the bar, in 1817, he became Van Buren's partner atAlbany. 

Though Talcott began life a Federalist, in the party breakup he joinedthe Bucktails, with Butler and Van Buren. It seemed to be a lovematch--the relations between Talcott and Butler. They were frequentlyassociated in the most important cases, the possession of scholarlytastes being the powerful magnet that drew them together. Talcott, atWilliams College, had evidenced an astonishing facility for acquiringknowledge; Butler, after leaving the academy, had continued the studyof the languages until he could read his favourite authors in theoriginal with great ease. This was their delight. Neither of them tooknaturally to public service, though offices seemed to seek them atevery turn of the road--United States senator, judge of the SupremeCourt, and seats in the cabinets of three Presidents. Nevertheless, with the exception of a brief service under Jackson and Van Buren, Butler declined all the flattering offers that came to him. 

It was Marcy who seemed born for a politician. A staid old Federalistteacher sent him away from school at fourteen years of age, because ofhis love for Jeffersonian principles and his fondness for argument. The early years of this Massachusetts lad seem to have been strangelyvaried and vexed. He was the leader of a band of noisy, roguish boyswho made the schoolroom uncomfortable for the teacher, and theneighbourhood uncomfortable for the parents. Neither the father norhis wife appear to have had any idea of their good fortune. Mrs. Marcyonce declared him the worst boy in the country. He showed littledisposition to study and less inclination to work; yet it was noticedthat he read all the books to be found in the homes of his playfellowsand in the libraries of the district. The character of the books madeno difference; he preferred reading anything to reading nothing, though history and general literature, such as the works of Addison, on whose style he seems to have moulded his own, were his favouritevolumes. When, at last, he met Salem Towne, his earliest, and, in asense, his best education began. Towne recognised the latent genius ofthe lad and told him of it, encouraging him to enter college and thelaw. Marcy used often to declare, in later years, that he owedeverything he ever gained in life to the influence and example ofSalem Towne. The affectionate regard which Marcy felt for his boyhoodfriend, a regard which endured until the day of his death, belongs tothe chapter of pathetic incidents in Marcy's life. 

Soon after leaving Brown University, Marcy settled in Troy and becameviolently hostile to DeWitt Clinton. After Clinton's downfall, he wasappointed recorder of Troy; and after Clinton's restoration, he waspromptly removed. Just now he was trying to practise law, and to editthe Troy _Budget_, a Bucktail newspaper; but he preferred to read, sitting with his unblacked boots on the table, careless of his dress, and indifferent to his personal appearance. He looked dull andinactive, and people thought he lacked the industry and energy sonecessary to success in any profession; but when the _Budget_appeared, its editorials made men read and reflect. It was the skillwith which he marshalled facts in a gentle and winning style thatattracted Van Buren and made them friends. 

Marcy's appointment as adjutant-general created intense indignation, because he took the place of Solomon Van Rensselaer, who had served inthe War of 1812, bravely leading the attack on Queenstown Heights andholding his ground until dislodged by superior force; but, it was saidin reply, that Marcy had the honour of capturing the first Britishfort and the first British flag of the war. The fight was not a bloodyencounter like the Queenstown engagement; yet, for men new to war, itevidenced coolness and great courage. A detachment of British soldiershad taken a position at St. Regis, seven miles from the American camp. Selecting one hundred and seventy picked men, Lieutenant Marcycautiously approached the fort at night, overpowered the guards on theoutposts, surprised the sentries at the entrance, broke down thegates, and charged the enemy in the face of a volley of musketry. Whenit was over he had the fort, a file of prisoners, several stands ofarms, and a flag. Van Buren thought this record was good enough. 

The appointment of Talcott, Marcy, and Butler changed the existingpolitical system. Prior to their activity, the distribution ofpatronage depended largely upon the local boss. His needs determinedthe men who, regardless of their personal fitness, should be givenoffice. But Talcott and his colleagues introduced new methods, with ahigher standard of political morality, and a better system of partydiscipline. They refused to tolerate unworthy men, and when the littlesouls stormed and raged, their wise counsels silenced the selfish andstaggered the boss. Gradually, their control of patronage and of theparty's policy became so absolute that they were called the "AlbanyRegency. " It was, at first, simply a name given them by ThurlowWeed;[215] there was neither organisation nor legal authority. Powercame from their great ability and high purpose. 

[Footnote 215: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 36. ]

The Albany Regency was destined to continue many years, and to numberamong its members men of character and great influence. Roger Skinner, a United States district judge, was an early member of it; so wereEdwin Croswell of the Albany _Argus_, and Benjamin Knower, the statetreasurer. At a later day came John A. Dix, Azariah C. Flagg, SilasWright, and Charles E. Dudley. In his autobiography, Thurlow Weed sayshe "had never known a body of men who possessed so much power and usedit so well. " They had, he continues, "great ability, great industry, indomitable courage, and strict personal integrity. "[216] But the menwho organised the Regency, giving it power and the respect of thepeople, by refusing to do what their fine sense of honour did notapprove, were Talcott, Marcy, and Butler. It was as remarkable a trioas ever sat about a table. 

[Footnote 216: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p. 103. ]

In the passing of these three great intellects, there is somethingpeculiarly touching. Talcott died suddenly at the early age offorty-five, leaving the members of the New York bar as sinceremourners. Butler, after the highest and purest living, died atfifty-nine, just as he landed in France to visit the scenes of whichhe had read and dreamed. Marcy, at sixty-two, having recently retiredas President Pierce's secretary of state, was found lifeless, lyingupon his bed, book in hand. He had been reading, as he had read sincechildhood, whenever there came a lull in the demand for his wisdom, his counsel, and his friendship. [217]

[Footnote 217: "Always an honoured citizen of New York, it has seemedfitting that the highest mountain-peak in the State by bearing hisname should serve as a monument to his memory. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 247. ]

CHAPTER XXVII

THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

1821

New England people, passing through the Mohawk Valley into the richcountry beyond Seneca Lake, found many reasons for settling in centraland western New York. Out of this section the Legislature organisedtwelve new counties in 1812. The sixteen counties that existed in theState, in 1790, had increased to fifty-five in 1820. Settlers hadrapidly filled up the whole region. New York City, according to thethird census, had 123, 706 inhabitants, and, of these, only 5390 wereunnaturalised foreigners. Indeed, the population of the State, in1820, was made up largely of native Americans; and the descendants ofEnglish families outnumbered those of the Dutch. 

Administrative reform had not, however, kept pace with the increase inpopulation. The number of freeholders qualified to vote for senatorand governor, was, relatively, no larger; the power of the Council ofAppointment had become odious; the veto of the Council of Revisiondistasteful; and the sittings of the Supreme Court infrequent. It wassaid that the members of the Council of Revision, secure from removal, had resisted the creation of additional judges, until the speedyadministration of justice was a lost art. Gradually, the spirit thatdemanded independence, in 1776, began to insist upon a broadersuffrage and additional rights. The New Englanders in the central, western, and northern parts of the State had very pronouncedsentiments upon the subject of reform. They sympathised little withthe views of the landowning and conservative classes that largelycontrolled the making of the Constitution of 1777. The people of NewYork City, as well, who had increased over fifty per cent. In twelveyears, clamoured for a radical change in conditions that seemed tothem to have no application to life in a republic. 

Nevertheless, the politicians were slow in recognising the necessityof amending the State Constitution. Although trouble increased fromyear to year, governors avoided recommendations; and legislatorshesitated to put in motion the machinery for correcting abuses. AfterClinton had defeated Tompkins for governor, in 1820, however, theagitation suddenly blazed into a flame. Tammany resolved in favour ofa convention having unlimited powers to amend the Constitution. Following this suggestion, Governor Clinton, in his speech to theLegislature in November, 1820, recommended that the question besubmitted to the people. But the Bucktails, indifferent to the viewsof their opponents, pushed through a bill calling for a conventionwith unlimited powers, whose work should subsequently be submitted ingross to the people for ratification or rejection. 

Governor Clinton preferred a convention of limited powers, aconvention that could not abolish the judiciary or turn out of officethe only friends left him. Nevertheless, it was not easy for agovernor, who loved popularity, to take a position against theBucktail bill; for the popular mind, if it had not yet formallyexpressed itself on the subject, was well understood to favour aconvention. When, therefore, the bill came before the Council ofRevision, Clinton thought he had taken good care to have a majoritypresent to disapprove it, without his assistance. Van Ness and Plattwere absent holding court; but, of the others, Joseph C. Yates, theonly Bucktail on the bench, was presumably the only one likely tofavour it. Chancellor Kent, in giving his reasons for disapproving themeasure, contended that the Legislature had no constitutionalauthority to create a convention of unlimited powers, and, if it did, it should require the convention to submit its amendments to thepeople separately and not in gross. Spencer agreed with theChancellor. Yates, as expected, approved the bill, but there wasconsternation in the Council when Woodworth agreed with Yates. Woodworth was the creature of Clinton. He had made him a judge, and, having done so, the Governor relied with confidence upon his support, in preference to that of either Van Ness or Jonas Platt. It recallsthe mistake of the historic conclave which elected a Pope whom thecardinals believed too feeble to have any will of his own, but whosuddenly became their master. One can easily understand Clinton'sdilemma. He wanted the bill disapproved without his aid; Woodworth'saction compelled him to do the very thing he had planned to avoid. Tothe day of his death, Clinton never got over the affront. "Yates andWoodworth were both frightened and have damned themselves, " he wroteHenry Post, on the 27th of November, 1820. "The latter supposed alsothat he would distinguish himself by his independence. I don't know afellow more intrinsically despicable. I intend the first convenientopportunity to cut him to the quick. Y---- is a miserable fellow--thedupe of his own vanity and the tool of bad principles!"[218]Woodworth's action was severely criticised; and when, shortlyafterward, the Bucktails in the Senate sitting as a Court of Errors, reversed a judgment against him for several thousand dollars, overruling the opinion of Chancellor Kent, it seemed to impeach thepurity of his motives. 

[Footnote 218: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 415. ]

After Clinton had voted in the Council, the convention bill, thusvetoed, did not get the necessary two-thirds support. At the regularsession of the Legislature, which began in January, 1821, an amendmentwas accepted submitting to the people the simple question of aconvention or no convention. Of the one hundred and forty-fourthousand votes cast, one hundred and nine thousand favoured aconvention. Delegates were then elected; and the convention, havingbeen organised, continued in session from August 28 to November 10, 1821. 

This convention passed into history as a remarkable gathering ofdistinguished persons. With a few exceptions, all the men then living, whose names have figured in these pages, took an active part in itsdeliberations; and by their eloquence and ability contributed to aconstitution which was to answer the purposes of a rapidly growingState for another quarter of a century. John Jay, the constitution-makerof 1777, then seventy-six years of age, who still lived upon his farm, happy in his rustic tastes and in his simple pleasures, wasrepresented by his gifted son, Peter A. Jay of Westchester; Daniel D. Tompkins came from Richmond; Rufus King from Queens; Nathan Sanfordand Jacob Radcliff from New York; James Kent, Ambrose Spencer, AbrahamVan Vechten, and Stephen Van Rensselaer from Albany; Jonas Platt, Ezekiel Bacon, and Nathan Williams from Oneida; William W. Van Ness, Elisha Williams, and Jacob R. Van Rensselaer from Columbia; and JamesTallmadge and Peter R. Livingston from Dutchess. There was one newname among them--Samuel Nelson of Cortland, a young man, yet destinedto become a well-known and influential chief justice of the State, andan associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. TheFederalists of Albany did not return Martin Van Buren, who now madehis home in their city; but the people of Otsego honoured themselvesand greatly strengthened the convention by making him theirrepresentative. He was clearly its leader. Root and Young did moretalking, but when others had argued until argument seemed hopeless, Van Buren usually spoke the last word with success. 

From the first, it was recognised that Clinton's friends were withoutinfluence. They could talk and vote, but the convention was a Bucktailbody, in which the election of delegates, the choice of a president, the appointment of committees, the selection of chairmen, and thetransaction of business were made party questions. The vote of sixteento ninety-four for Daniel D. Tompkins, for president, showed Bucktaildelegates overwhelmingly in the majority. Of the chairmen of the tenstanding committees, all were prominent Bucktail leaders, save RufusKing, who had practically ceased to act with the Federalists of hisState, and James, Tallmadge, who ended his affection for DeWittClinton when the latter preferred Thomas J. Oakley for attorney-general. 

The convention's work centred about three great principles--broadersuffrage, enlarged local government, and a more popular judiciarysystem. There was no difficulty in abolishing the Councils ofAppointment and of Revision; in clothing the governor with power ofveto; in fixing his term of office at two years instead of three; andin making members of the Legislature ineligible for appointment tooffice. But, on the questions of suffrage and the judiciary, theconvention was thrown into weeks of violent debate, memorable byprophecies never fulfilled, and by criticism that the future quicklydisproved. In respect to the suffrage, there were practically threedifferent views. A few members favoured freehold qualifications; alarger number believed in universal suffrage; while others stoodbetween the two, desiring the abolition of a freehold qualification, yet opposing universal suffrage and wishing to place some restrictionson the right to vote. Erastus Root and Samuel Young ably representedthe second class; Ambrose Spencer and the Federalists were intenselyloyal to a freehold qualification; and Van Buren, backed probably by amajority of the convention, presented the compromise view. 

Preliminary to the great debate, a lively skirmish occurred over thelimitation of suffrage to the white voter. Strangely enough, thisproposition was sustained by Erastus Root, the ardent champion ofuniversal suffrage and the abolition of slavery; and it was opposedwith equal warmth by Peter A. Jay and the Federalists, who advocated afreehold qualification. Van Buren did not speak, but he voted for theresolution, to eliminate the word "white, " which was carried by aclose vote--sixty-three to fifty-nine. Then it was proposed thatcoloured voters should be freeholders. Again the advocates ofuniversal suffrage favoured the proposition, and the friends of afreehold qualification opposed it; but this time the conventiondecided against the negro, thirty-three to seventy-one. New York wasslow to give equal suffrage to the blacks. Nearly three-fourths of thevoters of the State withheld it in 1846; and, six years afterPresident Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, when the black soldierhad served his country throughout the Civil War with a fidelity andcourage that awoke the strongest emotions of a patriotic people, itwas again refused. 

The debate, however, which aroused the greatest interest, and in whichmembers of the convention most generally participated, sprang fromAmbrose Spencer's proposition limiting to freeholders the right tovote for senators. It must have occurred to the Chief Justice that theconvention was against him, because its committee had unanimouslyagreed to abolish the freehold qualification; and, further, becausethe convention, by its action on the negro question, had demonstratedits purpose to wipe out all property distinctions among white voters;yet Spencer, at this eleventh hour, proposed to re-establish afreehold difference between senators and assemblymen. The ChiefJustice, with all his faults, and they were many and grave, had in himthe capacity of a statesman; but it was a statesman of fifty yearsbefore. He had learned little by experience. The prejudices of Jay andother patriots of the Revolution, still lingered in his mind, arousingpainful apprehensions of what would happen if the exclusive privilegesof landowners should disappear, and robbing him of that faith in thepeople which made Erastus Root the forerunner of the broad suffragethat obtains to-day. Chancellor Kent backed Spencer's proposition inan abler speech than that made by the Chief Justice himself. Kent wasan honourable, upright statesman, who, unlike Spencer, had neverwavered in his fealty to that federalism which had been learned at thefeet of John Jay and Alexander Hamilton; but, like Spencer, he hadfailed to discover that the people, jealous of their rights andliberties, could be trusted regardless of property holdings. "By thereport before us, " he said, "we propose to annihilate, at one stroke, all property distinctions, and to bow before the idol of universalsuffrage. That extreme democratic principle has been regarded withterror by the wise men of every age, because in every Europeanrepublic, ancient and modern, in which it has been tried, it hasterminated disastrously, and been productive of corruption, injustice, violence, and tyranny. And dare we flatter ourselves that we are apeculiar people, who can run the career of history exempted from thepassions which have disturbed and corrupted the rest of mankind? If weare like other races of men, with similar follies and vices, then Igreatly fear that our posterity will have reason to deplore insackcloth and ashes the delusion of the day. "[219]

[Footnote 219: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 2, p. 34. ]

Though Erastus Root and Samuel Young employed all their eloquence andall their energy against Spencer's proposition, it was Martin VanBuren's speech which made the deepest impression. It cannot be saidthat the latter's remarks defeated the amendment, because the vote ofnineteen to one hundred, showed no one behind the Chief Justice'sproposal save himself and a few Federalists. But Van Buren greatlystrengthened the report of the committee, which gave a vote to everymale citizen twenty-one years old, who had resided six months in theState and who had within one year paid taxes or a road assessment, orhad been enrolled and served in the militia. Although, said Van Buren, this report is on the verge of universal suffrage, it did not cheapenthe invaluable right, by conferring it indiscriminately upon everyone, black or white, who would condescend to accept it. He wasopposed, he said, to a precipitate and unexpected prostration of allqualifications, and looked with dread upon the great increase ofvoters in New York City, believing that such an increase would renderelections a curse rather than a blessing. But he maintained that theevents of the past forty years had discredited the speculative fearsof Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison; that venality in voting, in spiteof property qualifications, already existed in grossest forms inparliamentary elections in England, and that property had been as safein those American communities which had given universal suffrage as inthe few which retained a freehold qualification. Then, with greatearnestness, his eye resting upon the distinguished Chancellor, hedeclared that whenever the principles of order and good governmentshould yield to principles of anarchy and violence, all constitutionalprovisions would be idle and unavailing. 

It was a captivating speech. There was little rhetoric and lessfeeling. Van Buren took good care to show his thorough knowledge ofthe subject, and, without the use of exclamations or interrogations, he pointed out the unwisdom of following the constitution-makers of1777, and the danger of accepting the dogma of universal suffrage. Theimpression we get from the declaration of some of those who heard it, is that Van Buren surpassed himself in this effort. He seems to havemade a large majority of the convention happy because he said justwhat they wanted to know, and said it in just the way they wanted tohear it. It must be admitted, too, that the evils which he prophesied, if universal suffrage were given to New York City, have been toounhappily verified. With the defeat of Spencer's proposition, thesuffrage question quickly settled itself along the lines of thecommittee's report. 

The judiciary article excited less debate but more feeling. Delegatesbrooded over the well known fact that judges had become politicalpartisans, opposed to increasing their number to meet the growingdemands of business, and anxious to retain the extraordinary powergiven them under the Constitution of 1777. Whenever a suggestion wasmade to retain these judges, therefore, it provoked bitter oppositionand denunciation. A few men in the convention had very fierceopinions, seasoned with a kind of wit, and of these, the restlessenergy of Erastus Root soon earned for him considerable notoriety. Indeed, it passed into a sort of proverb that there were three partiesin the convention--the Republicans, the Federalists, and Erastus Root. It is not so clear that he had as much influence as his longprominence in public life would seem to entitle him; but when he didhappen to stand with the majority, he pleased it with his wittyvehemence more than Peter R. Livingston did with his coarsevituperation. In the debate on the judiciary, however, abuse andinvective were not confined to Root and Livingston. Abraham VanVechten and some of those who acted with him, employed every means intheir power to defeat the opponents of the judges, although theyscarcely equalled the extra-tribunal methods of their adversaries. 

The contest opened as soon as the chairman of the judiciary committeereported in favour of a vice chancellor, from whom appeals should betaken to the chancellor; and of a superior court of common pleas, having practically the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which shouldform a part of the Court for the Correction of Errors. This meant thecontinuation of the old judges. Immediately, Erastus Root offered asubstitute, abolishing the existing courts, and creating a new SupremeCourt, with a corps of _nisi prius_ district judges. Root's plan alsoprovided for the transfer of the equitable powers of the Court ofChancery to the courts of common law. This was the extreme view. Although the convention, or at least a majority of it, might wish toget rid of the old Supreme Court judges, it was plainly unwilling tolet go the Court of Chancery. So it rejected the Root substitute by avote of seventy-three to thirty-six, and the report of the judiciarycommittee by seventy-nine ayes to thirty-three noes. But the attackthus daringly begun by Root, was steadily maintained. Martin VanBuren, who figured as a sort of peacemaker, proposed the retention ofthe Chancery and Supreme Courts, and the creation of circuit judges. This proposition went to a special committee, which presented tworeports--one for the preservation of the Court of Chancery and theSupreme Court, the other for the creation of a Court of Chancery, aSupreme Court, and courts of common pleas. It was plain that thesecond of these was Root's former substitute, with the Court ofChancery continued, and, in support of it, he now arraigned thepolitical conduct of the judges with a severity that was speedilyrebuked. Root was radical or nothing. He hated Spencer, he despisedVan Ness, and he disliked James Kent and Jonas Platt; and with anexuberance of apparent anger he demanded the abolition of their courtsand the creation of others in no wise different. 

In replying to Root, Van Buren again discovered his kindliness ofheart. The only question, he said, was whether the convention wouldinsert an article in the Constitution for the sole purpose of vacatingthe offices of the present chancellor, and Supreme Court judges, andthus apply a rule which had not yet been applied in a single instance. There could be no public reason for the measure and personal feelingshould not control. Referring to William W. Van Ness, he declared thathe could with truth say that, throughout his whole life, he had beenassailed by him with hostility--political, professional andpersonal--hostility which had been keen, active, and unyielding. "But, sir, am I on that account to indulge my individual resentment in theprostration of my private and political adversary? If I could becapable of such conduct I should forever despise myself. " Inconclusion, he expressed the hope that the convention would not ruinits character and credit by proceeding to such extremities. Van Burenstruck hard, and for the time had routed the judges' opponents by avote of sixty-four to forty-four. But if the delegates hesitated toback Root, they did not propose to follow Van Buren, and they crushedthe first report under the unexpected vote of eighty-six totwenty-five. 

The convention had now been in session over two months, and this mosttroublesome question seemed no nearer settlement than on the openingday. As in the suffrage debate, there were three factions--onedetermined to get rid of Chancellor Kent and the five Supreme Courtjudges; another, less numerous, desirous of continuing them all inoffice, and a third, probably composed of a majority of theconvention, who wished to save the chancellor and lose the others. Finally, on the first day of November, ten days before adjournment, aproposition appeared to create a Supreme Court to consist of a chiefjustice and two justices, and to divide the State into not less thanfour or more than eight districts, as the Legislature should decide, in each of which a district judge should be appointed, with the tenureand powers of Supreme Court judges. It was also provided that suchequity powers should be vested in the district judges, in courts ofcommon pleas, or in other subordinate courts, as the Legislature mightdirect, subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the chancellor. Thiswas practically Root's old proposition in another form, and itsreappearance made it the more certain that a majority of theconvention had determined to destroy the present judges. 

Up to this time, the members of the court, all of whom were delegates, either from motives of modesty, or with the hope that the many plansmight result in no action, had taken no part in the debates on thejudiciary. Now, however, Ambrose Spencer, with doubtful propriety, broke the silence. His friends feared the assaults of Root and PeterR. Livingston might drive him into a fierce retort, and that he wouldantagonise the convention if he did not also weary it. But he didnothing of the kind. He spoke with calmness and excellent taste, saying that he favoured the appointment of circuit judges who shouldaid the Supreme Court in the trial of issues of fact, and who shouldalso be members, _ex-officio_, of the Court of Errors; that he hadlittle or no personal interest in the question since he should verysoon be constitutionally ineligible to the office; that for eighteenyears he had tried to discharge his duties with fidelity andintegrity, and that he should leave the bench conscious of having doneno wrong if he had not always had the approval of others. He seemed tocapture the convention for a moment. His tones were mellow, hismanner gentle, and when he suggested leaving Albany on the morrow toresume his labours on the bench, his remarks took the form of afarewell speech, which added a touch of pathos. Indeed, the ChiefJustice had proved so wise and discreet that Henry Wheaton thought itan opportune time to propose an amendment to the proposition beforethe convention, providing that the present justices hold office untiltheir number be reduced to three, by death, resignation, removal, orby age limitation. This brought the convention face to face with thequestion of retaining the old judges, stripped of all otherprovisions, and the result was awaited with great interest. It was VanBuren's idea. It had the support, too, of Nathan Sanford, of Peter B. Sharpe, the speaker of the Assembly, and of half a score of prominentBucktails who hoped, with Van Buren, that the convention would notruin its character by extreme measures based upon personal dislikes;but a majority of the delegates was in no mood for such a suggestion. It had listened respectfully to the Chief Justice, and would doubtlesshave cheerfully heard from the Chancellor and other members of thecourt, but it could not surrender the principle over which sixty dayshad been spent in contention. When, therefore, the roll was called, Wheaton's amendment was rejected by a vote of sixty-six tothirty-nine. Then came the call on the original proposition, to haveSupreme and District Courts, which disclosed sixty-two ayes andfifty-three noes. If the weakness of the noes on the first vote was adisappointment, the strength of the noes on the second vote was asurprise. A change of only five votes was needed to defeat theproposition, and these might have been reduced to three had Daniel D. Tompkins, who favoured Van Buren's idea, and the four judges whorefrained from voting, felt at liberty to put themselves upon record. It is a notable fact that the conspicuous, able men of the convention, with the exception of Erastus Root and Samuel Young, voted to continuethe judges in office. 

Martin Van Buren, as chairman of the committee to consider thequestion of filling offices, reported in favour of abolishing theCouncil of Appointment, and of electing state officers by theLegislature, justices of the peace by the people, and militaryofficers, except generals, by the rank and file of the militia. Judicial officers, with surrogates and sheriffs, were to be appointedby the governor and confirmed by the Senate, while courts wereauthorised to select county clerks and district attorneys. To thecommon councils of cities was committed the duty of choosing mayorsand clerks. In his statement, Van Buren said that of the eightthousand two hundred and eighty-seven military officers in the State, all would be elected by the rank and file, except seventy-eightgenerals; and of the six thousand six hundred and sixty-three civilofficers, all would be elected by the people or designated as theLegislature should direct, except four hundred and fifty-three. Toprovide for these five hundred and thirty-one military and civilofficers, the committee thought it wise to have the governor appointand the Senate confirm them. The constitutions recently formed inKentucky, Louisiana, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, he said, hadsuch a provision--similar, in fact, to that in the FederalConstitution--and, although this method was open to objection, thecommittee was unable to devise a better system. 

Aside from James Tallmadge, who thought the Legislature should havenothing to do with the patronage of government, this report called outlittle opposition, so far as it provided for the election of stateofficers by the Legislature, military officers by the militia, and theappointment of higher military and judicial officers by the governor. Van Buren had made it plain, by his exhaustive argument, thatconstitution-makers, seeking the latest expression of the people'swill, could devise no better plan, and that experience in the newestStates having the same system, had developed no serious objection. There was a readiness, also, to accept the recommendation allowing theLegislature to designate the manner of selecting the three thousandsix hundred and forty-three notaries public, commissioners of deeds, and other minor officers. But a buzz of disapproval ran through theconvention when the article providing for the election of justices ofthe peace was reached. It was evident from the outset, that aconcerted movement was on foot among Republican leaders to establish, at the seat of government, a central appointing power of largeauthority, and the appointment of justices of the peace was peculiarlyessential to its strength. A justice was of more importance then thannow. He was usually the strongest character in his vicinage, andwhether he followed the plow, or wore upon the bench the homelyworking clothes in which he tended cattle, he was none the lessfamiliar with the politics of every suitor in his court. In theabsence of higher courts, neighbours were compelled to go before him, and in settling their troubles, it was usually understood that he heldthe scales of justice without being blindfolded. 

Van Buren did not conceal his hostility to the election of thesejustices. If he had developed radical tendencies in the suffragedebate, he now exhibited equally strong conservative proclivities inlimiting the power of the voter. His vigorous protests in thecommittee-room against the election of surrogates, sheriffs and countyclerks had defeated that proposition, and in referring to the sectionof the report making justices of the peace elective, he said it hadbeen a source of sincere regret that the committee overruled him. Buta majority of the committee, he continued, in his smooth and adroitmanner, had no strong personal predilections on the question of theelection of sheriffs and surrogates, and if, on a fair and deliberateexamination, it should be thought better to have these officialselected by the people, they would cheerfully acquiesce in thatdecision. This was the quintessence of diplomacy. He knew that ErastusRoot and Samuel Young insisted upon having these officers elected, and, to secure their opposition to the election of justices of thepeace, he indicated a willingness to be convinced as to the expediencyof electing sheriffs and surrogates. 

To bring the question of electing or appointing justices of the peacesquarely before the convention, Van Buren, at a later day, introduceda resolution providing that the board of supervisors in every countyshould, at such time as the Legislature directed, recommend to thegovernor a list of persons equal in number to the justices of thepeace in such county; that the respective courts of common pleas ofthe several counties should also recommend a like number, and from thelists so recommended the governor should appoint. In the event ofvacancies, like recommendations were to be made. The governor was alsoauthorised to remove a justice upon the application in writing of thebody recommending his appointment. This scheme was not verymagnificent. It put the responsibility of selection neither uponsupervisors, courts, nor governor, although each one must actindependently of the other, but it gave the governor a double chanceof appointing men of his own political faith. This was Van Buren'spurpose. He believed in a central appointing power, which the AlbanyRegency might control, and, that such power should not be impotent, these minor and many magistrates, thickly distributed throughout theState, with a jurisdiction broad enough to influence theirneighbourhoods, became of the greatest importance. To secure theirappointment, therefore, Van Buren was ready to sacrifice theappointment of sheriffs, with their vast army of deputies. 

Van Buren's scheme was ably resisted. Rufus King, who was counted aBucktail but until now had taken little part in debate, spoke againstit with all the sincere emotion of one whose mind and heart alike werefilled with the cause for which he pleaded. He thought justices shouldbe elected. Each locality knew the men in whom it could trust tosettle its disputes, and farmers as well as townspeople should beallowed to select the arbitrator of all their petty quarrels anddisagreements. It was the very essence of home rule. In vigorousEnglish Ambrose Spencer, William W. Van Ness, and Jacob R. VanRensselaer supported the Senator, while Ogden Edwards of New YorkCity, an able representative of Tammany, burning with a sense ofinjustice, violently assailed the proposed plan. "The unanimous voteof this convention, " he said, "had shown that the Council ofAppointment was an evil. A unanimous sentence of condemnation has beenpassed upon it, and I had not expected so soon to find a propositionfor its revival. "

Probably no stranger scene was ever witnessed in a parliamentary bodythan Erastus Root and Samuel Young, two radical legislators, advocatesof universal suffrage, and just now especially conspicuous because oftheir successful support of the election of sheriffs and countyclerks, arguing with zeal and ability for the appointment of justicesof the peace. It seemed like a travesty, since there was not anargument in favour of electing sheriffs that did not apply with addedforce to the election of justices. The convention stood aghast at sucheffrontery. It is impossible to read, without regret, of the voluntarystultification of these orators, pleading piteously for theappointment of justices of the peace while declaiming with passionaterighteousness against the appointment of sheriffs. With acidulatedsatire, Van Ness, enrapturing his hearers by his brilliancy, held themup to public ridicule if not to public detestation. But Van Buren'sbungling proposition, though once rejected by a vote of fifty-nine tofifty-six, was in the end substantially adopted, and it remained apart of the amended constitution until the people, very soon satisfiedof its iniquity, ripped it out of the organic law with the sameunanimity that their representatives now abolished the Councils ofAppointment and of Revision. Could Van Buren have had his way, theCouncil of Appointment would have been changed only in name. 

The work of the convention concluded, a motion for the passage of theConstitution as a whole developed only eight votes in the negative, though twenty-four members, including the eight delegates from Albanyand Columbia Counties, four from Montgomery, Jonas Platt of Oneida, and Peter A. Jay of Westchester, because it extended and cheapenedsuffrage, refused to sign it. Other objections were urged. EzekielBacon of Utica, explaining his affirmative vote, thought it worsethan the existing Constitution of 1777; yet he approved it because theprovision for amendment afforded the people a means of correctingdefects with reasonable facility, without resorting to the difficultand dangerous experiment of a formal convention. 

The Constitution, however, in spite of the opposition, wasoverwhelmingly ratified. The vote for it was 74, 732; against it41, 043. And it proved better than even its sponsors prophesied. Itabolished the Councils of Appointment and of Revision; it abolishedthe power of the governor to prorogue the Legislature; it abolishedthe property qualification of the white voter; it extended theelective franchise; it made a large number of officers elective; itmodified the management of the canals and created a canal board; itcontinued the Court of Errors and Impeachments; it reorganised thejudicial department, making all judges, surrogates, and recordersappointive by the governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate;it made state officers, formerly appointed by the Council, elective byjoint ballot of the Senate and Assembly; and it gave the power of vetoexclusively to the governor, requiring a two-thirds vote of theLegislature to overcome it. No doubt it had radical defects, but withthe help of a few amendments it lived for a quarter of a century. 

CHAPTER XXVIII

THE SECOND FALL OF CLINTON

1822

The new Constitution changed the date of elections from April toNovember, and reduced the gubernatorial term from three years to two, thus ending Governor Clinton's administration on January 1, 1823. Asthe time approached for nominating his successor, it was obvious thatthe Bucktails, having reduced party discipline to a science andlaunched the Albany Regency upon its long career of party domination, were certain to control the election. Indeed, so strong had the partybecome that a nomination for senator or assemblyman was equivalent toan election, and the defeat of John W. Taylor of Saratoga for speakerof the Seventeenth Congress showed that its power extended to thecapital of the nation. Taylor's ability and splendid leadership, inthe historic contest of the Missouri Compromise, had made him speakerduring the second session of the Sixteenth Congress; but Bucktailresentment of his friendly attitude toward Clinton, in 1820, changed asufficient number of his New York colleagues to deprive him ofre-election. It was not until the Nineteenth Congress, after the powerof the Albany Regency had been temporarily broken by the election ofJohn Quincy Adams to the Presidency, that Taylor finally received thereward to which he was so richly entitled. 

At this moment of the Regency's domination, Joseph C. Yates showedhimself the coming man. Though it was the desire of his party that hetake the nomination for governor in 1820, the cautious, modest Justiceof the Supreme Court had discreetly decided not to sacrifice himselfin the year of DeWitt Clinton's greatest strength. Conscious of hisown popularity with the people, he was prepared to wait. But he hadnot to wait long. During the last two years of Clinton'sadministration, Yates had distinguished himself in the Council ofRevision, by voting for the bill creating a constitutionalconvention--a vote which was applauded by Van Buren, although overcomeby Clinton; and when the time approached for the selection of anothergubernatorial candidate, he rightly saw that his hour was come. Yateswas not cut out for the part which a strange combination ofcircumstances was to allow him to play. He was a man of respectablecharacter, but without remarkable capacity of any kind. He had acharming personality. He was modest and mild in his deportment, andrichly gifted with discretion, caution, and prudence. Vindictivenessformed no part of his disposition. The peculiar character of hisintellect made him a good Supreme Court judge; but he lacked theintellectual energy and courage for an executive, who must thoroughlyunderstand the means of getting and retaining public support. 

A majority of the leading politicians of the party, appreciatingYates' mental deficiencies, ranged themselves on the side of SamuelYoung, who enjoyed playing a conspicuous part and liked attackingsomebody. Young was not merely a debater of apparently inexhaustibleresource, but a master in the use of parliamentary tactics andpolitical craft. His speeches, or such reports of them as exist, arefull of striking passages and impressive phrases; and, as an orator, full, round and joyous, with singularly graceful and charming manners, he was then without a rival in his party. But his ultra-radicalism andilliberal, often rude, treatment of opponents prevented him fromobtaining all the influence which would otherwise have been fairly dueto his talents and his political and personal integrity. 

There were, also, other aspirants. Daniel D. Tompkins, preferringgovernor to Vice President, was willing to be called; and Peter B. Porter, Erastus Root, and Nathan Sanford, figured among those whosenames were canvassed. The contest, however, soon settled down betweenYates and Young, with the chances decidedly in favour of the former. People admired Young and were proud of him--they thoroughly likedYates and trusted him. If Young had possessed the kindly, sympatheticdisposition of Yates, with a tithe of his discretion, he would haverivalled Martin Van Buren in influence and popularity, and become asuccessful candidate for any office in the gift of the voters; but, with all his splendid genius for debate and eloquent speaking, he wasneither a patient leader nor a popular one. When the Republicanmembers of the Legislature got into caucus, therefore, Joseph C. Yateshad a pronounced majority, as had Erastus Root for lieutenant-governor. 

Young's defeat for the nomination left bitter enmity. A reconciliationdid, indeed, take place between him and Yates, but it was as formaland superficial as that of the two demons described in Le Sage'sstory. "They brought us together, " says Asmodeus; "they reconciled us. We shook hands and became mortal enemies. " Young and Yates werereconciled; but from the moment of Yates' nomination, until, chagrinedand disappointed, he was forced into retirement after two years ofhumiliating obedience to the Regency, Samuel Young spared no effort torender his late opponent unpopular. 

Although Clinton's canal policy, upon the success of which he hadstaked his all, was signally vindicating itself in rapidity ofconstruction, and the very moderate estimate of cost, his friends didnot hesitate to advise him that his re-election to the governorshipwas impossible. It was a cold proposition for a man to face who hadinaugurated a system of improvement which would confer prosperity andwealth upon the people, and enrich and elevate the State. For a time, like a caged tiger, he bit at the bars that seemed to limit hisambition. But his friends were right. Through his management, or wantof management, the Clintonians had ceased to exist as an organisation, and his supporting Federalists, as evidenced by the election ofdelegates to the constitutional convention in 1821, had passed into ahopeless minority. "Governor Clinton, though governor, " said ThurlowWeed, "was much in the condition of a pastor without a congregation. "It was striking proof of the absence of tact and that address which, in a popular government, is necessary for one to possess who expectsto succeed in public life. Clinton had now been governor for fiveconsecutive years. His motives had undoubtedly been pure andpatriotic, and he had within his control the means of a great officeto influence people in his favour; yet a cold exterior, an arrogantmanner, and a disposition to rule or ruin, had cooled his friends anddriven away the people until opponents took little heed of hisexistence. 

No doubt Clinton had good reason to know that the statesmen of thattime were not exactly what they professed to be. He was well awarethat many of them, like John Woodworth, Ambrose Spencer, and JamesTallmadge, had played fast and loose as the chances of Bucktail andClintonian had gone up or gone down; and, although he gracefullydeclined to become a candidate for re-election, when convinced of theutter hopelessness of such a race, his brain was no less active in theconception of plans which should again return him to power. As earlyas October, 1822, he wrote Post: "The odium attached to the name ofFederalist has been a millstone round the neck of true policy. It isnow almost universally dropped in this district, in the district ofwhich Oneida County is part, and in the Herkimer County meeting. Ihail this as an auspicious event. Names in politics as well as scienceare matters of substance, and a bad name in public is as injurious tosuccess as a bad name in private life. The inferences I draw from thesigns of the times are: First, the ascendancy of our party from thecollisions of parties. In proportion as they quarrel with each otherthey will draw closer to us. The last hate being the most violent willsupersede the former antipathy. Second, the old names as well as theold lines of party will be abolished. Third, nominations by caucuseswill be exploded. Fourth, Yates, Van Buren, etc. , will go down likethe stick of a rocket. Our friends are up and doing in Ulster. "

It is impossible not to feel admiration for the indomitable courageand the inexhaustible animal spirits which no defeat could reduce toprostration. Furthermore, Clinton had written with the inspiration ofa prophet. Not only were the old names and the old party lines soon tovanish, but the last legislative caucus ever to be held in the State, would be called in less than two years. Within the same period Yateswas to fall like the stick of a rocket, and Van Buren to suffer hisfirst defeat. 

In the absence of a Clintonian or Federalist opponent, SolomonSouthwick announced himself as an independent candidate. His was astrange story. He had many of the noblest qualities and some of thewildest fancies, growing out of an extravagant imagination that seemedto control his mind. Among other things, he opened an office for thesale of lottery tickets, reserving numbers for himself which had beenindicated in dreams or by fortune-tellers, with whom he was infrequent consultation. Writing of his disposition to hope for aid fromthe miraculous interposition of some invisible power, Hammond says:"He was in daily expectation that the next mail would bring him newsthat he had drawn the highest prize in the lottery; and I have knownhim to borrow money of a friend under a solemn pledge of his honourfor its repayment in ten days, and have afterward ascertained that hissole expectation of redeeming his pledge depended on his drawing aprize when the next lottery in which he was interested should bedrawn. "[220]

[Footnote 220: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 2, p. 101. ]

Southwick was undoubtedly a man of genius, as his work on the Albany_Register_, the _Ploughboy_, and the _Christian Visitant_ clearlyindicates; but erroneous judgment and defective impulses resulted inmisfortunes which finally darkened and closed his life in adversity ifnot in poverty. As a young man he had been repeatedly elected clerk ofthe Assembly, and had afterward served as sheriff, as state printer, and, finally, as postmaster. In the meantime, he became the firstpresident of the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank, making money easily andrapidly, living extravagantly, giving generously, and acquiring greatpolitical influence. But his trial for bribery, of which mention hasbeen made, his removal as state printer, and his defalcation aspostmaster, prostrated him financially and politically. In the hope ofretrieving his fortunes he embarked in real estate speculation, thuscompleting his ruin and making him still more visionary and fantastic. Nevertheless, he struggled on with industry and courage for more thantwenty years, occasionally coming into public or political notice as awriter of caustic letters, or as a candidate for office. 

In 1822, the wild fancy possessed Southwick of becoming governor, andto preface the way for his visionary scheme he applied to a brightyoung journalist, the editor of the Manlius _Republican_, to canvassthe western and southwestern counties of the State. Thurlow Weed atthis time was twenty-six years old. He had worked on a farm, he hadblown a blacksmith's bellows, he had shipped as a cabin-boy, he haddone chores at a tavern, he had served as a soldier, and he hadlearned the printer's trade. For twenty years he lived a life ofpoverty, yet of tireless industry, with a simplicity as amazing as hisgenius. The only thing of which he got nothing was schooling. Hisfamily was an old Connecticut one, which had come down in the world. Everything went wrong with his father. He was hard-working, kind-hearted, and strictly honest, but nothing succeeded. With thehope of "bettering his condition, " he moved five times in ten years, getting so desperately poor at last that a borrowed two-horse sleighcarried all his worldly goods, including a wife and five children. Joel Weed was, perhaps, as unfortunate a man as ever brought anillustrious son into the world. He was neither shiftless norworthless, but what others did he could not do. He never took up landfor himself because he had nothing to begin with. A neighbour whobegan with an axe and a hoe, entered fifty acres, and got rich. 

If Joel Weed lived as a beggar, Thurlow thought as a king. He revelledin the mountains and streams interspersed along the routes of thefamily's frequent movings; his taste for adventure made the sloop'scabin a home, and his love for reading turned the blacksmith shop andprinting office into a schoolroom. As he read he forgot that he waspoor, forgot that he was ragged, forgot that he was hungry. In hisautobiography he tells of walking bare-footed six miles through thesnow to borrow a history of the French Revolution, and of reading itat night in the blaze of a pitch-pine knot. Men found him lovable. Hewas large and awkward; but even as a boy there was a charm of manner, a tender, sympathetic nature, a sweet, sparkling humour, and anobility of character that irresistibly drew people to him. In manyrespects his boyhood resembled Lincoln's, and, though he lived in someof the evil days of the last century, his youth, like Lincoln's, escaped pollution. At the age of twelve, as an apprentice in a weeklynewspaper office at Onondaga Hollow, he read and filed every exchangepaper, familiarising himself with discussions in Congress, andimbibing a deadly hatred of England because of Indian barbaritiesexcited by British agents, and cruelties to American seamen impressedby British officers. With the true instinct of his fine nature, hemade his friends and companions among the wisest and highest of histime, although he loved all company that was not vicious and depraved. He knew Gerrit Smith in 1814; a few months' stay, as a journeymanprinter, at Auburn, forged a lasting friendship with Elijah Miller, the father-in-law of William H. Seward, and with Enos T. Throop, afterward governor. His intimacy with Gorham A. Worth, a financier ofdecided literary tastes, and for thirty years president of the NewYork City Bank, began in Albany in 1816. Thus, in whatever town heworked or settled, the prominent men and those to grow into prominencebecame his intimates. He had women friends, too, as wisely chosen asthe men, but Catherine Ostrander was the star of his life. He tells atouching little story of this Cooperstown maiden. Their engagementoccurred in his seventeenth year, but her parents, objecting to theroving, unsettled youth, he proposed three years of absoluteseparation, and if then no change had come to her affections sheshould write and tell him so. In his hours of poverty, he was cheeredby the thought of her, and when, at last, her letter came, he hastenedto claim her as his bride. At the conclusion of the ceremony, he hadmoney enough only to take them back to Albany. 

Weed began the publication of the Manlius _Republican_ in June, 1821. For three years previously the _Agriculturist_, published at Norwich, in Chenango County, had given him proprietorship, some reputation, andless money; but it had also classified him politically. He had neverbeen a Federalist, nor could he be called a Clintonian, although hisbelief in canal improvement led him to the support of Governor Clintonand earned for him the opposition of the Bucktails. Like his father heworked without success, and then moved on to Albany; but he leftbehind him a coterie of distinguished Chenango friends who were everafter to follow his leadership. At Albany, he began to earn eighteendollars a week as a journeyman printer on the _Argus_. The Bucktailsforced him out and he went on to Manlius, resurrecting the _Times_, anold Federalist paper, which he called the _Republican_. 

It was at this time that Southwick sought him. "He was insanelyanxious to be governor, " says Weed, "and all the more insane becauseof its impossibility. He had been editing with great industry andability the _Ploughboy_ and the _Christian Visitant_, and beguiledhimself with a confident belief that farmers and Christians, irrespective of party, would sustain him. He provided me with a horseand wagon, and gave me a list of the names of gentlemen on whom I wasto call, but I soon discovered that my friend's hopes and chances werenot worth even the services of a horse that was dragging me throughthe mud. Years afterward I learned that in politics, as almost ineverything else, Mr. Southwick was blinded by his enthusiasm andcredulity. "[221]

[Footnote 221: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 86. ]

But Southwick was not the only blinded one in 1822. On the 10th ofJanuary, Governor Clinton wrote Henry Post "that Yates and Van Burenare both prostrate, and the latter particularly so. "[222] Later in theyear, on August 21, he declared: "Yates is unpopular, and Southwickwill beat him in this city and in Schenectady. "[223] In the nextmonth, September 21, he is even more outspoken. "Yates is despised andtalked against openly. Savage and Skinner talk plainly against him, and he is the subject of commonplace ridicule. "[224] Clinton was thelast person to abandon hope of Yates' defeat; and yet Yates' electioncould, without exaggeration, be declared practically unanimous. [225]Republican legislative candidates fared equally well. Clintonians andFederalists were entirely without representation in the Senate, and inthe Assembly their number was insufficient to make their presenceappreciable. 

[Footnote 222: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 507. ]

[Footnote 223: _Ibid. _, p. 565. ]

[Footnote 224: _Ibid. _, p. 565. ]

[Footnote 225: Southwick received 2910 out of a total of 131, 403 votescast. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

CHAPTER XXIX

CLINTON AGAIN IN THE SADDLE

1823-1824

The election in the fall of 1822 was one of those sweeping, crushingvictories that precede a radical change; and the confidence with whichthe victors used their power hurried on the revolution prophesied inClinton's clever letter to Post. The blow did not, indeed, come atonce. The legislators, meeting in January, 1823, proceeded cautiously, agreeing in caucus upon the state officers whom the Legislature, underthe amended Constitution, must now elect. John Van Ness Yates, theGovernor's nephew, was made secretary of state; William L. Marcy, comptroller; Simeon DeWitt, surveyor-general, and Alexander M. Muir, commissary-general. The caucus hesitated to nominate DeWitt because hewas a Clintonian; but forty years of honourable, efficient, quietservice finally appealed to a Republican Legislature with all theforce that it had formerly appealed to the Skinner Council. There wasmore of a contest over the comptrollership. James Tallmadge suddenlyblossomed into a rival candidate. Tallmadge, like John W. Taylor, wonhis spurs as a leader of the opposition to the Missouri Compromise. Hehad been an ardent supporter of Clinton until the latter preferredThomas J. Oakley as attorney-general; then he swung into communionwith the Bucktails. He was impulsively ambitious, sensitive toopposition, fearless in action, and such an inveterate hater that hecould not always act along lines leading to his own preferment. 

Under the new Constitution, county judges, surrogates, and notariespublic were selected from the dominant party with more jealous carethan by the old Council; and if Yates failed to observe the edict ofthe Regency, the Senate failed to confirm his appointees. Hammond, thehistorian, gives an instance of its refusal to confirm thereappointment of a bank cashier as a notary public because of hispolitics. But the really absorbing question was the appointment ofSupreme Court judges. Though there was no objection to Nathan Sanfordfor chancellor, since he would not take office until the retirement ofJames Kent, in August, by reason of age limitation, the spirit shownin the constitutional convention, toward the old Supreme Court judges, pervaded the Senate. The Governor, who had served with Ambrose Spencersince 1808, and with Platt and Woodworth from the time of theirelevation to the court, was prompted, perhaps through his kindlyinterest in their welfare, to nominate them for reappointment, but theSenate rejected them by an almost unanimous vote. If the Governor hadnow let the matter rest, he would doubtless have escaped the seriouscharge of insincerity. The next day, however, without giving therejected men opportunity to secure a rehearing, he nominated JohnSavage, Jacob Sutherland, and Samuel R. Betts. The suddenness of thesesecond nominations seemed to indicate a greater desire to continuecordial relations with the Senate than to help his former associates. Whatever the cause, though, Ambrose Spencer never forgave him; nor didhe outlive Samuel Young's criticism of playing politics at the expenseof his old comrades upon the bench. 

With the exception of Ambrose Spencer, who was destined to beremembered for a time by friends and enemies, the old judges of theSupreme Court may now be said to drop out of state history. Spencerlived twenty-five years longer, until 1848, serving one term inCongress, one term as mayor of Albany, and finally rounding out hislong life of eighty-three years as president of the national Whigconvention at Baltimore in 1844; but his political and publicactivity, as a factor to be reckoned with, ceased at the age offifty-eight. The close of his life was spent in happy quietude amonghis books, and in the midst of new-found friends in the church, withwhich he united some six or eight years before his death. Jonas Plattreturned to Clinton County, and, for a time, practised his professionwith great acceptance as an advocate; but as a master-politician he, like Spencer, was out of employment forever. At last, he, too, retiredto a farm, and with composure awaited the end that came in 1834. William W. Van Ness was destined to go earlier. Not seekingreappointment to the bench, he settled in New York, with apparentlyforty years of life before him, his genius in all the glow of itsmaturity marking him for greater political success than he had yetachieved; yet, within a year, on February 27, 1823, death found himwhile he sought health in a Southern State. He was only forty-sevenyears old at the time. Disease and not age had thrown him. Born in1776, he had won for himself the proudest honours of the law, andwritten his name high up on the roll of New York statesmen. 

Governor Yates had thus far travelled a difficult and dusty road. Inthe duty of organising the government, which, under the newConstitution fell to him, and in making appointments, he received thecensure and was burdened with the resentment of the mortified anddisappointed. His opponents, with the hearty and poorly concealedapproval of Young's friends, made it their business to create a publicopinion against him. They assailed him at all points with ridicule, with satire, with vituperation, and with personal abuse. They seemedto lie in wait to find occasion for attacking him, exaggerating hisweaknesses and minimising his strength. But the blunder that broke hisheart, and sent him into unexpected and sudden retirement, was hisopposition to a change in the law providing for the choice ofpresidential electors by the people. The demand for such a measuregrew out of a divided sentiment between William H. Crawford, thensecretary of the treasury, John Quincy Adams, secretary of state, andHenry Clay, speaker of the national House of Representatives, theleading candidates for President. There was, as yet, no real break inthe Republican party. No national question had appeared upon whichthe nation was divided; and, although individuals in the South tookexception to protective duties, the party had made no claim that thetariff system of 1816 was either inexpedient or unconstitutional. Theselection of a candidate for President had, however, become intenselypersonal, dividing the country into excited factions equivalent to adivision of parties. In New York, Van Buren and the Albany Regencyfavoured Crawford; James Tallmadge, Henry Wheaton, Thurlow Weed andothers preferred Adams; and Samuel Young, Peter B. Porter and theirfriends warmly supported Clay. The heated contest extended to thepeople, who understood that the choice of Crawford electors by theLegislature would control the election for the Georgian, while achange in the law would give Adams or Clay a chance. To insure such achange, the opponents of Crawford, calling themselves the People'sparty, made several nominations for the Assembly, and among thoseelected by overwhelming majorities were Tallmadge and Wheaton. 

If Tallmadge was the most conspicuous leader of the People's party, Henry Wheaton was easily second. Though seven years younger, he hadalready made himself prominent, not merely as a politician of generalability, but as a reporter of the United States Supreme Court, whoseconscientious and intelligent work was to link his name forever withthe jurisprudence of the country. During the War of 1812, Wheaton hadedited the _National Advocate_, writing a series of important paperson neutral rights; and, subsequently, he had become divisionjudge-advocate of the army, and justice of the marine court of NewYork City. From the constitutional convention of 1821, he stepped intothe Assembly of 1824, where, in the debates over the choice ofelectors by the people, his ready eloquence made him a valuable allyfor Tallmadge and a formidable opponent to Flagg. His ambition toshine as a statesman, and an extraordinary power of application, equipped him with varied information, and made him an authority onmany subjects. He joined Benjamin F. Butler in the revision of thestatutes of the State, and was associated with Daniel Webster insettling the limits of the bankruptcy legislation of the state andfederal governments. Just now he was still a young man, only in histhirty-ninth year; but those who had seen his keen, clever articles onneutral rights, polished and penetrating in style, and who heard hisskilful and fearless advocacy of the people's right to chooseelectors, were not surprised to learn of his appointment, in laterlife, as a lecturer at Harvard, or to read his great work on the_Elements of International Law_, published in 1836. As a reward forthe part he took in the election of 1824, President Adams sent him toDenmark, from whence he went to Prussia--these appointments keepinghim abroad for twenty years. 

John Van Ness Yates urged his uncle to recommend a change in the lawregulating the choice of electors; and if the Governor had possessedthe political wisdom necessary in such an emergency, he woulddoubtless have taken the suggestion. But Yates thought it wise tofollow the Regency; the Regency thought it wise to follow Van Buren;and Van Buren opposed a change, as prejudicial to Crawford'sinterests. The result was a bungling attempt on the part of theGovernor to evade the direct expression of an opinion. Finally, however, he said that as Congress was likely soon to present anamendment to the Constitution for legislative sanction, it wasinadvisable "under existing circumstances" to change the law "at thistime. "[226] This was neither skilful nor truthful. Congress had nothought of doing anything of the kind, and, if it had, men knew thatan amendment could not be secured in time to operate at the comingelection. Yates' message, therefore, was pronounced "a shabby dodge, "a trick familiar to many statesmen in difficulties. 

[Footnote 226: _Governors Speeches_, Aug. 2, 1824, p. 218. ]

When the Legislature convened, in January, 1824, a bill authorisingthe people to choose electors naturally excited a long and bitterdebate, in which Azariah C. Flagg represented the Regency. Flagg wasa printer by trade, the publisher of a Republican paper at Plattsburg, and a veteran of the War of 1812. He was not prepossessing inappearance; his diminutive stature, surmounted by a big, round headgave him the appearance of Atlas with the world upon his shoulders. His voice, too, was shrill and unattractive; but he suddenly evincedshrewdness and address in legislative tactics that greatly worried hisopponents and pleased his friends. A majority of the Assembly, however, afraid of their excited and indignant constituents, finallypassed the bill. When it reached the Senate, the supporters ofCrawford indefinitely postponed it by a vote of seventeen to fourteen. 

The defeat of this measure raised a storm of popular indignation. People were exasperated. Newspapers, opposed to the Van Buren leaders, published in black-letter type the names of senators who voted againstit, while the frequenters of public places denounced them as"traitors, villains, and rascals, " with the result that most of themwere consigned to retirement during the remainder of their lives. "Theimpression here is that Van Buren and his junto are politically dead, "wrote DeWitt Clinton to Henry Post on the 17th of February, 1824. "Theimpression will produce the event. "[227]

[Footnote 227: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 568. ]

In the midst of this excitement, came the selection of a candidate forgovernor, to be elected in the following November. Yates had done thebidding of the Regency and Flagg demanded his renomination, but themen who supported a change in the mode of choosing electors declaredthat Yates was the original opponent of the people's wishes, and that, if renominated, he could not be re-elected. "If the Governor is to besacrificed for his fidelity, " retorted Flagg, "I am ready to sufferwith him. " From a sentimental standpoint, this avowal was mostcreditable and generous, but it had no place in the councils ofpoliticians to whom sentiment never appeals when the shrouded figureof defeat stands at the open door. Just now, too, their fearsincreased as evidence accumulated that Samuel Young would certainly beoffered a nomination by the People's party, and would certainly acceptit, if he were not quickly nominated by the Regency Republicans. Whenthe legislators went into caucus on the 3d of April, 1824, therefore, the friends of Van Buren were ready to throw over Yates and to acceptYoung, with Erastus Root for lieutenant-governor. 

Three days afterward, the most influential and active friends of JohnQuincy Adams and Henry Clay decided that a state convention--consistingof as many delegates as there were members of the Assembly, to bechosen by voters opposed to William H. Crawford for President and infavour of restoring the choice of presidential electors to thepeople--should assemble at Utica, on September 21, 1824, to nominatecandidates for governor and lieutenant-governor. It had long been adream of Clinton to have nominations made by delegates elected by thepeople. That dream was now to be realised, and the door to a newpolitical era opened. 

Though Clinton had announced a determination to support AndrewJackson, he displayed no zeal in the state contest, and contentedhimself with writing gossipy letters to Post and in watching the rapidgrowth of the Erie canal. As early as 1819, the canal had been openedbetween Utica and Rome, and from the Hudson to Lake Champlain. Themiddle section, recently completed, was now actively in use betweenUtica and Montezuma. In little more than a year, the jubilee over theletting in of the waters of Lake Erie would deaden the strife ofparties with booming of cannon and expressions of joy. Throughout allthe delays and vexations of this wonderful enterprise, DeWitt Clintonhad been the great inspiring force, and, although for several yearsthe board of canal commissioners had been reorganised in the interestof the Bucktails, not a whisper was heard intimating any desire orintention to interfere with him. When it was known, however, thatJames Tallmadge had been agreed upon as the candidate of the People'sparty for governor, the Regency, in order to split his forces, determined upon Clinton's removal from all participation in themanagement of the canal. If Tallmadge voted for such a resolution, reasoned the Van Buren leaders, it would alienate the politicalfriends with whom he was just now acting; if he voted against it, hewould alienate Tammany. 

It was a bold game of politics, and a dangerous one. The people didnot love Clinton, but they believed in his policy, and a blow at him, in their opinion, was a blow at the canal. Nothing in the whole of VanBuren's history exhibits a more foolish disregard of public sentiment, or led to a greater disaster. But the Regency, blinded by itsoverwhelming victory at the last election, was prepared to pay agambler's price for power, and, in the twinkling of an eye, before theAssembly knew what had happened, the Senate removed Clinton from theoffice of canal commissioner, only three votes being recorded for him. Thurlow Weed happened to be a witness of the proceeding, and, rushingto the Assembly chamber, urged Tallmadge to resist its passage throughthe house. "I knew how bitterly General Tallmadge hated Mr. Clinton, "he says, "but in a few hurried and emphatic sentences implored him notto be caught in the trap thus baited for him. I urged him to statefrankly, in a brief speech, how entirely he was estranged personallyand politically from Mr. Clinton, but to denounce his removal duringthe successful progress of a system of improvement which he hadinaugurated, and which would confer prosperity and wealth upon thepeople and enrich and elevate our State, as an act of vandalism towhich he could not consent to be a party. I concluded by assuring himsolemnly that if he voted for that resolution he could not receive thenomination for governor. "[228]

[Footnote 228: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 109. ]

But Tallmadge remained dumb. Gamaliel H. Barstow, formerly aClintonian, walked out of the chamber. Other old friends showedindifference. Only Henry Cunningham of Montgomery, entering thechamber while the clerk was reading the resolution, eloquentlydenounced it. "When the miserable party strifes shall have passed by, "he said, in conclusion; "when the political jugglers who now beleaguerthis capital shall be overwhelmed and forgotten; when the gentlebreeze shall pass over the tomb of that great man, carrying with itthe just tribute of honour and praise which is now withheld, the penof the future historian will do him justice, and erect to his memory amonument of fame as imperishable as the splendid works that owe theirorigin to his genius and perseverance. "[229] One or two others spokebriefly in Clinton's behalf, and then the resolution passed--ayessixty-four, noes thirty-four. Among the ayes were Tallmadge andWheaton. 

[Footnote 229: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 110. ]

Had Clinton been assassinated, the news could not have produced agreater shock. Scarcely had the Assembly adjourned, before thecitizens of Albany--rushing into the vacant chamber and electing theold and venerable John Taylor, the former lieutenant-governor, forchairman--expressed their indignation in denunciatory speeches andresolutions. In New York City, a committee of twenty-five, headed byThomas Addis Emmet, called in person upon Clinton to make known thefeeling of the meeting. Everywhere throughout the State, the removalawakened a cyclone of resentment, the members who voted for it beingthe storm-centres. At Canandaigua, personal indignities werethreatened. [230] "Several members, " says Weed, "were hissed as theycame out of the capitol. Tallmadge received unmistakable evidence, onhis way through State Street to his lodgings, of the great error hehad committed. His hotel was filled with citizens, whose rebukes wereloudly heard as he passed through the hall to his apartment, and as henervously paced backward and forward in his parlour, 'the victim ofremorse that comes too late, ' he perceived both the depth and thedarkness of the political pit into which he had fallen. "[231]

[Footnote 230: _Ibid. _, p. 114. ]

[Footnote 231: _Ibid. _, p. 113. ]

Immediately, the tide began setting strongly in favour of Clinton forgovernor. Clintonian papers urged it, and personal friends wrote androde over the State in his interest. Clinton himself became sanguineof success. "Tallmadge can scarcely get a vote in his own county, " hewrote Post on the 21st of April. "He is the prince of rascals--ifWheaton does not exceed him. "[232]

[Footnote 232: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 569. Clinton seems to have taken a particulardislike to Henry Wheaton. Elsewhere, he writes to Post: "There is butone opinion about Wheaton, and that is that he is a pitifulscoundrel. "--_Ibid. _, p. 417. ]

Meanwhile, a sensation long foreseen by those in the Governor's innercircle, was about to be sprung. Yates was not a man to be rudelythrust out of office. He knew he had blundered in opposing anelectoral law, and he now proposed giving the Legislature anotheropportunity to enact one. The Regency did not believe there would bean extra session, because, as Attorney-General Talcott suggested, thepower to convene the Legislature was a high prerogative, the exerciseof which required more decision and nerve than Yates possessed; but, on the 2nd of June, to the surprise and consternation of the Van Burenleaders, Yates issued a proclamation reconvening the Legislature onAugust 2. It was predicated upon the failure of Congress to amend theConstitution, upon the recent defeat of the electoral bill in theSenate, and upon the just alarm of the people, that "their undoubtedright" of choosing presidential electors would be withheld from them. Very likely, it afforded the Governor much satisfaction to make thisopen and damaging attack upon the Regency. He had surrenderedindependence if not self-respect, and, in return for his fidelity, hadbeen ruthlessly cast aside for his less faithful rival. Yet hispurpose was more than revenge. Between the Clintonian prejudiceagainst Tallmadge, and the People's party's hatred of Clinton, theGovernor hoped he might become a compromise candidate at the Uticaconvention. The future, however, had no place for him. He wasridiculed the more by his enemies and dropped into the pit of oblivionby his former friends. Nothing in his public life, perhaps, became himso well as his dignified retirement at Schenectady, amid the scenes ofhis youth, where he died at the age of sixty-nine, leaving a place inhistory not strongly marked. 

Yates' extra session lasted four days and did nothing except to snubthe Governor and give the eloquent Tallmadge, amidst tumultuousapplause from the galleries, an opportunity of annoying the Regency bykeeping up the popular excitement over a change in the choice ofelectors until the assembling of the Utica convention. As the dayspassed, the sentiment for Clinton became stronger and more apparent. Thurlow Weed, travelling over the State in the interest of Tallmadge, found Clinton's nomination almost universally demanded, with Tallmadgea favourite for second place. This, the eloquent gentlemanperemptorily refused, until an appeal for harmony, and the suggestionthat Adams' election might open to him a broader field for usefulnessthan that of being governor, produced the desired change. ProbablyTallmadge felt within himself that he was not destined to a greatpolitical career. In any case, he finally accepted the offer withperfect good humour, giving Weed a brief letter consenting to the useof his name as lieutenant-governor. With this the young journalistarrived at Utica on the morning of convention day. 

There were one hundred and twenty-two delegates in the convention, ofwhom one-fourth belonged to the People's party. These supportedTallmadge for governor. When they discovered that Tallmadge's vote toremove Clinton had put him out of the race, they suggested John W. Taylor; but a delegate from Saratoga produced a letter in which thedistinguished opponent of the Missouri Compromise declined to become acandidate. This left the way open to DeWitt Clinton, and, as hecarried off the nomination by a large majority, with Tallmadge forlieutenant-governor by acclamation, many representatives of thePeople's party walked out of the hall and reorganised anotherconvention, resolving to support Tallmadge, but protesting against thenomination of Clinton--"a diversion, " says Weed, "which was soonforgotten amid the general and pervading enthusiasm. "[233]

[Footnote 233: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 120. ]

The election of governor in 1824 passed into history as one of themost stirring ever witnessed in the State. In a fight, Samuel Youngand DeWitt Clinton were at home. They neither asked nor gave quarter. There is no record that their fluency or invective did more than addto the excitement of the campaign; but each was well supplied withready venom. Young was rhetorical and dramatic--Clinton energetic andforceful. People, listening to Young, rocked with laughter andrevelled in applause as he pilloried his opponents, the ferocity ofhis attacks being surpassed only by the eloquence of his periods. WithClinton, speaking was serious business. He lacked the oratorical giftand the art of concealing the labour of his overwrought and tooelaborate sentences; but his addresses afforded ample evidence of thecapacity and richness of his mind. In spite of great faults, bothcandidates commanded the loyalty of followers who swelled with pridebecause of their courage and splendid ability. The confidence of theRegency and the usual success of Tammany at first made the friends ofClinton unhappy; but as the campaign advanced, Young discovered thatthe Regency, in insisting on the choice of electors by theLegislature, had given the opposition the most telling cry it couldpossibly have found against him; that the popular tumult overClinton's removal was growing from day to day; and that his opponentswere banded together against him on many grounds and with manydifferent purposes. Two weeks before the election, it was evident toevery one that the Regency was doomed, that Van Buren wasdisconcerted, and that Young was beaten; but no one expected thatClinton's majority would reach sixteen thousand, [234] or thatTallmadge would run thirty-two thousand ahead of Erastus Root. Theannouncement came like a thunderbolt, bringing with it theintelligence that out of eight senators only two Regency men had beenspared, while, in the Assembly, the opposition had three to one. Inother words, the election of 1822 had been completely reversed. Clinton was again in the saddle. 

[Footnote 234: DeWitt Clinton, 103, 452; Samuel Young, 87, 093. --_CivilList, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

Samuel Young's political fortunes never recovered from this encounterwith the illustrious champion of the canals. He was much in officeafterward. For eight years he served in the State Senate, and once aslieutenant-governor; for a quarter of a century he lived on, amarvellous orator, whom the people never tired of hearing, and whomopponents never ceased to fear; but the glow that lingers about apublic man who had never been overwhelmed by the suffrage of hisfellow-citizens was gone forever. 

CHAPTER XXX

VAN BUREN ENCOUNTERS WEED

1824

Political interest, in 1824, centred in the election of a President aswell as a Governor. Three candidates, --William H. Crawford of Georgia, John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, and Henry Clay of Kentucky, --dividedthe parties in New York. No one thought of DeWitt Clinton. Verylikely, after his overwhelming election, Clinton, in his joy, felt hisambition again aroused. He had been inoculated with presidentialrabies in 1812, and his letters to Henry Post showed signs ofcontinued madness. "I think Crawford is _hors de combat_, " he wrote inMarch, 1824. "Calhoun never had force, and Clay is equally out of thequestion. As for Adams, he can only succeed by the imbecility of hisopponents, not by his own strength. In this crisis may not some otherperson bear away the palm?"[235] Then follows the historicillustration, indicating that the canal champion thought he mightbecome a compromise candidate: "Do you recollect the story ofThemistocles the Athenian? After the naval victory of Salamis acouncil of generals was held to determine on the most worthy. Each manwas to write down two names, the first and the next best. Each generalwrote his own name for the first, and that of Themistocles for thesecond. May not this contest have a similar result? I am persuadedthat with common prudence we will stand better than ever. "[236]

[Footnote 235: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 568. ]

[Footnote 236: _Ibid. _, Vol. 50, p. 586. ]

But the field was preoccupied and the competitors too numerous. So, getting no encouragement, Clinton turned to the hero of New Orleans. "In Jackson, " he wrote Post, "we must look for a sincere and honestfriend. Whatever demonstrations are made from other quarters aredictated by policy and public sentiment. "[237] He grows impatient withClay, indignant at the apparent success of Adams, and vituperativeover the tactics of Calhoun. "Clay ought to resign forthwith, " hewrites on the 17th of April, 1824; "his chance is worse than nothing. Jackson would then prevail with all the Western States, if we can getNew Jersey. "[238] Four days later he was sure of New Jersey. "We canget her, " he assures Post, on April 21. "I see no terrors in Adams'papers; his influence has gone with his morals. "[239]

[Footnote 237: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper'sMagazine_, Vol. 50, p. 568. ]

[Footnote 238: _Ibid. _, p. 568. ]

[Footnote 239: _Ibid. _, p. 569. ]

But by midsummer Clinton had become alarmed at the action of thecandidate from South Carolina. "Calhoun is acting a treacherous partto Jackson, " he says, under date of July 23, "and is doing all he canfor Adams. Perhaps there is not a man in the United States morehollow-headed and base. I have long observed his manoeuvres. "[240] Aweek later Clinton speaks of Calhoun as "a thorough-paced politicalblackleg. "[241] In August he gives Adams another slap. "The greatdanger is that there will be a quarrel between the friends of Jacksonand Adams, and that in the war between the lion and the unicorn thecur may slip in and carry off the prize. "[242]

[Footnote 240: _Ibid. _, p. 569. ]

[Footnote 241: _Ibid. _, p. 569. ]

[Footnote 242: _Ibid. _, p. 569. 

"Clinton's presidential aspirations made him a very censorious judgeof all who did not sympathise with them. The four competingcandidates, Crawford, Clay, Calhoun, and Adams, could hardly beparalleled, Clinton being judge, by an equal number of the twelveCæsars of Suetonius. Crawford is 'as hardened a ruffian as Burr';Calhoun is 'treacherous', and 'a thorough-paced political blackleg. 'Adams 'in politics was an apostate, and in private life a pedagogue, and everything but amiable and honest', while his father, theex-President, was 'a scamp. ' Governor Yates is 'perfidious and weak. 'Henry Wheaton's 'conduct is shamefully disgraceful, and he might belashed naked round the world. ' Chief Justice Ambrose Spencer isclassed as a minus quantity, and his son John C. , 'the politicalmillstone of the West. ' Peter B. Porter 'wears a mask. ' Woodworth 'isa weak man, with sinister purposes. ' Root is 'a bad man. ' Samuel Young'is unpopular and suspicions are entertained of his integrity. ' VanBuren 'is the prince of villains. ' The first impression produced isone of astonishment that a man capable of such great things could everhave taken such a lively interest, as he seemed to, in the merescullionery of politics. "--John Bigelow, in _Harper's Magazine_, March, 1875. ]

Though Clinton and Jackson had long been admirers, there is noevidence that, at this time, so much as a letter had passed betweenthem. One can easily understand, however, that a man of the iron willand great achievement of the Tennesseean would profoundly interestDeWitt Clinton. On the other hand, the proud, aspiring, unpliant manwhose canal policy brought national renown, had won the admiration ofAndrew Jackson. In 1818, at a Nashville banquet, he had toastedClinton, declaring him "the promoter of his country's best interests;"and one year later, at a dinner given in his honour by the mayor ofNew York, Jackson confounded most of the Bucktail banqueters andsurprised them all by proposing "DeWitt Clinton, the enlightenedstatesman and governor of the great and patriotic State of New York. "The two men had many characteristics in common. Neither would stoop toconquer. But the dramatic thing about Clinton's interest just now, washis proclamation for Jackson, when everybody else in New York was forsome other candidate. The bitterness of that hour was very earnest. Whatever chance existed for Jackson outside of the State, there wasnot the slightest hope for him within it. Nevertheless, Clinton seemedindifferent. He was a statesman without being a politician. Hebelieved in Jackson's star, and it was this prescience, as the sequelshowed, that was to give him, in spite of opponents, a sixth term asgovernor. 

Clinton's résumé of the political situation, written to Post, alsoshowed his unfailing knowledge of the conditions about to be enactedat Albany. The Legislature which assembled in extra session, inNovember, 1824, for the appointment of presidential electors, was thesame Assembly that had favoured the choice of electors by the people, and the same Senate which had indefinitely postponed that measure by avote of seventeen to fourteen. The former struggle, therefore, wasimmediately renewed in the legislative halls, with Martin Van Burenconfident of seventeen Crawford votes in the Senate, and enough morein the Assembly, with the help of the Clay men, to give the Georgian amajority on joint ballot. 

The Adams men had less confidence, but no less shrewdness and skill. Anew Richmond had arrived on the field. Since his visitation throughthe State two years before, in behalf of Solomon Southwick's candidacyfor governor, Thurlow Weed had been growing rapidly in politicalexperience. He left Manlius without a penny in the autumn of 1822 tofind work on the Rochester _Telegraph_, a Clintonian paper of smallpretensions and smaller circulation. Under its new manager, and withthe name of John Quincy Adams for President at the head of theeditorial page, it soon became so popular and belligerent that thebusiness men of Rochester sent Weed to Albany as their agent to securefrom the Legislature a charter for a bank. Upon his arrival at thecapital, the friends of the New England candidate welcomed him to thegreat political arena in which he was to fight so long, sobrilliantly, and with such success. 

It was at this period in his history, that Thurlow Weed's connectionwith public life began, developing into that wonderful career whichmade him one of the most influential writers and strongestpersonalities of his day. He was not an orator; he was not even apublic talker. One attempt to speak met with failure so embarrassingthat he never tried a second time; but he was a companionable being. He loved the company of men. He had suffered so much, and yet retainedso much of the serenity of a child, that he was ever ready to sharehis purse and his mantle of pity with the unfortunate, brighteningtheir lives with a tender sympathy that endeared him to all. It was sonatural for him to guide wisely and noiselessly that he seemedunconscious of his great gifts. Men in high places, often opulent andhappy in their ease, deferred to him with the confidence of pupils toa beloved teacher. But he possessed more than philosophic wisdom. Hewas sleepless and tireless. It was his custom to attend politicalgatherings in all parts of the State, and to make the acquaintance ofmen in that "inner circle, " who controlled the affairs of party andthe destiny of aspiring statesmen. In 1822 he had toured the State inthe interest of Solomon Southwick. From April to December, in 1824, heattended two extra sessions of the Legislature and a meeting of theElectoral College, besides travelling twice throughout the State inbehalf of the candidacy of John Quincy Adams. Traversing New York, over rough roads, before the days of canals and railroads, in theheavy, lumbering stage coach that took five or six days and nights, and, in muddy seasons, six days and seven nights of continuous travel, to go from Albany to Buffalo, made a strenuous life, but Weed'sdevotion to party, and fidelity to men and principles, sent him on hisway with something of the freshness of boyhood still shining on hisface. He had his faults, but they were not of a kind to prevent menfrom finding him lovable. 

When Weed came to Albany, in November, 1824, as the advocate of JohnQuincy Adams, the only hope of success was the union of the friends ofClay and Adams, since only two electoral tickets, under theConstitution, could be voted for. In the Senate, Crawford hadseventeen votes, and Adams and Clay seven each; in the Assembly, thefirst ballot gave Crawford forty-three, Adams fifty, and Claythirty-two. Until some combination was made, therefore, a majoritycould not be obtained for any candidate. To make such an unionrequired fine diplomacy between the Adams and Clay men; for itappeared that Clay must have at least seven electoral votes from NewYork in order to become one of the three candidates to be voted for inthe House of Representatives, should the election of President bethrown into Congress. Fortunately for the Adams men, the Crawfordpeople also had their troubles, and to hold two senators in line theyplaced the names of six moderate Clay men on their ticket. Thereupon, at a secret meeting, the Adams and Clay leaders agreed to supportthirty Adams men and the six Clay men upon the Crawford ticket, thefriends of Adams promising, if Clay carried Louisiana, to furnish himthe needed seven votes. Naturally enough, the success of thisprogramme depended upon the utmost secrecy, since their ticket, withthe help of all the Clay votes that could be mustered, would notexceed two majority. The better to secure such secrecy Weed personallyprinted the ballots on the Sunday before the final vote on Tuesday. 

There was another well-kept secret. Thurlow Weed had had hissuspicions turned into absolute evidence that Henry Eckford of NewYork City, a wealthy supporter of Crawford, had furnished money toinfluence three Adams men to vote for the Georgian. He had followedtheir go-between from Syracuse to Albany, from Albany to New York, andfrom New York back to Albany; he had heard their renunciation of Adamsand their changed sentiments toward Crawford; and he knew also thatthe Adams ticket was lost if these three votes, or even two of them, were cast for the Crawford ticket. Weed straightway proposed that thedishonourable purposes of these men should be anticipated by animmediate declaration of war; and, upon their appearance in Albany, Henry Wheaton faced them with the story of their dishonour, threatening an exposure unless they voted a ballot bearing theinitials of himself and Tallmadge. Conscious of their guilty purposes, the timid souls consented to Wheaton's proposition and then kept theirpledges. 

In the meantime, Van Buren's confidence in the weakness of theAdams-Clay men was never for a moment shaken. Of the thirty-nine Claysupporters in the Legislature, Crawford only needed sixteen; andthese, Samuel Young and his Clay friends, had promised to deliver. There is no evidence that Van Buren had any knowledge of Weed'smanagement at this time; it so happened, by design or by accident, that in their long careers they never met but once, and then, notuntil after Van Buren had retired from the White House. But theSenator knew that some hand had struck him, and struck him hard, whenLieutenant-Governor Root drew from the box the first union ballot. Instead of reading it, Root involuntarily exclaimed, "A printed splitticket. " Thereupon Senator Keyes of Jefferson County, sprang to hisfeet, and, in a loud voice, shouted, "Treason, by God!" In theconfusion, Root was about to vacate the speaker's chair and returnwith the senators to their chamber, when James Tallmadge, in astentorian voice, called for order. "I demand, under the authority ofthe Constitution of the United States, " he said, "under theConstitution of the State of New York, in the name of the wholeAmerican people, that this joint meeting of the two houses of theLegislature shall not be interrupted in the discharge of a high dutyand a sacred trust. "[243] This settled it. The count went on, but, sonearly were the parties divided that only thirty-two electors, andthese on the union ticket, received votes enough to elect them. On thesecond ballot, four Crawford electors were chosen. "Had our secrettranspired before the first ballot, " says Weed, "such was the power ofthe Regency over two or three timid men, that the whole Crawfordticket would have been elected. "[244]

[Footnote 243: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 127. ]

[Footnote 244: _Ibid. _, p. 127. ]

Writing without full information of the agreement made in the secretcaucus, Hammond[245] intimates that the Adams men did not keep faithwith the Clay men, since the four votes taken from Clay and given toCrawford on the second ballot made Crawford, instead of Clay, acandidate in the national House of Representatives. Other writers havefollowed this opinion, charging the Adams managers with having playedfoul with the Kentucky statesman. But Weed and his associates didnothing of the kind. The agreement was that Clay should have sevenelectoral votes from New York, provided he carried Louisiana, but asJackson carried that State, it left the Adams men free to give alltheir votes to the New Englander. What would have happened had Claycarried Louisiana is not so clear, for Weed admits that up to the timenews came that Louisiana had gone for Jackson, he was unable to find asingle Adams elector who would consent to vote for Clay, even to savehis friends and his party from dishonour. 

[Footnote 245: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, p. 177. ]

The failure of the people to elect a President in 1824, and the choiceof John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives, are among themost widely known events in our political history. New York remained, throughout, the storm-centre of excitement. After a large majority ofits presidential electors had declared for Adams, thus throwing theelection into Congress, the result still depended upon the vote of itsclosely divided delegation in the House. Of the thirty-fourcongressmen, seventeen favoured Adams, sixteen opposed him, andStephen Van Rensselaer was doubtful. The latter's action, therefore, became of the utmost importance, since, if he voted against Adams, itwould tie the New York delegation and exclude it from the count, thusgiving Adams twelve States instead of the necessary thirteen, andmaking his election on a second ballot even more doubtful. Thiscondition revived the hopes of Van Buren and gave Clinton a chance towork for Jackson. 

Stephen Van Rensselaer, [246] born in 1764, had had a conspicuous andin some respects a distinguished career. He was the fifth in linealdescent from Killian van Rensselaer, the wealthy pearl merchant ofAmsterdam, known as the first Patroon, whose great manor, purchased inthe early part of the seventeenth century, originally included thepresent counties of Albany, Rensselaer, and Columbia. Stepheninherited the larger part of this territory, and, with it, the oldmanor house at Albany. His mother was a daughter of Philip Livingston, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and his wife a daughterof Philip Schuyler. This made him the brother-in-law of AlexanderHamilton. 

[Footnote 246: Thurlow Weed, in his _Autobiography_, says (p. 461):"Of his estimable private character, and of the bounties and blessingshe scattered in all directions, or of the pervading atmosphere ofhappiness and gratitude that his lifelong goodness created, I need notspeak, for they are widely known and well remembered. "]

Stephen began filling offices as soon as he was old enough. Forseveral years he served in the Assembly and in the Senate. In 1795, hebecame lieutenant-governor for two terms. George Clinton defeated himfor governor in 1801; but before Jay's term expired, he made himcommander of the State's cavalry. In 1812, at the outbreak ofhostilities with England, Governor Tompkins promoted him to be chiefof the state militia--an office which he resigned in disgust after thedisgraceful defeat at Queenstown Heights on the Niagara frontier, because his troops refused to follow him. In 1810, he became a memberof the first canal commission, of which he was president for fifteenyears. Later, he served as a regent and chancellor of the StateUniversity, and, in 1824, established the Troy PolytechnicalInstitute. It was at this time he went to Congress, and while servinghis first term, held the casting vote that would elect a President ofthe United States. 

Rensselaer had been a Federalist of the Hamilton school, and, althoughthe Federal party had practically ceased to exist, he owed hiselection to its former members. This was sufficient reason to believethat he would not support Van Buren's candidate, and that hispredilections would incline him to take a President from the North, provided Adams was _persona grata_ to the old Federalists. The latterhad never quite forgiven Adams for deserting them; and, having beenlong excluded from power, they were anxious to know whether, ifelected, he would continue to proscribe them. Finally, when DanielWebster removed their doubts on this subject, Van Rensselaer stillhesitated on account of Clinton. He had a strong liking for theGovernor. They had served as canal commissioners, and theirassociation in the great work, then nearing completion, filled himwith admiration for the indomitable spirit exhibited by thedistinguished canal builder. His probable action, therefore, kept menbusy guessing. The suspense resembled that of the Tilden Hayescontroversy of 1877, for the result meant much to the several factionsin the State. Crawford's election would continue Van Buren and theRegency in power; the choice of Jackson must make Clinton the supremedispenser of federal patronage; and Adams' success meant a betteropportunity for Thurlow Weed to form a new party. 

Van Rensselaer did not talk. Experience had accustomed him to outsidepressure, and he now kept his head cool when Clinton and otherinfluential New Yorkers overwhelmed him with prayers and petitions. Atlast, on the morning of February 9, 1825, he walked leisurely into thehall of the House and took his seat with the New York delegation. Every member of the House was in his place, except one who was sick inhis lodgings. The galleries were packed with spectators, and the areasthronged with judges, ambassadors, governors, and other privilegedpersons. After the formal announcement, that no one had received amajority of electoral votes for the Presidency, and that the House ofRepresentatives must elect a President from the three highestcandidates, the roll was called by States, and the vote of each Statedeposited in a box by itself. Then the tellers, Daniel Webster andJohn Randolph, opened the boxes and counted the ballots. 

The report of the tellers surprised almost every one. A long contesthad been expected. Friends of Crawford hoped the House would wearyitself with many ballots and end the affair by electing him. But theannouncement gave Crawford only four States, Jackson seven, and Adamsthirteen--a majority over all. Then it was known that Van Rensselaer'svote had given New York to Adams, and that New York's vote had madeAdams the President. For the moment, Van Buren was checkmated, and heknew it. 

CHAPTER XXXI

CLINTON'S COALITION WITH VAN BUREN

1825-1828

The election of John Quincy Adams as President of the United Statesstaggered the Regency and seriously threatened the influence of MartinVan Buren. It was likely to close the portals of the White House tohim, and to open the doors of custom-houses and post-offices to hisopponents. More injurious than this, it established new partyalignments and gave great prestige at least to one man beforeunrecognised as a political factor. The successful combination of theAdams and Clay electors was the talk of the State; and, althoughThurlow Weed's dominant part in the game did not appear on thesurface, Van Buren and every intelligent political worker understoodthat some strong hand had been at work. 

The absence of available candidates, around whom he could rally hisshattered forces, cast the deepest shadow across Van Buren's pathway. He had staked much upon Samuel Young's candidacy for governor, andeverything upon William H. Crawford's candidacy for President. ButYoung fell under Clinton's overwhelming majority, and Crawfordexhibited a weakness that surprised even his inveterate opponents. Inthe House of Representatives Crawford had carried but four out of thetwenty-four States. This seemed to leave Van Buren without a man toturn to; while Clinton's early declaration for Andrew Jackson gave himthe key to the situation. Although Jackson, for whom eleven States hadgiven an electoral plurality, received the vote of but seven States inthe House, the contest had narrowed to a choice between Adams andhimself, making the popular General the coming man. Besides, Clintonwas very active on his own account. On the 26th of October, 1825, thewaters of Lake Erie were let into the Erie canal, and navigationopened from the lake to the Hudson. It was a great day for theGovernor. A popular jubilation extended from Buffalo to New York, and, amidst the roar of artillery and the eloquence of many orators, thepraises of the distinguished canal builder sounded throughout theState and nation. To a man of intellect far lower than that of MartinVan Buren, it must have been obvious that forces were at work in theminds and hearts of people which could not be controlled by Regencyedicts or party traditions. 

But the Kinderhook statesman did not despair. In the election to occurin November he desired simply to strengthen himself in theLegislature; and, with consummate skill, he sought to carry Republicandistricts. National issues were to be avoided. So ably did EdwinCroswell, the wise and sagacious editor of the Albany _Argus_, leadthe way, that not a word was written or spoken against the nationaladministration. This cunning play renewed the old charge of"non-committalism, "[247] which for many years was used tocharacterise Van Buren's policy and action; but it in no wisedisconcerted his plans, or discovered his intentions. All he wantednow was the Legislature, and while the whole State was given up togeneral rejoicing over the completion of the canal, the Regencyleaders, under the direction of the astute Senator, practised thetactics which Van Buren had learned from Aaron Burr, and which havecome to be known in later days as a "political still-hunt. " When thecontest ended, the Regency Republicans had both branches of theLegislature by a safe working majority. This result, so overwhelming, so sudden, and so entirely unexpected, made Clinton's friends believethat his end had come. 

[Footnote 247: "'I heard a great deal about Mr. Van Buren, ' saidAndrew Jackson, who occupied a seat in the United States Senate withhim, 'especially about his non-committalism. I made up my mind that Iwould take an early opportunity to hear him and judge for myself. Oneday an important subject was under debate. I noticed that Mr. VanBuren was taking notes while one of the senators was speaking. Ijudged from this that he intended to reply, and I determined to be inmy seat when he spoke. His turn came; and he arose and made a clear, straightforward argument, which, to my mind, disposed of the wholesubject. I turned to my colleague, Major Seaton, who sat next to me. 'Major, ' I said, 'is there anything non-committal about that?' 'No, sir, ' said the Major. "--Edward M. Shepard, _Life of Martin Van Buren_, p. 151. 

"In Van Buren's senatorial speeches there is nothing to justify thecharge of 'non-committalism' so much made against him. When he spokeat all he spoke explicitly; and he plainly, though without acerbity, exhibited his likes and dislikes. Van Buren scrupulously observed theamenities of debate. He was uniformly courteous towards adversaries;and the calm self-control saved him, as some great orators were notsaved, from a descent to the aspersion of motive so common and futilein political debate. "--_Ibid. _, p. 152. ]

Van Buren, however, had broader views. He knew that Andrew Jackson, asa candidate for the Presidency, had little standing in 1824 untilPennsylvania took him up, and he now believed that if New Yorksupported him, with the Keystone State, in 1828, the hero of NewOrleans must succeed Adams. To elect him President, therefore, becamethe purpose of Van Buren's political life; and, as the first step inthat direction, he determined to make DeWitt Clinton his friend. TheGovernor was Jackson's champion. He had declared for him in the earlydays of the Tennesseean's candidacy, and to reach him through such anoutspoken ally would give Van Buren an open way to the hero's heart. 

Accordingly, Van Buren insisted upon a conciliatory course. He sentBenjamin Knower, the state treasurer and now a member of the Regency, to inform Clinton that, if the Van Buren leaders could control theirparty, he should have no opposition at next year's gubernatorialelection. Clinton and Bucktail, like oil and water, had refused tocombine until this third ingredient, that Van Buren knew so well howto add, completed the mixture. Whether the coalition would havebrought Clinton the reward of success or the penalty of failure mustforever remain a secret, for the Governor did not live long enough tosolve the question. But in the game of politics he had never been amatch for Van Buren. He was a statesman without being a politician. 

Just now, however, Clinton and Van Buren, like lovers who hadquarrelled and made up, could not be too responsive to each other'swishes. To confirm the latter's good intentions, the Regency senatorspromptly approved Clinton's nomination of Samuel Jones for chancellorin place of Nathan Sanford, who was now chosen United States senatorto succeed Rufus King. It was bitter experience. The appointmentrudely ignored the rule, uniformly and wisely adhered to since theformation of a state government, to promote the chief justice. 

Besides, Jones had been a pronounced Federalist for a quarter of acentury. Moreover, he was a relative of the Governor's wife, and tosome men, even in that day, nepotism was an offence. But he was aneminent lawyer, the son of the distinguished first comptroller, and tomake their consideration of the Governor's wishes more evident, thesenators confirmed the nomination without sending it to a committee. 

A more remarkable illustration of Van Buren's conciliatory policyoccurred in the confirmation of James McKnown as recorder of Albany. McKnown was a bitter Clintonian. It was he who, at the Albany meeting, so eloquently protested against the removal of Clinton as a canalcommissioner, denouncing it as "the offspring of that malignant andinsatiable spirit of political proscription which has already sodeeply stained the annals of the State, " and the perpetrators as"utterly unworthy of public confidence. "[248] But the Senate confirmedhim without a dissenting vote. Later, when a vacancy occurred in thejudgeship of the eighth circuit by the resignation of William B. Rochester, it seemed for a time as if the coalition must break. TheRegency wanted Herman J. Redfield, one of the seventeen senators whoseopposition to the electoral bill had caused his defeat; but the eighthdistrict was Clinton's stronghold, and if he nominated Redfield, theGovernor argued, it would deprive him of strength and prestige, andseriously weaken the cause of Jackson. The Regency, accustomed toremain faithful to the men who incurred popular odium for beingfaithful to them, found it difficult, either to reconcile theconditions with their wishes, or to compromise upon any one else. Nevertheless, on the last day of the session, through the active andjudicious agency of Benjamin Knower, John Birdsall of ChautauquaCounty, a friend of Clinton, was nominated and confirmed. 

[Footnote 248: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 2, p. 164. ]

In the meantime, Van Buren had returned to his seat in Congress. Heentered the United States Senate in 1821, and, although observing thedecorum expected of a new member of that body, he displayed powers ofmind that distinguished him as a senator of more than ordinaryability. He now became a parliamentary orator, putting himself at thehead of an anti-Administration faction, and developing the tact andmanagement of a great parliamentary leader. He had made up his mindthat nothing less than a large and comprehensive difference betweenthe two wings of the Republican party would be of any real use; so hearraigned the Administration, with great violence, as un-Republicanand Federalistic. He took a definite stand against internalimprovements by the United States government; he led the opposition tothe appointment of American representatives to the Congress of Panama, treating the proposed mission as unconstitutional and dangerous; andhe charged the Administration with returning to the practices of theFederalist party, to which Adams originally belonged, declaring thatthe presidential choice of 1825 was not only the restoration of themen of 1798, but of the principles of that day; that the spirit ofencroachment had become more wary, but not more honest; and that thesystem then was coercion, now it was seduction. He classed the famousalien and sedition laws, of the elder Adams, with the bold avowal ofthe younger Adams that it belonged to the President alone to decideupon the propriety of a foreign mission. Thus, he associated theadministration of John Quincy Adams with the administration of hisfather, insisting that if the earlier one deserved the retribution ofa Republican victory, the latter one deserved a similar fate. 

Van Buren's language had the courteous dignity that uniformlycharacterised his speeches. He charged no personal wrong-doing; heinsinuated no base motives; he rejected the unfounded story of thesale of the Presidency to Adams; he voted for Clay's confirmation assecretary of state, and, as a member of the senatorial committee, hewelcomed the new President upon his inauguration; but from the momentJohn Quincy Adams became President, the Senator from New York led theopposition to his administration with the astuteness of a greatparliamentary leader, determined to create a new party in Americanpolitics. Van Buren also had some strong allies. With him, votedFindlay of Pennsylvania, Holmes of Maine, Woodbury of New Hampshire, Dickerson of New Jersey, and Kane of Illinois, besides twelve Southernsenators. But, from the outset, he was the leader. His speeches, smooth and seldom impassioned, were addressed to the intellect ratherthan to the feelings. He was the master of the art of making aperfectly clear statement of the most complicated case, and ofdefending his measures, point by point, with never-failing readinessand skill throughout the most perplexing series of debates. He talkedto make converts, appealing to his colleagues with a directness wellcalculated to bring to his side a majority of the waverers. 

Van Buren's opposition to the Adams administration has been calledfactious and unpatriotic. It was certainly active and continuous, and, perhaps, now and then, somewhat more unscrupulous than senatorialopposition is in our own time; but his policy was, unquestionably, thepolicy of more modern political parties. His tactics created anorganisation which, inside and outside of the Senate, was to workunceasingly, with tongue and pen, to discredit everything done by themen in office and to turn public opinion against them. It was a partof his plan not only to watch with jealous care all the acts of theAdministration, but to make the most of every opportunity that couldbe used to turn them out of office; and when the Senate debate ended, the modern Democratic party had been formed. Adams recorded in his nowfamous diary that Van Buren made "a great effort to combine thediscordant elements of the Crawford and Jackson and Calhoun men into aunited opposition against the Administration. " He might have added, also, that the debate distinctly marked Van Buren's position inhistory as a party-maker in the second great division of parties inAmerica. 

Van Buren's coalition with DeWitt Clinton, however, came perilouslynear prostrating them both. At their state convention, held at Utica, in September, 1826, the Clintonians and the People's party renominatedClinton for governor. In the following month, the Bucktails met atHerkimer, and, if Van Buren could have had his way, the conventionwould have indorsed Clinton. Finding such action inadvisable, however, Van Buren secured the nomination of William B. Rochester, on thetheory that he was a good enough candidate to be beaten. Rochester wasnot a man of marked ability. He had done nothing to make himself knownthroughout the State; he did not even favour a state road through thesouthern tier of counties. He was simply a lawyer of fair attainmentswho had served a term in the Legislature, one in Congress, and twoyears as a circuit judge, a position from which he resigned, in 1825, to become minister to Panama. 

But Rochester proved vastly more formidable as a candidate forgovernor than the Van Buren leaders anticipated. It became well knownthat he was a supporter of the Adams administration, and that HenryClay regarded him with favour. Indeed, it was through the latter'spersonal and political friendship that he secured the mission toPanama. Thus, the feeling began to obtain that Rochester, althoughthe nominee of the Regency party, more nearly represented theinterests and principles of the Adams administration than DeWittClinton, an avowed Jackson man, who had formed a coalition with VanBuren. For this reason, Peter B. Porter, an ardent admirer of Clay, and now a member of the People's party, entered with spirit into thecampaign, appealing to the Clintonians, a large majority of whomfavoured Adams, to resent Clinton's deal with Jackson's friends, andvote for Rochester, whose election would insure the success of thePresident, and bring credit to the people of the western counties, already ambitious to give the State a governor. This potent appeal wastaken up throughout the State, influencing many Clintonians to supportRochester, and holding in line scores of Bucktails who favoured Adams. 

It was a critical moment for Van Buren. He was not only a candidatefor re-election to the United States Senate, but he had staked allupon the overthrow of the Adams administration. Yet, the election ofhis party's candidate for governor would in all probability overthrowthe Clinton-Van Buren coalition, giving the vote of the State to thePresident, and possibly defeat his own re-election. It was a singularpolitical mix-up. 

Van Buren had hoped to exclude from the campaign all national issues, as he succeeded in doing the year before. But the friends of Clay andAdams could not be hoodwinked. The canvass also developed combinationsthat began telling hard upon Van Buren's party loyalty. Mordecai M. Noah, an ardent supporter of Van Buren, and editor of the New York_Enquirer_, came out openly for Clinton. For years, Noah had beenClinton's most bitter opponent. He opposed the canal, he ridiculed itschampion, and he lampooned its supporters; yet he now swallowed theprejudices of a lifetime and indorsed the man he had formerlydespised. Van Buren, it may safely be said, was at heart quite asdevoted a supporter of the Governor, since the latter's re-electionwould be of the greatest advantage to his own personal interests; butwhatever his defects of character, and however lacking he may havebeen in an exalted sense of principle, Van Buren appeared to besincere in his devotion to Rochester. This was emphasised by thesupport of the Albany _Argus_ and other leading Regency papers. 

Nevertheless, the election returns furnished ample grounds forsuspicion. Steuben County, then a Regency stronghold, gave Clintonover one thousand majority. Other counties of that section didproportionately as well. It was explained that this territory wouldnaturally support Clinton who had insisted in his message that thecentral and northern counties, having benefited by the Erie andChamplain canals, ought to give Steuben and the southern tier a publichighway. But William B. Rochester went to his watery grave[249]thirteen years afterward with the belief that Van Buren and hisconfidential friends did not act in good faith. 

[Footnote 249: Rochester was lost off the coast of North Carolina, onJune 15, 1838, by the explosion of a boiler on the steamer _Pulaski_, bound from Charleston to Baltimore. Of 150 passengers only 50survived. ]

With the help of the state road counties, however, Clinton had anarrow escape; the returns gave him only 3650 majority. [250] Thismargin appeared the more wonderful when contrasted with the vote ofNathaniel Pitcher, candidate for lieutenant-governor on the Rochesterticket, who received 4182 majority. "Clinton luck!" was the popularcomment. 

[Footnote 250: Clinton's vote was 99, 785--a falling off of 3, 667 from1824, while Rochester's was 96, 135, an increase of 9, 042 over Young'svote. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

The closeness of the result prompted the friends of the President tofavour Rochester for United States senator to succeed Van Buren, whoseterm expired on March 4, 1827. Several of the Adams assemblymen actedwith the Regency party, and it was hoped that through them a winningcombination might be made. But Van Buren had not been sleeping. Heknew his strength, and with confidence he returned to Washington torenew his attacks upon the Administration. When, finally, theelection occurred, he had a larger majority than sanguine friendsanticipated. Three Clintonians in the Senate and two in the Assembly, recognising the coalition of Van Buren and Clinton, cast their votesfor the former. In thanking the members of the Legislature for thisrenewed expression of confidence, Van Buren spoke of the "gratifyingunanimity" of their action, declaring that it should be his "constantand zealous endeavour to protect the remaining rights reserved to theStates by the Federal Constitution; to restore those of which theyhave been divested by construction; and to promote the interests andhonour of our common country. "

Thus, in much less than two years, Van Buren easily retrieved all, andmore, than he had lost by the election of Clinton and the defeat ofCrawford. His position was singularly advantageous. Whatever happened, he was almost sure to gain. He stood with Clinton, with Jackson, andwith a party drilled and disciplined better than regular troops. Inhis biography of Andrew Jackson, James Parton says of Van Buren atthis time: "His hand was full of cards, and all his cards weretrumps. "[251] Andrew Jackson, who had been watching his career, saidone day to a young New Yorker: "I am no politician; but if I were apolitician, I would be a New York politician. "[252]

[Footnote 251: James Parton, _Life of Andrew Jackson_, Vol. 3, p. 131. ]

[Footnote 252: _Ibid. _, p. 136. ]

Van Buren's advantage, however, great as it was, did not end with hisre-election to the United States Senate. One after another, the menwho stood between him and the object of his ambition had graduallydisappeared. Ambrose Spencer was no longer on the bench, JamesTallmadge had run his political course, and Daniel D. Tompkins was inhis grave. Only DeWitt Clinton was left, and on February 11, 1828, death very suddenly struck him down. Stalwart in form and tremendousin will power, few dreamed that he had any malady, much less thatdeath was shadowing him. He was in his fifty-ninth year. 

Of DeWitt Clinton it may fairly be said that "his mourners were twohosts--his friends and his foes. " Everywhere, regardless of party, marks of the highest respect and deepest grief were evinced. TheLegislature voted ten thousand dollars to his four minor children, anamount equal to the salary of a canal commissioner during the time hehad served without pay. Indeed, nothing was left undone or unsaidwhich would evidence veneration for his memory and sorrow for hisloss. He had lived to complete his work and to enjoy the reward of agreat achievement. Usually benefactors of the people are not sofortunate; their halo, if it comes at all, generally forms long afterdeath. But Clinton seemed to be the creature of timely politicalaccidents. The presentation of his canal scheme had made him governoron July 1, 1817; and he represented the State when ground was brokenat Rome on July 4; his removal as canal commissioner made him governoragain in 1825; and he represented the State at the completion of thework. On both occasions, he received the homage of the entire people, not only as champion of the canal, but as the head of the Commonwealthfor which he had done so much. 

There were those who thought the time of his death fortunate for hisfame, since former opponents were softened and former friends had notfallen away. An impression also obtained that little was left himpolitically to live for. New conditions and new men were springing up. As a strict constructionist of the Federal Constitution, with aleaning toward states' rights, he could not have followed Clintoniansinto the Whig party soon to be formed, nor would he have been at homeamong the leaders of the Jackson or new Democratic party, who wereunlikely to have any use for him. He would not be second to Van Buren, and Van Buren would not suffer him to interfere with the promotion ofhis own career. It is possible Van Buren might have supported him forgovernor in 1828, but he would have had no hesitation in playing hisown part regardless of him. Had Clinton insisted, so much the worsefor Clinton. Of the two men, Van Buren possessed the advantage. He hadless genius and possibly less self-reliance, but in other respects--intact, in prudence, in self-control, in address--indeed, in everythingthat makes for party leadership, Van Buren easily held the mastery. 

Clinton's career was absolutely faultless in two aspects--as an honestman, and a husband, only praise is due him. He died poor and pure. Yet, there are passages in his history which evidence great defects. Life had been for him one long dramatic performance. Many great menseem to have a suit of armour in the form of coldness, brusqueness, orrudeness, which they put on to meet the stranger, but which, when laidaside, reveals simple, charming, and often boyish manners. Clinton hadsuch an armour, but he never put it off, except with intimates, andnot then with any revelation of warmth. He was cold and arrogant, showing no deference even to seniors, since he denied the existence ofsuperiors. Nobody loved him; few really liked him; and, except for hiscanal policy, his public career must have ended with his dismissalfrom the New York mayoralty. It seemed a question whether he reallymeasured up to the stature of a statesman. 

Nevertheless, the judgment of posterity is easily on the side ofClinton's greatness. Thurlow Weed spoke of him as a great man withweak points; and Van Buren, in his attractive eulogy at Washington, declared that he was "greatly tempted to envy him his grave with itshonours. " He may well have done so; for, although Van Buren reachedthe highest office in the gift of the people, and is clearly one ofthe ablest leaders of men in the history of the Empire State, his famedoes not rest on so sure a foundation. Clinton was a man of greatachievement. He was not a dreamer; nor merely a statesman withimagination, grasping the idea in its bolder outlines; but, like acaptain of industry, he combined the statesman and the practical manof affairs, turning great possibilities into greater realities. Itmay be fairly said of him that his career made an era in the historyof his State, and that in asserting the great principle of internalimprovements he blazed the way that guided all future comers. 

CHAPTER XXXII

VAN BUREN ELECTED GOVERNOR

1828

In September, 1827, Van Buren permitted the New York wing of theRepublican party to come out plainly for Andrew Jackson for President. The announcement, made by the general committee, which met in TammanyHall, declared that the Bucktails reposed full confidence in AndrewJackson's worth, integrity, and patriotism, and would support onlythose who favoured him for President of the United States. 

Peter B. Sharpe, a Tammany chief of courage, recently speaker of theAssembly, voiced a faint protest; and later he summoned MarinusWillett from his retirement to preside at an opposition meeting. Itwas, no doubt, an inspiring sight to see this venerable soldier of theRevolution, who had won proud distinction in that long and bloody war, presiding at an assembly of his fellow citizens nearly half a centuryafterward; it accentuated the fact that other heroes existed besidesthe victor of New Orleans; but the Van Buren papers spoke in concert. Within a week, the whole State understood that the election of 1827must be conducted with express reference to the choice of Jackson in1828. 

The note of this bugle call, blown by Edwin Croswell, the famouseditor of the Albany _Argus_, resounded the enthusiasm of the party. The ablest and most popular men, preliminary to the contest, wereselected for legislative places. Erastus Root was again nominated inDelaware County; Robert Emmet, the promising son of the distinguishedThomas Addis Emmet, and Ogden Hoffman, the eloquent and brilliant sonof Josiah Ogden Hoffman, who was to become the best criminal lawyerof his day, found places on the ticket in New York City; Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, heretofore an opponent of the Regency, but now to begin apublic career which finally placed him in the United States Senate fortwelve years, was brought out in Dutchess County; and Benjamin F. Butler, whose revision of the state statutes had made him exceedinglypopular, accepted a nomination in the anti-Regency stronghold ofAlbany. 

Not to be outdone in the character or strength of their ticket, theAdams men summoned their ablest and most eloquent campaigners to sharethe burden of the contest; and Elisha Williams, Peter B. Sharpe, Francis Granger, and Peter B. Porter readily responded. Ezra C. Gross, who had served a term in Congress, also bore a conspicuous part. Grosswas rapidly forging to the front, and would doubtless have become oneof the most gifted and brilliant men in the State had he not fallen anearly victim to intemperance. 

For a purely local campaign, without the assistance of a state ticket, it proved a canvass of unusual vehemence, filling the air withcaricatures and lampoons, and bringing victory to the drilled anddisciplined forces which were now to follow, for half a score ofyears, the fortunes of the New Orleans hero. From the moment Jacksonbecame the standard-bearer, the crowds were with him. Adams wasrepresented as cold and personally unpopular; Jackson as frank, cordial in manner, and bravely chivalric. When everything in favour ofAdams was carefully summed up and admitted, his ability as a writer, as a lawyer, as a diplomatist, and as a statesman, the people, fascinated by the distinguished traits of character and the splendourof the victory at New Orleans, threw their hats into the air forAndrew Jackson. The eloquence of Williams could carry Columbia County;Porter, ever popular and interesting, could sweep the Niagarafrontier; and Gross, with an illuminated rhetoric that lives to thisday in the memory of men who heard their fathers talk about it, had notrouble in Essex; but from the Hudson to Lake Oneida the Jackson partymay be said to have carried everything by storm, electing its ticketby over four thousand majority in New York City, and securing nearlyall the senatorial districts and the larger part of the Assembly. Sooverwhelming was the victory that Van Buren had no trouble at theopening of the Twentieth Congress to defeat the re-election of John W. Taylor for speaker. 

As the time approached for nominating a governor to lead the campaignof 1828, Van Buren realised that the anti-masonic sentiment, which hadbeen rapidly growing since the abduction of William Morgan, haddeveloped into an influence throughout the western part of the Statethat threatened serious trouble. Morgan was a native of Virginia, bornin 1776, a man of fair education, and by trade a stone-mason. Littleis known of his life until 1821, when he resided first in York, Canada, and, a year later, in Rochester, New York, where he worked athis trade. Then he drifted to LeRoy, in Genesee County, becoming anactive Free Mason. Afterward, he moved back to Rochester, and then toBatavia, where he sought out David C. Miller, a printer, who agreed topublish whatever secrets of Free Masonry Morgan would reveal. Thework, done by night and on Sundays, was finally interrupted onSeptember 11, 1826, by Morgan's arrest, on a trifling criminal charge, and transfer to Canandaigua for examination. His acquittal wasimmediately followed by a second arrest upon a civil process for asmall debt and by his imprisonment in the Canandaigua jail. Whendischarged on the succeeding night, he was quickly seized, and, as itsubsequently appeared from the evidence taken at the trial of hisabductors, he was bound, gagged, thrust violently into a coveredcarriage, driven by a circuitous route, with relays of horses and men, to Fort Niagara, and left in confinement in the magazine. Here hedropped out of view. 

The excitement following the discovery of this crime was without aparallel in the history of Western New York. Citizens everywhereorganised committees for the apprehension of the offenders; theGovernor offered a reward for their discovery; the Legislatureauthorised the appointment of able lawyers to investigate; andWilliam L. Marcy and Samuel Nelson, then judges of the Supreme Court, were designated to hold special circuits for the trial of the accused. Many persons were convicted and punished as aiders and abettors of theconspiracy. For three years the excitement continued withoutabatement, until the whole State west of Syracuse became soaked withdeep and bitter feeling, dividing families, sundering social ties, andbreeding lawsuits in vindication of assailed character. Publicsentiment was divided as to whether Morgan had been put to death. Halfa century afterward, in 1882, Thurlow Weed published an affidavit, rehearsing a statement made to him in 1831 by John Whitney, whoconfessed that he was one of five persons who took Morgan from themagazine and drowned him in Lake Ontario. [253]

[Footnote 253: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 332. ]

The trouble stirred up by this unfortunate affair gradually driftedinto politics. In the spring of 1827, a disinclination had shownitself among the people of Genesee County to support Free Masons forsupervisors or justices of the peace, and, although the leading men ofthe western part of the State deprecated political action, thepressure became so great that Free Masons were excluded from localtickets in certain towns of Genesee and Monroe Counties. This coursewas resented by their friends. In the summer of the same year, the oldtreasurer of Rochester, who had been elected year after year withoutopposition, was defeated. No one had openly opposed him, but a canvassof the returns disclosed a silent vote which was quickly charged tothe Masons. This discovery, says Thurlow Weed, "was like a spark offire dropped into combustible materials. " Immediately, Rochesterbecame the centre of anti-Masonry. In September, an anti-masonicconvention nominated a legislative ticket, which, to the amazement andconfusion of the old parties, swept Monroe County by a majority ofover seventeen hundred. Direction was thus given to the movement. Inthe following year, when the state and national election wasapproaching, it appeared that throughout "the infected district, " asit was called, the opponents of Masonry, although previously aboutequally divided in political sentiment, had aligned themselves withthe Adams party, and that the Masons had affiliated with the followersof Jackson. There was good reason for this division. The prominent menin the anti-masonic body, for the most part, were not only leaders ofthe Adams party, but, very early in the excitement, President Adamstook occasion to let it be known that he was not a Mason. On the otherhand, it was well understood that Jackson was a Mason and gloried init. 

This was the situation when the Adams followers, who now calledthemselves National Republicans, met in convention at Utica on July22, 1828. The wise policy of nominating candidates acceptable to allAnti-Masons was plain, and the delegates from the western half of theState proposed Francis Granger for governor. Granger was not then apolitical Anti-Mason, but he was clean, well-known, and popular, andfor two years had been a leading member of the Assembly. Thurlow Weedsaid of him that he was "a gentleman of accomplished manners, genialtemperament, and fine presence, with fortune, leisure, and a taste forpublic life. "[254] Indeed, he appears to have felt from the first agenuine delight in the vivid struggles of the political arena, and, although destined to be twice beaten for governor, and once for VicePresident, he had abundant service in the Cabinet, in the Legislature, and in Congress. Just then he was thirty-six years old, the leadingantagonist of John C. Spencer at the Canandaigua bar, and one whomeverybody regarded as a master-spirit. Dressed in a bottle-green coatwith gilt buttons, a model of grace and manhood, he was the attractionof the ladies' gallery. He had youth, enthusiasm, magnificent gifts, and a heart to love. All his resources seemed to be at instantcommand, according as he had need of them. Besides, he was a bornRepublican. Thomas Jefferson had made his father postmaster-general, and during the thirteen years he held the office, the son wasstudying at Yale and fighting Federalism. [255]

[Footnote 254: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 391. ]

[Footnote 255: Writing of Granger, in January, 1831, Seward says: "Ibelieve I have never told you all I thought about this star of thefirst magnitude in Anti-masonry, and the reason was that, with alimited personal acquaintance, I might give you erroneous impressionswhich I should afterward be unable to reverse. He is 'six feet andwell-proportioned, ' as you well know, handsome, graceful, dignified, and affable, as almost any hero of whom you have read; is probablyabout thirty-six or seven years old. In point of talent he has a quickand ready apprehension, a good memory, and usually a sound judgment. Has no 'genius, ' in its restricted sense, not a very brilliantimagination, nor extraordinary reasoning faculties; has no deep storeof learning, nor a very extensive degree of information. Yet he isintimately acquainted with politics, and with the affairs, interests, and men of the State. He is never great, but always successful. Hewrites with ease and speaks with fluency and elegance--never attemptsan argument beyond his capacity, and, being a good judge of men'scharacter, motives, and actions, he never fails to command admiration, respect, and esteem. Not a man do I know who is his equal in the skillof exhibiting every particle of his stores with great advantage. Youwill inquire about his manners. His hair is ever gracefully curled, his broad and expansive brow is always exposed, his person is evercarefully dressed, to exhibit his face and form aright and withsuccess. He is a gallant and fashionable man. He seems often toneglect great matters for small ones, and I have often thought him atrifler; yet he is universally, by the common people, esteemed graveand great. He is an aristocrat in his feelings, though the people whoknow him think him all condescension. He is a prince among those whoare equals, affable to inferiors, and knows no superiors. In principlehe has redeeming qualities--more than enough to atone for hisfaults--is honest, honourable, and just, first and beyond comparisonwith other politicians of the day. You will ask impatiently, 'Has he aheart?' Yes. Although he has less than those who do not know himbelieve him to possess, he has much more than those who meet himfrequently, but not intimately, will allow him to have. He loves, esteems, and never forgets his friends; but you must not understand methat he possesses as confiding and true a heart as Berdan had, or asyou think I have, or as we both know Weed has. There is yet onequality of Granger's character which you do not dream of--he lovesmoney almost as well as power. "--Frederick W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 171. ]

Eastern delegates wanted Smith Thompson. Thompson was a man of greatlearning and an honoured member of the Republican party. But he wassixty years old. With the exception of five years as secretary of thenavy, under Monroe, he had been continuously upon the bench for over aquarter of a century, first as justice and chief justice of theSupreme Court of the State, latterly as associate justice of theUnited States Supreme Court. It was suggested, with some pertinency asit afterward appeared, that the people of the State having declared inthe recently adopted Constitution, that a judge, holding office duringgood behaviour, ought not to be a candidate for an elective office, would resent such a nomination. It was further suggested, with evengreater force, that Thompson's nomination would offend the ultraAnti-Masons and bring an independent ticket into the field, thusdividing the Adams vote and giving the election to the Jacksoncandidate. On the other hand, it was maintained with equal spiritthat the nomination of Granger, avowedly to secure the anti-masonicvote, would offend the National Republicans and jeopardise the stateas well as the electoral ticket. It took a ballot to decide thequestion, and Thompson won by a close vote. Francis Granger was thennominated for lieutenant-governor by acclamation. 

As predicted, several ultra anti-masonic editors in Genesee andOntario counties immediately denounced the nomination of Thompson. TheAdams people knew it portended danger; but Thompson would not withdrawand the ultras would not relent. Thereupon, the anti-masonicconvention, already called to meet at Utica, added to the difficultyof the situation by nominating Francis Granger and John Crary. Grangerhad not solicited nomination, and now he was burdened with two. ButThompson refused to relieve the embarrassment, and Crary provedwickedly false to his agreement. The latter admitted that the union ofthe Adams and anti-masonic forces would probably elect Granger forlieutenant-governor, and he promised to withdraw as soon as Grangershould do so. Upon this Granger declined the anti-masonic nomination;but the wily Van Buren, who was intently watching the embarrassment ofthe National Republicans, took good care to have Crary remain andSolomon Southwick substituted for Granger. The general sentiment ofthe Anti-Masons did not respond to this movement. But the angryfeeling excited by Granger's declination, aided by Van Buren'sfinesse, gave Southwick, who had acquired some credit with theAnti-Masons by an early renunciation of his masonic ties, anopportunity of advancing his visionary projects of personal ambition. Thurlow Weed declared that the people had been "juggled" out of acandidate for governor; but Weed did not know that Van Buren, needingmoney to help along the jugglery, wrote James A. Hamilton, the son ofthe great Federalist, that unless "you do more in New York than youpromised, our friends in Albany, at best poor, will break down. " Crarywas one of the assemblymen who, in 1824, had boldly denounced theremoval of Clinton as a canal commissioner. After his broken promiseto Granger and his bargain with Van Buren, however, he ceased to becalled "Honest John Crary. "

Before the meeting of the National Republican convention, Martin VanBuren was announced as the Jackson candidate for governor. It waswell-known, at least to the Albany Regency, that if Jackson becamePresident, Van Buren would be his secretary of state. One can readilyunderstand that Van Buren would willingly exchange the Senate for thehead of the Cabinet, since the office of secretary of state had beenfor twenty years a certain stepping-stone to the Presidency. Madisonhad been Jefferson's secretary of state, Monroe had filled the exaltedplace under Madison, and John Quincy Adams served Monroe in the samecapacity. But Van Buren's willingness to exchange the Senate, an arenain which he had ranked among the ablest statesmen of the Republic, forthe governorship, was prompted by the force of circumstances and notby choice. Jackson's election was believed to depend upon New York, and the carrying of New York, to depend upon Van Buren. The latter, atthis time, was at the zenith of his popularity. His speeches had notonly stamped him as a genuine parliamentary debater, but had gainedfor him the reputation of being the congressional leader and chieforganiser of the Jackson party. During his seven and a half years inthe Senate, his name was associated with every event of importance;his voice was heard on one side or the other of every question thatinterested the American people; and the force he brought to bear, whether for good or evil, swayed the minds of contemporaries to anunusual degree. 

Van Buren looked his best in these days. His complexion was a brightblonde, and he dressed with the taste of Disraeli. Henry B. Stantondescribes him as he appeared at church in Rochester on a Sunday duringthe campaign. "He wore an elegant snuff-colored broadcloth coat withvelvet collar; his cravat was orange with modest lace tips; his vestwas of a pearl hue; his trousers were white duck; his silk hosecorresponded to the vest; his shoes were morocco; his nicely fittinggloves were yellow kid; his long-furred beaver hat, with broad brim, was of Quaker color. As he sat in the wealthy aristocratic church ofthe town, in the pew of General Gould who had been a lifelongFederalist and supporter of Clinton, all eyes were fixed upon the manwho held Jackson's fate in his hands. "[256]

[Footnote 256: H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 32. ]

Van Buren did not propose to take any chances, either in securing thenomination or the election for governor--hence his visit to Rochesterand the western counties to study for himself the anti-masonicsituation. "The excitement has been vastly greater than I supposed, "he wrote Hamilton. In order to find some way of pacifying it, heturned aside to visit the home of his friend, Enos T. Throop, thenliving on the wooded and beautiful banks of Lake Owasco. In January, 1827, Throop, who presided at the first trial of the Morgan abductors, had, to the great delight of all Anti-Masons, flayed the defendants, before pronouncing sentence, in a remarkably effective and emphaticaddress. Such a man was needed to strengthen the Jackson ticket, andbefore Van Buren got home it was charged that he had secured Throop'spromise to stand for lieutenant-governor, with the assurance thatwithin three months after his inauguration, if everything wentaccording to programme, he should be the acting governor. 

These tactics meant the turning down of Nathaniel Pitcher, the actinggovernor in place of DeWitt Clinton. Pitcher had served four years inthe Assembly, one term in Congress, and as a delegate to theconvention in 1821. Though a man of limited education and strongprejudices, with a depth of feeling that made him as vigorouslyindependent as he was rigidly honest, he proved his fitness for thehigh office to which he had suddenly fallen heir by several excellentappointments to the Superior Court, just then created for the city ofNew York. He honoured himself further by restoring the rule, so rudelybroken by Clinton, of offering the chancellorship to Chief JusticeSavage, and, upon his declining it, to Reuben H. Walworth, then ayoung and most promising circuit judge. Later in the year, he namedDaniel Mosely for the seventh circuit vacated by the resignation ofEnos T. Throop, soon to become lieutenant-governor. These appointmentsmarked him as a wise and safe executive. Van Buren understood this, and his correspondence with Hamilton, and others, while absent in thewest, affords many interesting glimpses into his political methods intheir immodest undress. As the candidate for governor, he was veryactive just now. His letters indicate that he gave personal attentionto the selection of all delegates, and that he wanted only those inwhom reliance could be absolutely placed. "Your views about thedelegates are correct, " he says to Hamilton. "It would be hazardingtoo much to make out a list. " A list might contain names of men whocould not be safely trusted at such a supreme moment; and Van Burennaturally desired that his nomination should be enthusiasticallyunanimous. The slightest protest from some disappointed friend ofNathaniel Pitcher, who was to be sacrificed for Throop, or of JosephC. Yates, who was spending his years in forced retirement atSchenectady, would take away the glory and dull the effect of what wasintended to be a sudden and unanimous uprising of the people's freeand untrammelled delegates in favour of the senior United Statessenator, the Moses of the newly-born Democratic party. 

The anticipated trouble at the Herkimer convention, however, did notappear. Delegates were selected to nominate Martin Van Buren and EnosT. Throop, and, after they had carried out the programme withunanimity, Pitcher ceased to act with the Jackson party. But thecontest between the opposing parties proved exceedingly bitter andmalevolent. It resembled the scandalous campaign of John Adams andThomas Jefferson in 1800, and the more recent Blaine and Clevelandcanvass of 1884. Everything that could be tortured into apparent wrongwas served up to listening thousands. Van Buren had about him thegenius of Edwin Croswell, the unerring judgment of Benjamin F. Butler, the wisdom of William L. Marcy, the diplomacy of Benjamin Knower, andthe scintillating brilliancy of Samuel A. Talcott; but like McGregor, Van Buren sat at the head of the table. He cautioned Noah, hecomplimented Coleman, he kept Southwick and Crary on the anti-masonicticket, he selected the candidate for lieutenant-governor, he calledfor funds, and he insisted upon making the Adams administrationodious. In referring to the President and his secretary of state, hedid not personally join in the cry of bargain and sale, of fraud andcorruption, of treachery and knavery; nor did he speak of them as "thePuritan and the Blackleg;" but for three years his criticisms had soassociated the Administration with Federalism and the offensive alienand sedition laws which Jefferson condemned and defeated in 1800, thatthe younger Adams inherited the odium attached to his father a quarterof a century before. 

The National Republicans retaliated with statements no less base andworthless, exhibiting Jackson as a military butcher and utterlyilliterate, and publishing documents assailing his marriage, thechastity of his wife, and the execution of six militiamen convicted ofmutiny. Thurlow Weed, who conducted the Adams campaign in the westernpart of the State, indulged in no personal attacks upon Jackson or hiswife, refusing to send out the documents known as "Domestic Relations"and "Coffin Handbills. " "The impression of the masses was that the sixmilitiamen deserved hanging, " he says, in his autobiography, "and Ilook back now with astonishment that enlightened and able statesmencould believe that General Jackson would be injured with the people byruthlessly invading the sanctuary of his home, and permitting a ladywhose life had been blameless to be dragged forth into the arena ofpolitics. "[257]

[Footnote 257: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 309. ]

The result of the election for governor and lieutenant-governor waspractically settled by the nomination of an anti-masonic independentticket. Thurlow Weed advised Smith Thompson that votes enough todefeat him would be thrown away upon Southwick. Van Buren wroteHamilton to "bet for me on joint-account five hundred dollars thatThompson will be defeated, and one hundred dollars on every thousandof a majority up to five thousand; or, if you can't do better, sayfive hundred on the result and fifty on every thousand up to ten. " Thereturns justified his confidence. He received one hundred andthirty-six thousand votes to one hundred and six thousand for Thompsonand thirty-three thousand for Southwick. [258] Francis Granger wouldprobably have received the aggregate vote of Thompson and Southwick, or three thousand more than Van Buren. That Weed rightly understoodthe situation is evidenced by his insistence that a candidate benominated acceptable to the Anti-Masons. "Van Buren's election, " saidThurlow Weed, in his autobiography, the tears of disappointment andchagrin almost trickling down his cheeks when he wrote the wordsnearly half a century afterward, "enabled his party to hold the Statefor the twelve succeeding years. "[259] But it was the last time, formany years, that Thurlow Weed did not have his way in the party. Itwas apparent that the opponents of Van Buren needed a leader who couldlead; and, although it took years of patient effort to cement into asolid fighting mass all the heterogeneous elements that Clinton leftand Van Buren could not control, the day was destined to come when oneparty flag floated over an organisation under the leadership of thestately form of Thurlow Weed. 

[Footnote 258: _Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

[Footnote 259: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 307. ]

CHAPTER XXXIII

WILLIAM H. SEWARD AND THURLOW WEED

1830

Although the election in 1828 brought hopeless defeat to the NationalRepublicans, apparently it imparted increased confidence and vigour toanti-Masonry. For a time, this movement resembled the growth ofabolitionism at a later day, people holding that a secret society, which sought to paralyse courts, by closing the mouths of witnessesand otherwise unnerving the arm of justice, threatened the existenceof popular government. The moral question, too, appealed strongly topersons prominent in social, professional, and church life, whoincreased the excitement by renouncing masonic ties and signifyingtheir conversion to the new gospel of anti-Masonry. Cadwallader D. Colden, formerly the distinguished mayor of New York and a lawyer ofhigh reputation, wrote an effective letter against Free Masonry, whichwas supplemented by the famous document of David Barnard, a popularBaptist divine of Chautauqua County. Henry Dana Ward established the_Anti-Masonic Review_ in New York City, and Frederick Whittleseybecame equally efficient and influential as editor of the Rochester_Republican_. 

But the man who led the fight and became the centre from which allinfluences emanated was Thurlow Weed. Early in the struggle, as amember of the Morgan committee, he investigated the crime of 1826. Soon after, he founded the _Anti-Masonic Enquirer_ of Rochester, whosecirculation, unparalleled in those days, quickly included the westernand northern counties of New York, and the neighbouring States ofOhio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Weed had been slow to yield to theinfluences which carried the question into politics, but, once havingdetermined to appeal to the ballot-box, he set to work to strengthenand enlarge the party. It became a quasi-religious movement, ministersand churches, without any very far-reaching hopes and plans, labouringto bring about a spirit which should induce men to renounce Masonry;and in their zeal they worked with the singleness of thought and theaccepted methods that dominate the revivalist and temperance advocate. 

The aim of Thurlow Weed was to reach the people, and it mattered nothow often he had to bear defeat, or the sneers of older politiciansand an established press; he flung himself into the work with anindomitable spirit and an entire disregard of trouble and pain. Weedwas a born fighter. He saw no visions, he believed in no omens, and hehad no thought of bearing a charmed life; but he seems to have beenindifferent to changes of season or the assaults of men, as hetravelled from one end of the State to the other regardless ofinclement weather, answering attacks with rough and rasping sarcasms, and meeting every crisis with the candour and courage of a JohnWesley. One reads in his autobiography, almost with a feeling ofincredulity, of the toil cheerfully borne and the privations eagerlyendured while the guiding member of the Morgan committee. 

Weed proved a great captain, not only in directing and inspiringanti-masonic movements, but in rallying to his standard a body ofyoung men destined to occupy conspicuous places in the State and inthe nation. Among those entering the Assembly, in 1829, were Philo C. Fuller of Livingston and Millard Fillmore of Erie. When Weed first methim, in 1824, Fuller was a law clerk in James Wadsworth's office, onlytwenty-three years old. But Weed noted his fitness for public place, and in 1828 had him nominated and elected to the Assembly. 

Millard Fillmore was a year or two older. His youth, like that ofWeed, had been crowded with everything except schooling. He learnedthe clothier's trade, he was apprenticed to a wool-carder, and heserved his time at the woodpile, in the harvest field, and as choreboy. Only at odd moments did he get an education; but when he beganstudying law and teaching school he quickly evidenced a strength ofintellect that distinguished him throughout life. Weed met him at anAdams convention in Buffalo, in 1828, and so favourably impressed washe with his ability that he suggested his nomination for the Assembly. 

One year later, Weed insisted upon the nomination of Albert H. Tracy, of Erie, for the Senate. Tracy, who had already served six years inCongress, had the advantage of being well born and well educated. Hisfather, a distinguished physician of Connecticut, urged him to adoptthe profession of medicine, but when about ready for a degree, heentered his brother's law office at Madison, New York, and, in 1815, upon his admission to the bar, settled in Buffalo. He was thentwenty-two years old. Four years later he entered Congress. He hadearned this quick start by good ability; and so acceptably did hemaintain himself, that, in spite of the acrimony existing betweenClintonian and Bucktail, his name was regarded with much favour in1825 as the successor of Rufus King in the United States Senate. Tracywas a man of marked ability. Though neither brilliant nordistinguished as a public speaker, he was a skilful advocate, easy andnatural; with the help of a marvellous memory, and a calm, philosophictemperament, he ranked among the foremost lawyers of his day. LikeJames Tallmadge, he was inordinately ambitious for public life, andhis amiability admirably fitted him for it; but like Tallmadge, he wasnot always governed by principle so much as policy. He showed at timesa lamentable unsteadiness in his leadership, listening too often tothe whispers of cunning opponents, and too easily separating himselffrom tried friends. In 1838, he practically left his party; and, soonafter, he ceased to practise his profession, burying a life which hadpromised great usefulness and a brilliant career. In mien, size, bearing, visage, and conversation he was the counterpart of ThomasJefferson when about the same age--a likeness of which Tracy was fullyconscious. 

Tracy's nomination to the Senate in 1829 came as a great surprise anda greater gratification. He had not taken kindly to the anti-masonicparty. Only the year before, he dissuaded John Birdsall from acceptingits nomination to Congress, because of the obloquy sure to followdefeat; but its strength, evidenced in the campaign of 1828, openedhis eyes; and, while absent in Albany, unsuccessfully seeking ajudgeship from Governor Throop, Thurlow Weed had him nominated. On hisway home, he stopped at Rochester to call upon the great apostle ofanti-Masonry, reaching the house before sunrise. "He was wrapped in along camlet cloak, " says Weed, "and wore an air of depression thatbetokened some great disappointment. 'You have been east?' I asked, for I had not heard of his absence from home. 'Yes, ' he answered. 'Then you don't know what happened at Batavia yesterday?' He repliedin the negative, and I continued: 'We had a convention and nominated acandidate for senator. ' When he laughingly inquired, 'Who?' I said, 'Why, we nominated you. ' He instantly jumped two feet from the floorand whooped like an Indian. Then, with brightened countenance andundisguised elation of spirit that he was to have a seat in the Senatefor four years, he informed me of his disappointment in not obtainingeither the judgeship, or the presidency of the branch of the UnitedStates Bank about to be established at Buffalo. "[260]

[Footnote 260: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 340. ]

Thus far, Thurlow Weed had won more reputation than money inRochester. He dwelt in a cheap house in an obscure part of thevillage. Sometimes he had to borrow clothes to be presentable. "Oneday, " says Henry B. Stanton, "I was standing in the street with himand Frederick Whittlesey when his little boy came up and said:'Father, mother wants a shilling to buy some bread. ' Weed put on aqueer look, felt in his pockets, and remarked: 'That is a home appeal, but I'll be hanged if I've got the shilling. ' Whittlesey drew out asilver dollar and gave the boy who ran off like a deer. "[261] Yet, atthat moment, Weed with his bare arms spattered with printer's ink, wasthe greatest power in the political life of Western New York. 

[Footnote 261: H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 25. ]

But a scheme more helpful to Weed and to his party than the electionof young men of large promise was just now on foot. The need of anewspaper at Albany, to represent the sentiments of the Anti-Masonshad long been recognised; and, to enable Weed to establish it, he hadbeen re-elected to the Assembly in the autumn of 1829. In the courseof the winter the project quickly took shape; a fund of twenty-fivehundred dollars was subscribed; and on March 22, 1830, appeared thefirst number of the Albany _Evening Journal_, in which were soon to bepublished the sparkling paragraphs that made it famous. [262] Weed'ssalary as editor was fixed at seven hundred and fifty dollars. Thepaper was scarcely larger than the cloud "like a man's hand;" and itsone hundred and seventy subscribers, scattered from Buffalo to NewYork, became somewhat disturbed by the acrimonious and personalwarfare instantly made upon it by Edwin Croswell of the _Argus_. 

[Footnote 262: "Writing slowly and with difficulty, Weed was fortwenty years the most sententious and pungent writer of editorialparagraphs on the American press. "--Horace Greeley, _Recollections ofa Busy Life_, p. 312. ]

Croswell and Weed had been boys together at Catskill. They wereneither intimates nor equals, although of the same age; for youngCroswell had the advantage of position and education given him by hisfather, then publisher of the _Recorder_. To Weed, only such work cameas a bare-footed, ragged urchin of eleven was supposed to be capableof doing. This was in 1808. The two boys did not meet again for twentyyears, and then only to separate as Hamilton and Burr had parted, onthe road to White Plains, in the memorable retreat from Manhattan inSeptember, 1776. But Croswell, retaining the quiet, studious habitsthat characterised his youth, climbed rapidly. He had become editorof the _Argus_, state printer, and one of the ablest and most zealousmembers of the Albany Regency. He possessed a judgment that seemedalmost inspired, with such untiring industry and rare ability that foryears the Democratic press of the country looked upon the _Argus_ asits guiding star. 

Against this giant in journalism Thurlow Weed was now to be opposed. "You have a great responsibility resting upon your shoulders, " wrotethe accomplished Frederick Whittlesey, "but I know no man who isbetter able to meet it. "[263] This was the judgment of a man who hadpersonal knowledge of the tremendous power of Weed's pen. In his lateryears, Weed mellowed and forgave and forgot, but when he went toAlbany, and for years before, as well as after, he seemed to enjoystriking an adversary. An explosion followed every blow. His sarcasmshad needle-points, and his wit, sometimes a little gross, smarted likethe sting of wasps. Often his attacks were so severe and mercilessthat the distress of his opponents created sympathy for them. 

[Footnote 263: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 361. ]

Very early in the _Evening Journal's_ history Croswell invited Weed'sfire. It is doubtful if the _Argus'_ publisher thought or cared muchabout the character of the reply. Editors are not usually sensitive tothe stricture of others. But when Weed's retort came, the rivalwriters remained without personal or business relations until, yearsafterward, Croswell, financially crushed by the failure of the AlbanyCanal Bank, and suspected of dishonesty, implored Weed's assistance toavoid a criminal indictment. In the meantime subscriptions poured intothe _Journal_. The people recognised a fighter; the thoughtfuldistinguished a powerful mind; and politicians discovered such agenius for leadership that Albany became a political centre for theNational Republicans as it was for the Bucktails. Within ten yearsafter its establishment, the _Evening Journal_ had the largestcirculation of any political paper in the United States. 

The birth year of the _Journal_ also witnessed a reorganisation ofthe Anti-Masons. Heretofore, this party had declared only its ownpeculiar principles, relying for success upon the aid of the NationalRepublicans; but, as it now sympathised with Henry Clay upon questionsof governmental policy, especially the protection of Americanindustry, it became evident that, to secure the greatest politicalstrength, its future policy must be ardent antagonism to theprinciples of the Jackson party. Accordingly, at the Utica convention, held in August, 1830, it adopted a platform substantially embracingthe views of the National Republicans. In acknowledgment of thischange, the Adams party accepted the nomination of Francis Granger forgovernor and Samuel Stevens, a prominent lawyer of Albany City and theson of a distinguished Revolutionary officer, for lieutenant-governor. 

The Bucktails did not get on so smoothly at their convention, held atHerkimer, on September 8. Erastus Root thought if Van Buren couldafford to take the nomination away from Acting Governor Pitcher, hemight deprive Enos T. Throop of the same honour. Throop, who wasacting governor in the place of Van Buren, had proved a feebleexecutive. Besides, it could not be forgotten that Throop suffered VanBuren to humiliate Pitcher simply to make his own election sure. ButThroop had friends if nothing else. On the first ballot, he receivedseventy-eight votes to forty for Root. The wrangle overlieutenant-governor proved less irritating, and Edward P. Livingston, after several ballots, secured seventy-seven votes. 

These contests created unusual bitterness. Root had the offer ofsupport from a working men's convention; and his failure to secure theHerkimer nomination left the working men, especially in New York City, in no mood to support the Bucktail choice. All this greatly encouragedthe Anti-Masons. Granger and Stevens commanded the cordial support ofthe National Republicans, while Throop and Livingston were personallyunpopular. Throop had the manners of DeWitt Clinton without a tithe ofhis ability, and Livingston, stripped of his family's intellectualtraits, exhibited only its aristocratic pride. But there wereobstacles in the way of anti-masonic success. Among other things, Francis Granger had become chairman of an anti-masonic convention atPhiladelphia, which Weed characterised as a mistake. "The men from NewYork who urged it are stark mad, " he wrote; "more than fifty thousandelectors are now balancing their votes, and half of them want anexcuse to vote against you. "[264] Whether this "mistake" had thebaleful influence that Weed anticipated, could not, of course, bedetermined. The returns, however, proved a serious disappointment. [265]Granger had carried the eighth or "infected district" by theastounding majority of over seven thousand in each of the first fivedistricts. In the sixth district the anti-masonic vote fell over fourthousand. It was evident that the Eastern masons, who had until nowacted with the National Republicans, preferred the rule of the Regencyto government by Anti-Masons. 

[Footnote 264: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 39. ]

[Footnote 265: Throop, 128, 842; Granger, 120, 361. --_Civil List, Stateof New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

The year that witnessed this disheartening defeat of the Anti-Masons, welcomed into political life a young man of great promise, destined toplay, for the next forty years, a conspicuous part in the history ofhis country. William Henry Seward was twenty-nine years old whenelected to the State Senate; but to all appearances he might have beeneight years younger. He was small, slender, boyish, punctilious inattire, his blue eyes and finely moulded chin and mouth giving anunconscious charm to his native composure, which attracted with amagnetism peculiarly its own; but there was nothing in his looks ormanner to indicate that the chronicle of the century would record hisname among the country's most prominent statesmen. He had neither thebold, full forehead of Marcy, nor the tall, commanding form ofTalcott, although the boyish face suggested the refinement of Butler'sfeatures, softened by the blue eyes and light sandy hair. The onlynoticeable feature was the nose, neither Roman nor Semitic, but long, prominent and aggressive, with nostrils slightly distended. In afteryears, the brow grew heavier, the eyes more deeply set, and the chin, slightly drawn, gave greater prominence to the jaw and firmness to themouth. 

In 1830, Seward had not yet made his great legal contest in theFreeman case, setting up the then novel and unpopular defence ofinsanity, and establishing himself as one of the ablest and grittiestlawyers in the State. But early in that year, he made a speech, at ananti-masonic conference, which won the confidence of the delegatessufficiently to admit him to leadership with Thurlow Weed, FrancisGranger, John C. Spencer, Frederick Whittlesey, William H. Maynard, and Albert H. Tracy. He was the youngest man in the council, youngerthan Whittlesey, four years younger than Weed, and eight years youngerthan Tracy. Granger and John C. Spencer belonged almost to an earliergeneration. Millard Fillmore was one year his senior; but Fillmore, whose force and feeling made for conservatism, had not yet enteredthat coterie of brilliant anti-masonic leaders. 

Seward was neither precocious nor gifted beyond his years. He hadspirit and gifts, with sufficient temper and stubbornness to defendhim against impositions at home or in college; but the love foradventure and the strenuous life, that characterised Weed's capriciousyouth, were entirely absent. As a boy, Weed, untidy even toslovenliness, explored the mountain and the valley, drifted among theresolute lads of the town, and lingered in gardens and orchards, infinitely lovable and capable of the noblest tenderness. On thecontrary, Seward was precise, self-restrained, possessing the gravityand stillness of a youth who husbanded his resources as if consciousof physical frailty, yet wholesome and generous, and once, at least, splendidly reckless in his race for independence of a father whodenied him the means of dressing in the fashion of other collegestudents. By the time he reached the age of nineteen, he had run awayto Georgia, taught school six months, studied law six months, andgraduated with honour from Union College. Two years later, in 1822, he was admitted to the bar, and, having accepted a partnership withElijah Miller, located at Auburn. To make this arrangement the morebinding, he married his partner's daughter and became a member of hisfamily. 

Seward retained the political affiliations of his father, who was aRepublican and a Bucktail, until the journey on the canal to Auburnopened his eyes to the importance of internal improvements. This socompletely changed him into a Clintonian, that, in the autumn of 1824, he assailed the Albany Regency with great vigour and voted for DeWittClinton for governor. Four years later, he presided over a stateconvention of young National Republicans, favourable to there-election of John Quincy Adams; and then witnessed that party'sdefeat and dispersion under the murderous fire of the Jackson forces, aided by Southwick and Crary on the anti-masonic ticket. Seward hadnot taken kindly to the anti-masonic party. What would have been hisfinal attitude toward it is problematical had he not fallen under theinfluence of Weed. The first meeting of this illustrious pair, a verycasual meeting, occurred in the summer of 1824 while Seward waspassing through Rochester on his return from a visit to Niagara Falls. A wheel of the coach came off, and among the curious who quicklyassembled "one taller and more effective, while more deferential andsympathising than the rest, " says Seward, in his autobiography, "lenthis assistance. "[266] This was Thurlow Weed. "My acquaintance withWilliam H. Seward grew rapidly on subsequent occasions, " adds Weed, "when he was called to Rochester on professional business. Our viewsin relation to public affairs, and our estimate of public men, rarelydiffered, and in regard to anti-Masonry he soon became imbued with myown opinions. "[267]

[Footnote 266: _Autobiography of William H. Seward_, p. 56. ]

[Footnote 267: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 137. ]

This was the key that opened the way to great achievement. Tracylistened to others and was lost; Fillmore finally preferred thejudgment of his associates in Washington, and is to-day without astatue even in his own home; but Seward kept closely in touch with theman whose political judgment inspired him with confidence. "Come nowand let us reason together, " said Weed, and together these two friendsworked out the policy of success. "I saw in him, in a remarkabledegree, " continued Weed, "rapidly developing elements of characterwhich could not fail to render him eminently useful in public life. Idiscerned also unmistakable evidences of stern integrity, earnestpatriotism, and unswerving fidelity. I saw also in him a rare capacityfor intellectual labour, with an industry that never tired andrequired no relaxation; to all of which was added a purity anddelicacy of habit and character almost feminine. "[268]

[Footnote 268: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 423. ]

In his _Autobiography_, Seward says he joined the anti-masonic partybecause he thought it the only active political organisation opposedto Jackson and Van Buren, whose policy seemed to him to involve "notonly the loss of our national system of revenue, and of enterprises ofstate and national improvement, but also the future disunion of theStates, and ultimately the universal prevalence of slavery. "[269] Oncean Anti-Mason, he became, like Weed, a zealous and aggressive memberof the party. He embodied its creed in resolutions, he attended itsfirst national convention at Philadelphia, he visited John QuincyAdams at Quincy--just then an anti-masonic candidate for Congress--heaided in the establishment of the Albany _Evening Journal_, and, alittle later, as a delegate to the party's second national conventionat Baltimore, he saw Chief Justice Marshall upon the platform, satbeside Thaddeus Stevens, and voted for William Wirt as an anti-masoniccandidate for President. It was during his attendance upon thePhiladelphia convention that Thurlow Weed had him nominated, withouthis knowledge, for state senator. "While stopping at Albany on my waysouth, " he says, [270] "Weed made some friendly but earnest inquiriesconcerning my pecuniary ability, whether it was sufficient to enableme to give a portion of my time to public office. When I answered myability was sufficient, but I had neither expectation nor wish foroffice, he replied that he had learned from my district enough toinduce him to think it possible that the party might desire mynomination to the Senate. "

[Footnote 269: _Autobiography of William H. Seward_, p. 74. ]

[Footnote 270: _Autobiography of William H. Seward_, p. 79. ]

Thurlow Weed had many claims to the regard of his contemporaries, butthe greatest was the intelligence that enabled him to discern therising genius of a recruit to anti-Masonry whose name was to help makeillustrious any cause which he served. 

CHAPTER XXXIV

VAN BUREN'S ENEMIES MAKE HIM VICE PRESIDENT

1829-1832

Martin Van Buren's single message as governor exhibited a knowledge ofconditions and needs that must rank it among the ablest state-papersin the archives of the capitol. Unlike some of his predecessors, withtheir sentences of stilted formality, he wrote easily and with vigour. His message, however, was marred by the insincerity which shows thepolitician. He approved canals, but, by cunningly advising "the utmostprudence" in taking up new enterprises, he coolly disparaged theChenango project; he shrewdly recommended the choice of presidentialelectors by general ticket instead of by congressional districts, knowing that opposition to the change died with DeWitt Clinton. Withfull knowledge of what he himself had done, in the last campaign, inurging upon John A. Hamilton the necessity of raising funds, he boldlyattacked the use of money in elections, proposing "the imposition ofsevere penalties upon the advance of money by individuals for anypurposes connected with elections except the single one of printing. "It is not surprising, perhaps, that a man of Van Buren's personalambition found himself often compelled, for the sake of his owncareer, to make his public devotion to principle radically differentfrom his practice; but it is amazing that he should thus brazenlyassume the character of a reformer before the ink used in writingHamilton was dry. 

The prominent feature of Van Buren's message was the bank question, which, to do him credit, he discussed with courage, urging a generallaw for chartering banks without the payment of money bonus, anddeclaring that the only concern of the State should be to make banksand their circulation secure. In accord with this suggestion, hesubmitted the "safety fund" project, subsequently enacted into law, providing that all banks should contribute to a fund, administeredunder state supervision, to secure dishonoured banknotes. There was agreat deal of force in Van Buren's reasoning, and the New York Citybanks, which, at first, declined to recharter under the law, finallyaccepted the scheme with apparent cheerfulness. Had the real test, which came with the hard times of 1837, not broken it down, VanBuren's confidence in the project might have continued. After thatcatastrophe, which was destined to prove his Waterloo, he hadconfidence in nothing except gold and silver. 

As anticipated, Van Buren's inauguration as governor preceded hisappointment as secretary of state under President Jackson only seventydays. It gave him barely time gracefully to assume the duties of oneposition before taking up those of the other. But, in making thechange, he did not forget to keep an anchor to windward by having theamiable and timid Charles E. Dudley succeed him in the United StatesSenate. Dudley had the weakness of many cultured, charming men, whoare without personal ambition or executive force. He was incapable oftaking part in debate, or of exerting any perceptible influence uponlegislation in the committee-room. Nevertheless, he was sincere in hisfriendships; and the opinion obtained that if Van Buren had desiredfor any reason to return to the Senate, Dudley would have gracefullyretired in his favour. 

The appointments of Green C. Bronson as attorney-general, and SilasWright as comptroller of state, atoned for Dudley's election; for theybrought conspicuously to the front two men whose unusual abilitygreatly honoured the State. Bronson had already won an enviablereputation at the bar of Oneida County. He was now forty years old, astalwart in the Jackson party, bold and resolute, with a sturdyvigour of intellect that was to make him invaluable to the Regency. Hehad been a Clintonian surrogate of his county and a Clintonian memberof the Assembly in 1822, but he had changed since then, and hispresent appointment was to give him twenty-two years of continuouspublic life as a Democrat, lifting him from justice to chief justiceof the Supreme Court, and transferring him finally to the Court ofAppeals. 

Silas Wright was a younger man than Bronson, not yet thirty-five yearsold; but his admittance to the Regency completely filled the great gapleft by Marcy's retirement. Like Marcy, he was large and muscular, although with a face of more refinement; like Marcy, too, he dressedplainly. He had an affable manner stripped of all affectation. Fromhis first entrance into public life, he had shown a great capacity forthe administration of affairs. He looked like a great man. Hisunusually high, square forehead indicated strength of intellect, andhis lips, firmly set, but round and full, gave the impression offirmness, with a generous and gentle disposition. There was noevidence of brilliancy or daring. Nor did he have a politician's face, such as Van Buren's. Even in the closing years of Van Buren'svenerable life, when people used often to see him, white-haired andbright-eyed, walking on Wall Street arm in arm with his son John, hiswas still the face of a master diplomatist. Wright, on the other hand, looked more like a strong, fearless business man. His manner ofspeaking was not unlike Rufus King's. He spoke slowly, withoutrhetorical embellishment, or other arts of the orator; but, unlikeKing, he had an unpleasant voice; nevertheless, if one may accept theopinion of a contemporary and an intimate, "there was a subduedenthusiasm in his style of speaking that was irresistiblycaptivating. " The slightly rasping voice was "almost instantlyforgotten in the beauty of his argument, " which was "clear, forcible, logical and persuasive. "[271]

[Footnote 271: John S. Jenkins, _Lives of the Governors of New York_, p. 790. ]

Silas Wright had already been in public life eight years, first assurrogate of St. Lawrence County, afterward as state senator, andlater as a member of Congress. He had also increased his earnings atthe bar by holding the offices of justice of the peace, town clerk, inspector of schools, and postmaster at Canton. From the outset, hehad allied himself with the Regency party, and, with unfailingregularity he had supported all its measures, even those which hisbetter judgment opposed. His ability and gentle manners, too, apparently won the people; for, although St. Lawrence was a Clintonianstronghold, a majority of its voters believed in their youngoffice-holder--a fact that was the more noteworthy since he had brokenfaith with them. In the campaign of 1823, he favoured the choice ofpresidential electors by the people; afterward, in the Senate, hevoted against the measure. So bitter was the resentment that followedthis bill's defeat, that many of the seventeen senators, who votedagainst it, ever afterward remained in private life. But Wright wasforgiven, and, two years later, sent to Congress, where his publiccareer really began. In a bill finally amended into the tariff act of1828, he sought to remove the complaint of manufacturers that thetariff of 1824 was partial to iron interests, and the criticism ofagriculturalists, that the woollens bill, of 1827, favoured themanufacturer. In this debate, he gave evidence of that genius forlegislation which was destined soon to shine in the United StatesSenate at a time when some of the fiercest political fights of thecentury were being waged. 

It is evident Van Buren did not appreciate the capacity of SilasWright in 1831; otherwise, instead of William L. Marcy, Wright wouldhave succeeded Nathan Sanford in the United States Senate. [272] Marcyhad made an excellent state comptroller; his able and luminousreports had revealed the necessity of preserving the general fund, andthe danger of constructing additional lateral canals. As a judge ofthe Supreme Court, also, his sound judgment had won him an enviablereputation, especially in the trial of the Morgan abductors, which washeld at a time of great excitement and intense feeling. But, as aUnited States senator, Marcy failed to realise the expectations of hisfriends. Very likely two years were insufficient to test fairly hislegislative capacity. Besides, his services, however satisfactory, would naturally be dwarfed in the presence of the statesmen thenengaged in the great constitutional debate growing out of the Footeresolution, limiting the sale of public lands. Congress was rapidlymaking history; and the Senate, lifted into great prominence by thespeeches of Webster and Hayne, had become a more difficult place thanever for a new member. At all events, Marcy did not exhibit theparliamentary spirit that seeks to lead, or which delights in thestruggles of the arena where national reputations are made. He, moreover, had abundant opportunity. Thomas H. Benton says that thesession of 1832 became the most prolific of party topics and partycontests in the annals of Congress; yet Marcy was dumb on thosesubjects that were interesting every one else. 

[Footnote 272: "Marcy was the immediate predecessor of Wright as statecomptroller and United States senator. Each possessed rare talents, but they were totally dissimilar in mental traits and politicalmethods. Both were statesmen of scrupulous honesty, who despisedjobbery. Marcy was wily and loved intrigue. Wright was proverbiallyopen and frank. Marcy never trained himself to be a public speaker, and did not shine in the hand-to-hand conflicts of a body that waslustrous with forensic talents. A man's status in the United StatesSenate is determined by the calibre and skill of the opponents who areselected to cross weapons with him in the forum. Wright wasunostentatious, studious, thoughtful, grave. Whenever he delivered anelaborate speech the Whigs set Clay, Webster, Ewing, or some other oftheir leaders to reply to him. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 39. ]

Even when the great opportunity of Marcy's senatorial career wasthrust upon him--the defence of Van Buren at the time of the latter'srejection as minister to Great Britain--he failed signally. Thecontroversy growing out of Jackson's cabinet disagreements, ostensiblybecause of the treatment of Mrs. Eaton, wife of the Secretary of War, but really because of Calhoun's hostility to Van Buren, due to thePresident's predilections for him as his successor, had made itevident to Van Buren that an entire reorganisation of the Cabinetshould take place. Accordingly, on April 11, 1831, he opened the way, by voluntarily and chivalrously resigning. President Jackson soonafter appointed him minister to England, and Van Buren sailed for hispost. But when the question of his confirmation came up, in thefollowing December, Calhoun and his friends, joined by Webster andClay, formed a combination to defeat it. Calhoun's opposition wassimply the enmity of a political rival, but Webster sought to put hisantagonism on a higher level, by calling Van Buren to account forinstructions addressed to the American Minister at London in regard toour commercial relations with the West Indian, Bahama, and SouthAmerican colonies of England. 

In 1825 Parliament permitted American vessels to trade with Britishcolonies, on condition that American ports be opened within a year toBritish vessels on the same terms as to American vessels. The Adamsadministration, failing to comply with the statute within the year, set up a counter prohibition, which was in force when Van Buren, wishing to reopen negotiations, instructed McLane, the AmericanMinister at London, to say to England that the United States had, asthe friends of the present administration contended at the time, beenwrong in refusing the privileges granted by the act of 1825, but thatour "views have been submitted to the people of the United States, andthe counsels by which your conduct is now directed are the result ofthe judgment expressed by the only earthly tribunal to which the lateadministration was amenable for its acts. " In other words, Van Burenhad introduced party contests in an official dispatch, not brazenly oroffensively, perhaps, but with questionable taste, and, for this, thegreat senators combined and spoke against him--Webster, Clay, Hayne, Ewing of Ohio, Holmes of Maine, and seven others--"just a dozen andequal to a full jury, " wrote Benton. Webster said he would pardonalmost anything when he saw true patriotism and sound Americanfeeling, but he could not forgive the sacrifice of these to party. Clay characterised his language as that of an humble vassal to a proudand haughty lord, prostrating the American eagle before the Britishlion. In the course of his remarks, Clay also referred, in anincidental way, to the odious system of proscription practised in theState of New York, which, he alleged, Van Buren had introduced intothe general government. 

Only four senators spoke in Van Buren's defence, recalling the weakprotest made in the Legislature on the day of DeWitt Clinton's removalas canal commissioner, but this gave William L. Marcy the greateropportunity for acquitting himself with glory and vindicating hisfriend. It was not a strong argument he had to meet. Van Buren hadbeen unfortunate in his language, although in admitting that theUnited States was wrong in refusing the privileges offered by theBritish law of 1825, he did nothing more than had Gallatin, whom Adamssent to England to remedy the same difficulty. Furthermore, byassuming a more conciliatory course Van Buren had been entirelysuccessful. To Webster's suggestion of lack of patriotism, and toClay's declaration that the American eagle had been prostrated beforethe British lion, Marcy might have pointed to Van Buren's exaltedpatriotism during the War of 1812, citing the conscription act, whichhe drafted, and which Benton declared the most drastic piece of warlegislation ever enacted into law. To Clay's further charge, that hebrought with him to Washington the odious system of proscription, theNew York senator could truthfully have retorted that the system ofremovals, inaugurated by Jackson, was in full swing before Van Burenreached the national capital; that if he did not oppose it hecertainly never encouraged it; that of seventeen foreignrepresentatives, the Secretary of State had removed only four; andthat, in making appointments as governor, he never departed from therule of refusing either to displace competent and trustworthy men, orto appoint the dishonest and incompetent. He could also have readLorenzo Hoyt's wail that Van Buren would "not lend the least weight ofhis influence to displace from office such men as John Duer, " Adams'appointee as United States attorney at New York. But Marcy did nothingof the kind. He made no use of the abundant material at hand, out ofwhich he might have constructed a brilliant speech if not a perfectdefence. Quite on the contrary he contented himself simply withreplying to Clay's slur. He defended the practice of politicalproscription by charging that both sides did it. Ambrose Spencer, hesaid, the man whom Clay was now ready to honour, had begun it, and hehimself "saw nothing wrong in the rule that to the victors belong thespoils of the enemy. "

If the conspiracy of distinguished statesmen to defeat Van Buren'sconfirmation was shallow and in bad taste, Marcy's defence wasscarcely above the standard of a ward politician. Indeed, theattempted defence of his friend became the shame of both; since itforever fixed upon Marcy the odium of enunciating a vicious principlethat continued to corrupt American political life for more than half acentury, and confirmed the belief that Van Buren was an inveteratespoilsman. [273]

[Footnote 273: "To this celebrated and execrable defence Van Burenowes much of the later and unjust belief that he was an inveteratespoilsman. Benton truly says that Van Buren's temper and judgment wereboth against it. "--Edward M. Shepard, _Life of Martin Van Buren_, p. 233. ]

Probably an abler defence would in no wise have changed the result. From the first a majority of senators had opposed Van Buren'sconfirmation, several of whom refrained from voting to afford VicePresident Calhoun the exquisite satisfaction of giving the castingvote. "It will kill him, sir, kill him dead, " Calhoun boasted inBenton's hearing; "he will never kick, sir, never kick. " This was thethought of other opponents. But Thomas H. Benton believed otherwise. "You have broken a minister and elected a Vice President, " he said. "The people will see nothing in it but a combination of rivals againsta competitor. "

This also was the prophecy of Thurlow Weed. While the question ofrejection was still under consideration, that astute editor declared"it would change the complexion of his prospects from despair to hope. His presses would set up a fearful howl of proscription. He wouldreturn home as a persecuted man, throw himself upon the sympathy ofthe party, be nominated for Vice President, and huzzaed into office atthe heels of General Jackson. "[274] On the evening Van Buren heard ofhis rejection, in London, Lord Auckland, afterward governor-general ofIndia, said to him: "It is an advantage to a public man to be thesubject of an outrage. "

[Footnote 274: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p. 375. ]

In New York, Van Buren's party took his rejection as the friends ofDeWitt Clinton had taken his removal as canal commissioner. Indignation meetings were held and addresses voted. In stately wordsand high-sounding sentences, the Legislature addressed the President, promising to avenge the indignity offered to their most distinguishedfellow citizen; to which Jackson replied with equal warmth and skill, assuming entire responsibility for the instructions given the Americanminister at London and for removals from office; and acquitting theSecretary of State of all participation in the occurrences betweenhimself and Calhoun. He had called Van Buren to the State Department, the President said, to meet the general wish of the Republican party, and his signal success had not only justified his selection, but hispublic services had in nowise diminished confidence in his integrityand great ability. This blare of trumpets set the State on fire; andvarious plans were proposed for wiping out the insult of the Senate. Some suggested Dudley's resignation and Van Buren's re-election, thathe might meet his slanderers face to face; others thought he should bemade governor; but the majority, guided by the wishes of the Cabinet, and the expression of friends in other States, insisted that hisnomination as Vice President would strengthen the ticket and open theway to the Presidency in 1836. 

When, therefore, the Democratic national convention met at Baltimore, in May, 1832, only one name was seriously considered for VicePresident. Van Buren had opponents in P. P. Barbour of Virginia andRichard M. Johnson of Kentucky, but his friends had the convention. Onthe first ballot, he received two hundred and sixty votes out of threehundred and twenty-six. Barbour had forty, Johnson twenty-six. Delegates understood that they must vote for Van Buren or quarrel withJackson. 

Van Buren returned from London on July 5. New York was filled with amultitude to welcome him back. At a great dinner, ardent devotion, tempered by decorum, showed the loyalty of old neighbours, in whosemidst he had lived, and over whom he had practically reigned fornearly a quarter of a century. Instead of killing him, the Senate'srejection had swung open a wider door for his entrance to the highestoffice in the gift of the people. 

CHAPTER XXXV

FORMATION OF THE WHIG PARTY

1831-1834

The campaign of 1832 seemed to be without an issue, save Van Buren'srejection as Minister to Great Britain, and Jackson's wholesaleremovals from office. Yet it was a period of great unrest. The debateof Webster and Hayne had revealed two sharply defined views separatingthe North and the South; and, although the compromise tariff act of1832, supported by all parties, and approved by the President, hadtemporarily removed the question of Protection from the realm ofdiscussion, the decided stand in favour of a State's power to annul anact of Congress had made a profound impression in the North. Underthese circumstances, it was deemed advisable to organise a Clay party, and, to this end, a state convention of National Republicans, assembled in Albany in June, 1831, selected delegates to a convention, held in Baltimore in December, which unanimously nominated Henry Clayfor President. The Anti-Masons, who had previously nominated WilliamWirt, of Maryland, and were in practical accord with the NationalRepublicans on all questions relating to federal authority, agreed tojoin them, if necessary, to sustain these principles. 

A new issue, however, brought them together with great suddenness. Though the charter of the United States Bank did not expire until1836, the subject of its continuance had occupied public attentionever since President Jackson, in his first inaugural address, raisedthe question of its constitutionality; and when Congress convened, inDecember, 1831, the bank applied for an extension of its charter. Louis McLane, then secretary of the treasury, advised the presidentof the bank that Jackson would approve its charter, if certainspecified modifications were accepted. These changes proved entirelysatisfactory to the bank; but Webster and Clay declared that thesubject had assumed aspects too decided in the public mind and inCongress, to render any compromise or change of front expedient ordesirable. Later in the session, the bill for the bank's recharterpassed both branches of Congress. Then came the President's veto. Theact and the veto amounted to an appeal to the people, and in aninstant the country was on fire. 

Under these conditions, the anti-masonic state convention, confidentof the support of all elements opposed to the re-election of AndrewJackson, met at Utica on June 21, 1832. Albert H. Tracy of Buffalobecame its chairman. After he had warmed the delegates intoenthusiastic applause by his happy and cogent reasons for the successof the party, Francis Granger was unanimously renominated forgovernor, with Samuel Stevens for lieutenant-governor. The conventionalso announced an electoral ticket, equally divided betweenAnti-Masons and National Republicans, headed by James Kent[275] andJohn C. Spencer. In the following month, the National Republicansadopted the anti-masonic state and electoral tickets. It looked like aqueer combination, a "Siamese twin party" it was derisively called, inwhich somebody was to be cheated. But the embarrassment, if anyexisted, seems to have been fairly overcome by Thurlow Weed, whopatiently traversed the State harmonising conflicting opinions in theinterest of local nominations. 

[Footnote 275: "Chancellor Kent's bitter, narrow, and unintelligentpolitics were in singular contrast with his extraordinary legalequipment and his professional and literary accomplishments. "--EdwardM. Shepard, _Life of Martin Van Buren_, p. 246. ]

Meantime, the Van Buren leaders proceeded with rare caution. There hadbeen some alarming defections, notably the secession of the New York_Courier and Enquirer_, now edited by James Watson Webb, and therefusal of Erastus Root longer to follow the Jackson standard. SamuelYoung had also been out of humour. Young declared for Clay in 1824, and had inclined to Adams in 1828. It was in his heart also to rallyto the support of Clay in 1832. But, looking cautiously to the future, he could not see his way to renounce old associates altogether; andso, as evidence of his return, he published an able paper in defenceof the President's veto. There is no indication, however, that ErastusRoot was penitent. He had been playing a double game too long, andalthough his old associates treated him well, electing him speaker ofthe Assembly in 1827, 1828, and again in 1830, he could not overlooktheir failure to make him governor. Finally, after accepting anomination to Congress, his speeches indicated that he was doneforever with the party of Jackson. 

The Republican convention, which met at Herkimer, in September, 1832, nominated William L. Marcy for governor. Marcy had reluctantly leftthe Supreme Court in 1831; and he did not now take kindly to giving upthe United States Senate, since the veto message had made success inthe State doubly doubtful. But no other candidate excited anyinterest. Enos T. Throop had been practically ridiculed intoretirement. He was nicknamed "Small-light, " and the longer he servedthe smaller and the more unpopular he became. If we may accept thejudgment of contemporaries, he lacked all the engaging qualities thatusually characterise a public official, and possessed all the faultswhich exaggerate limited ability. 

Marcy had both tact and ability, but his opposition to the Chenangocanal weakened him in that section of the State. The Chenango projecthad been a thorn in the Regency's side ever since Francis Granger, in1827, forced a bill for its construction through the Assembly, changing Chenango from a reliable Jackson county to a Grangerstronghold; but Van Buren now took up the matter, assuring the peoplethat the next Legislature should pass a law for the construction ofthe canal, and to bind the contract Edward P. Livingston, with hisfamily pride and lack of gifts, was unceremoniously set aside aslieutenant-governor for John Tracy of Chenango. This bargain, however, did not relieve Marcy's distress. He still had little confidence inhis success. "I have looked critically over the State, " he wrote JesseHoyt on the first day of October, "and have come to the conclusionthat probably we shall be beaten. The United States Bank is in thefield, and I can not but fear the effect of fifty or one hundredthousand dollars expended in conducting the election in such a city asNew York. "

This was a good enough excuse, perhaps, to give Hoyt. But Marcy'sdespair was due more to the merciless ridicule of Thurlow Weed's penthan to the bank's money. Marcy had thoughtlessly included, in one ofhis bills for court expenses, an item of fifty cents paid for mendinghis pantaloons; and the editor of the _Evening Journal_, in hisinimitable way, made the "Marcy pantaloons" and the "Marcy patch" soridiculous that the slightest reference to it in any company raisedimmoderate laughter at the expense of the candidate for governor. AtRochester, the Anti-Masons suspended at the top of a long pole a hugepair of black trousers, with a white patch on the seat, bearing thefigure 50 in red paint. Reference to the unfortunate item often cameupon him suddenly. "Now, ladies and gentlemen, " shouted the driver ofa stage-coach on which Marcy had taken passage, "hold on tight, forthis hole is as large as the one in the Governor's breeches. " All thiswas telling hard upon Marcy's spirits and the party's confidence. Jesse Hoyt wrote him that something must be done to silence the absurdcry; but the candidate was without remedy. "The law provided for thepayment of the judge's expenses, " he said, "and while on this businesssome work was done on pantaloons for which the tailor charged fiftycents. It was entered on the account, and went into the comptroller'shands without a particle of reflection as to how it would appear inprint. " There was no suggestion of dishonesty. Weed was too skilfulto raise a point that might be open to discussion, but he kept thewhole State in laughter at the candidate's expense. Marcy felt sokeenly the ridiculous position in which his patched pantaloons put himthat, although he usually relished jokes on himself, "the patch" was adistressing subject long after he had been thrice elected governor. 

The Granger forces had, however, something more influential toovercome than a "Marcy patch. " Very early in the campaign it dawnedupon the bankers of the State that, if the United States Bank went outof business, government deposits would come to them; and from thatmoment every jobber, speculator and money borrower, as well as everybank officer and director, rejoiced in the veto. The prejudices of thepeople, always easily excited against moneyed corporations, hadalready turned against the "monster monopoly, " with its exclusiveprivileges for "endangering the liberties of the country, " and now thebanks joined them in their crusade. In other words, the Jackson partywas sustained by banks and the opponents of banks, by men of means andmen without means, by the rich and the poor. It was a greatcombination, and it resulted in the overwhelming triumph of Marcy andthe Jackson electoral ticket. [276]

[Footnote 276: "On one important question, Mr. Weed and I wereantipodes. Believing that a currency in part of paper, kept at parwith specie, and current in every part of our country, wasindispensable, I was a zealous advocate of a National Bank; which heas heartily detested, believing that its supporters would always beidentified in the popular mind with aristocracy, monopoly, exclusiveprivileges, etc. He attempted, more than once, to overbear myconvictions on this point, or at least preclude their utterance, butwas at length brought apparently to comprehend that this was a pointon which we must agree to differ. "--Horace Greeley, _Recollections ofa Busy Life_, p. 314. ]

The western anti-masonic counties gave their usual majorities forFrancis Granger, but New York City and the districts bordering theHudson, with several interior counties, wiped them out and left theJackson candidate ten thousand ahead. [277]

[Footnote 277: William L. Marcy, 166, 410; Francis Granger, 156, 672. _Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

This second defeat of Francis Granger had a depressing influence uponhis party. It had been a contest of giants. Webster's great speechesin support of the United States Bank were accepted as triumphantanswers to the arguments of the veto message, but nothing seemedcapable of breaking the solid Jackson majorities in the eastern andsouthern counties; and, upon the assembling of the Legislature, inJanuary, 1833, signs of disintegration were apparent among theAnti-Masons. Albert H. Tracy, despairing of success, began acceptinginterviews with Martin Van Buren, who sought to break anti-Masonry byconciliating its leaders. It was the voice of the tempter. Tracylistened and then became a missionary, inducing John Birdsall andother members of the Legislature to join him. Tracy had been anacknowledged leader. He was older, richer, and of larger experiencethan most of his associates, and, in appealing to him, Van Burenexhibited the rare tact that characterised his political methods. Butthe Senator from Buffalo could not do what Van Buren wanted him to do;he could not win Seward or capture the _Evening Journal_. "We had bothbeen accustomed for years, " says Thurlow Weed, "to allow Tracy to doour political thinking, rarely differing from him in opinion, andnever doubting his fidelity. On this occasion, however, we could notsee things from his standpoint, and, greatly to his annoyance, wedetermined to adhere to our principles. "[278]

[Footnote 278: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 421. Seward, in his_Autobiography_, says of Tracy, p. 166: "Albert H. Tracy is . . . A manof original genius, of great and varied literary acquirements, ofrefined tastes, and high and honourable principles. He seems the mosteloquent, I might almost say the only eloquent man in the Senate. Heis plainly clothed and unostentatious. Winning in his address andgifted in conversation, you would fall naturally into the habit oftelling him all your weaknesses, and giving him unintentionally yourwhole confidence. He is undoubtedly very ambitious; though heprotests, and doubtless half the time believes, that dyspepsia hashumbled all his ambition, and broken the vaultings of his spirit. Idoubt not that, dyspepsia taken into the account, he will be one ofthe great men of the nation. "]

It must be admitted that many reasons existed well calculated toinfluence Tracy's action. William Wirt had carried only Vermont, andHenry Clay had received but forty-nine out of two hundred andsixty-five electoral votes. Anti-Masonry had plainly run its course. It aroused a strong public sentiment against secret societies, untilmost of the lodges in western New York had surrendered their charters;but it signally failed to perpetuate its hold upon the masses. Thesurrendered charters were soon reissued, and the institution itselfbecame more popular and attractive than ever. These dishearteningconditions were re-emphasised in the election of 1833. The county ofWashington, before an anti-masonic stronghold, returned a Jacksonassemblyman; and the sixth district, which had elected an anti-masonicsenator in 1829, now gave a Van Buren member over seven thousandmajority. But the most surprising change occurred in the eighth, or"infected district. " Three years before it had given Granger thirteenthousand majority; now it returned Tracy to the Senate by less thantwo hundred. For a long time his election was in doubt. Of the onehundred and twenty-eight assemblymen, one hundred and four belonged tothe Jackson party, and of the eight senators elected Tracy alonerepresented the opposition. 

It was certainly not an encouraging outlook, and the leaders, afterfull consultation, virtually declared the anti-masonic partydissolved. But this did not, however, mean an abandonment of thefield. It was impossible for men who believed in internalimprovements, in the protection of American industries, and in theUnited States Bank, to surrender to a party controlled by the AlbanyRegency, which was rapidly drifting into hostility to these greatprinciples and into the acceptance of dangerous state rights'doctrines. In giving up anti-Masonry, therefore, Weed, Seward, Granger, Whittlesey, Fillmore, John C. Spencer, and other leaders, simply intended to let go one name and reorganise under another. Several Anti-Masons, following the lead of Tracy, fell by the way, butpractically all the people who made up the anti-masonic and NationalRepublican forces continued to act together. 

Several events of the year aided the opposition party. The hostilityof the Jackson leaders to internal improvements aroused formerClintonians who believed in canals, and the widespread financialembarrassment alarmed commercial and mercantile interests. Theyresented the remark of the President that "men who trade on borrowedcapital ought to fail, " and the bold denial that "any pressure existedwhich an honest man should regret. " Business men, cramped for money, or already bankrupt because the United States Bank, stripped of itsgovernment deposits, had curtailed its discounts, did not listen withpatience or amiability to statements of such a character; nor werethey inclined to excuse the President's action on the theory that theUnited States Bank had cut down its loans to produce a panic, and thusforce a reversal of his policy. To them such utterances seemed toevince a want of sympathy, and opposition orators and journals tookadvantage of the situation by eloquently denouncing a policy thatembarrassed commerce and manufactures, throwing people out ofemployment and bringing suffering and want to the masses. 

The New York municipal election in the spring of 1834 plainly showedthat the voters resented the President's financial policy. For thefirst time in the history of the city, the people were to elect theirmayor, and, although purely a local contest, it turned upon nationalissues. All the elements of opposition now used the one name of"Whig. " Until this time local organisations had adopted varioustitles, such as "Anti-Jackson, " "Anti-Mortgage, " and "Anti-Regency;"but the opponents of Jackson now claimed to be the true successors ofthe Whigs of 1776, calling their movement a revolution against thetyranny and usurpation of "King Andrew. " They raised liberty poles, spoke of their opponents as Tories, and appropriated as emblems thenational flag and portraits of Washington. 

The prospects of the new party brightened, too, when it nominated formayor Gulian C. Verplanck, a member of Tammany Hall, a distinguishedcongressman of eight years' service, and, until then, a representativeof the Jackson party, highly esteemed and justly popular. Althoughbest known, perhaps, as a scholar and writer, Verplanck's activesympathies early led him into politics. He entered the Whig party andthe mayoralty campaign with high hopes of success. He led themerchants and business men, while his opponent, Cornelius V. R. Lawrence, also a popular member of Tammany, rallied the mechanics andlabouring classes. The spirited contest, characterised by rifledballot-boxes and broken heads, revealed at once its nationalimportance. If the new party could show a change in public sentimentin the foremost city in the Union, it would be helpful in reversingJackson's financial policy. So the great issue became a cry of "panic"and a threat of "hard times. " Like the strokes of a fire bell atnight, it alarmed the people, whose confidence began to waver andfinally to give way. 

The evident purpose of the United States Bank was to create, ifpossible, the fear of a panic. By suddenly curtailing its loans, ostensibly because of the removal of the deposits, it brought suchpressure upon the state banks that a suspension of specie paymentseemed inevitable. To relieve this situation, Governor Marcy and theLegislature, acting with great promptness, pledged the State's creditto the banks, should the exigency require such aid, to the amount ofsix million dollars. This was called "Marcy's mortgage. " The Whigsstigmatised it as a pledge of the people's property for the benefit ofmoney corporations, denouncing the project as little better than avulgar swindle in the interest of the Democratic party. WhetherMarcy's scheme really averted the threatened calamity, or whether theUnited States Bank had already carried its contraction as far as itintended, it is certain that the fear of a panic served its purpose inthe campaign. The Whigs became enthusiastic, and, as the United StatesBank now began relieving the commercial embarrassment by extending itsloans and giving its friends in New York special advantages, the partyfelt certain of victory. When the polls closed the result did notfully realise Whig anticipations; yet it disclosed a Democraticmajority, cut down from five thousand to two hundred, with a loss ofthe Council. Verplanck had, indeed, been beaten by one hundred andeighty-one votes; but the Common Council, carrying with it thepatronage of the city, amounting to more than one million dollars ayear, had been easily won. The Democrats had the shadow, it was said, and the Whigs the substance. 

This election, and other successes in many towns throughout the State, greatly encouraged the leaders of the opposition. A convention held atSyracuse, in August, 1834, adopted the title of "Whig, " and the newparty exulted in its name. To add to the enthusiasm, Daniel Websterdeclared, in a letter, that, from his cradle, he had "been educated inthe principles of the Whigs of '76. " The New York City election wasreferred to as the "Lexington" of the revolution against "KingAndrew, " as its prototype was against King George. 

The Whigs' hope of success was heightened, also, by the unanimousnomination of William H. Seward for governor. Seward was nowthirty-three years of age. During his four years in the Senate, political expediency neither limited nor controlled his opinions. Hehad argued for reform in the military system; he had favoured theabolition of imprisonment for debt; he had vigorously opposed theattacks upon the United States Bank and the removal of the deposits;he had antagonised the Chenango canal for reasons presented byComptroller Marcy, and he gave generously of his time in the Court ofErrors. He had grown into a statesman of acknowledged genius andpopularity, placing himself in sympathy with the masses, denouncingmisrule and supporting measures of reform. Of all the old andexperienced members of the Senate, it was freely admitted that nonesurpassed him in a knowledge of the affairs of the State, or in areadiness to debate leading questions. But, well fitted as he was, hedid not solicit the privilege of being a candidate for governor. Onthe contrary, with Weed and Whittlesey, he tried to find some oneelse. Granger preferred going to Congress; Verplanck had not yetrecovered from the chagrin and disappointment of losing the mayoralty;Maynard was dead, and James Wadsworth would not accept office. ToSeward an acceptance of the nomination, therefore, appealed almost asa matter of duty. 

Silas M. Stilwell of New York became the candidate forlieutenant-governor. Stilwell had been a shoemaker, and, until theorganisation of the Whig party, a stalwart supporter of the Regency, occupying a conspicuous place as an industrious and ambitious memberof the Assembly. When the deposits were removed and a panic threatenedhe declared himself a Whig. 

Confidence characterised the convention which nominated Seward andStilwell. Young men predominated, and their enthusiasm was aroused tothe highest pitch by the eloquence of Peter R. Livingston, theirvenerable chairman. Like a new convert, Livingston prophesied victory. Livingston had been a wheel-horse in the party of Jefferson. He hadserved in the Senate with Van Buren; he had taken a leading part inthe convention of 1821, and he had held, with distinction, thespeakership of the Assembly and the presidency of the Senate. Hiscreed was love of republicanism and hatred of Clinton. At one time hewas the faithful follower, the enthusiastic admirer, almost thedevotee of Van Buren; and, so long as the Kinderhook statesman opposedClinton, he needed Livingston. But, when the time came that Van Burenmust conciliate Clinton, Livingston was dropped from the Senate. Theconsequences were far more serious than Van Buren intended. Livingstonwas as able as he was eloquent, and Van Buren's coalition withClinton quickly turned Livingston's ability and eloquence to thesupport of Clay. Then he openly joined the Whigs; and to catch hisinfluence, and the thrill of his remarkable voice, they made himchairman of their first state convention. As an evidence of theirenthusiasm, the whole body of delegates, with music and flags, drovefrom Syracuse to Auburn, twenty-six miles, to visit their youngcandidate for governor. 

In the same month the Democrats renominated Marcy and John Tracy, strong in prestige of past success and present power. Instantly, thetwo leading candidates were contrasted--Marcy, the mature andexperienced statesman; Seward, a "red-haired young man, " without arecord and unknown to fame. Stilwell was told to "stick to his bootsand shoes;" and, in resentment, tailors, printers, shoemakers, and menof other handicraft, organised in support of "the working man" againstthe "Jackson Aristocrats. " In answer to the _Commercial Advertiser's_sneer that Seward was "red-haired, " William L. Stone, with felicitoushumour, told how Esau, and Cato, Clovis, William Rufus, and Rob Roynot only had red hair, but each was celebrated for having it; howOssian sung a "lofty race of red-haired heroes, " how Venus herself wasgolden-haired, as well as Patroclus and Achilles. "Thus does itappear, " the article concluded, "that in all ages and in allcountries, from Paradise to Dragon River, has red or golden hair beenheld in highest estimation. But for his red hair, the country of Esauwould not have been called Edom. But for his hair, which was doubtlessred, Samson would not have carried away the gates of Gaza. But for hisred hair, Jason would not have navigated the Euxine and discovered theGolden Horn. But for the red hair of his mistress, Leander would nothave swum the Hellespont. But for his red hair, Narcissus would nothave fallen in love with himself, and thereby become immortal in song. But for his red hair we should find nothing in Van Buren to praise. But for red hair, we should not have written this article. And, butfor his red hair, William H. Seward might not have become governor ofthe State of New York! Stand aside, then, ye Tories, and 'Let go ofhis hair. '"[279]

[Footnote 279: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 238. ]

The mottoes of this campaign illustrate the principles involved in it. "Seward and Free Soil, or Marcy with his Mortgage" was a favouritewith the Whigs. "The Monster Bank Party" became the popular cry ofDemocrats, to which the Whigs retorted with "The Party of LittleMonsters. " "Marcy's Pantaloons, " "No Nullification, " and "Union andLiberty" also did service. Copper medals bearing the heads ofcandidates were freely distributed, and humourous campaign songs, setto popular music, began to be heard. 

It was a lively campaign, and reports of elections in other States, showing gratifying gains, kept up the hopes of Whigs. But, at the end, the withering majorities in Democratic strongholds remained unbroken, re-electing Marcy and Tracy by thirteen thousand majority, [280] andcarrying every senatorial district save the eighth, and ninety-one ofthe one hundred and twenty-two assemblymen. The Whigs had put forwardtheir ablest men for the Legislature and for Congress, but, outside ofthose chosen in the infected district, few appeared in the halls oflegislation, either at Albany or at Washington. Francis Granger wentto Congress. "He has had a fortunate escape from his dilemma, and Irejoice at it, " wrote Seward to Thurlow Weed. "He is a noble fellow, and I am glad that, if we could not make him what we wished, we havebeen able to put him into a career of honour and usefulness. "[281]

[Footnote 280: William L. Marcy, 181, 905; William H. Seward, 168, 969. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

[Footnote 281: _Autobiography of William H. Seward_, p. 241. ]

Seward was not broken-hearted over his defeat. The majority againsthim was not so large as Granger encountered in 1832; but it wassufficiently pronounced to send him back to his profession with thefeeling that his principles and opinions were not yet wanted. "If Ilive, " he said to Weed, "and my principles ever do find favour withthe people, I shall not be without their respect. Believe me, thereis no affectation in my saying that I would not now exchange thefeelings and associations of the vanquished William H. Seward for thevictory and 'spoils' of William L. Marcy. "[282]

[Footnote 282: _Autobiography of William H. Seward_, p. 241. ]

A POLITICAL HISTORY

OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

BY

DeALVA STANWOOD ALEXANDER, A. M. 

_Member of Congress, Formerly United States Attorney for the NorthernDistrict of New York_

VOL. II

1833-1861

[Illustration]

NEW YORKHENRY HOLT AND COMPANY1906

Copyright, 1906ByHENRY HOLT AND COMPANY

CONTENTS

VOL. II

CHAPTER PAGE

I. VAN BUREN AND ABOLITION. 1833-1837 1

II. SEWARD ELECTED GOVERNOR. 1836-1838 15

III. THE DEFEAT OF VAN BUREN FOR PRESIDENT. 1840 31

IV. HUMILIATION OF THE WHIGS. 1841-1842 47

V. DEMOCRATS DIVIDE INTO FACTIONS. 1842-1844 56

VI. VAN BUREN DEFEATED AT BALTIMORE. 1844 65

VII. SILAS WRIGHT AND MILLARD FILLMORE. 1844 76

VIII. THE RISE OF JOHN YOUNG. 1845-1846 90

IX. FOURTH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 1846 103

X. DEFEAT AND DEATH OF SILAS WRIGHT. 1846-1847 114

XI. THE FREE-SOIL CAMPAIGN. 1847-1848 129

XII. SEWARD SPLITS THE WHIG PARTY. 1849-1850 145

XIII. THE WHIGS' WATERLOO. 1850-1852 159

XIV. THE HARDS AND THE SOFTS. 1853 180

XV. A BREAKING-UP OF PARTY TIES. 1854 190

XVI. FORMATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 1854-1855 205

XVII. FIRST REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR. 1856 222

XVIII. THE IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT. 1857-1858 243

XIX. SEWARD'S BID FOR THE PRESIDENCY. 1859-1860 256

XX. DEAN RICHMOND'S LEADERSHIP AT CHARLESTON. 1860 270

XXI. SEWARD DEFEATED AT CHICAGO. 1860 281

XXII. NEW YORK'S CONTROL AT BALTIMORE. 1860 294

XXIII. RAYMOND, GREELEY, AND WEED. 1860 305

XXIV. FIGHT OF THE FUSIONISTS. 1860 324

XXV. GREELEY, WEED, AND SECESSION. 1860-1861 334

XXVI. SEYMOUR AND THE PEACE DEMOCRATS. 1860-1861 346

XXVII. WEED'S REVENGE UPON GREELEY. 1861 361

XXVIII. LINCOLN, SEWARD, AND THE UNION. 1860-1861 367

XXIX. THE WEED MACHINE CRIPPLED. 1861 388

A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

CHAPTER I

VAN BUREN AND ABOLITION

1833-1837

After Van Buren's inauguration as Vice President, he made Washingtonhis permanent residence, and again became the President's chiefadviser. His eye was now intently fixed upon the White House, and thelong, rapid strides, encouraged by Jackson, carried him swiftly towardthe goal of his ambition. He was surrounded by powerful friends. Edward Livingston, the able and accomplished brother of theChancellor, still held the office of secretary of state; Benjamin F. Butler, his personal friend and former law partner, wasattorney-general; Silas Wright, the successor of Marcy, and NathanielP. Tallmadge, the eloquent successor of the amiable Dudley, were inthe United States Senate. Among the members of the House, SamuelBeardsley and Churchill C. Cambreling, firm and irrepressible, led theAdministration's forces with conspicuous ability. At Albany, Marcy wasgovernor, Charles L. Livingston was speaker of the Assembly, AzariahC. Flagg state comptroller, John A. Dix secretary of state, AbrahamKeyser state treasurer, Edwin Croswell state printer and editor ofthe _Argus_, and Thomas W. Olcott the able financier of the Regency. All were displaying a devotion to the President, guided by infinitetact, that distinguished them as the organisers and disciplinarians ofthe party. "I do not believe, " wrote Thurlow Weed, "that a strongerpolitical organisation ever existed at any state capital, or even atthe national capital. They were men of great ability, great industry, indomitable courage, and strict personal integrity. "[283]

[Footnote 283: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 103. ]

John A. Dix seemed destined from the first to leave an abiding mark inhistory. Very early in life he was distinguished for executiveability. Although but a boy, he saw active service throughout the Warof 1812, having been appointed a cadet at fourteen, an ensign atfifteen, and a second lieutenant at sixteen. After the war, he servedas aide-de-camp on the staff of General Brown, living at FortressMonroe and at Washington, until feeble health led to his resignationin 1828. Then he began the practice of law at Cooperstown. In 1830, when Governor Throop made him adjutant-general, he removed to Albany. He was now twenty-six years old, an accomplished writer, a vigorousspeaker, and as prompt and bold in his decisions as in 1861, when hestruck the high, clear-ringing note for the Union in his order toshoot the first man who attempted to haul down the American flag. Hewas not afraid of any enterprise; he was not abashed by the stoutestopposition; he was not even depressed by failure. When the call came, he leaped up to sudden political action, and very soon was installedas a member of the Regency. 

Dix had one great advantage over most of his contemporaries inpolitical life--he was able to write editorials for the _Argus_. Ittook a keen pen to find an open way to its columns. Croswell neededassistance in these days of financial quakings and threatened partydivisions, but he would accept it only from a master. Until this time, Wright and Marcy had aided him. Their love for variety of subject, characteristic, perhaps, of the gifted writer, presented widelydiffering themes, flavoured with humour and satire, making the paperattractive if not spectacular. To this work Dix, who had alreadypublished a _Sketch of the Resources of the City of New York_, nowbrought the freshness of a strong personality and the training of ascholar and linguist. He had come into public life under the influenceof Calhoun, for whom the army expressed a decided preference in 1828;but he never accepted the South Carolinian's theory of nullification. Dix had inherited loyalty from his father, an officer in the UnitedStates army, and he was quick to strike for his country when SouthCarolina raised the standard of rebellion in 1861. 

There was something particularly attractive about John A. Dix in theseearlier years. He had endured hardships and encountered dangers, buthe had never known poverty; and after his marriage he no longerdepended upon the law or upon office for life's necessities. Educatedat Phillips Exeter Academy, at the College of Montreal, and at St. Mary's College in Baltimore, he learned to be vigorous withoutegotism, positive without arrogance, and a man of literary tasteswithout affectation. Even long years of earnest controversy andintense feeling never changed the serene purity of his life, his loftypurposes, or the nobility of his nature. It is doubtful if he wouldhave found distinction in the career of a man of letters, to which hewas inclined. He had the learning and the scholarly ambition. LikeBenjamin F. Butler, he could not be content with a small measure ofknowledge. He studied languages closely, he read much of the world'sliterature in the original, and he could write on political topicswith the firm grasp and profound knowledge of a statesman of broadviews; but he could not, or did not, turn his English into the realmof literature. Yet his _Winter in Madeira and a Summer in Spain andFlorence_, published in 1850, ran through five editions in threeyears, and is not without interest to-day, after so many others, with, defter pen, perhaps, have written of these sunny lands. Hisappointment as secretary of state in 1833 made him also statesuperintendent of common schools, and his valuable reports, publishedduring the seven years he filled the office, attest his intelligentdevotion to the educational interests of New York, not less than hiseditorial work on the _Argus_ showed his loyal attachment to VanBuren. 

But, despite the backing of President Jackson, and the influence ofother powerful friends, there was no crying demand outside of New Yorkfor Van Buren's election to the Presidency. He had done nothing tostir the hearts of his countrymen with pride, or to create apronounced, determined public sentiment in his behalf. On thecontrary, his weaknesses were as well understood without New York aswithin it. David Crockett, in his life of Van Buren, speaks of him as"secret, sly, selfish, cold, calculating, distrustful, treacherous, "and "as opposite to Jackson as dung is to a diamond. " Crockett's book, written for campaign effect, was as scurrilous as it was interesting, but it proved that the country fully understood the character of VanBuren, and that, unlike Jackson, he had no great, redeeming, iron-willed quality that fascinates the multitude. Tennessee, the homeState of Jackson, opposed him with bitterness; Virginia declared thatit favoured principles, not men, and that in supporting Van Buren ithad gone as far astray as it would go; Calhoun spoke of the Van Burenparty as "a powerful faction, held together by the hopes of plunder, and marching under a banner whereon is written 'to the victors belongthe spoils. '" Everywhere there seemed to be unkindness, unrest, orindifference. 

Nevertheless, Van Buren's candidacy had been so persistently andsystematically worked up by the President that, from the moment of hisinauguration as Vice President, his succession to the Presidency wasaccepted as inevitable. It is doubtful if a man ever slipped into anoffice more easily than Martin Van Buren secured the Presidency. Thatthere might be no failure at the last moment, a national democraticconvention, the second one in the history of the party, was called tonominate him at Baltimore, in May, 1835, eighteen months before theelection. When the time came, South Carolina, Alabama, and Illinoiswere unrepresented; Tennessee had one delegate, and Mississippi andMissouri only two each; but Van Buren's nomination followed with anease and a unanimity that caused a smile even among the office-holdingdelegates. 

Indeed, slavery was the only thing in sight to disturb Van Buren. Atpresent, it was not larger than a cloud "like a man's hand, " but theagitation had begun seriously to disturb politicians. After the Northhad emerged from the Missouri struggle, chafed and mortified by thetreachery of its own representatives, the rapidly expanding culture ofcotton, which found its way in plenty to northern seaports, hadapparently silenced all opposition. A few people, however, had beengreatly disturbed by the arguments of a small number of reformers, much in advance of their time, who were making a crusade against thewhole system of domestic slavery. Some of these men won honoured namesin our history. One of them was Benjamin Lundy. In 1815, whentwenty-six years old, Lundy organised an anti-slavery association, known as the "Union Humane Society, " and, in its support, he hadtraversed the country from Maine to Tennessee, lecturing, editingpapers, and forming auxiliary societies. He was a small, deaf, unassuming Quaker, without wealth, eloquence, or marked ability; buthe had courage, tremendous energy, and a gentle spirit. He had livedfor a time in Wheeling, Virginia, where the horrors, inseparable fromslavery, impressed him very much as the system in the British WestIndies had impressed Zachary Macaulay, father of the distinguishedessayist and historian; and, like Macaulay, he ever after devoted histime and his abilities to the generous task of rousing his countrymento a full sense of the cruelties practised upon slaves. 

In 1828, he happened to meet William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison'sattention had not previously been drawn to the slavery question, but, when he heard Lundy's arguments, he joined him in Baltimore, demanding, in the first issue of _The Genius_, immediate emancipationas the right of the slave and the duty of the master. William LloydGarrison was young then, not yet twenty-three years of age, but hestruck hard, and soon found himself in jail, in default of the paymentof fifty dollars fine and costs for malicious libel. At the end offorty-nine days, Arthur Tappan, of New York City, paid the fine, andGarrison, returning to Boston, issued the first number of _TheLiberator_ on January 1, 1830. 

This opened the agitation in earnest. Garrison treated slavery as acrime, repudiating all creeds, churches, and parties which taught oraccepted the doctrine that an innocent human being, however black ordown-trodden, was not the equal of every other and entitled to thesame inalienable rights. The South soon heard of him, and the GeorgiaLegislature passed an act offering a reward of five thousand dollarsfor his delivery into that State. Indictments of northern men bysouthern grand juries now became of frequent occurrence, one governormaking requisition upon Governor Marcy for the surrender of ArthurTappan, although Tappan had never been in a Southern State. The South, finding that long-distance threats, indictments, and offers of rewardaccomplished nothing, waked into action its northern sympathisers, whoappealed with confidence to riot and mob violence. In New York City, the crusade opened in October, 1833, a mob preventing the organisationof an anti-slavery society at Clinton Hall. Subsequently, on July 4, 1834, an anti-slavery celebration in Chatham Street chapel was brokenup, and five days later, the residence of Lewis Tappan was forced openand the furniture destroyed. These outrages were followed by thedestruction of churches, the dismantling of schoolhouses, and thelooting of dwellings, owned or used by coloured people. In October, 1835, a committee of respectable citizens of Utica, headed by SamuelBeardsley, then a congressman and later chief justice of the State, broke up a meeting called to organise a state anti-slavery society, and destroyed the printing press of a democratic journal which hadspoken kindly of Abolitionists. The agitators, however, were in nowise dismayed or disheartened. It would have taken a good deal ofpersecution to frighten Beriah Green, or to confuse the conscience ofArthur Tappan. 

In the midst of such scenes came tidings that slavery had beenabolished in the British West Indies, and that the Utica indignity hadbeen signalised by the conversion of Gerrit Smith. Theretofore, Smithhad been a leading colonisationist--thereafter he was to devotehimself to the principles of abolitionism. Gerrit Smith, from hisearliest years, had given evidence of precocious and extraordinaryintelligence. Thurlow Weed pronounced him "the handsomest, the mostattractive, and the most intellectual young man I ever met. " Smith wasthen seventeen years old--a student in Hamilton College. "He dressed_à la_ Byron, " continues Weed, "and in taste and manners wasinstinctively perfect. "[284] His father was Peter Smith, famous in hisday as one of the largest landowners in the United States; and, although this enormous estate was left the son in his young manhood, it neither changed his simple, gentle manners, nor the purpose of hisnoble life. [285] By profession, Gerrit Smith was a philanthropist, andin his young enthusiasm he joined the American Colonisation Society, organised in 1817, for the purpose of settling the western coast ofAfrica with emancipated blacks. It was a pre-eminently respectableassociation. Henry Clay was its president, and prominent men North andSouth, in church and in state, approved its purpose and its methods. In 1820 it purchased Sherbro Island; but finding the locationunfortunate, other lands were secured in the following year at CapeMesurado, and about a thousand emigrants sent thither during the nextseven years. Gerrit Smith, however, found the movement too slow, ifnot practically stranded, by the work of the cotton-gin and thedoctrine of Calhoun, that "the negro is better off in slavery at theSouth than in freedom elsewhere. " So, in 1830, he left the society tothose whose consciences condemned slavery, but whose conservatismrestrained them from offensive activity. The society drifted alonguntil 1847, when the colony, then numbering six or seven thousand, declared itself an independent republic under the name of Liberia. Inthe meantime, Smith, unaided and alone, had provided homes in northernStates, on farms of fifty acres each, for twice as many emancipatedblacks, his gifts aggregating over two hundred thousand acres. 

[Footnote 284: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 31. ]

[Footnote 285: "Many years ago I was riding with Gerrit Smith innorthern New York. He suddenly stopped the carriage, and, lookingaround for a few minutes, said: 'We are now on some of my poor land, familiarly known as the John Brown tract;' and he then added, 'I owneight hundred thousand acres, of which this is a part, and all in onepiece. ' Everybody knows that his father purchased the most of it atsales by the comptrollers of state for unpaid taxes. He said he ownedland in fifty-six of the sixty counties in New York. He was also alandlord in other States. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 189. ]

Gerrit Smith's conversion to abolitionism helped the anti-slaverycause, much as the conversion of St. Paul benefited the Christianchurch. He brought youth, courage, enthusiasm, wealth, and markedability. Although alienated from him for years because of his peculiarcreed, Thurlow Weed refers in loving remembrance to "his greatintellect, genial nature, and ample fortune, which were devoted to allgood works. " When the people of Utica, his native town, broke up themeeting called to form a state anti-slavery society, Smith promptlyinvited its projectors to his home at Peterborough, Madison County, where the organisation was completed. He was thirty-three years oldthen, and from that day until Lincoln's proclamation and Lee'ssurrender freed the negro, he never ceased to work for the abolitionof slavery. The state organisation, nourished under his fosteringcare, led to greater activity. Anti-slavery societies began to form inevery county and in most of the towns of some counties. Abolitionismdid not take the place of anti-Masonry, which was now rapidly on thewane; but it awakened the conscience, setting people to thinking and, then, to talking. The great contest to abolish slavery in the BritishWest Indies, led by the Buxtons, the Wilberforces, and the Whitbreads, had aroused public indignation in the United States, as well as inEngland, by the overwhelming proofs that men and women were beingconstantly flogged; and that branding female slaves on the breast withred-hot iron, was used as a means of punishment, as well as ofidentification. Other more revolting evidences of the horrors, whichseemed to be the inevitable accompaniment of the slave system, foundlodgment in American homes through the eloquence of the noted Englishabolition lecturer, George Thompson, then in this country; until thecruelties, characterising slavery in Jamaica, were supposed andbelieved by many to be practised in the Southern States. 

Naturally enough, the principal avenue between the promoter ofanti-slavery views and the voter was the United States mails, andthese were freighted with abolition documents. It is likely thatHarrison Gray Otis, the wealthy and aristocratic mayor of Boston, didnot exaggerate when he advised the southern magistrate, who desiredthe suppression of Garrison's _Liberator_, that "its office was anobscure hole, its editor's only visible auxiliary a negro boy, and hissupporters a few insignificant persons of all colours;"[286] but theSoutherners knew that from that "obscure hole" issued a paper ofuncompromising spirit, which was profoundly impressing the people ofthe United States, and their journals and orators teemed withdenunciations. The Richmond _Whig_ characterised Abolitionists as"hell-hounds, " warning the northern merchants that unless thesefanatics were hung they would lose the benefit of southern trade. ACharleston paper threatened to cut out and "cast upon the dunghill"the tongue of any one who should lecture upon the evils or immoralityof slavery. The Augusta _Chronicle_ declared that if the question belonger discussed the Southern States would secede and settle thematter by the sword, as the only possible means of self-preservation. A prominent Alabama clergyman advised hanging every man who favouredemancipation, and the Virginia Legislature called upon thenon-slave-holding States to suppress abolition associations by penalstatutes. 

[Footnote 286: Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_, Vol. 1, p. 122, _note_. ]

In the midst of such sentiments, it was evident to Van Buren, whoseelection depended upon the Southern States, that something definitemust be done, and that nothing would be considered definite by theSouth which did not aim at the total abolition of the anti-slaveryagitator. Accordingly, his friends held meetings in every county inthe State, adopting resolutions denouncing them as "fanatics andtraitors to their country, " and indorsing Van Buren "as a patriotopposed to the hellish abolition factions and all their heresies. " VanBuren himself arranged for the great meeting at Albany at whichGovernor Marcy presided. "I send you the inclosed proceedings of thecitizens of Albany, " wrote Van Buren to the governor of Georgia, "andI authorise you to say that I concur fully in the sentiments theyadvance. "

In commenting upon the Albany meeting, Thurlow Weed, with theforesight of a prophet, wrote in the _Evening Journal_: "This questionof slavery, when it becomes a matter of political controversy, willshake, if not unsettle, the foundations of our government. It is toofearful, and too mighty, in all its bearings and consequences, to berecklessly mixed up in our partisan conflicts. "[287] When theLegislature convened, in January, 1836, Governor Marcy took up thequestion in his message. "I cannot doubt, " he said, "that theLegislature possesses the power to pass such penal laws as will havethe effect of preventing the citizens of this State, and residentswithin it, from availing themselves, with impunity, of the protectionof its sovereignty and laws, while they are actually employed inexciting insurrection and sedition in a sister State, or engaged intreasonable enterprises, intending to be executed therein. "[288] Notcontent with this show of loyalty to the South on the part of hisfriends, Van Buren secured the support of Silas Wright and NathanielP. Tallmadge for the bill, then pending in the United States Senate, prohibiting postmasters from knowingly transmitting or delivering anydocuments or papers relating to the abolition of slavery, and when themeasure, on a motion for engrossment, received a tie vote, Van Burencast the decisive vote in the affirmative. [289]

[Footnote 287: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 319. ]

[Footnote 288: _Governors' Messages_, January 5, 1836. ]

[Footnote 289: "When the bill came to a vote in the Senate, althoughthere was really a substantial majority against it, a tie wasskilfully arranged to compel Van Buren, as Vice President, to give thecasting vote. White, the Southern Democratic candidate so seriouslymenacing him, was in the Senate, and voted for the bill. Van Burenmust, it was supposed, offend the pro-slavery men by voting againstthe bill, or offend the North and perhaps bruise his conscience byvoting for it. When the roll was being called, Van Buren, so Bentontells us, was out of the chair, walking behind the colonnade at therear of the Vice President's seat. Calhoun, fearful lest he mightescape the ordeal, eagerly asked where he was, and told thesergeant-at-arms to look for him. But Van Buren was ready, and at oncestepped to his chair and voted for the bill. His close friend, SilasWright of New York, also voted for it. Benton says he deemed both thevotes to be political and given from policy. So they probably were. . . . Van Buren never deserved to be called a 'Northern man with Southernprinciples. ' But this vote came nearer to an excuse for the epithetthan did any other act of his career. "--Edward M. Shepard, _Life ofMartin Van Buren_, p. 277. ]

Van Buren's prompt action gave him the confidence and support ofthree-fourths of the slave-holding States, without losing his holdupon the Democracy of the free States. Indeed, there was nothing newthat the Whigs could oppose to Van Buren. They were not ready to takethe anti-slavery side of the issue, and questions growing out of thebank controversy had practically been settled in 1832. This, therefore, was the situation when the two parties in New Yorkassembled in convention, in September, 1836, to nominate statecandidates. Marcy and John Tracy were without opposition. From thefirst moment he began to administer the affairs of the State, Marcymust have felt that he had found his work at last. 

The Whigs were far from being united. Henry Clay's disinclination tobecome a nominee for President resulted in two Whig candidates, HughL. White of Tennessee, the favourite of the southern Whigs, andWilliam Henry Harrison, preferred by the Eastern, Middle, and WesternStates. This weakness was soon reflected in New York. Thurlow Weed wasfull of forebodings, and William H. Seward found his law office moresatisfactory than a candidate's berth. Like Clay he was perfectlywilling another should bear the burden of inevitable defeat. So theWhigs put up Jesse Buel for governor, Gamaliel H. Barstow forlieutenant-governor, and an electoral ticket favourable to Harrison. 

Jesse Buel was not a brilliant man. He was neither a thinker, likeSeward, nor an orator, like Granger; but he was wise, wealthy, andeminently respectable, with enough of the statesman in him to be ableto accept established facts and not to argue with the inexorable. Years before, he had founded the Albany _Argus_, editing it withability and great success. Through its influence he became stateprinter, succeeding Solomon Southwick, after the latter's quarrel withGovernor Tompkins over the Bank of America. This was in 1813. Threeyears later Thurlow Weed, then a young man of nineteen, worked for himas a journeyman printer. "From January till April, " he writes, "Iuniformly reached the office before daylight, and seldom failed tofind Mr. Buel at his case, setting type by a tallow candle and smokinga long pipe. " Buel made so much money that the party managers invitedhim to let others, equally deserving, have a turn at the stateprinting. So he went into the Assembly, distinguishing himself as anable, practical legislator. But he gradually drew away from theDemocrats, as their financial policy became more pronounced; and uponthe organisation of the Whig party gave it his support. Had he chosenhe might have been its candidate for governor in 1834; and it isdifficult to understand why he should have accepted, in 1836, withlittle expectation of an election, what he declined two years beforewhen success seemed probable. 

Gamaliel H. Barstow had been a Clintonian and an anti-Clintonian, afollower and a pursuer of Van Buren, an Adams man and anAnti-Mason--everything, in fact, except a Federalist. But, underwhatever standard he fought, and in whatever body he sat, he was arecognised leader, full of spirit, fire, and force. In 1824, he hadstood with James Tallmadge and Henry Wheaton at the head of the Adamsparty; in 1831, he had accompanied John C. Spencer and William H. Seward to the national anti-masonic convention at Baltimore; and, inthe long, exciting debate upon the bill giving the people power tochoose presidential electors, he exhibited the consummate shrewdnessand sagacity of an experienced legislator. There was nothing sinisteror vindictive about him; but he had an unsparing tongue, and hedelighted to indulge it. This is what he did in 1836. Having turnedhis back upon the Democratic party, the campaign to him became anoccasion for contrasting the past and "its blighting Regencymajorities" with the future of a new party, which, no doubt, seemed tohim and to others purer and brighter, since the longer it was excludedfrom power the less opportunity it had for making mistakes. 

But 1836 was a year of great prosperity. The undue depression of 1835was now succeeded by commercial activity and an era of expansion andinflation. Visionary schemes were everywhere present. Real estatevalues doubled, farms were platted into village lots, wild lands wereturned into farms, and a new impulse was given to legitimate andillegitimate enterprises. Stocks rose, labour went up, farm productssold at higher prices, and the whole country responded to theadvantages of the money plethora. Democracy rode on the crest of thewave, and Jackson's financial policy was accepted with joy. 

Nevertheless the Whig party, hoping to strengthen its numbers inCongress, did not relax its zeal. When the vote, however, revealednearly thirty thousand majority for Marcy[290] and the Van Burenelectoral ticket, with ninety-four Democrats in the Assembly and onlyone Whig in the Senate, it made Thurlow Weed despair for the Republic. 

[Footnote 290: William L. Marcy, 166, 122; Jesse Buel, 136, 648--_CivilList, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

CHAPTER II

SEWARD ELECTED GOVERNOR

1836-1838

The overwhelming defeat of the Whigs, in 1836, left a single rift inthe dark cloud through which gleamed a ray of substantial hope. It wasplain to the most cautious business man that if banking had beenhighly remunerative, with the United States Bank controllinggovernment deposits, it must become more productive after Jackson hadtransferred these deposits to state institutions; and what was plainto the conservative banker, was equally patent to the recklessspeculator. The legislatures of 1834 and 1835, therefore, became notedas well as notorious for the large number of bank charters granted. Asthe months passed, increased demands for liberal loans created anincreasing demand for additional banks, and the greater the demand thegreater the strife for charters. Under the restraining law of theState, abundant provision had been made for a fair distribution ofbank stocks; but the dominant party, quick to take an advantagehelpful to its friends, carefully selected commissioners who woulddistribute it only among their political followers. At first it wentto merchants or capitalists in the locality of the bank; butgradually, Albany politicians began to participate, and then, prominent state officers, judges, legislators and their relatives andconfidential friends, many of whom resold the stock at a premium oftwenty to twenty-five per cent. Before the first payment had beenmade. Thus, the distribution of stock became a public scandal, deplored in the messages of the Governor and assailed by the press. "The unclean drippings of venal legislation, " the New York _EveningPost_ called it. But no remedy was applied. The Governor, in spite ofhis regrets, signed every charter the Legislature granted, and thecommissioners, as if ignorant of the provisions to secure a fairdistribution of the stock, continued to evade the law with boldnessand great facility. 

Members of the Democratic party in New York City, who believed thatbanking, like any other business, ought to be open to competition, hadorganised an equal rights party in 1834 to oppose all monopolies, andthe bank restraining law in particular. Several meetings were heldduring the summer. Finally, in October, both factions of Tammany Hallattempted forcibly to control its proceedings, and, in the contest, the lights were extinguished. The Equal Righters promptly relightedthem with loco-foco or friction matches and continued the meeting. From this circumstance they were called Locofocos, a name which theWhigs soon applied to the whole Democratic party. 

The Equal Rights party was not long-lived. Two years spanned itsactivity, and four or five thousand votes measured its strength; but, while it lasted, it was earnest and the exponent of good principles. In 1836, these people held a state convention at Utica, issued adeclaration of principles, and nominated a state and congressionalticket. In New York City, the centre of their activity, Frederick A. Tallmadge was put up for state senator and Edward Curtis for Congress, two reputable Whigs; and, to aid them, the Whig party fusedsuccessfully with the Equal Righters, electing their whole ticket. This victory was the one ray of hope that came to the Whigs out of thecontest of 1836. It proved that some people were uneasy and resentful. 

But other Whig victories were soon to follow. Reference has alreadybeen made to the unprecedented prosperity that characterised the year1836. This era of expansion and speculative enterprises, which beganwith the transfer of government deposits, continued at high pressureunder the influence of the newly chartered banks. With such a moneyplethora, schemes and projects expanded and inflated, until successseemed to turn the heads of the whole population. So wild was thepassion for new enterprises, that one had only to announce a scheme tofind people ready to take shares in it. Two per cent. A month did notdeter borrowers who expected to make one hundred per cent. Before theend of the year. In vain did the Governor inveigh against this"unregulated spirit of speculation. " As the year advanced, men grewmore reckless, until stocks and shares were quickly purchased at anyprice without the slightest care as to the risk taken. 

The beginning of the end of this epoch of insane speculation was felt, early in the spring of 1837, by a money pressure of unexampledseverity. Scarcely had its effect reached the interior counties, before every bank in the country suspended specie payments. Thenconfidence gave way, and tens of thousands of people, who had beenwealthy or in comfortable circumstances, waked up to the awfulrealisation of their bankruptcy and ruin. The panic of 1837 reachedthe proportions of a national calamity. Most men did not then know thereason for the crash, and the knowledge of those who did, broughtlittle comfort. But, gradually, the country recognised that theprosperity of a nation is not increased in proportion to the quantityof paper money issued, unless such currency be maintained at its fullvalue, convertible, at pleasure, into hard cash--the money standard ofthe world. 

It so happened that the Legislature had not adjourned when the crashcame, and, without a moment's delay, it suspended for one year thesection of the Safety Fund act forbidding banks to issue notes afterrefusing to pay them in coin on demand; but it refused to suspend theact, passed in March, 1835, prohibiting the issue or circulation ofbills under the denomination of five dollars. This left the peoplewithout small bills, and, as New York banks dared not issue them, necessity forced into circulation foreign bills, issued by solvent andinsolvent banks, the losses from which fell largely upon the poorerclasses who could not discriminate between the genuine and thespurious. So great was the inconvenience and loss suffered by thecontinuance of this act, that the people petitioned the Governor tocall an extra session of the Legislature for its repeal; but Marcydeclined, for the reason that the Legislature had already refused togive the banks the desired authority. Thus, the citizens of New York, staggering under a panic common to the whole country, were compelledto suffer the additional hardships of an irredeemable, and, for themost part, worthless currency, known as "shin-plasters. "

In the midst of these "hard times, " occurred the election in November, 1837. The New York municipal election, held in the preceding springand resulting, with the help of the Equal Righters, in the choice of aWhig mayor, had prepared the way for a surprise; yet no one imaginedthat a political revolution was imminent. But the suffering peoplewere angry, and, like a whirlwind, the Whigs swept nearly every countyin the State. Of one hundred and twenty-eight assemblymen, theyelected one hundred and one, and six of the eight senators. Ithappened, too, that as the triennial election of sheriffs and clerksoccurred this year, the choice of these officers swelled the triumphinto a victory that made it the harder to overthrow. In a moment, theelection of 1837 had given the Whigs a powerful leverage in localcontests, enabling them to build up a party that could be disciplinedas well as organised. To add to their strength, the Legislature, whenit convened, in January, 1838, proceeded to take the "spoils. " LutherBradish was chosen speaker, Orville L. Holley surveyor-general, andGamaliel L. Barstow state treasurer. It also suspended for two yearsthe act prohibiting banks from issuing small bills, passed a generalbanking law, and almost unanimously voted four millions for enlargingthe Erie canal. 

Although the spring elections of 1838 showed a decided falling off inthe Whig vote, hopes of carrying the State in November were so wellfounded that Whig candidates for governor appeared in plenty. Lookingback upon the contest from a distance, especially with the presentknowledge of his superlative fitness for high place, it seems strangethat William H. Seward should not have had an open way in theconvention. But Francis Granger had also won the admiration of hisparty by twice leading a forlorn hope. Amidst crushing defeat he hadnever shown weariness, and his happy disposition kept him in friendlytouch with his party. The Chenango people were especially ardent inhis support. Twice he had forced their canal project through a hostileAssembly, and they did not forget that, in the hour of triumph, Sewardopposed it. Besides, Granger had distinguished himself in Congress, resisting the policy of Jackson and Van Buren with forceful argumentand ready tact. He was certainly a man to be proud of, and hisadmirers insisted with great pertinacity that he should now be thenominee for governor. 

There was another formidable candidate in the field. Luther Bradishhad proved an unusually able speaker, courteous in deportment, andfirm and resolute in his rulings at a time of considerable politicalexcitement. He had entered the Assembly from Franklin in 1828, and, having early embraced anti-Masonry with Weed, Granger, and Seward, was, with them, a leader in the organisation of the Whig party. Thenorthern counties insisted that his freedom from party controversiesmade him peculiarly available, and, while the supporters of othercandidates were quarrelling, it was their intention, if possible, tonominate him. Seward and Granger were eager for the nomination, butneither seems to have encouraged the ill-will which their followersexhibited. Indeed, Seward evidenced a disposition to withdraw; and hewould doubtless have done so, had not his friends, and those ofGranger, thought it better to let a convention decide. As the campaigngrew older, the canvass proceeded with asperity. Granger's adherentsaccused Seward of an unjust conspiracy to destroy him, and of havingcanvassed the State, personally or by agents, to secure the prize evenat the cost of a party division. They charged him with oppressing thesettlers in Chautauqua, with editing the Albany _Journal_, withregulating the Bank of the United States, and controlling themovements of Henry Clay. "I am already so wearied of it, " Sewardwrote, "that, if left to myself, I should withdraw instantly andforever. I am ill-fitted for competition with brethren and friends. But with a clear conscience and greater magnanimity than there ismanifested toward me, I shall go safely through all this storm. "[291]

[Footnote 291: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 366. ]

The confidence disclosed in the closing sentence was due largely tohis confidence in Thurlow Weed. The editor of the Albany _Journal_seriously desired to take no part in the choice of delegates, sincehis personal and political relations with all the candidates wereintimate and confidential; but he had known Granger longer than theothers, and, if controlled by personal friendship, he must havefavoured the Ontario candidate. Weed, however, believed that Seward'snomination would awaken greater enthusiasm, especially among youngmen, thus giving the ticket its best chance of success. At the lastmoment, therefore, he declared in favour of the Auburn statesman. 

The sequel showed that his help came none too soon. Four informalballots were taken, and, on the following day the formal and finalone. The first gave Seward 52, Granger 39, and Bradish 29, with 4 forEdwards of New York. This was supposed to be Granger's limit. On thesecond ballot, Bradish's friends transferred thirteen votes to him, making Seward 60, Granger 52, Bradish 10, and Edwards 3. If this was asurprise to the friends of Seward, the third ballot was a tremendousshock, for Seward fell off to 59, and Granger got 60. Bradish had 8. Then Weed went to work. Though he had understood that Granger, exceptin a few counties, had little strength, the last ballot plainly showedhim to be the popular candidate; and during an intermission betweenthe third and fourth ballots, the _Journal's_ editor exhibited aninfluence few men in the State have ever exercised. The convention wasmade up of the strongest and most independent men in the party. Nearlyall had held seats in the state or national legislature, or hadoccupied other important office. Experience had taught them to actupon their own convictions. The delegates interested in the ChenangoValley canal were especially obstinate and formidable. "Weed, " saidone of them, "tell me to do anything else; tell me to jump out of thewindow and break my neck, and I will do it to oblige you; but don'task me to desert Granger!"[292] Yet the quiet, good-natured Weed, hishand softly purring the knee of his listener as he talked--neverexcited, never vehement, but sympathetic, logical, prophetic--had hisway. The fourth ballot gave Seward 67, Granger 48, Bradish 8. The workwas done. When the convention reassembled the next morning, on motionof a warm supporter of Granger, the nomination was made unanimous, andBradish was named for lieutenant-governor by acclamation. 

[Footnote 292: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 373. ]

Much disappointment was exhibited by Granger's friends, especially theold anti-Mason farmers who were inclined to reproach Weed withdisloyalty. Granger himself stoically accepted defeat and zealouslysupported the ticket. He had said to a departing delegate, "if eitherMr. Seward or Mr. Bradish attain a majority at the informal ballot, myfriends must give the successful competitor their united support. "[293]How heartily Seward would have responded under like circumstances isevidenced by his action when a premature report went forth ofGranger's selection. Being informed of it, Seward at once told hisfriends that Auburn must be the first to ratify, and immediately setto work preparing resolutions for the meeting. 

[Footnote 293: _Ibid. _, p. 374. ]

Thurlow Weed was pre-eminently a practical politician. He believed intaking advantage of every opportunity to strengthen his own party andweaken the adversary, and he troubled himself little about the meansemployed. He preferred to continue the want of small bills for anotheryear rather than allow the opposite party to benefit by a repeal ofthe obnoxious law; he approved Van Buren's course in the infamousFellows-Allen controversy; and, had he been governor in place of JohnJay in 1800, the existing Legislature would undoubtedly have beenreconvened in extra session, and presidential electors chosenfavourable to his own party, as Hamilton wanted. But, at the bottom ofhis nature, there was bed-rock principle from which no pressure couldswerve him. He could exclaim with Emerson, "I will say those thingswhich I have meditated for their own sake and not for the first timewith a view to that occasion. " In these words is the secret of hisrelation to the Whig party. He asked no office, and he gave only theripe fruit of his meditative life. It is not to be supposed that, in1838, he saw in the young man at Auburn the astute United StatesSenator of the fifties; or the still greater secretary of state of theCivil War; but he had seen enough of Seward to discern the qualitiesof mind and heart that lifted him onto heights which extended hishorizon beyond that of most men, enabling him to keep his bearing inthe midst of great excitement, and, finally, in the presence of waritself. Seward saw fewer things, perhaps, than the more active andeloquent Granger, but Weed knew that he saw more deeply. [294]

[Footnote 294: "Apart from politics, I liked Seward, though not blindto his faults. His natural instincts were humane and progressive. Hehated slavery and all its belongings, though a seeming necessityconstrained him to write, in 1838, to this intensely pro-slavery city, a pro-slavery letter, which was at war with his real, or at least withhis subsequent convictions. Though of Democratic parentage, he hadbeen an Adams man, an anti-Mason, and was now thoroughly a Whig. Thepolicy of more extensive and vigorous internal improvement had no morezealous champion. By nature, genial and averse to pomp, ceremony, andformality, few public men of his early prime were better calculated toattract and fascinate young men of his own party, and holding viewsaccordant on most points with his. . . . Weed was of coarser mould andfibre than Seward--tall, robust, dark-featured, shrewd, resolute, andnot over-scrupulous--keen-sighted, though not far-seeing. "--HoraceGreeley, _Recollections of a Busy Life_, pp. 311, 312. ]

The Democratic state convention assembled at Herkimer on September 12, and unanimously renominated William L. Marcy and John Tracy. Marcyhad made an able governor for three consecutive terms. His declarationthat "to the victors belong the spoils" had not impaired hisinfluence, since all parties practised, if they did not preach it;and, although he stultified himself by practically recommending andfinally approving the construction of the Chenango canal, which hebitterly opposed as comptroller, he had lost no friends. Canalbuilding was in accord with the spirit of the times. A year later, hehad recommended an enlargement of the Erie canal; but when hediscovered that the Chenango project would cost two millions insteadof one, and the Erie enlargement twelve millions instead of six, heprotested against further improvements until the Legislature providedmeans for paying interest on the money already borrowed. He clearlysaw that the "unregulated spirit of speculation" would lead to ruin;and, to counteract it, he appealed to the Legislature, seeking toinfluence the distribution of bank stock along lines set forth in thelaw. But Marcy failed to enforce his precepts with the veto. Inrefusing, also, to reassemble the Legislature, for the repeal of theSmall Bills act, the passage of which he had recommended in 1835, hegave the _Evening Post_ opportunity to assail him as "a weak, cringing, indecisive man, the mere tool of a monopoly junto--theirconvenient instrument. "

Marcy held office under difficult conditions. The panic, coming in thesummer of 1837, was enough to shatter the nerves of any executive;but, to the panic, was now added the Canadian rebellion which occurredin the autumn of 1837. Though not much of a rebellion, William L. McKenzie's appeal for aid to the friends of liberty aroused hundredsof sympathetic Americans living along the border. Navy Island, abovethe Falls of Niagara, was made the headquarters of a provisionalgovernment, from which McKenzie issued a proclamation offering areward for the capture of the governor-general of Canada and promisingthree hundred acres of land to each recruit. 

The Canadian authorities effectually guarded the border, anddestroyed the _Caroline_, presumably an insurgent steamer, lying atSchlosser's dock on the American side. In the conflict, one member ofthe crew was killed, and several wounded. The steamer proved to be anAmerican vessel, owned by New York parties, and its destructiongreatly increased the indignation against Canada; but Governor Marcydid not hesitate to call upon the people to refrain from unlawful actswithin the territory of the United States; and, to enforce hisproclamation, supplied General Scott, now in command of the Canadianfrontier, with a force of militia. The American troops quickly forcedthe abandonment of Navy Island, scattered the insurgents and theirallies to secret retreats, and broke up the guerrilla warfare. Theloss of life among the patriots, due to their audacity and incompetentleadership, was considerable, and the treatment of prisoners harsh andin some instances inhuman. Many young men of intelligence andcharacter were banished for life to Van Dieman's Land, McKenzie wasthrown into a Canadian dungeon, and, among others, Van Schoulty, abrave young officer and refugee from Poland, who led an unsuccessfulattack upon Prescott, was executed. Small as was the uprising, itcreated an intense dislike of Marcy among the friends of those whoparticipated in it. 

Still another political splinter was festering in Marcy's side. Several leading Democrats, who had sustained Jackson in his war uponthe United States Bank, and in his removal of the deposits, refused toadopt Van Buren's sub-treasury scheme, proposed to the extra sessionof Congress, convened in September, 1837. This measure meant thedisuse of banks as fiscal agents of the government, and thecollection, safekeeping, and disbursement of public moneys by treasuryofficials. The banks, of course, opposed it; and thousands who hadshouted, "Down with the United States Bank, " changed their cry to"Down with Van Buren and the sub-treasury scheme. " Among thoseopposing it, in New York, Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, a Democratic UnitedStates senator, took the lead, calling a state convention to meet atSyracuse. This convention immediately burned its bridges. Itdenounced Van Buren, it opposed Marcy, and it indorsed Seward. Behindit were bank officers and stockholders who were to lose the privilegeof loaning the money of the United States for their own benefit, andthe harder it struck them the more liberally they paid for fireworksand for shouters. 

If trouble confronted the Democrats, discouragement oppressed theWhigs. Under the direction of Gerrit Smith the Abolitionists were onthe war-path, questioning Seward as to the propriety of grantingfugitive slaves a fair trial by jury, of abolishing distinctions inconstitutional rights founded solely on complexion, and of repealingthe law authorising the importation of slaves into the State and theirdetention as such during a period of nine months. Seward avowed hisfirm faith in trial by jury and his opposition to all "human bondage, "but he declined making ante-election pledges. He preferred to wait, hesaid, until each case came before him for decision. Seward undoubtedlytook the wise course; but he did not satisfy the extremistsrepresented by Smith, and many of the Whig leaders becamepanic-stricken. "The Philistines are upon us, " wrote Millard Fillmore, who was canvassing the State. "I now regard all as lost irrevocably. We shall never be able to burst the withes. Thank God, I can endure itas long as they, but I am sick of our Whig party. It can never be inthe ascendant. "[295]

[Footnote 295: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 60. ]

Francis Granger was no less alarmed. He estimated the Abolitionistvote at twenty thousand, "and before the grand contest of 1840, " hewrote Weed, "they will control one-fourth the votes of the State. Theyare engaged in it with the same honest purpose that governed the greatmass of Anti-Masons. "[296] The young candidate at Auburn was also indespair. "I fear the State is lost, " he wrote Weed on November 4. "This conclusion was forced upon me strongly by news from the southerntier of counties, and is confirmed by an analogy in Ohio. But I willnot stop to reason on the causes. Your own sagacity has doubtlessoften considered them earlier and more forcibly than mine. "[297]

[Footnote 296: _Ibid. _, p. 61. ]

[Footnote 297: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 61. ]

But Horace Greeley did not share these gloomy forebodings. He was thenengaged in editing the _Jeffersonian_, a weekly journal of eightpages, which had been established in February solely as a campaignnewspaper. His regular business was the publication of the _NewYorker_, a journal of literature and general intelligence. During thecampaign he consented to spend two days of each week at Albany makingup the _Jeffersonian_, which was issued from the office of the_Evening Journal_, and he was doing this work with the indefatigableindustry and marvellous ability that marked his character. 

Greeley had battled for a place in the world after the manner ofThurlow Weed. He was born on a New Hampshire farm, he had worked on aVermont farm, and for a time it seemed to him as if he must foreverremain on a farm; but after a few winters of schooling he started overthe Vermont hills to learn the printer's trade. A boy was not neededin Whitehall, and he pushed on to Poultney. There he found work forfour years until the _Northern Spectator_ expired. Then he went backto the farm. But newspaper life in a small town had made him ambitiousto try his fortunes in a city, and, journeying from one printingoffice to another, he finally drifted, in 1831, at the age of twenty, into New York. 

Up to this time Greeley's life had resembled Weed's only in hisvoracious appetite for reading newspapers. He cared little for theboys about town and less for the sports of youth; he could dispensewith sleep, and wasted no time thinking about what he should eat orwear; but books, and especially newspapers, were read with the aviditythat a well-fed threshing machine devours a stack of wheat. He seemedto have only one ambition--the acquisition of knowledge and the careerof a man of letters, and in his efforts to succeed, he ignored formsand social usages, forgot that he had a physical body to care for, anddetested man-worship. Standing at last before a printer's case onBroadway, he was able to watch, almost from the beginning, the greatpolitical drama in which he was destined to play so great a part. Seward had just entered the State Senate; Weed, having recentlyestablished the _Evening Journal_, was massing the Anti-Masons andNational Republicans for their last campaign; William Lloyd Garrisonhad issued the first number of the _Liberator_; Gerrit Smith, alreadyin possession of his father's vast estate, still clung to the Liberiancolonisation scheme; and Van Buren, not yet returned from England, wasabout entering upon the last stage of his phenomenally successfulpolitical career. Politicians for the first time disturbed about thetariff, the bank, and internal improvements, had come to the partingof the ways; the old order of things had ended under John QuincyAdams--the new had just commenced under Andrew Jackson. But the youngcompositor needed no guide-post to direct his political footsteps. In1834, he had established the _New Yorker_ and those who read it becameWhigs. His mind acted upon other minds of a certain constitution withwonderful magnetism, attracting thousands of readers by his marvellousgift of expression and the broad sympathies and clear discernmentsthat characterised his writings. He had his own ideas about thenecessity for reforms, and he seems easily to have fallen a victim tocountless delusions and illusions which young visionaries andgray-headed theorists brought to him; but, in spite of remonstrancesand crushing opposition, he stood resolutely for whatever awoke thestrongest emotions of his nature. 

Thurlow Weed had been a constant reader of the _New Yorker_. He didnot know the name of its editor and had never taken the trouble toinquire, but when a cheap weekly Whig newspaper was needed for avigorous campaign in 1838, the editor of the _New Yorker_, whoever hemight be, seemed the proper man to edit and manage it. Going to NewYork, he called at the Ann Street office and found himself in thepresence of a young man, slender, light-haired, slightly stooping, andvery near-sighted, who introduced himself as Horace Greeley. At themoment, he was standing at the case, with coat off and sleeves rolledup, setting type with the ease and rapidity of an expert. "When Iinformed him of the object of my visit, " says Weed, "he was, ofcourse, surprised, but evidently gratified. Nor was his surprise andgratification diminished to learn that I was drawn to him without anyother reason or information but such as I had derived from the columnsof the _New Yorker_. He suggested the _Jeffersonian_ as the name forthe new paper, and the first number appeared in February, 1838. "[298]

[Footnote 298: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 466. ]

It is one of the privileges of genius to discern the genius of others;but even Thurlow Weed could not have dreamed that he was givingopportunity to a man whose name was to rank higher than his own inhistory. There was a certain affinity between the intellectual natureof the two men, and they had now a common object. Both werejournalists of tremendous energy, indomitable industry, and marvellousgifts; but Weed was a politician, Greeley a political preacher. Weed'sinfluence lay in his remarkable judgment, his genius for diplomacy, and his rare gift of controlling individuals by personal appeal and bythe overpowering mastery of his intellect; Greeley's supremacy grewout of his broad sympathies with the human race and his matchlessability to write. Weed's field of operations was confined largely tothe State of New York and to delegates and men of influence whoassemble at national conventions; Greeley preached to the wholecountry, sweeping along like a prairie fire and converting men to hisviews as easily as steel filings are attracted to the magnet. From theoutset he was above dictation. He lacked judgment, and at timesgreatly grieved the friends who were willing to follow him throughfire and flood; but once his mind was made up he surrendered hisunderstanding, his consciousness of convictions, of duty, and ofpublic good, to no man or set of men. "I trust we can never beenemies, " he once wrote Weed, "but better anything than I should feelthe weight of chains about my neck, that I should write and act withan eye to any man's pleasure, rather than to the highest good. "[299]

[Footnote 299: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 97. ]

As the editor of the _Jeffersonian_, which now quickly won a multitudeof readers, he did his work with marked ability, discussing measurescalmly and forcibly, and with an influence that baffled his opponentsand surprised his friends. Greeley seems never to have been animmature writer. His felicity of expression and ability to shadethought, with a power of appeal and invective that belongs toexperience and mature age, came to him, as they did to Hamilton, before he was out of his teens, and whether he was right or whether hewas wrong, he was always the most interesting, always the mostcommanding figure in American journalism in the epoch-making politicalcontroversies of his day. 

The Whigs thought it a happy omen that election day, November 7, camethis year on the anniversary of General Harrison's victory atTippecanoe. As the returns came in Seward's friends grew more elated, and on Saturday, the 11th, Weed covered the entire first page of the_Evening Journal_ with the picture of an eagle, having outspread wingsand bearing in its beak the word "Victory. " It was the firstappearance in politics of this American bird, which was destined toplay a part in all future celebrations of the kind. The completedreturns showed that the Whigs had elected Seward and Bradish by tenthousand four hundred and twenty-one majority, [300] five of the eightsenators, and nearly two-thirds of the assemblymen. "Well, dearSeward, " wrote Weed, "we are victorious; God be thanked--gratefullyand devoutly thanked. "[301] Seward was no less affected. "It is afearful post I have coveted, " he wrote; "I shudder at my temerity. . . . Indeed, I feel just now as if your zeal had been blind; but I may, perhaps, get over this. God grant, at all events, that I be sparedfrom committing the sin of ingratitude. I hate it as the foulest inthe catalogue. "[302]

[Footnote 300: William H. Seward, 192, 882; William L. Marcy, 182, 461. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

[Footnote 301: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 379. ]

[Footnote 302: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 61. ]

Marcy seemed to accept his defeat good-naturedly. "Even before theballot-boxes were closed, " he wrote, facetiously, "I had partlypersuaded myself to engage in a work for _my_ posterity, by writingthe history of the rise, progress, and termination of the Regency. Itwill embrace the transactions of the golden days of the Republic(Empire State). It began with my entrance into public life, andterminates with my exit from it. The figures in the tableau will notbe of the largest size, but the ascendancy of honest men, for such Ithink them to have been (_Ilium fuit_), will be interesting on accountof great rarity. " But, to the same friend, a few weeks later, he tooka desponding view, expressing the fear that the power which had passedfrom the Democratic party would not return to as honest hands. Hisfinancial condition, too, caused him much uneasiness. He had giveneighteen years to the State, he said, the largest portion of an activeand vigorous life, and now found himself poorer than when he tookoffice. "If my acquisitions in a pecuniary way have probably been lessand my labours and exertions greater, " he asks, "what compensatingadvantages are to be brought into the calculation to balance theaccount?" An office-holder rarely asks such a question until thrownout of a position; while in office, it is evident he thinks theprivilege of holding it sufficient compensation; otherwise, it may bepresumed, he would resign. Marcy, however, was not forgotten. Indeed, his political career had scarcely begun, since the governorship becameonly a stepping-stone to continued honours. Within a few months, President Van Buren appointed him, under the convention of April, 1839, to the Mexican Claims Commission, and a few years later he wasto become a member of two Cabinets. 

CHAPTER III

THE DEFEAT OF VAN BUREN FOR PRESIDENT

1840

After Seward's election, the Whig party in New York may be fairlydescribed as under the control of Thurlow Weed, who became known asthe "Dictator. " Although no less drastic and persevering, perhaps, than DeWitt Clinton's, it was a control far different in method. Clinton did not disguise his power. He was satisfied in his own mindthat he knew better than any other how to guide his party and governhis followers, and he acted accordingly--dogmatic, overbearing, oftenfar from amiable, sometimes unendurable, to those around him. Weed, onthe contrary, was patient, sympathetic, gentle, and absolutely withoutasperity. "My dear Weed, " wrote Seward on December 14, 1838, "thesweetness of his temper inclines me to love my tyrant. I had no ideathat dictators were such amiable creatures. "[303] In a humourous vein, William Kent, the gifted son of the Chancellor, addressed him. "Mr. Dictator, the whole State is on your shoulders. I take it, some futurechronicler, in reciting the annals of New York during this period, inevery respect equal to England in the time of Elizabeth, will devotethe brightest colours to 'the celebrated Thurlow Weed, who so longfilled the office of Governor Seward during his lengthened andprosperous administration. ' It behooves you, therefore, to actcircumspectly, and particularly in the advice you give the Governor asto appointments to office. "[304]

[Footnote 303: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 63. F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 381. ]

[Footnote 304: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 72. ]

Few chapters of personal history can be more interesting than thatwhich tells of the strange, subtle influence exercised by Weed overthe mind of Seward; but it is doubtful if there was conscious controlat any time. Certainly Seward never felt "the weight of chains" abouthis neck. Weed probably saw good reason to believe that in Seward hecould have just the sort of an associate who would suit all hispurposes, since their views of public affairs and their estimate ofpublic men rarely differed. "Our relations had become so intimate, " hesays, "and our sentiments and sympathies proved so congenial, that ourinterests, pursuits, and hopes of promoting each other's welfare andhappiness became identical. "[305] Weed seemed to glory in Seward'ssuccess, and Seward was supremely happy in and proud of Weed'sfriendship. Weed and Greeley were so differently constituted that, between them, such a relation could not exist, although at times itseemed to give Greeley real pain that it was so. "I rise early from abed of sleepless thought, " he once wrote Weed, "to explain that wediffer radically on the bank question, and I begin to fear we do onthe general policy and objects of political controversy. "[306] Butthere were no such sleepless nights for Seward. Looking back upon fouryears of gubernatorial life, he opens his heart freely to the friendof his young manhood. "Without your aid, " he declares, "how helplesswould have been my prospect of reaching the elevation from which I amto-day descending. How could I have sustained myself there; how couldI have secured the joyous reflections of this hour, but for theconfidence I so undenyingly reposed on your affection?"[307] It was notSeward's nature to depend upon somebody to have his path in life orhis ways of thinking pointed out to him; nor did he have the weaknessof many highly cultured and gifted men who believe too much in thesupremacy of intellect and culture. On the contrary, he had a way ofspeaking out his own honest thoughts, and would have despisedhimself, as much as would Greeley, if it had been necessary to enjoyany one's friendship on terms of humiliation. It was his nature, aswell as his wish, to share with Weed the benefit of the latter'salmost infallible judgment in political matters. In this way, Weed, more than either realised, had great influence with Seward. But Weedwas no more the directing mind of the administration of Seward thanwas Hamilton of Washington's, or Van Buren of Jackson's, or Seward ofLincoln's. Many anecdotes were told illustrative of this influence, which serve to show how strongly the notion obtained in the minds ofthe common people that Weed was really "the Dictator. " The best, associated Seward with his invariable custom of riding outside thecoach while smoking his after-dinner cigar. The whip, on thisoccasion, did not know the distinguished traveller, and, afteranswering Seward's many questions, attempted to discover the identityof his companion. The Governor disclaimed being a merchant, alecturer, a minister, or a teacher. "Then I know what you are, " saidthe driver; "you must be a lawyer, or you wouldn't ask so manyquestions. " "That is not my business at present, " replied Seward. "Then who are you?" finally demanded Jehu. "I am the governor of thisState, " replied Seward. The driver at once showed incredulity, and theGovernor offered to leave it to the landlord at the next tavern. Onarriving there, and after exchanging salutations, Seward suggested thequestion in dispute. "No, you are not the governor, " replied thelandlord, to the great satisfaction of the driver. "What!" exclaimedSeward, in astonishment; "then who is governor?" "Why, " said thelandlord, "Thurlow Weed. "[308]

[Footnote 305: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p. 423. ]

[Footnote 306: _Ibid. _, Vol. 2, p. 97. ]

[Footnote 307: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 642. ]

[Footnote 308: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 100. ]

"Though the incident never occurred, " says Frederick W. Seward, in thebiography of his father, "the story was so accordant with his habit ofriding outside to smoke, and with the popular understanding of hisrelations with Mr. Weed, that it was generally accepted as true. Seward himself used laughingly to relate it, and say that, though itwas not quite true, it ought to be. "[309]

[Footnote 309: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 395. ]

With Governor Seward's inauguration the Whig party was placed ontrial. Ten years had passed since DeWitt Clinton's death, and Sewardwas the first successor whose opinions and sentiments harmonised withthose of that distinguished statesman. During the intervening periodthe Regency had been in absolute control of the State. It hadcontented itself with looking after things as they existed, ratherthan undertaking further improvements and reforms. Seward's election, therefore, was not only a revolution of parties, but a radical changeof policy. Every Whig, fearful lest some misstep might lead to theearly loss of the power just gained, had an opinion as to what shouldand should not be done. Some were afraid the Governor would say toomuch, others fearful he would say too little. Seward, moving on broadlines of economics and reform, believed that the promotion oftransportation, the development of capital and credit, and theenlargement of educational advantages, would bring wealth to the Stateand greater happiness to the people; and his first message containedthe policy that guided him throughout his entire political career. Inits preparation, he relied upon President Knott of Union College forassistance on the subject of education; on John H. Beach for financialstatistics; on Samuel B. Ruggles for canal figures; and on John C. Spencer for general suggestions. Then he sat down with Weed for itsfinal revision. When completed, it contained the groundwork of hispolitical philosophy. He would prosecute the work of the canals, hewould encourage the completion of railroads, establish a board ofinternal improvement, extend charitable institutions, improve thediscipline of prisons, elevate the standard of education in schoolsand colleges, establish school district libraries, provide for theeducation of the coloured race, reform the practice of courts, cut offsuperfluous offices, repeal the Small Bills law, authorise bankingunder general laws, and apply rigorous safeguards, especially inpopulous cities, for the purity of the ballot-box. In concluding, hepaid a handsome tribute to DeWitt Clinton and recommended that amonument be erected to his memory in Albany. 

None of our statesmen, with whom reform has been a characteristictrait, was more devoted or happy. His delight, deep and unfailing, extended to every department of the government, and the minuteness ofhis knowledge betrayed the intimate acquaintance which he had gainedof the affairs of the State during his four years in the Senate. Hismessage caught the inspiration of this fresh and joyous maturity. Itwas written, too, in the easy, graceful style, rhythmical and subduedin expression, which afterward contributed to his extreme charm as anorator. From the first, Seward was an ardent optimist, and this firstmessage is that of noble youth, delighting in the life and theopportunities that a great office presents to one who is mindful ofits harassing duties and its relentless limitations, yet keenlysensitive to its novelty and its infinite incitements. The Democrats, whose hearts must have rejoiced when they heard his message, declaredit the visionary schemes of a theorising politician, the work of asophomore rather than a statesman; yet, within little more than adecade, most of his suggestions found a place in the statute book. Though the questions of that time are not the questions of our day, and engage only the historian and his readers, these twenty printedpages of recommendations, certain to excite debate and opposition, must always be read with deep enjoyment. 

The chief criticism of his opponents grew out of his acceptance ofRuggles's estimate that the canals would more than reimburse the costof their construction and enlargement. The _Argus_ asserted thatSeward, instead of sustaining the policy of "pay as you go, " favoureda "forty million debt;" and this became the great campaign cry of theDemocrats in two elections. On the other hand, the Whigs maintainedthat the canals had enriched the people and the State, and that theirfuture prosperity depended upon the enlargement of the Erie canal, sothat its capacity would meet the increasing demands of business. Inthe end, the result showed how prophetically Seward wrote and howwisely Ruggles figured; for, although the Erie canal, in 1862, hadcost $52, 491, 915. 74, it had repaid the State with an excess of$42, 000, 000. 

In the midst of so many recommendations, one wonders that Seward hadnothing to say for civil service reform. We may doubt, and withreason, whether anything he might have said could have strengthenedthe slight hold which such a theory then had in the minds of thepeople, but it would have brought the need of reform strikingly beforethe country to bear, in time, ripe fruit. The Whig party, however, wasnot organised to keep Democrats in office, and no sooner had theAlbany _Journal_ announced Seward's election than applications beganpouring in upon the Governor-elect until more than one thousand hadbeen filed. Seward afterward said that, of these applications, onlytwo came from persons living west of Cayuga Bridge, although theeighth district had given him a majority equal to his entire majorityin the State. 

Under the Constitution of 1821, there were more places to fill byappointment than under the Constitution of 1846, and twice as many asnow exist. In 1839, the Governor not only appointed port-wardens, harbour-masters, notaries public, and superintendents andcommissioners of various sorts, but he nominated judges, surrogates, county clerks, examiners of prisons, weighers of merchandise, measurers of grain, cullers of staves, and inspectors of flour, lumber, spirits, salt, beef and pork, hides and skins, and fish andoil, besides numerous other officers. They applied formally to theGovernor and then went to Weed to get the place. Just so the Whiglegislators went through the form of holding a caucus to select stateofficers after the slate had been made up. John C. Spencer becamesecretary of state; Bates Cook of Niagara County, comptroller; WillisHall of New York City, attorney-general; Jacob Haight, treasurer; andOrville L. Holley, surveyor-general. Thurlow Weed's account, readwith the knowledge that he alone selected them, is decidedlyhumourous. "Bates Cook had but a local reputation, " he says, "and itrequired the strongest assurances from Governor Seward and myself thathe was abundantly qualified. " In other words, it was necessary for thecaucus to know that Weed wanted him. "The canvass for attorney-generalwas very spirited, " he continues, "Joshua A. Spencer of Oneida andSamuel Stevens of Albany being the most prominent candidates;" butWillis Hall, "who was better known on the stump than at the bar, andwhose zeal, energy, and tact had been conspicuous and effective inoverthrowing the Democratic party, " got the office. Van Buren couldnot have surpassed this for practical politics. "The nomination ofJacob Haight, " he goes on, "afforded me great satisfaction. I hadlearned in my boyhood at Catskill to esteem and honour him. In 1824when, as a Democratic senator, he arrayed himself against William H. Crawford, the caucus nominee for President, and zealously supportedJohn Quincy Adams, my early remembrances of him grew into a warmpersonal friendship. "[310] It was easy to fuse in Weed's big heartDemocratic apostacy and the associations of boyhood. 

[Footnote 310: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 459. ]

Yet Weed had able indorsers behind his candidates. "I hear there isgreat opposition to Willis Hall, " wrote William Kent, "and I am sorryfor it. He has a great heart, and a great head, too. It has been hismisfortune, but our good fortune, that his time and talents have beendevoted to advancing the Whig party, while those who oppose him weretaxing costs and filing demurrers. The extreme Webster men in New Yorkhave formed a combination against Willis. It is the dog in the manger, too, for no man from New York is a candidate. "[311]

[Footnote 311: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 73. ]

But the dictator made a greater display of practical politics in theselection of a United States senator to succeed Nathaniel P. Tallmadge. There were several aspirants, among them Millard Fillmore, John C. Spencer, John A. Collier, and Joshua A. Spencer. All these menwere intensely in earnest. Fillmore, then in Congress, was chairman ofthe Committee on Ways and Means; and advancement to the Senate wouldhave been a deserved promotion. But Tallmadge had rallied to thesupport of Seward, under the name of Conservatives, many formerNational Republicans, who had joined the Democratic party because ofanti-Masonry, and Weed believed in keeping them in the Whig party byre-electing their leader. Fillmore, and other candidates, earnestlyprotested against the policy of discarding tried and faithful friends, and of conferring the highest and most important place in the gift ofthe party upon a new recruit whose fidelity could not be trusted;"but, strong as those gentlemen were in the Whig party, they wereunable to overcome a conviction in the minds of the Whig members ofthe Legislature, " says Weed, solemnly, as if the Whig members of theLegislature really did have something to do with it, "that in view ofthe approaching presidential election Mr. Tallmadge was entitled totheir support. He was, therefore, nominated with considerableunanimity. "[312] It was a great shock to Fillmore, which he resented afew years later. Indeed, Weed's dictatorship, although quiet andgentle, was already raising dissent. Albert H. Tracy, indignant atSeward's nomination over the heads of older and more experienced men, had withdrawn from politics, and Gamaliel H. Barstow, the first statetreasurer elected by the Whigs, resigned in a huff because he did notlike the way things were going. Weed fully realised the situation. "There are a great many disappointed, disheartened friends, " he wroteGranger. "It has been a tremendous winter. But for the presidentialquestion which will absorb all other things, the appointments wouldtear us to pieces. "[313] To his door, Seward knew, the censure of thedisappointed would be aimed. "The list of appointments made thiswinter is fourteen hundred, " he writes, "and I am not surprised byany manifestation of disappointment or dissatisfaction. This only Iclaim--that no interest, passion, prejudice or partiality of my ownhas controlled any decision I have made. "[314]

[Footnote 312: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p. 461. ]

[Footnote 313: _Ibid. _, Vol. 2, p. 86. ]

[Footnote 314: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 483. ]

But there was one wheel lacking in the Weed machine. The Democratscontrolled the Senate, obstructing bills deemed by the Whigs essentialto the public welfare, and refusing to confirm Seward's nominations. By preventing an agreement upon a candidate, preliminary to a jointballot, they also blocked the election of a United States senator. This situation was intolerable to Weed. Without the Senate, littlecould be accomplished and nothing of a strictly partisan character. Besides, Weed had his eye on the lucrative place of state printer. Inthe campaign of 1839, therefore, he set to work to win the higher bodyof the Legislature by carrying the Albany district, in which threesenators were to be chosen. For eighteen years, the Senate had beenheld by the Regency party, and, in all that time, Albany was numberedamong the reliable Democratic districts. But Weed's friends nowbrought up eight thousand dollars from New York. The Democrats hadmade a spirited fight, and, although they knew Weed was endowed with afaculty for management, they did not know of his money, or of theability of his lieutenants to place it. When the votes were counted, Weed's three nominees had an average majority of one hundred andthirty-three. This gave the Whigs nineteen senators and the Democratsthirteen. It was an appalling change for the Democrats, to whom itseemed the prologue to a defeat in 1840. In the "clean sweep" ofoffice-holders that followed, Tallmadge went back to the United StatesSenate, and Weed took from Croswell the office of public printer. 

The presidential election of 1840 began in December, 1839. DuringClay's visit to Saratoga, in the preceding summer, Weed had told himhe could not carry New York; but, that Clay's friends in New YorkCity, and along the river counties, might not be unduly alarmed, Weedmasked his purpose of forcing Harrison's nomination, by selectingdelegates ostensibly favourable to General Scott. Twenty delegates forScott were, therefore, sent to the national convention at Harrisburg, two for Harrison and ten for Clay. On his way, Weed secured anagreement from the New England leaders to act with him, and, by acombination of the supporters of Scott and Harrison, the latterfinally received one hundred and forty-eight votes to ninety for Clay. The disappointment of Clay's friends is historic. Probably nothingparallels it in American politics. The defeat of Seward at Chicago in1860, and of Elaine at Cincinnati in 1876, very seriously affectedtheir friends, but the disappointment of Clay's supporters atHarrisburg, in December, 1839, took the form of anger, which, for atime, seemed fatal to the ticket. "The nomination of Harrison, " wroteThurlow Weed, "so offended the friends of Clay that the convention wasthrown entirely in the dark on the question of Vice President. TheKentucky delegation was asked to present a candidate, but theydeclined. Then John Clayton of Delaware was fixed upon, but ReverdyJohnson withdrew his name. Watkins Leigh of Virginia and GovernorDudley of North Carolina were successively designated, but theydeclined. While this was passing the Vice Presidency was repeatedlyoffered to New York, but we had no candidate. Albert H. Tracy waseminently qualified for usefulness in public life. He entertained ahigh and strict sense of official responsibility, and had he notpreviously left us he would have been nominated. John Tyler wasfinally taken because we could get nobody else to accept. "[315]

[Footnote 315: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 77. ]

The Harrisburg convention, unlike its unselfish predecessors, adjourned without a platform or declaration of principles; nor did thecandidates, in accepting their nominations, indulge in politicaldiscussion. Votes were wanted from all who opposed Van Buren'sadministration--from the strict constructionist friends of Tyler, although opposed to the whole Whig theory of government, as much asfrom the followers of Harrison, who believed in protective tariffsand internal improvements. 

Such action contrasted strangely with the work of the nationalDemocratic convention which met at Baltimore on May 6, 1840. Ifdespondency filled the air, the delegates at least had the courage oftheir convictions. After unanimously renominating Van Buren, itdeclared for a limited federal power, for the separation of publicmoneys from private banks, and for the constitutional inability ofCongress to interfere with slavery in the States, pronouncing theefforts of Abolitionists both alarming and dangerous to the Union; itopposed internal improvements by the general government; the fosteringof one industry to the injury of another; the raising of more moneythan was needed for necessary expenses; and the rechartering of anational bank. If this declaration did not shape the phrases, andmarshal the sentences of future platforms of the party, it embracedthe principles upon which Democracy went up to victory or down todefeat during the next two decades; and it must have carried Van Burenthrough successfully had not his administration fallen upon eviltimes. 

The President, with great moral courage and keen-sighted wisdom, metthe crisis of 1837 with an admirable bearing. The statesman suddenlydisplaced the politician. In the three months intervening between thesuspension of specie payments and the extra session of Congress, VanBuren prepared a message as clear and as unanswerable as the logic ofHamilton's state papers. The law, he said, required the secretary ofthe treasury to deposit public moneys only in banks paying their notesin specie, and, since all banks had suspended specie payments, it wasnecessary to provide some other custody. For this reason, he hadsummoned Congress. Then he analysed the cause of the panic, arguingthat "the government could not help people earn a living, but it couldrefuse to aid the deception that paper is gold, and the delusion thatvalue can arise without labour. " Those who look to the action of thegovernment, he declared, for specific aid to the citizen to relieveembarrassments arising from losses by reverses in commerce and credit, lose sight of the ends for which government is created, and the powerswith which it is clothed. In conclusion, he recommended the enactmentof an independent treasury scheme, divorcing the bank and the state. 

These words of wisdom, often repeated, long ago became the principleof all administrations, notably of that of President Grant in thegreat crisis of 1873; and, except from 1841 to 1846, the sub-treasuryscheme has been a cardinal feature of American finance. But itsenactment was a long, fierce battle. Beginning in 1837, the contestcontinued through one Congress and half of another. Clay resisted andWebster denounced the project, which did not become a law until July4, 1840--too late to be of assistance to Van Buren in November. Friends of the New Yorker loved to dwell upon his courage in thusplacing himself in the chasm between failing banks and a patrioticpeople, often paralleling it with the historic leap of Marcus Curtiusinto the Roman Forum to save the republic. "But with this difference, "once exclaimed Andrew B. Dickinson, an unlearned but brilliant SteubenCounty Whig, generally known as Bray Dickinson: "the Roman fellerjumped into the gap of his own accord, but the people throw'd VanBuren in!"

On August 12, 1840, the Whigs renominated William H. Seward forgovernor, and in the following month the Democrats named William C. Bouck. There was a rugged honesty and ability about Bouck thatcommended him to the people. He was not brilliant; he rarely attemptedto speak in public; and his education had been limited to a few monthsof school in each winter; but he was a shrewd, wise Schoharie farmer, well read in the ways of men and in the book of the world. Sewardthought him "a kind, honest, amiable, and sagacious man, his easy andfascinating manners lacking neither dignity nor grace. " Beginning astown clerk, Bouck had served acceptably as sheriff, assemblyman, andfor nineteen years as canal commissioner, personally superintendingthe construction of the canal from Brockport to Lake Erie, anddisbursing, without loss, eight millions of dollars. He had travelledup and down the State until the people came to know him as "the oldwhite horse, " in allusion to a favourite animal which he rode for manyyears; and to labourers and contractors his election became a matterof the greatest personal interest. 

But the hardships growing out of the panic of 1837 and the crisis of1839 guided the actions of men. It made little difference to them thatBouck had been a faithful, prudent, and zealous supporter of thecanals, or that, like DeWitt Clinton, he had been removed as canalcommissioner on purely political grounds. The issues werenational--not state. Van Buren clearly saw the force and direction ofpublic sentiment. Yet his sub-treasury measure, so beneficent in itsaims that its theory was not lost in the necessities growing out ofthe Civil War, proved the strongest weapon in the armory of hisopponents. Webster, with mingled pathos and indignation, denounced his"disregard for the public distress" by his "exclusive concern for theinterest of government and revenue, " declaring that help must come tothe people "from the government of the United States--from thencealone!" This was the cry of the greenbacker in 1876 and the argumentof the free silver advocate in 1896. "Upon this, " said Webster, "Irisk my political reputation, my honour, my all. He who expects tolive to see these twenty-six States resuming specie payments inregular succession once more, may expect to see the restoration of theJews. Never. He will die without the sight. " Yet Webster lived to seethe resumption of specie payments in a very short time, and he livedlong enough also to exclude this St. Louis speech from his collectedworks. Nevertheless, Webster's eloquence contributed to Van Buren'soverwhelming defeat. 

Much has been written of the historic campaign of 1840. The enthusiasmhas been called "frenzy" and "crazy fanatacism. " It has also beenlikened to the crusading spirit, aroused by the preaching of Peter theHermit. "The nation, " said Clay, "was like the ocean when convulsed bysome terrible storm. " Webster declared that "every breeze sayschange; the cry, the universal cry, is for a change. " Long beforecampaigns usually begin New York was a blaze of excitement. Halls wereinsufficient to hold the crowds. Where hundreds had formerlyassembled, thousands now appeared. The long lines of wagons, driven tothe meeting places, raised clouds of dust such as mark the moving ofarmies. The Whig state convention at Utica became a mass-meeting oftwenty-five thousand people, who formed into one great parade. "Howlong is this procession?" asked a bystander of one of the marshals. "Indeed, sir, I cannot tell, " was the reply. "The other end of it isforming somewhere near Albany. "

The canvass became one of song, of association, and of imagination, which aroused thoughts that were intensely animating and absorbing. The taunt of a Virginia newspaper that Harrison should remain in hislog cabin on the banks of the Ohio made the log cabin "a symbol, " asWeed happily expressed it, "of virtue that dwells in obscurity, of thehopes of the humble, of the privations of the poor, of toil anddanger, of hospitality and charity and frugality. " Log cabins sprangup like gourds in a night. At the door, stood the cider barrel, and, hanging by the window, the omnipresent coonskin swayed in the breeze. They appeared on medals, in pictures, in fancy work, and inprocessions. Horace Greeley, who had done so much in 1838 through thecolumns of the _Jeffersonian_, now began the publication of the _LogCabin_, filling whole sides of it with songs elaborately set to music, and making it so universally popular that the New York _Tribune_, established in the following year, became its legitimate successor inability and in circulation. 

In his biography of Henry Clay, Schurz says that in no presidentialcanvass has there ever been "less thought. " It is likely if there hadbeen no log cabins, no cider, no coon-skins, and no songs, the resultwould have been the same, for, in the presence of great financialdistress, the people seek relief very much as they empty a burningbuilding. But the reader of the _Log Cabin_ will find thought enough. Greeley's editorials summed up the long line of mistakes leading tothe panic of 1837, and the people understood the situation. They weresimply unwilling longer to trust the party in power. 

Evidence of this distrust astonished Democrats as much as it pleasedthe Whigs. The September election in Maine, followed in October by theresult in Ohio and Indiana, both of which gave large Whig majorities, anticipated Harrison's overwhelming election in November. In New York, however, the returns were somewhat disappointing to the Whigs. Harrison carried the State by thirteen thousand majority, receiving inall 234 electoral votes to 60 for Van Buren; but Seward's majority often thousand in 1838 now dropped to five thousand, [316] while the Whigmajority in the Assembly was reduced to four. 

[Footnote 316: William H. Seward, 222, 011; William C. Bouck, 216, 808. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

Seward's weakness undoubtedly grew out of his message in the precedingJanuary. With the approval of Dr. Knott of Union College, and Dr. Luckey, a distinguished Methodist divine, he recommended theestablishment of separate schools for the children of foreigners andtheir instruction by teachers of the same faith and language. Thesuggestion created an unexpected and bitter controversy. Influentialjournals of both parties professed to see in it only a desire to winCatholic favour, charging that Bishop Hughes of New York City hadinspired the recommendation. At that time, the Governor had neithermet nor been in communication, with the Catholic prelate; but, in theexcitement, truth could not outrun misstatement, nor could thepatriotism that made Seward solicitous to extend school advantages tothe children of foreign parents, who were growing up in ignorance, beunderstood by zealous churchmen. 

After his defeat, Van Buren retired to Lindenwald, in the vicinity ofKinderhook, his native village, where he was to live twenty-one years, dying at the age of eighty. Lindenwald was an old estate, whose acreshad been cultivated for one hundred and sixty years. William P. VanNess, the distinguished jurist and orator, once owned it, and, thirtyyears before the ex-President bought it, Irving had secluded himselfamidst its hills, while he mourned the death of his betrothed, andfinished the _Knickerbocker_. As the home of Van Buren, Lindenwald didnot, perhaps, become a Monticello or a Montpelier. Jefferson andMadison, having served eight years, the allotted term of honour, hadformally retired, and upon them settled the halo of peace and triumphthat belongs to the sage; but life at Lindenwald, with its leisure, its rural quiet, and its freedom from public care, satisfied VanBuren's bucolic tastes, and no doubt greatly mitigated the anguisharising from bitter defeat, the proscription of friends, and the lossof party regard which he was destined to suffer during the nextdecade. 

CHAPTER IV

HUMILIATION OF THE WHIGS

1841-1842

The Whig state convention, assembled at Syracuse on October 7, 1842, looked like the ghost of its predecessor in 1840. The buoyancy whichthen stamped victory on every face had given place to fear andforebodings. Eighteen months had left nothing save melancholyrecollections. Even the log cabins, still in place, seemed to add toWhig depression, being silent reminders of the days when melody andoratory, prophetic of success, filled hearts which could no longer betouched with hope and faith. This meant that the Whigs, in theelection of 1841, had suffered a decisive defeat, losing the Assembly, the Senate, and most of the congressmen. Even Francis Granger, whosemajority usually ran into the thousands, was barely elected by fivehundred. Orleans County, at one time the centre of the anti-masoniccrusade, sent Sanford E. Church to Albany, the first Democrat to breakinto the Assembly from the "infected district" since the abduction ofWilliam Morgan. 

Several reasons accounted for this change. Harrison's death, within amonth after his inauguration, made John Tyler President, and Tylerfirst refused appointments to Whigs, and then vetoed the bill, passedby a Whig Congress, re-establishing the United States Bank. He saidthat he had been opposed, for twenty-five years, to the exercise ofsuch a power, if any such power existed under the Constitution. Thiscompleted the break with the party that elected him. Henry Claydenounced his action, the Cabinet, except Webster, resigned in a body, and the Whigs with great unanimity indorsed the Kentucky statesman forPresident in 1844. To add to the complications in New York, John C. Spencer, who now became secretary of war, so zealously espoused andwarmly defended the President that feelings of mutual distrust andill-will soon grew up between him and Weed. It is doubtful if any NewYork Whig, at a time of such humiliation, could have accepted place inTyler's Cabinet and remained on terms of political intimacy with Weed;but, of all men, John C. Spencer was the least likely to do so. InFreeman's celebrated cartoon, "The Whig Drill, " Spencer is the onlyman in the squad out of step with Thurlow Weed, the drum-major. 

Governor Seward also played a part in the story of his party'sdownfall. The school question, growing out of his recommendation thatseparate schools for the children of Roman Catholics should share inthe public moneys appropriated by the State for school purposes, lostnone of its bitterness; the McLeod controversy put him at odds withthe national Administration; and the Virginia controversy involved himin a correspondence that made him odious in the South. In histreatment of the McLeod matter, Seward was clearly right. Three yearsafter the destruction of the _Caroline_, which occurred during theCanadian rebellion, Alexander McLeod, while upon a visit in the State, boasted that he was a member of the attacking party and had killed theonly man shot in the encounter. This led to his arrest on a charge ofmurder and arson. The British Minister based his demand for McLeod'srelease on the ground that the destruction of the _Caroline_ "was apublic act of persons in Her Majesty's service, obeying the orders oftheir superior authorities. " In approving the demand, Lord Palmerstonsuggested that McLeod's execution "would produce war, war immediateand frightful in its character, because it would be a war ofretaliation and vengeance. " Webster, then secretary of state, urgedSeward to discontinue the prosecution and discharge McLeod; but theGovernor, promising a pardon if McLeod was convicted, insisted that hehad no power to interfere with the case until after trial, while thecourts, upon an application for McLeod's discharge on habeas corpus, held that as peace existed between Great Britain and the United Statesat the time of the burning of the _Caroline_, and as McLeod held nocommission and acted without authority, England's assumption ofresponsibility for his act after his arrest did not oust the court ofits jurisdiction. Fortunately, McLeod, proving his boast a lie byshowing that he took no part in the capture of the _Caroline_, put anend to the controversy, but Seward's refusal to intervene brokewhatever relations had existed between himself and Webster. 

The Virginia correspondence created even greater bitterness. TheGovernor discovered that a requisition for the surrender of threecoloured men, charged with aiding the escape of a fugitive slave, wasbased upon a defective affidavit; but, before he could act, the courtdischarged the prisoners upon evidence that no offence had beencommitted against the laws of Virginia. Here the matter might veryproperly have ended; but, in advising Virginia's governor of theirdischarge, Seward voluntarily and with questionable propriety, enlarged upon an interpretation of the constitutional provision forthe surrender of fugitives from justice, contending that it applied toacts made criminal by the laws of both States, and not to "an actinspired by the spirit of humanity and of the Christian religion, "which was not penal in New York. This was undoubtedly as good law asit was poor politics, for it needlessly aroused the indignation ofVirginia, whose legislature retaliated by imposing special burdensupon vessels trading between Virginia and New York until such time asthe latter should repeal the statute giving fugitive slaves the rightof trial by jury. 

The immediate cause of the Whig defeat, however, had its origin indisasters incident to the construction of the canals. It had been thepolicy of Governor Marcy, and other Democratic leaders, to confine theannual canal expenditures to the surplus revenues, and, in enlargingthe Erie, it was determined to continue this policy. On the otherhand, the Whigs advocated a speedy completion of the public works, limiting the state debt to an amount upon which interest could be paidout of the surplus revenues derived from the canal. This policy, backed by several Democratic members of the Senate in 1838, resultedin the authorisation of a loan of four millions for the Erieenlargement. In 1839 Seward, still confident of the State's ability tosustain the necessary debt, advised other improvements, including thecompletion of the Genesee Valley and Black River canals, as well asthe construction of three railroads, at a total estimated expenditureof twelve to fifteen millions. By 1841, the debt had increased toeighteen millions, including the loan of four millions, while the workwas scarcely half finished. To add to the difficulty, state stocksdepreciated over twenty per cent. , embarrassing the administration inits efforts to raise money. The Democrats pronounced such a policydisastrous and ruinous; and, although the Whigs replied that theoriginal estimates were wrong, that the price of labour and materialhad advanced, and that when completed the canals would speedily payfor themselves, the people thought it time to call a halt, and in theelection of 1841 they called it. [317]

[Footnote 317: "Seward had faults, which his accession to power soondisplayed in bold relief. His natural tendencies were toward agovernment not merely paternal, but prodigal--one which, in itsmultiform endeavours to make every one prosperous, if not rich, wasvery likely to whelm all in general embarrassment, if not in generalbankruptcy. Few governors have favoured, few senators voted for moreunwisely lavish expenditures than he. Above the suspicion of votingmoney into his own pocket, he has a rooted dislike to opposing aproject or bill whereby any of his attached friends are to profit. And, conceited as we all are, I think most men exceed him in the artof concealing from others their overweening faith in their ownsagacity and discernment. "--Horace Greeley, _Recollections of a BusyLife_, p. 312. ]

It was this overwhelming defeat that so depressed the Whigs, gatheredat the Syracuse convention, as they looked over the field for agubernatorial candidate to lead them, if possible, out of thewilderness of humiliation. Seward had declined a renomination. He knewthat his course, especially in the Virginia controversy, had arouseda feeling of hostility among certain Whigs who not only resented hisadvancement over Granger and Fillmore, his seniors in years and inlength of public service, but who dreaded his lead as too bold, tooearnest, and too impulsive. The fact that the Abolitionists hadalready invited him to accept their nomination for President in 1844indicated the extent to which his Virginia correspondence had carriedhim. So, he let his determination be known. "My principles are tooliberal, too philanthropic, if it be not vain to say so, for myparty, " he wrote Christopher Morgan, then a leading member ofCongress. "The promulgation of them offends many; the operation ofthem injures many; and their sincerity is questioned by about all. Those principles, therefore, do not receive fair consideration andcandid judgment. There are some who know them to be right, and believethem to be sincere. These would sustain me. Others whose prejudicesare aroused against them, or whose interests are in danger, wouldcombine against me. I must, therefore, divide my party in convention. This would be unfortunate for them, and, of all others, the most falseposition for me. And what have I to lose by withdrawing and leavingthe party unembarrassed? My principles are very good and popular onesfor a man out of office; they will take care of me, when out ofoffice, as they always have done. I have had enough, Heaven knows, ofthe power and pomp of place. "[318]

[Footnote 318: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 547. ]

With Seward out of the way, Luther Bradish was the logical candidatefor governor. Fillmore had many friends present, and John A. Collierof Binghamton, alternating between hope and fear, let his wishes beknown. But, as lieutenant-governor, Bradish had won popularity byfirmness, patience, and that tact which springs from right feeling, rather than cold courtesy; and, in the end, the vote proved him thefavourite. For lieutenant-governor, the convention chose GabrielFurman, a Brooklyn lawyer of great natural ability, who had been ajudge of the municipal court and was just then closing a term in theState Senate, but whose promising career was already marred by theopium habit. He is best remembered as one of Brooklyn's most valuedlocal historians. The resolutions, adhering to the former Whig policy, condemning Tyler's vetoes and indicating a preference for Clay, showedthat the party, although stripped of its enthusiastic hopes, had lostnone of its faith in its principles or confidence in its greatstandard-bearer. 

The Democrats had divided on canal improvements. Beginning in theadministration of Governor Throop, one faction, known as theConservatives, had voted with the Whigs in 1838, while the other, called Radicals, opposed the construction of any works that wouldincrease the debt. This division reasserted itself in the Legislaturewhich convened in January, 1842. The Radicals elected all the stateofficers. Azariah C. Flagg became comptroller, Samuel Young secretaryof state, and George P. Barker attorney-general. Six canalcommissioners, belonging to the same wing of the party, were alsoselected. Behind them, as a leader of great force in the Assembly, stood Michael Hoffman of Herkimer, ready to rain fierce blows upon thepolicy of Seward and the Conservatives. Hoffman had served eight yearsin Congress, and three years as a canal commissioner. He was now, atfifty-four years of age, serving his first term in the Assembly, bringing to the work a great reputation both for talents andintegrity, and as a powerful and effective debater. [319] Hoffman waseducated for a physician, but afterward turned to the law. "Had he notbeen drawn into public life, " says Thurlow Weed, "he would have beenas eminent a lawyer as he became a statesman. "[320]

[Footnote 319: "For four days the debate on a bill for the enlargementof the canals shed darkness rather than light over the subject, andthe chamber grew murky. One morning a tallish man, past middle age, with iron-gray locks drooping on his shoulders, and wearing a mixedsuit of plain clothes, took the floor. I noticed that pens, newspapers, and all else were laid down, and every eye fixed on thespeaker. I supposed he was some quaint old joker from the backwoods, who was going to afford the House a little fun. The first sentencesarrested my attention. A beam of light shot through the darkness, andI began to get glimpses of the question at issue. Soon a broad belt ofsunshine spread over the chamber. 'Who is he?' I asked a member. 'Michael Hoffman, ' was the reply. He spoke for an hour, and though hismanner was quiet and his diction simple, he was so methodical andlucid in his argument that, where all had appeared confused before, everything now seemed clear. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 173. ]

[Footnote 320: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p. 34. ]

The Albany Regency, as a harmonious, directing body, had, by thistime, practically gone out of existence. Talcott was dead, Marcy andSilas Wright were in Washington, Benjamin F. Butler, having resignedfrom the Cabinet as attorney-general, in 1838, had resumed thepractice of his profession in New York City, and Van Buren, waitingfor another term of the Presidency, rested at Lindenwald. Theremaining members of the original Regency, active as ever in politicalaffairs, were now destined to head the two factions--Edwin Croswell, still editor of the Albany _Argus_, leading the Conservatives, withDaniel S. Dickinson, William C. Bouck, Samuel Beardsley, Henry A. Foster, and Horatio Seymour. Azariah C. Flagg, with Samuel Young, George P. Barker, and Michael Hoffman, directed the Radicals. All wereable men. Bouck carried fewer guns than Young; Beardsley had weightand character, without much aptitude; Foster overflowed with knowledgeand was really an able man, but his domineering nature and violenttemper reduced his influence. Seymour, now only thirty-two years old, had not yet entered upon his illustrious and valuable public career;nor had Daniel S. Dickinson, although of acknowledged ability, exhibited those traits which were to distinguish him in partyquarrels. He did not belong in the class with Marcy and Wright, thoughfew New Yorkers showed more indomitable courage than Dickinson--acharacteristic that greatly strengthened his influence in the councilsof the leaders whose differences were already marked with asperity. 

Success is wont to have magical effects in producing a wish to put anend to difference; and the legislative winter of 1843 became notablefor the apparent adjustment of Democratic divisions. The Radicalsproposed the passage of an act, known as the "stop and tax law of1842, " suspending the completion of the public works, imposing adirect tax, and pledging a portion of the canal revenues as a sinkingfund for the payment of the existing debt. It was a drastic measure, and leading Conservatives, with much vigour, sought to obtain acompromise permitting the gradual completion of the most advancedworks. Bouck favoured sending an agent to Holland to negotiate a loanfor this purpose, a suggestion pressed with some ardour until furthereffort threatened to jeopardise his chance of a renomination forgovernor; and when Bouck ceased his opposition other Conservativesfell into line. The measure, thus unobstructed, finally became thelaw, sending the Democrats into the gubernatorial campaign of 1842with high hopes of success. 

By accident or design, the Democratic state convention also met atSyracuse on October 7. William C. Bouck and Daniel S. Dickinson hadbeen the candidates, in 1840, for governor and lieutenant-governor, and they now demanded renomination. The Radicals wanted Samuel Youngor Michael Hoffman for governor; and, before the passage of the "stopand tax law, " the contest bid fair to be a warm one. But, after makingan agreement to pledge the party to the work of the last Legislature, the Radicals withdrew all opposition to Bouck and Dickinson. In theirresolutions, the Democrats applauded Tyler's vetoes; approved thepolicy of his administration; denounced the re-establishment of anational bank; opposed a protective tariff; and favoured thesub-treasury, hard money, a strict construction of the Constitution, and direct taxation for public works. 

The campaign that followed stirred no enthusiasm on either side. TheWhigs felt the weight of the canal debt, which rested heavily upon thepeople; and, although many enthusiastic young men, active in theorganisation of Clay clubs and in preparing the way for the Kentuckystatesman in 1844, held mass-meetings and read letters from theirgreat leader, New York again passed under the control of the Democratsby a majority of nearly twenty-two thousand. [321] It was not anordinary defeat; it was an avalanche. Only one Whig senator, thirtyWhig assemblymen, and nine or ten congressmen were saved in the wreck. "I fear the party must break up from its very foundations, " Fillmorewrote Weed. "There is no cohesive principle--no common head. "[322]

[Footnote 321: William C. Bouck, 208, 072; Luther Bradish, 186, 091. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

[Footnote 322: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 96. ]

Seward took no such pessimistic view. He had the promise of the futurein him, a capacity for action, a ready sympathy with men of allclasses, occupations, and interests, and he saw rays of light whereothers looked only into darkness. "It is not a bad thing to be leftout of Congress, " he wrote Christopher Morgan, depressed by hisdefeat. "You will soon be wanted in the State, and that is a betterfield. "[323] Seward had the faculty of slow, reflective brooding, andhe often saw both deep and far. In the night of that blinding defeatonly such a nature could find comfort in the outlook. 

[Footnote 323: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 627. ]

CHAPTER V

DEMOCRATS DIVIDE INTO FACTIONS

1842-1844

From the moment of William C. Bouck's inauguration as governor, inJanuary, 1843, Democratic harmony disappeared. It was supposed thequestion of canal improvement had been settled by the "stop and taxlaw" of 1842, and by the subsequent agreement of the Conservatives, atthe Syracuse convention, in the following October. No one believedthat any serious disposition existed on the part of the Governor toopen the wound, since he knew a large majority of his party opposedthe resumption of the work, and that the state officers, who hadviewed his nomination with coldness, were watching his acts andcritically weighing his words. 

But he also knew that his most zealous and devoted friends, livingalong the line of the Erie, Black River, and Genesee Valley canals, earnestly desired the speedy completion of certain parts of thesewaterways. In order to please them, his message suggested thepropriety of taking advantage of the low prices of labour andprovisions to finish some of the work. He did it timidly. There was nopositive recommendation. He touched the subject as one handles a liveelectric wire, trembling lest he rouse the sleeping opposition of theRadicals, or fail to meet the expectation of friends. But therecommendation, too expressionless to cheer his friends and tooenergetic to suit his opponents, foreshadowed the pitfalls into whichhe was to tumble. He had been the first to suggest the Erieenlargement, and he knew better than any other man in the State howimportant was its completion; yet he said as little in its favour ascould be said, if he said anything at all, and that little seemed tobe prompted, not so much for the good of the State, as to satisfy thedemands of ardent friends, who had contributed to his nomination andelection. 

Severe criticism of the message, by the radical press, quickly showedthat not even a temporary reconciliation had been effected by the actof 1842. Had the Governor now been sufficiently endowed with a facultyfor good management, he must have strengthened himself and weakenedhis enemies with the vast amount of patronage at his command. Notsince the days of Governor Lewis, had the making of so manyappointments been committed to an executive. The Whigs, under Seward, had taken every office in the State. But Bouck, practising thenepotism that characterised Lewis' administration forty years before, took good care of his own family, and then, in the interest ofharmony, turned whatever was left over to the members of theLegislature, who selected their own friends regardless of theirrelations to the Governor. There is something grim and pathetic in thepicture of the rude awakening of this farmer governor, who, whileworking in his own weak way for harmony and conciliation, discovered, too late, that partisan rivalries and personal ambition had surroundedhim with a cordon of enemies that could not be broken. To add to hishumiliation, it frequently happened that the nominations of those whomhe greatly desired confirmed, were rejected in the Senate by theunited votes of Radicals and Whigs. 

The controversy growing out of the election of a state printer tosucceed Thurlow Weed increased the bitterness between the factions. Edwin Croswell had been removed from this office in 1840, and theConservatives now proposed to reinstate him. Croswell had carefullyavoided taking part in the factional contests then beginning to rendthe party. He had supported, apparently in good faith, the "stop andtax law" of 1842, and, in the campaigns of 1841 and 1842, had beenassociated with Azariah C. Flagg in the publication of the _RoughHewer_, a weekly paper of radical views, issued from the press of the_Argus_; but his sympathies were with the Conservatives, and whenthey sought to re-elect him public printer, the Radicals, led byFlagg, announced as their candidate Henry H. Van Dyck, the owner, since 1840, of a one-third interest in the _Argus_. For seventeenyears, from 1823 to 1840, Croswell had held the office of stateprinter, accumulating wealth and enjoying the regard of the party; andFlagg and his colleagues contended that he should now give way toanother equally deserving. This was a strong reason in a party thatbelieved in rotation in office, especially when coupled with a desireon the part of the Radicals to control the _Argus_; and, to avoid anopen rupture, Croswell proposed that a law be passed making the_Argus_ the state paper, without naming a public printer. Van Dyckobjected to this, as it would leave Croswell in control of theestablishment. Besides, Van Dyck claimed that, at the time hepurchased an interest in the _Argus_, Croswell promised to support himfor state printer. This Croswell denied. 

Instantly, the air was alive with the thrill of battle. Croswell faceddifficulties such as no other office-seeker had thus far encountered, difficulties of faction, difficulties of public sentiment, anddifficulties of personnel. Flagg's conceded fidelity and honesty as apublic officer, supplemented by his shrewdness and sagacity, made himthe unquestioned leader of the Radicals; and, in this initial andcrucial test of strength, he was indisposed to compromise orconciliate; but in Edwin Croswell he met the most impressive figureamong the gladiators of the party. Croswell was the veteran editorwhose judgment had guided its tactics, and whose words were instinctwith life, with prophecy, and with fate. When he entered thepilot-house of his party, men knew something was going to happen. Aperceptible hush seemed to announce his presence. At such times, hiscaustic sentences, clear and compact, were rarely conciliatory; butwhen he turned away from the wheel, achievement had proven his rightto leadership. 

In his contest with Flagg, however, Croswell encountered angrycriticism from the Radicals and frigid approval from someConservatives. His candidacy plainly impaired the high respect whichhis conduct and abilities had brought him. It was a mistake from everypoint of view; but, once committed to such a course his Conservativefriends persevered, giving him finally sixty-six out of one hundredand six votes cast. A speech made by Assemblyman Leland of Steubenaffords an interesting glimpse of the many influences summoned fromevery quarter, until men found themselves in the centre of a politicalcauldron from which there seemed no escape. "All who have come up herefor office, " said Leland, "have been compelled to take one side or theother, and as neither side knows what will be the result, some havebeen disposed to cry 'good Lord, if a Lord, or good devil, if not aLord. '" The newspapers added to the perils of the quarrel. In thediscussion preceding the election, the Albany _Atlas_, a daily paperrecently established, but until now without political prominence, became the organ of the Radicals; and between it and the _Argus_ afierce editorial battle, which extended to other Democratic papersthroughout the State, made the factional division broader and morebitter. 

Despite their quarrels, which continued throughout the legislativesession, the Democrats, in the state election of November, 1843, carried two-thirds of the Assembly and five-sixths of the Senate. Nevertheless, the strength of the Conservatives was greatly increased. The utter and sudden abandonment of the canals, marked by a long lineof tools left where the workmen dropped them, had played an importantpart in the campaign, and when the Democratic legislative caucusconvened, in January, 1844, the friends of canal improvement easilydefeated Michael Hoffman for speaker by a vote of fifty-six tothirty-five, in favour of Elisha Litchfield of Onondaga. Henry A. Foster, also an uncompromising champion of the Conservatives, waselected president _pro tem. _ of the Senate. Litchfield had been inCongress. He was a strong man of acknowledged influence in the centralcounties of the State. Besides, he had been a faithful follower andan ardent admirer of Croswell. There were those who thought HoratioSeymour ought to be speaker; and, for a time, it looked as if he mightsecure the office. He was the real leader of the Conservatives, and hehad more friends than Litchfield. But Litchfield had Croswell. 

Backed by such a re-enforcement of Conservatives, Governor Bouck spokeof canal improvement with less timidity. He admitted the necessity ofthe tax law of 1842, but suggested the completion of "such new worksas can be done with better economy than to sustain those designed tobe superseded" and "are exposed to great and permanent injury. " Therewas nothing forceful in this recommendation. He still kept the middleof the road, but his request practically amounted to the completion ofsome of the new work. It meant the finishing of the Schoharieaqueduct, improving the Jordan level, enlarging the locks of the Eriecanal, and going on with the construction of the Black River andGenesee Valley canals. 

The Radicals, realising the seriousness of the situation, now restedtheir hopes upon an elaborate report by Robert Dennison, chairman ofthe Senate canal committee. It was a telling blow. It attacked theestimated, as compared to the actual, cost of the canals, chargingengineers with culpable ignorance or corrupt intention. The Chenangocanal, it said, was estimated to cost $1, 000, 000; it actually cost$2, 417, 000. The first estimate of the Black River canal called for anexpenditure of $437, 000; after work was commenced, a recalculationmade it $2, 431, 000. It cost, finally, over $2, 800, 000. The GeneseeValley canal presented even greater disparity, and more glaringignorance. The original estimate fixed the cost at $1, 774, 000. Afterward, the same engineer computed it at $4, 900, 000; and it costover $5, 500, 000. The State would have made money, the report said, hadit built macadamised roads, instead of canals, at a cost of $4, 000 amile, and paid teamsters two dollars a day for hauling all the producethat the canals would transport when finished. In conclusion, Dennison declared that work on the canals could not be resumed withoutlaying an additional direct tax. This statement touched thepocket-books of the people; and, in the opinion of the Radicals, closed the discussion, for no Democrat, confronting a presidential andgubernatorial election, would dare burden his party with anotherdirect canal tax. 

Horatio Seymour, chairman of the canal committee of the Assembly, nowappeared with a report, covering seventy-one octavo pages, whichilluminated the question even to the enlightenment of Michael Hoffman. It was the first display of that mastery of legislative skill andpower, which Seymour's shrewd discerning mind was so well calculatedto acquire. The young Oneida statesman had been a favourite since hisadvent in the Assembly in 1842. His handsome face, made moreattractive by large, luminous eyes, and a kind, social nature, peculiarly fitted him for public life; and, back of his fascinatingmanners, lay sound judgment and great familiarity with state affairs. Like Seward, he possessed, in this respect, an advantage over oldermembers, and he was now to show something of the moral power which theAuburn Senator displayed when he displeased the short-sightedpartisans who seemed to exist and to act only for the present. 

In presenting his report Seymour was careful to sustain the pledges ofthe act of 1842, and to condemn the pre-existing policy of creatingadditional debts for the purpose of constructing new canals orenlarging the Erie. With gentle and cunning skill he commended AzariahC. Flagg's policy, adopted in 1835, of using only the surplus revenueof the canals for such purposes. "The errors we have committed, " saidhis report, "are not without their utility or profitable teaching. Thecorruptions of extravagance and the bitter consequences ofindebtedness, have produced their own correctives, and public opinion, admonished by the past, has returned to its accustomed and healthfulchannels, from which it will not be readily diverted. There is noportion of our citizens who desire to increase our state indebtedness, or to do aught to the detriment of our common interests, when theyare shown the evils that inevitably follow in the train of borrowinglarge sums of money, to be repaid, perhaps, in periods of pecuniarydistress and embarrassment. Neither is it true, on the other hand, that any considerable number of our citizens are opposed to theextension of our canals when it can be effected by the aid of surplusrevenues. "[324]

[Footnote 324: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 412. ]

This last sentence was the keynote. Bouck had suggested the principle, and other Conservatives had vainly tried to enforce it, but itremained for Seymour to obtain for it a fair and candid hearing. Withgreat clearness, he unfolded the condition of the public works and ofthe public finances, and, with able reasoning, he showed that, out ofthe canal revenues, all the pledges of the act of 1842 could be met, and out of the surplus revenues, all the pledges of the act of 1836could be completed. At the conclusion, he introduced a bill providingfor the resumption of work along the lines set forth in the report. 

The reports of Dennison and Seymour reduced the issue to its lowestterms. Dennison wanted the surplus revenues, if any, applied to thepayment of the state debt; Seymour insisted upon their use for theenlargement of the Erie and the completion of the Black River andGenesee Valley canals. Both favoured a sinking fund, with which toextinguish the state debt, and both opposed the construction of anynew work which should add to that debt. But Dennison, with pessimisticdoggedness, denied that there would be sufficient surplus to producethe desired result. Seymour, with much of the optimism of Seward, cherished the hope that rich tolls, growing larger as navigation grewbetter, would flow into the treasury, until all the canals would becompleted and all the debts wiped out. The Radical was more than apessimist--he was a strict constructionist of the act of 1842. Heheld that the Seymour bill was a palpable departure from the policy ofthat act, and that other measures, soon to follow, would eventuallyoverthrow such a policy. To all this Seymour replied in his report, that "just views of political economy are not to be disseminated byharsh denunciations, which create the suspicion that there is more ofhostility to the interests of those assailed than an honest desire toprotect the treasury of the State. "[325]

[Footnote 325: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 412. ]

Hoffman and Seymour set the tone to the debate in the Assembly. Theywere, admittedly, the leaders of the two factions, and, althoughHoffman possessed remarkable powers of denunciation, which he usedfreely against measures, his courtesy toward opponents was no lessmarked than Seymour's. [326] Other Conservatives supported the measurewith ability. But it was Seymour's firmness of mind, suavity ofmanner, unwearied patience, and incomparable temper, under a thousandprovocations, that made it possible to pass the bill, substantially ashe wrote it, by a vote of sixty-seven to thirty-eight. Even MichaelHoffman refused to vote against it, although he did not vote for it. 

[Footnote 326: "One morning Hoffman rose to reply to Seymour, but onlearning that he was ill he refused to deliver his speech for two orthree days, till Seymour was able to be in his seat. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 175. ]

The measure met fiercer opposition in the Senate. It had more acridand irritable members than the Assembly, and its talkers had sharpertongues. In debate, Foster was the most formidable, but AlbertLester's acerbity of temper fixed the tone of the discussion. Finally, when the vote was taken the Democrats broke evenly for and against themeasure; but, as five Whigs supported it, the bill finally passed, seventeen to thirteen. 

It was a great victory for Seymour, then only thirty-four years old. Indeed, the history of the session may be described as the passage ofa single measure by a single man whose success was based on supremefaith in the Erie canal. Seymour flowingly portrayed its benefits, and, with prophetic eye, saw the deeply ladened boats transporting theproduce of prosperous farmers who had chosen homes in the West whenaccess was rendered so easy. What seemed to others to threatendisaster to the State, appealed to him as a great highway of commercethat would yield large revenues to the Commonwealth and abundantlybless its people. He predicted the building of villages and thedevelopment of diversified industries along its banks, and, in one ofhis captivating sentences, he described the pleasure of travellingquickly by packets, viewing the scenery of the Mohawk Valley by dayand sleeping comfortably in a cabin-berth at night. But he did notfavour building so rapidly as to burden the State with debt. This wasthe mistake of the Seward administration, and the inevitable reactiongave the Radicals an argument for delay, and Dennison an opportunityfor a telling report. Seymour put his faith in the earning capacity ofthe Erie canal. Forty years later, when he advocated the abolition oftolls, he found all his predictions more than verified. 

CHAPTER VI

VAN BUREN DEFEATED AT BALTIMORE

1844

The canal contest and Horatio Seymour's success preceded manysurprises and disappointments which were to be disclosed in thecampaign of 1844. Never were the motions of the political pendulummore agitated or more irregular. For three years, public sentiment haddesignated Henry Clay and Martin Van Buren as the accepted candidatesof their respective parties for President; and, until the spring of1844, the confidence of the friends of the Kentucky statesman did notexceed the assurance of the followers of the ex-President. Indeed, theDemocratic party was known throughout the country as the "Van Burenparty, " and, although James Buchanan, John C. Calhoun, and Lewis Casshad each been named as suitable persons for Chief Executive, the sageof Lindenwald was the party's recognised leader and prospectivecandidate. His sub-treasury scheme, accepted as wise and salutary, wasstill the cornerstone of the party, buttressed by a tariff forrevenue and opposition to a national bank. 

In national affairs, the Democratic party in New York was still aunit. The Legislature of 1843 had re-elected Silas Wright to theUnited States Senate, without a dissenting Democratic vote; and astate convention, held at Syracuse in September of the same year, andmade up of Radicals and Conservatives, had instructed its delegationto support New York's favourite son. But a troublesome problemsuddenly confronted Van Buren. President Tyler had secretly negotiateda treaty of annexation with Texas, ostensibly because of thecontiguity and great value of its territory, in reality, because, asCalhoun, then secretary of state, showed in his correspondence withGreat Britain, Texas seemed indispensable to the preservation andperpetuation of slavery. Texas had paved the way for such a treaty byproviding, in its constitution, for the establishment of slavery, andby prohibiting the importation of slaves from any country other thanthe United States. But for three months friends of the treaty in theUnited States Senate had vainly endeavoured to find a two-thirdsmajority in favour of its ratification. Then, the exponents ofslavery, having secretly brought to their support the enormousprestige of Andrew Jackson, prepared to nominate a successor toPresident Tyler who would favour the treaty. 

Van Buren had never failed the South while in the United StatesSenate. He had voted against sending abolition literature through themails into States that prohibited its circulation; he had approved therules of the Senate for tabling abolition petitions without readingthem; he had publicly deprecated the work of abolition leaders; and, by his silence, had approved the mob spirit when his friends werebreaking up abolition meetings. But, in those days, American slaverywas simply seeking its constitutional right to exist unmolested whereit was; and, although the anti-slavery crusade from 1830 to 1840, hadprofoundly stirred the American conscience, slavery had not yet, toany extended degree, entered into partisan politics. The annexation ofTexas, however, was an aggressive measure, the first of the greatmovements for the extension of slavery since the Missouri Compromise;and it was important to the South to know in advance where theex-President stood. His administration had been adverse to annexation, and rumour credited him with unabated hostility. To force him into theopen, therefore, William H. Hammit, a member of Congress fromMississippi, addressed him a letter on the 27th of March, 1844. "I aman unpledged delegate to the Baltimore convention, " wrote Hammit, "andit is believed that a full and frank declaration of your opinion as tothe constitutionality and expediency of immediately annexing Texaswill be of great service to the cause, at a moment so critical of itsdestiny. "[327] Van Buren held this letter until the 20th of April, thirty-seven days before the meeting of the convention. When he didreply he recalled the fact that in 1837, after an exhaustiveconsideration of the question, his administration had decided againstannexation, and that nothing had since occurred to change thesituation; but that if, after the subject had been fully discussed, aCongress chosen with reference to the question showed that the popularwill favoured it, he would yield. It was a letter of great length, elaborately discussing every point directly or indirectly relating tothe subject. 

[Footnote 327: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 441. ]

Van Buren deeply desired the nomination, and if the South supportedhim he was practically certain of it. It was in view of the necessityof such support that Van Buren's letter has been pronounced by arecent biographer "one of the finest and bravest pieces of politicalcourage, and deserves from Americans a long admiration. "[328] Sucheulogy is worthily bestowed if Van Buren, at the time of the Hammitletter, fully appreciated the gravity of the situation; but there isno evidence that he understood the secret and hostile purpose whichled up to the Hammit inquiry, and the letter itself is evidence thathe sought to conciliate the Southern wing of his party. Charles JaredIngersoll of Pennsylvania, in his diary of May 6, 1844, declares thatnearly all of Van Buren's admirers and most of the Democratic presswere even then committed to annexation. Nevertheless, Van Buren andhis trusted advisers could not have known of the secret plotting ofBuchanan's and Cass's followers, or of the deception shrewdlypractised by Cave Johnson of Tennessee, ostensibly a confidentialfriend, but really a leader in the plot to defeat Van Buren. [329]Besides, the sentiment of the country unmistakably recognised thatpowerful and weighty as the inducements for annexation appeared, theywere light when opposed in the scale of reason to the treaty of amityand commerce with Mexico, which must be scrupulously observed so longas that country performed its duties and respected treaty rights. Evenafter the nomination of a President only sixteen senators out offifty-one voted for annexation, proving that the belief stillobtained, in the minds of a very large and influential portion of theparty, that annexation was decidedly objectionable, since it mustlead, as Benton put it in his great speech delivered in May, 1844, toan unjust, unconstitutional war with Mexico upon a weak and groundlesspretext. Thus, Van Buren had behind him, the weight of the argument, alarge majority of the Senate, including Silas Wright, his noblefriend, and a party sentiment that had not yet yielded to the crack ofthe southern whip; and he was ignorant of the plan, already secretlymatured, to defeat him with the help of the followers of Buchanan andCass by insisting upon the two-thirds rule in the convention. Underthese circumstances, it did not require great courage to reaffirm hisprevious views so forcibly and ably expressed. Cognisant, however, ofthe growing desire in the South for annexation, he took good care toremove the impression that he was a hard-shell, by promising to yieldhis opinion to the judgment of a new Congress. This was a long stepin the direction of consent. It virtually said, "If you elect aCongress that will ratify the treaty and pay the price, I will notstand in your way. " In the presence of such complacency, the thoughtnaturally occurs that he might have gone a step farther and consentedto yield his opinions at once had he known or even suspected thesecret plans of his southern opponents, the bitterness of Calhoun andRobert J. Walker, and their understanding with the friends of Buchananand Cass. Jackson's letter favourable to annexation, skilfullyprocured for publication just before the convention, "to blow Van outof water, " as his enemies expressed it, was, indeed, known to VanBuren, but the latter believed its influence discounted by the greatconfidence Jackson subsequently expressed in his wisdom. [330]

[Footnote 328: Edward M. Shepard, _Life of Martin Van Buren_, p. 407. ]

[Footnote 329: "Judge Fine, Mr. Butler, and other members of the NewYork delegation, reposed great confidence in the opinions andstatements of Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee. He frequently met withthe delegation, and expressed himself in the strongest terms ofpersonal and political friendship towards Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Wright. He said he regretted that the Democratic convention inTennessee had not named Mr. Van Buren as the candidate. So strong wasthe confidence in Mr. Johnson as a friend of Mr. Van Buren, that hewas apprised of all our plans in regard to the organisation of theconvention, and was requested to nominate Gov. Hubbard of NewHampshire, as temporary chairman. But when the convention assembledGen. Saunders of North Carolina called the convention to order andnominated Hendrick B. Wright, of Pennsylvania, a friend of Mr. Buchanan, as temporary president. Messrs. Walker, Saunders, and CaveJohnson were the principal managers for the delegates from thesouthern section of the Union. "--Jabez D. Hammond, _Political Historyof New York_, Vol. 3, p. 447. ]

[Footnote 330: "The danger of Van Buren's difference with Jackson itwas sought to avert. Butler visited Jackson at the Hermitage, anddoubtless showed him for what sinister end he had been used. Jacksondid not withdraw his approval of annexation; but publicly declared hisregard for Van Buren to be so great, his confidence in Van Buren'slove of country to be so strengthened by long intimacy, that nodifference about Texas could change his opinion. But the work ofCalhoun and Robert J. Walker had been too well done. "--Edward M. Shepard, _Life of Martin Van Buren_, p. 407. ]

Three days before the date of Van Buren's letter, Henry Clay, writingupon the same subject, expressed the opinion that annexation at thistime, without the assent of Mexico, would be a measure "compromisingthe national character, involving us certainly in war with Mexico, probably with other foreign powers, dangerous to the integrity of theUnion, inexpedient to the present financial condition of the country, and not called for by any general expression of public opinion. " VanBuren had visited Clay at Ashland in 1842, and, after the publicationof their letters, it was suggested that a bargain had then been madeto remove the question of annexation from politics. However this maybe, the friends of the ex-President, after the publication of hisletter, understood, quickly and fully, the gravity of the situation. Subterranean activity was at its height all through the month of May. Men wavered and changed, and changed again. So great was the alarmthat leading men of Ohio addressed their delegation in Congress, insisting upon Van Buren's support. It was a moment of great peril. The agitators themselves became frightened. A pronounced reaction infavour of Van Buren threatened to defeat their plans, and the betterto conceal intrigue and tergiversation they deemed it wise to createthe belief that opposition had been wholly and finally abandoned. Inthis they proved eminently successful. "Many of the strongestadvocates of annexation, " wrote a member of the New York delegation inCongress, on May 18, nine days before the convention, "have come toregard the grounds taken by Van Buren as the only policy consistentnot only with the honour, but the true interests of the country. Suchis fast becoming and will soon be the opinion of the whole South. "[331]But the cloud, at last, burst. No sooner had the Baltimore conventionconvened than Benjamin F. Butler, the ardent friend and able spokesmanof Van Buren, discovered that the backers of Cass and Buchanan wereacting with the Southerners in the interest of a rule that requiredtwo-thirds of all the delegates in the convention to nominate. Instantly the air was thick with suggestion, devices, expedients. Allthe arts of party emergency went on at an unprecedented rate. Theeloquent New Yorker, his clear, tenor voice trembling with emotion, fought the battle on the highest moral grounds. 

[Footnote 331: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 444. ]

With inexhaustible tenacity, force, and resource, he laboured to holdup to men's imagination and to burn into their understanding the shameand dishonour of adopting a rule, not only unsound and false inprinciple, but which, if adhered to, would coerce a majority to yieldto a minority. "I submit, " declared Butler, in closing, "that to adopta rule which requires what we know cannot be done, unless the majorityyield to the minority, is to subject ourselves to the rule, not ofreason, but of despotism, and to defeat the true purposes and objectsof this convention--the accomplishment of the people's will for thepromotion of the people's good. "[332]

[Footnote 332: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 450. 

"The real contest took place over the adoption of the rule requiring atwo-thirds vote for the nomination. For it was through this rule thatenough Southern members, chosen before Van Buren's letter, were toescape obedience to their instructions to vote for him. Robert J. Walker, then a senator from Mississippi, a man of interesting historyand large ability, led the Southerners. He quoted the precedent of1832 when Van Buren had been nominated for the Vice Presidency underthe two-thirds rule, and that of 1835, when he had been nominated forthe Presidency. These nominations had led to victory. In 1840 the rulehad not been adopted. Without this rule, he said amid angryexcitement, the party would yield to those whose motto seemed to be'rule or ruin. ' Butler, Daniel S. Dickinson, and Marcus Morton led theNorthern ranks. . . . Morton said that under the majority rule Jeffersonhad been nominated; that rule had governed state, county, and townshipconventions. Butler admitted that under the rule Van Buren would notbe nominated, although a majority of the convention was known to befor him. In 1832 and 1835 the two-thirds rule had prevailed because itwas certainly known who would be nominated; and the rule operated toaid not to defeat the majority. If the rule were adopted, it would beby the votes of States which were not Democratic, and would bring'dismemberment and final breaking up of the party. ' Walker laughed atButler's 'tall vaulting' from the floor; and, refusing to shrink fromthe Van Buren issue, he protested against New York dictation, andwarningly said that, if Van Buren were nominated, Clay would beelected. "--Edward M. Shepard, _Life of Martin Van Buren_, p. 408. ]

The adoption of the rule, by a vote of 148 to 118, showed that theDemocratic party did not have a passionate devotion for Martin VanBuren. Buchanan opposed his nomination; leading men in other Statesdid not desire him. The New England States, with Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, hadinstructed for him; yet sixty-three of these instructed delegatesvoted for the two-thirds rule, knowing that its adoption would defeathim. The rule received thirty majority, and Van Buren, on the firstballot, received only thirteen. On the second ballot he dropped toless than a majority; on the seventh he had only ninety-nine votes. The excitement reached a climax when a motion to declare him thenominee by a majority vote, was ruled out of order. In thepandemonium, the New Yorkers, for the first time, seemed to unloosethemselves, letting fly bitter denunciations of the treachery of thesixty-three delegates who were pledged to Van Buren's support. Whenorder was restored, a Virginian suddenly put forward the name of JamesK. Polk as that of "a pure, whole-hogged Democrat. " Then theconvention adjourned until the next day. 

Harmony usually follows a bitter convention quarrel. Men becomefuriously and sincerely indignant; but the defeated ones must acceptthe results, or, Samson-like, destroy themselves in the destruction oftheir party. The next morning, Daniel S. Dickinson, the most violentlyindignant the day before, declared that "he loved this conventionbecause it had acted so like the masses. " In a high state of nervousexcitement, Samuel Young had denounced "the abominable Texas question"as the firebrand thrown among them, but his manner now showed that he, also, had buried the hatchet. Even the serene, philosophic Butler, who, in "an ecstacy of painful excitement, " had "leaped from the floorand stamped, " to use the language of an eye-witness, now resumed hiswonted calmness, and on the ninth ballot, in the midst of tremendouscheering, used the discretion vested in him to withdraw Van Buren'sname. In doing so, he took occasion to indicate his preference forJames K. Polk, his personal friend. Following this announcement, Dickinson cast New York's thirty-five votes for the Tennesseean, whoimmediately received the necessary two-thirds vote. The situation hadgiven Polk peculiar advantages. The partisans of Cass and Buchanan, having willingly defeated Van Buren, made the friends of the NewYorker thirsty to put their knives into these betrayers. Thissituation, opening the door for a compromise, brought a "dark horse"into the race for the first time in the history of nationalconventions. Such conditions are common enough nowadays, but it maywell be doubted if modern political tactics ever brought to thesurface a more inferior candidate. "Polk! Great God, what anomination!" wrote Governor Letcher of Kentucky to Buchanan. 

To make the compromise complete, the convention, by acclamation, nominated Silas Wright for Vice President. But the man who hadrecently declined a nomination to the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, and who, after the defeat of Van Buren, had refused the use ofhis name for President, did not choose, he said, "to ride behind theblack pony. " A third ballot resulted in the selection of George M. Dallas of Pennsylvania. Among the resolutions adopted, it was declaredthat "our title to the whole of Oregon is clear and unquestionable;that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any otherpower; and the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas atthe earliest practicable period, are great American measures, whichthe convention recommends to the cordial support of the Democracy ofthe Union. "

Van Buren's defeat practically closed his career. His failure ofre-election in 1840 had left his leadership unimpaired, but with theloss of the nomination in 1844 went prestige and power which he wasnever to regain. Seldom has it been the misfortune of a candidate forPresident to experience so overwhelming an overthrow. Clay's failurein 1839 and Seward's in 1860 were as complete; but they lacked thehumiliating features of the Baltimore rout. Harrison was an equalfavourite with Clay in 1839; and at Chicago, in 1860, Lincoln sharedwith Seward the prominence of a leading candidate; but at Baltimore, in 1844, no other name than Van Buren's appeared conspicuously abovethe surface, until, with the help of delegates who had been instructedfor him, the two-thirds rule was adopted. It seemed to Van Buren theresult of political treachery; and it opened a chasm between him andhis former southern friends that was destined to survive during theremaining eighteen years of his life. The proscription of his New Yorkfriends undoubtedly aided this division, and the death of Jackson, in1845, and rapidly accumulating political events which came to a climaxin 1848, completed the separation. 

There are evidences that Van Buren's defeat did not break the heart ofhis party in New York. Contemporary writers intimate that after hiselection as President the warm, familiar manners changed to thestiffer and more formal ways of polite etiquette, and that his visitto New York, during his occupancy of the White House, left behind itmany wounds, the result of real or fancied slights and neglect. VanBuren's rule had been long. His good pleasure sent men to Congress;his good pleasure made them postmasters, legislators, and cabinetofficers. In all departments of the government, both state andnational, his influence had been enormous. For years his friends, sharing the glory and profits of his continued triumphs, had beenfilling other ambitious men with envy and jealousy, until hisoverthrow seemed necessary to their success. Even Edwin Croswellshared this feeling, and, although he did not boldly play a doublepart, the astute editor was always seeking a position which promisedthe highest advantage and the greatest security to himself and hisfaction. This condition of mind made him quick to favour Polk and theannexation of Texas, and to leave Van Buren to his now limited coterieof followers. 

Van Buren had much liking for the career of a public man. Veryprobably he found his greatest happiness in the triumphs of such alife; but we must believe he also found great contentment in hisretirement at Lindenwald. He did not possess the tastes and pleasuresof a man of letters, nor did he affect the "classic retirement" thatseemed to appeal so powerfully to men of the eighteenth century; but, like John Jay, he loved the country, happy in his health, in hisrustic tastes, in his freedom from public cares, and in his tranquiloccupation. Skilled in horticulture, he took pleasure in plantingtrees, and in cultivating, with his own hand, the fruits and flowersof his table. There can be no doubt of his entire sincerity when heassured an enthusiastic Pennsylvania admirer, who had pronounced forhim as a candidate in 1848, that whatever aspirations he may have hadin the past, he now had no desire to be President. 

CHAPTER VII

SILAS WRIGHT AND MILLARD FILLMORE

1844

The New York delegation, returning from the Baltimore convention, found the Democratic party rent in twain over the gubernatorialsituation. So long as Van Buren seemed likely to be the candidate forPresident, opposition to Governor Bouck's renomination was smotheredby the desire of the Radicals to unite with the Conservatives, andthus make sure of the State's electoral vote. This was the Van Burenplan. After the latter's defeat, however, the Radicals demanded thenomination of Silas Wright of Canton. Van Buren and Wright had takenno part in the canal controversy; but they belonged to the Radicals, and, with Wright, and with no one else, could the latter hope todefeat the "Agricultural Governor. " Their importunity greatlydistressed the Canton statesman, who desired to remain in the UnitedStates Senate, to which he had been recently re-elected for a thirdterm, and to whom, from every point of view, the governorship wasdistasteful. [333] Besides taking him from the Senate, it meantcontention with two bitterly jealous and hostile factions, one ofwhich would be displeased with impartiality, the other ready to plungethe party into a fierce feud on the slightest show of partiality. Therefore, he firmly declined to be a candidate. 

[Footnote 333: "Next to the Presidency no place was so much desired, inthe times we are now reviewing, as that of senator of the UnitedStates. The body was illustrious through the fame of its members, whogenerally exhibited the very flower and highest outcome of Americanpolitical life; dignified, powerful, respected, it was the pride ofthe nation, and one of its main bulwarks. The height of ordinaryambition was satisfied by attainment to that place; and men oncesecurely seated there would have been content to hold it on and on, asking no more. One cannot doubt the sincerity of the expressions inwhich Mr. Wright announced his distress at being thrown from thatdelightful eminence into the whirlpools and quicksands atAlbany. "--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John Dix_, Vol. 1, pp. 194, 195. ]

But the Albany _Atlas_, representing the Radicals, insisted uponWright's making the sacrifice; and, to give Bouck an easy avenue ofescape, Edwin Croswell, representing the Conservatives, advised thatthe Governor would withdraw if he should consent to stand. But heagain refused. Still the _Atlas_ continued to insist. By the middle ofJuly things looked very black. In Albany, the atmosphere became thickwith political passion. Finally, Van Buren interfered. He wasprofoundly affected with the idea that political treachery hadcompassed his defeat, and he knew the nomination of Polk waspersonally offensive to Silas Wright; but, faithful to his promise tosupport the action of the Baltimore convention, he requested hisfriend to lead the state ticket, since the result in New York wouldprobably decide, as it did decide, the fate of the Democratic party inthe nation. Still the Senator refused. His decision, more criticalthan he seemed to be aware, compelled his Radical friends to inventnew compromises, until the refusal was modified into a conditionalconsent. In other words, he would accept the nomination provided hewas not placed in the position of opposing "any Republican who is, orwho may become a candidate. "

This action of the Radicals kept the Conservatives busy bailing asinking boat. They believed the candidacy of Bouck would shut outWright under the terms of his letter, and, although the Governor'ssupporters were daily detached by the action of county conventions, and the Governor himself wished to withdraw to avoid the humiliationof a defeat by ballot, the Conservatives continued their opposition. For once it could be truthfully said of a candidate that he was "inthe hands of his friends. " Even the "judicious" delegate, whom theGovernor directed to withdraw his name, declined executing thecommission until a ballot had nominated Wright, giving himninety-five votes to thirty for Bouck. "Wright's nomination is thefatality, " wrote Seward. "Election or defeat exhausts him. "[334] Sewardhad the gift of prophecy. 

[Footnote 334: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 723. 

"Wright was a strong man the day before his nomination for governor. He fell far, and if left alone will be not, what he might have been, George I. To William of Orange, lineal heir to Jackson, through VanBuren. The wiseacres in New York speak of him with compliment, 'thisdistinguished statesman;' yet they bring all their small artillery tobear upon him, and give notice that he is demolished. The praise theybestow is very ill concealed, but less injurious to us than theirwarfare, conducted in their mode. "--Letter of W. H. Seward to ThurlowWeed, _Ibid. _, Vol. 1, p. 725. ]

The bitterness of the contest was further revealed in the refusal ofDaniel S. Dickinson, a doughty Conservative, to accept a renominationfor lieutenant-governor, notwithstanding Silas Wright had especiallyasked it. There were many surmises, everybody was excited, and thedoor to harmony seemed closed forever; but it opened again when thename of Addison Gardiner of Rochester came up. Gardiner had beenguided by high ideals. He was kind and tolerant; the voice of personalanger was never heard from his lips; and Conservative and Radical heldhim in high respect. At Manlius, in 1821, Gardiner had become theclosest friend of Thurlow Weed, an intimacy that was severed only bydeath. He was a young lawyer then, anxious to seek his fortune in theWest, and on his way to Indianapolis happened to stop at Rochester. The place proved too attractive to give up, and, through hisinfluence, Weed also made it his residence. "How curious it seems, " heonce wrote his distinguished journalistic friend, "that circumstanceswhich we regard at the time as scarcely worthy of notice often changethe entire current of our lives. " A few years later, through Weed'sinfluence, Gardiner became a judge of the Supreme Court, laying thefoundation for a public life of honourable and almost unceasingactivity. 

Though the Whigs needed their ablest and most popular men to meetWright and Gardiner, preceding events guided the action of their stateconvention, which met at Syracuse, on the 11th of September, 1844. Horace Greeley had picked out Millard Fillmore for the Vice Presidencyon the ticket with Henry Clay, and his New York friends, proud of hiswork in Congress, as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, presented his name with the hope that other States, profiting by thetariff which he had framed, might join them in recognising hisvaluable public service. But the convention had not taken kindly tohim, probably for the same reason that Greeley desired his promotion;for, upon the slavery question, Fillmore had been more pronounced andaggressive than Seward, sympathising and acting in Congress withGiddings of Ohio and John P. Hale of New Hampshire, a part verydifficult to perform in those days without losing caste as a Whig. 

Fillmore's defeat on May 1, however, made him the candidate forgovernor on September 11. Weed pronounced for him very early, and theparty leaders fell into line with a unanimity that must have been asbalm to Fillmore's sores. "I wish to say to you, " wrote George W. Patterson to Weed, "that you are right, as usual, on the question ofgovernor. After Frelinghuysen was named for Vice President, it struckme that Fillmore above all others was the man. You may rest assuredthat he will help Mr. Clay to a large number of good men's votes. Mr. Clay's slaves and his old duel would have hurt him with some men whowill now vote the ticket. Fillmore is a favourite everywhere; andamong the Methodists where 'old Father Fillmore' is almost worshipped, they will go him with a rush. "[335] Yet the Buffalo statesman, not alittle disgruntled over his treatment at Baltimore, disclaimed anydesire for the nomination. To add to his chagrin, he was told thatWeed and Seward urged his selection for his destruction, and whetherhe believed the tale or not, it increased his fear and apprehension. But people did not take his assumed indifference seriously, and he wasunanimously nominated for governor, with Samuel J. Wilkin, of Orange, for lieutenant-governor. Wilkin had been a leader of the Adams partyin the Assembly of 1824 and 1825. He was then a young lawyer of muchpromise, able and clear-headed, and, although never a showy debater, he possessed useful business talent, and an integrity that gave himhigh place among the men who guided his party. "I like Wilkin forlieutenant-governor, " wrote Seward, although he had been partial tothe selection of John A. King. 

[Footnote 335: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 121. ]

Without doubt, each party had put forward, for governor, its mostavailable man. Fillmore was well known and at the height of hispopularity. During the protracted and exciting tariff struggle of1842, he had sustained himself as chairman of the Ways and MeansCommittee with marked ability. It added to his popularity, too, thathe had seemed indifferent to the nomination. In some respects Fillmoreand Silas Wright were not unlike. They were distinguished for theirsuavity of manners. Both were impressive and interesting characters, wise in council, and able in debate, with a large knowledge of theirState and country; and, although belonging to opposite parties and indifferent wings of the capitol at Washington, their service inCongress had brought to the debates a genius which compelledattention, and a purity of life that raised in the public estimationthe whole level of congressional proceedings. Neither was an orator;they were clear, forcible, and logical; but their speeches were notquoted as models of eloquence. In spite of an unpleasant voice and aslow, measured utterance, there was a charm about Wright's speaking;for, like Fillmore, he had earnestness and warmth. With all theirpower, however, they lacked the enthusiasm and the boldness thatcaptivate the crowd and inspire majorities. Yet they had ledmajorities. In no sphere of Wright's activities, was he more strenuousthan in the contest for the independent treasury plan which herecommended to Van Buren, and which, largely through his efforts aschairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was finally forced into lawon the 4th of July, 1840. Fillmore, in putting some of the hatedtaxes of 1828 into the tariff act of 1842, was no less strenuous, grappling facts with infinite labour, until, at last, he overcame acurrent of public opinion that seemed far too powerful for resistance. 

Of the two men, Silas Wright was undoubtedly the stronger character. He was five years older than Fillmore, and his legislative experiencehad been four or five years longer. His great intellectual powerpeculiarly fitted him for the United States Senate. He had chosenfinance as his specialty, and in its discussion had made a mark. Hecould give high and grave counsel in great emergencies. Hisinexhaustible patience, his active attention and industry, his geniusin overcoming impediments of every kind, made him the peer of theablest senator. He was not without ambitions for himself; but theywere always subordinate in him to the love of party and friends. Itwill never be known how far he influenced Van Buren's reply to Hammit. He bitterly opposed the annexation of Texas, and his conferences withthe ex-President must have encouraged the latter's adherence to hisformer position. Van Buren's defeat, however, in no wise changedWright's attitude toward him. It is doubtful if the latter could havebeen nominated President at Baltimore had he allowed the use of hisname, but it was greatly to his credit, showing the sincerity of hisfriendship for Van Buren, that he spurned the suggestion and promptlydeclined a unanimous nomination for Vice President. Such action placeshim in a very small group of American statesmen who have deliberatelyturned their backs upon high office rather than be untrue to friends. 

Silas Wright was strictly a party man. He came near subjecting everymeasure and every movement in his career to the test of party loyalty. He started out in that way, and he kept it up until the end. In 1823he sincerely favoured the choice of presidential electors by thepeople, but, for the party's sake, he aided in defeating the measure. Two years later, he preferred that the State be unrepresented in theUnited States Senate rather than permit the election of AmbroseSpencer, then the nominee of a Clintonian majority, and he used allhis skill to defeat a joint session of the two houses. For the sake ofparty he now accepted the gubernatorial nomination. Desire to remainin the Senate, opposition to the annexation of Texas, dislike ofparticipating in factional feuds, refusal to stand in the way ofBouck's nomination, the dictates of his better judgment, all gave wayto party necessity. He anticipated defeat for a second term should henow be elected to a first, but it had no influence. The party neededhim, and, whatever the result to himself, he met it without complaint. This was the man upon whom the Democrats relied to carry New York andto elect Polk. 

There were other parties in the field. The Native Americans, organisedearly in 1844, watched the situation with peculiar emotions. Thisparty had suddenly sprung up in opposition to the ease with whichforeigners secured suffrage and office; and, although it shrewdlyavoided nominations for governor and President, it demoralised bothparties by the strange and tortuous manoeuvres that had ended in theelection of a mayor of New York in the preceding spring. It operated, for the most part, in that city, but its sympathisers covered thewhole State. Then, there was the anti-rent party, confined to Delawareand three or four adjoining counties, where long leases and triflingprovisions of forfeiture had exasperated tenants into acts ofviolence. Like the Native Americans, these Anti-Renters avoided stateand national nominations, and traded their votes to secure theelection of legislative nominees. 

But the organisation which threatened calamity was the abolition orliberty party. It had nominated James G. Birney of Michigan forPresident and Alvan Stewart for governor, and, though no one expectedthe election of either, the organisation was not unlikely to hold thebalance of power in the State. Stewart was a born Abolitionist and alawyer of decided ability. In the section of the State bounded byOneida and Otsego counties, where he shone conspicuously as a leaderfor a quarter of a century, his forensic achievements are stillremembered. Stanton says he had no superior in central New York. "Hisquaint humour was equal to his profound learning. He was skilled in apeculiar and indescribable kind of argumentation, wit, and sarcasm, that made him remarkably successful out of court as well as in court. Before anti-slavery conventions in several States he argued grave andintricate constitutional questions with consummate ability. "[336]

[Footnote 336: H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 135. ]

It was evident that the Anti-Renters and Native Americans would draw, perhaps, equally from Whigs and Democrats; but the ranks ofAbolitionists could be recruited only from the anti-slavery Whigs. Behind Stewart stood Gerrit Smith, William Jay, Beriah Green, andother zealous, able, benevolent, pure-minded men--some of themwealthy. Their shibboleth was hostility to a slave-holder, or one whowould vote for a slave-holder. This barred Henry Clay and hiselectors. 

At the outset the Whigs plainly had the advantage. Spring electionshad resulted auspiciously, and the popularity of Clay seemedunfailing. He had avowed opposition to the annexation of Texas, and, although his letter was not based upon hostility to slavery and theslave trade, it was positive, highly patriotic, and in a measuresatisfactory to the anti-slavery Whigs. "We are at the flood, " Sewardwrote Weed; "our opponents at the ebb. "[337] The nomination of Wrighthad greatly strengthened the Democratic ticket, but the nomination ofPolk, backed by the Texas resolution, weighted the party as with aball and chain. Edwin Croswell had characterised Van Buren's letter toHammit as "a statesmanlike production, " declaring that "every Americanreader, not entirely under the dominion of prejudice, will admit theforce of his conclusions. "[338] This was the view generally held by theparty throughout the State; yet, within a month, every American readerwho wished to remain loyal to the Democratic party was compelled tochange his mind. In making this change, the "slippery-elm editor, " asCroswell came to be known because of the nearness of his office to theold elm tree corner in Albany, led the way and the party followed. Itwas a rough road for many who knew they were consigning to one graveall hope of ending the slavery agitation, while they were resurrectingfrom another, bitter and dangerous controversies that had been laid torest by the Missouri Compromise. Yet only one poor little protest, andthat intended for private circulation, was heard in opposition, thesigners, among them William Cullen Bryant, declaring their intentionto vote for Polk, but to repudiate any candidate for Congress whoagreed with Polk. Bryant's purpose was palpable and undoubted; but itsoon afterward became part of his courage not to muffle plain truthfrom any spurious notions of party loyalty, and part of his glory notto fail to tell what people could not fail to see. 

[Footnote 337: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 699. ]

[Footnote 338: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 441, _note_. ]

As the campaign advanced, the Whig side of it resembled the contest of1840. The log cabin did not reappear, and the drum and cannon wereless noisy, but ash poles, cut from huge trees and spliced one toanother, carried high the banner of the statesman from Ashland. Campaign songs, with choruses for "Harry of the West, " emulated thoseof "Old Tip, " and parades by day and torch-light processions by night, increased the enthusiasm. The Whigs, deeply and personally attached toHenry Clay, made mass-meetings as common and nearly as large as thoseheld four years before. Seward speaks of fifteen thousand men gatheredat midday in Utica to hear Erastus Root, and of a thousand unable toenter the hall at night while he addressed a thousand more within. Fillmore expressed the fear that Whigs would mistake these greatmeetings for the election, and omit the necessary arrangements to getthe vote out. "I am tired of mass-meetings, " wrote Seward. "But theywill go on. "[339]

[Footnote 339: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 723. ]

Seward and Weed were not happy during this campaign. The friends ofClay, incensed at his defeat in 1840, had pronounced them the chiefconspirators. Murmurs had been muffled until after Tyler's betrayal ofthe party and Seward's retirement, but when these sources of possiblefavours ran dry, the voice of noisy detraction reached Albany andAuburn. It was not an ordinary scold, confined to a few conservatives;but the censure of strong language, filled with vindictiveness, charged Weed with revolutionary theories, tending to unsettle therights of property, and Seward with abolition notions and a desire towin the Irish Catholic vote for selfish purposes. In February, 1844, it was not very politely hinted to Seward that he go abroad during thecampaign; and by June, Weed talked despondingly, proposing to leavethe _Journal_. Seward had the spirit of the Greeks. "If you resign, "he said, "there will be no hope left for ten thousand men who hold onbecause of their confidence in you and me. "[340] In another month Weedhad become the proprietor as well as the editor of the _EveningJournal_. 

[Footnote 340: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 719. 

"I think you cannot leave the _Journal_ without giving up the wholearmy to dissension and overthrow. I agree that if, by remaining, yousave it, you only draw down double denunciation upon yourself and me. Nor do I see the way through and beyond that. But there will be someway through. I grant, then, that, for yourself and me, it is wise andprofitable that you leave. I must be left without the possibility ofrestoration, without a defender, without an organ. Nothing else willsatisfy those who think they are shaded. Then, and not until then, shall I have passed through the not unreasonable punishment for toomuch success. But the party--the country? They cannot bear yourwithdrawal. I think I am not mistaken in this. Let us adhere, then. Stand fast. It is neither wise nor reasonable that we should bear thecensure of defeat, when we have been deprived of not merely command, but of a voice in council. "--W. H. Seward to Thurlow Weed, _Ibid. _, Vol. 1, p. 720. ]

As the campaign grew older, however, Clay's friends gladly availedthemselves of Seward's influence with anti-slavery Whigs andnaturalised citizens. "It is wonderful what an impulse the nominationof Polk has given to the abolition sentiment, " wrote Seward. "It hasalready expelled other issues from the public mind. Our Whig centralcommittee, who, a year ago, voted me out of the party for being anAbolitionist, has made abolition the war-cry in their call for amass-meeting. "[341] Even the sleuth-hounds of No-popery were glad toinvite Seward to address the naturalised voters, whose hostility tothe Whigs, in 1844, resembled their dislike of the Federalists in1800. "It is a sorry consolation for this ominous aspect of things, "he wrote Weed, "that you and I are personally exempt from thehostility of this class toward our political associates. "[342]

[Footnote 341: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 718. ]

[Footnote 342: _Ibid. _, p. 723. ]

Yet no man toiled more sedulously in this campaign than Seward. "Harrison had his admirers, Clay his lovers, " is the old way ofputting it. To elect him, Whigs were ready to make any sacrifice, toendure any hardship, and to yield every prejudice. Fillmore wasubiquitous, delivering tariff and anti-Texas speeches that filled allmouths with praise and all hearts with principle, as Seward expressedit. An evident desire existed on the part of many in both parties, toavoid a discussion of the annexation of Texas, and its consequentextension of slavery, lest too much or too little be said; but leaderslike Seward and Fillmore were too wise to believe that they could foolthe people by concealing the real issue. "Texas and slavery are at warwith the interests, the principles, the sympathies of all, " boldlydeclared the unmuzzled Auburn statesman. "The integrity of the Uniondepends on the result. To increase the slave-holding power is tosubvert the Constitution; to give a fearful preponderance which may, and probably will, be speedily followed by demands to which theDemocratic free-labour States cannot yield, and the denial of whichwill be made the ground of secession, nullification and disunion. "[343]This was another of Seward's famous prophecies. At the time it seemedextravagant, even to the strongest anti-slavery Whigs, but the futureverified it. 

[Footnote 343: _Ibid. _, p. 727. ]

The Whigs, however, did not, as in 1840, have a monopoly of theenthusiasm. The public only half apprehended, or refused to apprehendat all, the danger in the Texas scheme; and, after the first chill oftheir immersion, the Democrats rallied with confidence to the supportof their ticket. Abundant evidence of their strength had manifesteditself at each state election since 1841, and, although no trailingcloud of glory now testified to a thrifty and skilful management, asin 1836, the two factions, in spite of recent efforts to baffle anddefeat each other, pulled themselves together with amazing quickness. Indeed, if we may rely upon Whig letters of the time, the Democratsexhibited the more zeal and spirit throughout the campaign. They hadtheir banners, their songs, and their processions. In place of ash, they raised hickory poles, and instead of defending Polk, theyattacked Clay. Other candidates attracted little attention. Clay wasthe commanding, central figure, and over him the battle raged. Therewere two reasons for this. One was the fear of a silent free-soilvote, which the Bryant circular had alarmed in his favour. The otherwas a desire to strengthen the liberty party, and to weaken the Whigsby holding up Clay as a slave-holder. The cornerstone of that partywas hostility to the slave-holder; and if a candidate, however much heopposed slavery, owned a single slave, it excluded him from itssuffrage. This was the weak point in Clay's armour, and the one ofmost peril to the Whigs. To meet it, the latter argued, with some showof success, that the conflict is not with one slave-holder, or withmany, but with slavery; and since the admission of Texas meant theextension of that institution, a vote for Clay, who once advocatedemancipation in Kentucky and is now strongly opposed to Texas, is avote in behalf of freedom. 

In September, Whig enthusiasm underwent a marked decline. Clay's Julyletter to his Alabama correspondent, as historic now as it wassuperfluous and provoking then, had been published, in which heexpressed a wish to see Texas added to the Union "upon just and fairterms, " and hazarded the opinion that "the subject of slavery oughtnot to affect the question one way or the other. "[344] This letter wasthe prototype of the famous alliteration, "Rum, Romanism, andRebellion, " in the Blaine campaign of 1884. Immediately Clay's mostactive anti-slavery supporters were in revolt. "We had theAbolitionists in a good way, " wrote Washington Hunt from Lockport;"but Mr. Clay seems determined that they shall not be allowed to votefor him. I believe his letter will lose us more than two hundred votesin this county. "[345] The effects of the dreadful blow are as brieflysummed up by Seward: "I met _that letter_ at Geneva, and thence here, and now everybody droops, despairs. It jeopards, perhaps loses, theState. "[346] A few weeks later, in company with several friends, Seward, as was his custom, made an estimate of majorities, going overthe work several times and taking accurate account of the drift ofpublic sentiment. An addition of the columns showed the Democratsseveral thousands ahead. Singularly enough, Fillmore, whose accustomeddespondency exhibited itself even in 1840, now became confident ofsuccess. This can be accounted for, perhaps, on the theory that to acandidate the eve of an election is "dim with the self-deceivingtwilight of sophistry. " He believed in his own safety even if Clayfailed. Although the deep, burning issue of slavery had not yet rousedpopular forces into dangerous excitement, Fillmore had followed thelead of Giddings and Hale, sympathising deeply with the restless flamethat eventually guided the policy of the North with such admirableeffect. On the other hand, Wright approved his party's doctrine ofnon-interference with slavery. He had uniformly voted to tablepetitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, declaring that any interference with the system, in that district, orin the territories, endangered the rights of their citizens, andwould be a violation of faith toward those who had settled and heldslaves there. He voted for the admission of Arkansas and Florida asslave States; and his opposition to Texas was based wholly uponreasons other than the extension of slavery. The Abolitionistsunderstood this, and Fillmore confidently relied upon their aid, although they might vote for Birney instead of Clay. 

[Footnote 344: Private letter, Henry Clay to Stephen Miller, Tuscaloosa, Ala. , July 1, 1844. ]

[Footnote 345: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 123. ]

[Footnote 346: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 724. ]

That Seward rightly divined public sentiment was shown by the result. Polk carried the State by a plurality of little more than fivethousand, and Wright by ten thousand, while Stewart polled overfifteen thousand votes. [347] These last figures told the story. Fouryears before, Birney had received less than seven thousand votes inthe whole country; now, in New York, the Abolitionists, exceedingtheir own anticipations, held the balance of power. [348] Had theirvotes been cast for Clay and Fillmore both would have carried NewYork, and Clay would have become the Chief Executive. "Until Mr. Claywrote his letter to Alabama, " said Thurlow Weed, dispassionately, twoyears afterward, "his election as President was certain. "[349]

[Footnote 347: Silas Wright, 241, 090; Millard Fillmore, 231, 057; AlvanStewart, 15, 136. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

[Footnote 348: In 1840 Gerrit Smith received 2662; in 1842 AlvanStewart polled 7263. --_Ibid. _, p. 166. ]

[Footnote 349: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p. 572. ]

Clay's defeat was received by his devoted followers as the knell oftheir hopes. For years they had been engaged labourously in rollinguphill the stone of Sisyphus, making active friendships and seeking afair trial. That opportunity had come at last. It had been an affairof life or death; the contest was protracted, intense, dramatic; theissue for a time had hung in poignant doubt; but the dismal result letthe stone roll down again to the bottom of the hill. No wonder stoutmen cried, and that thousands declared the loss of all furtherinterest in politics. To add to their despair and resentment, theparty of Birney and Stewart exulted over its victory not less than theparty of Polk and Silas Wright. 

CHAPTER VIII

THE RISE OF JOHN YOUNG

1845-1846

Although the Democrats were again successful in electing a governorand President, their victory had not healed the disastrous schism thatdivided the party. The rank and file throughout the State had not yetrecognised the division into Radicals and Conservatives; but themembers of the new Legislature foresaw, in the rivalries of leaders, the approach of a marked crisis, the outcome of which they awaitedwith an overshadowing sense of fear. 

The strife of programmes began in the selection of a speaker. HoratioSeymour was the logical candidate. Of the Democratic members of thelast Assembly, he was the only one returned. He had earned thepreferment by able service, and a disposition obtained generally amongmembers to give him the right of way; but the state officials had notforgotten and could not forget that Seymour, whose supple andtrenchant blade had opened a way through the ranks of the Radicals forthe passage of the last canal appropriation, had further sinned bymarshalling Governor Bouck's forces at the Syracuse convention onSeptember 4, 1844; and to teach him discretion and less independence, they promptly warned him of their opposition by supporting William C. Crain of Herkimer, a fierce Radical of the Hoffman school and a man ofsome ability. Though the ultimate decision favoured Seymour, AzariahC. Flagg, the state comptroller, resolutely exhausted every device ofstrategy and tactics to avert it. He summoned the canal board, who, inturn, summoned to Albany their up-state employees, mindful of thelatter's influence with the unsophisticated legislators alreadyhaunted by the fear of party disruption. To limit the issue, GovernorWright was quoted as favourable to Crain, and, although itsubsequently became known that he had expressed no opinion save one ofentire indifference, this added to the zeal of the up-state Radicals, who now showed compliance with every hint of their masters. 

In the midst of all Horatio Seymour remained undaunted. No one hadbetter poise, or firmer patience, or possessed more adroit methods. The personal attractions of the man, his dignity of manner, hisfinished culture, and his ability to speak often in debate withacceptance, had before attracted men to him; now he was to reveal thenew and greater power of leadership. Seymour's real strength as afactor in state affairs seems to date from this contest. It isdoubtful if he would have undertaken it had he suspected thefierceness of the opposition. He was not ambitious to be speaker. Sofar as it affected him personally, he had every motive to induce himto remain on the floor, where his eloquence and debating power had wonhim such a place. But, once having announced his candidacy he pushedon with energy, sometimes masking his movements, sometimes mining andcountermining; yet always conscious of the closeness of the race andof the necessity of keeping his activity well spiced with good nature. Back of him stood Edwin Croswell. The astute editor of the _Argus_recognised in Horatio Seymour, so brilliant in battle, so strong incouncil, the future hope of the Democratic party. It is likely, too, that Croswell already foresaw that Van Buren's opposition to theannexation of Texas, and the growing Free-soil sentiment, mustinevitably occasion new party alignments; and the veteran journalist, who had now been a party leader for nearly a quarter of a century, understood the necessity of having available and successful men readyfor emergencies. Under his management, therefore, and to offset theinfluence of the canal board's employees, Conservative postmasters andConservative sheriffs came to Albany, challenging their Radical canalopponents to a measurement of strength. When, finally, the caucusacted, the result showed how closely divided were the factions. Ofseventy Democrats in the Assembly, sixty-five were present, and ofthese thirty-five voted for Seymour. 

The irritation and excitement of this contest were in a measureallayed by an agreement to renominate Azariah C. Flagg for comptrollerof state. His ability and his service warranted it. He had performedthe multiplying duties of the office with fidelity; and, althoughchief of the active Radicals, the recollection of his stalwart aid inthe great financial panic of 1837, and in the preparation and advocacyof the act of 1842, gave him a support that no other candidate couldcommand. It was also in the minds of two or three members holding thebalance of power between the factions, to add to the harmony bysecuring an even division of the other four state offices. In carryingout their project, however, the gifted Croswell took good care thatSamuel Young, whose zeal and ability especially endeared him to theRadicals, should be beaten for secretary of state by one vote, andthat Thomas Farrington, another favourite Radical, should fail ofre-election as treasurer of state. Since Young and Farrington were theonly state officers, besides Flagg, seeking re-election, it looked asif their part in the speakership struggle had marked them for defeat, a suspicion strengthened by the fact that two Radicals, who took nopart in that contest, were elected attorney-general andsurveyor-general. 

Reproachful ironies and bitter animosity, boding ill for futureharmony, now followed the factions into a furious and protractedcaucus for the selection of United States senators in place of SilasWright and Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, the latter having resigned toaccept the governorship of Wisconsin. [350] The Conservatives supportedDaniel S. Dickinson and Henry A. Foster; the Radicals John A. Dix andMichael Hoffman. There was more, however, at stake than the selectionof two senators; for the President would probably choose a member ofhis Cabinet from the stronger faction; and to have time to recruittheir strength, the programme of the Radicals included an adjournmentof the caucus after nominating candidates for the unexpired terms ofWright and Tallmadge. This would possibly give them control of thefull six years' term to begin on the 4th of the following March. Amajority of the caucus, however, now completely under the influence ofEdwin Croswell and Horatio Seymour, concluded to do one thing at atime, and on the first ballot Dix was nominated for Wright's place, giving him a term of four years. The second ballot named Dickinson forthe remaining month of Tallmadge's term. Then came the climax--themotion to adjourn. Instantly the air was thick with suggestions. Coaxing and bullying held the boards. All sorts of proposals came andvanished with the breath that floated them; and, though the hourapproached midnight, a Conservative majority insisted upon finishingthe business. The election of Dix for a term of four years, they said, had given the Radicals fair representation. Still, the latterclamoured for an adjournment. But the Conservatives, inexorable, demanded a third ballot, and it gave Dickinson fifty-four out ofninety-three members present. When the usual motion to make thenomination unanimous was bitterly opposed, Horatio Seymour took thefloor, and with the moving charm and power of his voice, with temperunbroken, he made a fervid appeal for harmony. But bitterness ruledthe midnight hour; unanimity still lacked thirty-nine votes. As theRadicals passed out into the frosty air, breaking the stillness withtheir expletives, the voice of the tempter suggested a union with theWhigs for the election of Samuel Young. There was abundant precedentto support the plan. Bailey had bolted Woodworth's nomination; Germanhad defeated Thompson; and, in 1820, Rufus King had triumphed overSamuel Young. But these were the tactics of DeWitt Clinton. In 1845, the men who aspired to office, the men with a past and the men wholooked for a future, had no words of approval for such methods; andbefore the Whigs heard of the scheme, Samuel Young had stamped it todeath. 

[Footnote 350: "On that occasion the feud between the two sections ofthe party was disclosed in all its intensity. The conflict, which wassharp and ended in the election of Daniel S. Dickinson for thesix-years term, in spite of the strong opposition of the Radicalmembers of the caucus, was a triumph for the Conservatives, and adefeat for the friends of Governor Wright. The closing years of thegreat statesman's life were overcast by shadows; adverse influenceswere evidently in the ascendant, not only at Washington, but closeabout him and at home. "--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 194. ]

To add to the chagrin of the Radicals, President Polk now invitedWilliam L. Marcy, a Conservative of great prestige, to becomesecretary of war. The Radicals did not know, and perhaps could notknow the exact condition of things at the national capital; certainlythey did not know how many elements of that condition told againstthem. President Polk, apparently with a desire of treating his NewYork friends fairly, asked Van Buren to recommend a New Yorker for hisCabinet; and, with the approval of Silas Wright, the former Presidenturged Benjamin F. Butler for secretary of state, or Azariah C. Flaggfor secretary of the treasury. Either of these men would have filledthe place designated with great ability. Polk was largely indebted toVan Buren and his friends; Butler had given him the vote of New York, and Wright, by consenting to stand for governor at the urgentsolicitation of Van Buren, had carried the State and thus madeDemocratic success possible. But Polk, more interested in futuresuccess than in the payment of past indebtedness, had an eye out for1848. He wanted a man devoted solely to his interests and to theannexation of Texas; and, although Butler was a personal friend and anornament to the American bar, he hesitated, despite the insistence ofVan Buren and Wright, to make a secretary of state out of the mostdevoted of Van Buren's adherents, who, like the sage of Lindenwaldhimself, bitterly opposed annexation. 

In this emergency, the tactics of Edwin Croswell came to Polk'srelief. The former knew that Silas Wright could not, if he would, accept a place in the Cabinet, since he had repeatedly declared duringthe campaign that, if elected, he would not abandon the governorshipto enter the Cabinet, as Van Buren did in 1829. Croswell knew, also, that Butler, having left the Cabinet of two Presidents to re-enter hisprofession, would not give it up for a secondary place among Polk'sadvisers. At the editor's suggestion, therefore, the Presidenttendered Silas Wright the head of the treasury, and, upon hisdeclination, an offer of the secretaryship of war came to Butler. Thelatter said he would have taken, although with reluctance, either thestate or treasury department; but the war portfolio carried him toofar from the line of his profession. Thus the veteran editor's scheme, having worked itself out as anticipated, left the President atliberty, without further consultation with Van Buren, to give WilliamL. Marcy[351] what Butler had refused. To the Radicals the result wasas startling as it was unwelcome. It left the Conservatives inauthority. Through Marcy they would command the federal patronage, andthrough their majority in the Legislature they could block the wheelsof their opponents. It was at this time that the Conservatives, "hankering, " it was said, after the offices to be given by anAdministration committed to the annexation of Texas, were first called"Hunkers. "

[Footnote 351: "On the great question that loomed threateningly on thehorizon, Wright and Marcy took opposite sides. Wright moved calmlyalong with the advancing liberal sentiment of the period, and died afirm advocate of the policy of the Wilmot Proviso. On this testmeasure Marcy took no step forward. "--H. B. Stanton, _RandomRecollections_, p. 40. ]

John Young, a Whig member of the Assembly, no sooner scented theincreasingly bitter feeling between Hunker and Radical than heprepared to take advantage of it. Young was a great surprise to theolder leaders. He had accomplished nothing in the past to entitle himto distinction. In youth he accompanied his father, a Vermontinnkeeper, to Livingston County, where he received a common schooleducation and studied law, being admitted to the bar in 1829, at theage of twenty-seven. Two years later he served a single term in theAssembly, and for ten years thereafter he had confined his attentionalmost exclusively to his profession, becoming a strong jury lawyer. In the meantime, he changed his politics from a firm supporter ofAndrew Jackson to a local anti-masonic leader, and finally to afollower of Henry Clay. Then the Whigs sent him to Congress, and, inthe fall of 1843, elected him to the celebrated Assembly through whichHoratio Seymour forced the canal appropriation. But John Young seemsto have made little more of a reputation in this historic strugglethan he did as a colleague of Millard Fillmore in the Congress thatpassed the tariff act of 1842. He did not remain silent, but neitherhis words nor his acts conveyed any idea of the gifts which he wasdestined to disclose in the various movements of a drama that was now, day by day, through much confusion and bewilderment, approaching aclimax. From a politician of local reputation, he leaped to thedistinction of a state leader. If unnoticed before, he was now theobserved of all observers. This transition, which came almost in aday, surprised the Democrats no less than it excited the Whigs; forYoung lifted a minority into a majority, and from a hopeless defeatwas destined to lead his party to glorious victory. "With talents of ahigh order, " says Hammond, "with industry, with patient perseverance, and with a profound knowledge of men, he was one of the ablest partyleaders and most skilful managers in a popular body that ever enteredthe Assembly chamber. "[352] Hammond, writing while Young was governor, did not express the view of Thurlow Weed, who was unwilling to accepttact and cunning for great intellectual power. But there is no doubtthat Young suddenly showed uncommon parliamentary ability, not only asa debater, owing to his good voice and earnest, persuasive manner, butas a skilful strategist, who strengthened coolness, courtesy, andcaution with a readiness to take advantage of the supreme moment tocarry things his way. Within a month, he became an acknowledged masterof parliamentary law, easily bringing order out of confusion by a fewsimple, clear, compact sentences. If his learning did not rank himamong the Sewards and the Seymours, he had no occasion to fear anantagonist in the field on which he was now to win his leadership. 

[Footnote 352: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 537. ]

The subject under consideration was the calling of a constitutionalconvention. The preceding Legislature, hoping to avoid a convention, had proposed several amendments which the people approved in theelection of 1844; but the failure of the present Legislature to ratifythem by a two-thirds majority, made a convention inevitable, and thequestion now turned upon the manner of its calling and the approval ofits work. The Hunkers, with the support of the Governor, desired firstto submit the matter to the people; and, if carried by a majorityvote, taking as a test the number of votes polled at the lastelection, the amendments were to be acted upon separately. This wasthe plan of Governor Clinton in 1821. On the other hand, the Whigs, the Anti-Renters, and the Native Americans insisted that theLegislature call a convention, and that its work be submitted, as awhole, to the people, as in 1821. This the Hunkers resisted to thebitter end. An obstacle suddenly appeared, also, in the conduct ofWilliam C. Grain, who thought an early and unlimited conventionnecessary. Michael Hoffman held the same view, believing it the onlymethod of getting the act of 1842 incorporated into the organic law ofthe State. Upon the latter's advice, therefore, Crain introduced abill in the Assembly similar to the convention act of 1821. It wascharged, at the time, that Crain's action was due to resentmentbecause of his defeat for speaker, and that the Governor, in fillingthe vacancy occasioned by the transfer of Samuel Nelson to the SupremeCourt of the United States, had added to his indignation byoverlooking the claims of Michael Hoffman. It is not improbable thatCrain, irritated by his defeat, did resent the action of the Governor, although it was well known that Hoffman had not sought a place on theSupreme bench. But, in preferring an unlimited constitutionalconvention, Crain and Hoffman expressed the belief of the mosteminent lawyers of the Commonwealth, that the time had come forradical changes in the Constitution, and that these could not beobtained unless the work of a convention was submitted in its entiretyto the people and approved by a majority vote. 

Crain's bill was quickly pigeon-holed by the select committee to whichit was referred, and John Young's work began when he determined tohave it reported. There had been little difficulty in marshalling athird of the Assembly to defeat the constitutional amendments proposedby the preceding Legislature, since Whigs, Anti-Renters, and NativeAmericans numbered fifty-four of the one hundred and twenty-eightmembers; but, to overcome a majority of seventeen, required Young'spatient attendance, day after day, watchful for an opportunity to makea motion whenever the Hunkers, ignorant of his design, were reduced bytemporary absences to an equality with the minority. Finally, thesought-for moment came, and, with Crain's help, Young carried a motioninstructing the committee to report the Crain bill without amendment, and making it the special order for each day until disposed of. It wasa staggering blow. The air was thick with suggestions, contrivances, expedients, and embryonic proposals. The Governor, finding Craininexorable, sent for Michael Hoffman; but the ablest Radical in theState refused to intervene, knowing that if the programme proposed byWright was sustained, the Whigs would withdraw their support and leavethe Hunkers in control. 

When the debate opened, interest centred in the course taken by theRadicals, who accepted the principle of the bill, but who demurredupon details and dreaded to divide their party. To this controllinggroup, therefore, were arguments addressed and appeals made. Hammondpronounced it "one of the best, if not the best, specimens ofparliamentary discussion ever exhibited in the capital of theState. "[353] Other writers have recorded similar opinions. It wascertainly a memorable debate, but it was made so by the seriouspolitical situation, rather than by the importance of the subject. Horatio Seymour led his party, and, though other Hunkers participatedwith credit, upon the Speaker fell the brunt of the fight. Hedispensed with declamation, he avoided bitter words, he refused tocrack the party whip; but with a deep, onflowing volume of argumentand exhortation, his animated expressions, modulated and wellbalanced, stirred the emotions and commanded the closest attention. Seymour had an instinct "for the hinge or turning point of a debate. "He had, also, a never failing sense of the propriety, dignity, andmoderation with which subjects should be handled, or "the greatendearment of prudent and temperate speech" as Jeremy Taylor calls it;and, although he could face the fiercest opposition with the keenestblade, his utterances rarely left a sting or subjected him tocriticism. This gift was one secret of his great popularity, and dailyrumours, predicted harmony before a vote could be reached. As thestormy scenes which marked the progress of the bill continued, however, the less gifted Hunkers did not hesitate to declare the partydissolved unless the erring Radicals fell into line. 

[Footnote 353: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 544. ]

John Young, who knew the giant burden he had taken up, showed himselfacute, frank, patient, closely attentive, and possessed of remarkablepowers of speech. Every word surprised his followers; every strokestrengthened his position. He did not speak often, but he alwaysanswered Seymour, presenting a fine and sustained example of debate, keeping within strict rules of combat, and preserving a rational andargumentative tone, yet emphasising the differences between Hunker andRadical. Young could not be called brilliant, nor did he have thecapacity or finish of Seymour as an orator; but he formed his ownopinions, usually with great sagacity, and acted with vigour and skillamid the exasperation produced by the Radical secession. Seward wrotethat "he has much practical good sense, and much caution. " This wasevidenced by the fact that, although only four Radicals voted toreport Crain's bill, others gradually went over, until finally, onits passage, only Hunkers voted in the negative. It was a greattriumph for Young. He had beaten a group of clever managers: he hadweakened the Democratic party by widening the breach between itsfactions; and he had turned the bill recommending a convention into aWhig measure. 

The bad news discouraged the senators who dreamed of an abiding unionbetween the two factions; and, although one or two Radicals in theupper chamber favoured the submission of the amendments separately tothe people, the friends of the measure obtained two majority againstall attempts to modify it, and four majority on its passage. TheGovernor's approval completed Young's triumph. He had not onlyretained his place as an able minority leader against the relentless, tireless assaults of a Seymour, a Croswell, and a Wright; but, in thepresence of such odds, he had gained the distinction of turning aminority into a reliable majority in both houses, placing him at onceupon a higher pedestal than is often reached by men of far greatergenius and eloquence. 

The determination of the Hunkers to pass a measure appropriating$197, 000 for canal improvement made the situation still more critical. Although the bill devoted the money to completing such unfinishedportions of the Genesee Valley and Black River canals as thecommissioners approved, it was clearly in violation of the spirit ofthe act of 1842 upon which Hunker and Radical had agreed to bury theirdifferences, and the latter resented its introduction as aninexcusable affront; but John Young now led his Whig followers to thecamp of the Hunkers, and, in a few days, the measure lay upon theGovernor's table for his approval or veto. 

Thus far, Governor Wright had been a disappointment to his party. Complaints from Radicals were heard before his inauguration. Theyresented his acceptance of a Hunker's hospitality, asserting that heshould have made his home at a public house where Hunker and Radicalalike could freely counsel with him; they complained of hisresignation as United States senator, insisting that he ought to haveheld the office until his inauguration as governor and thus preventedBouck appointing a Hunker as his successor; they denounced hisindifference in the speakership contest; and they murmured at hisopposition to a constitutional convention. There was cause for some ofthese lamentations. It was plain that the Governor was neither aleader nor a conciliator. A little tact would have held the Radicalsin line against a constitutional convention and kept inviolate the actof 1842, but he either did not possess or disclaimed the arts anddiplomacies of a political manager. He could grapple with principlesin the United States Senate and follow them to their logical end, buthe could not see into the realities of things as clearly as Seymour, or estimate, with the same accuracy, the relative strength ofconflicting tendencies in the political world. Writers of that dayexpress amazement at the course of Silas Wright in vetoing the canalappropriation, some of them regarding him as a sort of politicalpuzzle, others attributing his action to the advice of false friends;but his adherence to principle more easily explains it. Seymour knewthat the "up-state" voters, who would probably hold the balance ofpower in the next election, wanted the canal finished and would resentits defeat. Wright, on the other hand, believed in a suspension ofpublic works until the debt of the State was brought within the safecontrol of its revenues, and in the things he stood for, he was asunyielding as flint. 

When the Legislature adjourned Hunkers and Radicals were too wideapart even to unite in the usual address to constituents; and in thefall campaign of 1845, the party fell back upon the old issues of theyear before. To the astonishment of the Hunkers, however, thelegislative session opened in January, 1846, with two Radicals to oneConservative. It looked to the uninitiated as if the policy of canalimprovement had fallen into disfavour; but Croswell, and other Hunkersin the inner political circle, understood that a change, long foreseenby them, was rapidly approaching. The people of New York felt profoundinterest in the conflict between slavery and freedom, and thefearless stand of Preston King of St. Lawrence in supporting theWilmot Proviso, excluding "slavery and involuntary servitude" from theterritory obtained from Mexico, had added fuel to the flame. King wasa Radical from principle and from prejudice. For four successive yearshe had been in the Assembly, hostile to canals and opposed to allimprovements. In his bitterness he denounced the Whig party as the oldFederalist party under another name. He was now, at the age of forty, serving his second term in Congress. But, obstinate and uncompromisingas was his Democracy, the aggressive spirit and encroaching designs ofslavery had so deeply disturbed him that he refused to go with hisparty in its avowed purpose of extending slavery into free or newlyacquired territory. 

To the Hunkers, this new departure seemed to offer an opportunity ofweakening the Radicals by forcing them into opposition to the Polkadministration; and a resolution, approving the course of the New Yorkcongressmen who had supported the annexation of Texas, appeared in theSenate soon after its organisation. Very naturally, politicians wereafraid of it; and the debate, which quickly degenerated into bitterpersonalities, indicated that the Free-soil sentiment, soon to inspirethe new Republican party, had not only taken root among the Radicals, but that rivalries between the two factions rested on differences ofprinciple far deeper than canal improvement. "If you study the papersat all, " wrote William H. Seward, "you will see that the Barnburnersof this State have carried the war into Africa, and the extraordinaryspectacle is exhibited of Democrats making up an issue of slavery atWashington. The consequences of this movement cannot be fullyapprehended. It brings on the great question sooner and more directlythan we have even hoped. All questions of revenue, currency, andeconomy sink before it. The hour for the discussion of emancipation isnearer at hand, by many years, than has been supposed. "[354]

[Footnote 354: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 33. ]

CHAPTER IX

THE FOURTH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

1846

The constitutional convention, called by the Legislature of 1845, received popular sanction at the fall elections; and, in April, 1846, one hundred and twenty-eight delegates were chosen. The conventionassembled on the first day of June, and terminated its labours on theninth day of October. It was an able body of men. It did not contain, perhaps, so many distinguished citizens as its predecessor in 1821, but, like the convention of a quarter of a century before, it includedmany men who had acquired reputations for great ability at the bar andin public affairs during the two decades immediately preceding it. Among the more prominent were Michael Hoffman of Herkimer, famous forhis influence in the cause of canal economy; James Tallmadge ofDutchess, whose inspiring eloquence had captivated conventions andlegislatures for thirty years; William C. Bouck of Schoharie, theunconquered Hunker who had faced defeat as gracefully as he hadaccepted gubernatorial honours; Samuel Nelson, recently appointed tothe United States Supreme Court after an experience of twenty-twoyears upon the circuit and supreme bench of the State; Charles S. Kirkland and Ezekiel Bacon of Oneida, the powerful leaders of a barfamous in that day for its famous lawyers; Churchill C. Cambreling ofNew York, a member of Congress for eighteen consecutive years, and, more recently, minister to Russia; George W. Patterson of Livingston, a constant, untiring and enthusiastic Whig champion, twice electedspeaker of the Assembly and soon to become lieutenant-governor. 

Of the younger delegates, three were just at the threshold of theirbrilliant and distinguished careers. John K. Porter of Saratoga--thenonly twenty-seven years old, afterward to become a member of the Courtof Appeals and the associate of William M. Evarts as counsel for HenryWard Beecher in the Tilton suit--discussed the judiciary in speechessingularly adapted to reach the understanding of the delegates; SamuelJ. Tilden, who had served respectably but without distinction in theAssembly of 1845 and 1846, evidenced his inflexible courage and highintellectual qualities; and Charles O'Conor, already known to thepublic, gave signal proof of the prodigious extent of those powers andacquirements which finally entitled him to rank with the greatestlawyers of any nation or any time. 

Of the more distinguished members of the convention of 1821, JamesTallmadge alone sat in the convention of 1846. Daniel D. Tompkins, Rufus King, William W. Van Ness, Jonas Platt, and Abraham Van Vechtenwere dead; James Kent, now in his eighty-third year, was deliveringlaw lectures in New York City; Ambrose Spencer, having served aschairman of the Whig national convention at Baltimore, in 1844, hadreturned, at the age of eighty-one, to the quiet of his agriculturalpursuits in the vicinity of Lyons; Martin Van Buren, still rebelliousagainst his party, was watching from his retreat at Lindenwald thestrife over the Wilmot Proviso, embodying the opposition to theextension of slavery into new territories; Erastus Root, at the age ofseventy-four, was dying in New York City; and Samuel Young, famous byhis knightly service in the cause of the Radicals, had just finishedin the Assembly, with the acerbity of temper that characterised hisgreatest oratorical efforts during nearly half a century of publiclife, an eloquent indictment of the Hunkers, whom he charged withbeing the friends of monopoly, the advocates of profuse andunnecessary expenditures of the public funds, and the cause of muchcorrupt legislation. 

But of all men in the State the absence of William H. Seward was themost noticeable. For four years, as governor, he had stood forinternal improvements, for the reorganisation of the judiciary alonglines of progress, for diminishing official patronage, for modifying, and ultimately doing away with, feudal tenures, and for free schoolsand universal suffrage. His experience and ability would have beenmost helpful in the formation of the new constitution; but he wouldnot become a delegate except from Auburn, and a majority of the peopleof his own assembly district did not want him. "The world are all madwith me here, " he wrote Weed, "because I defended Wyatt toofaithfully. God help them to a better morality. The prejudices againstme grows by reason of the Van Nest murder!"[355] Political friendsoffered him a nomination and election from Chautauqua, but hedeclined, urging as a further reason that the Whigs would be in theminority, and his presence might stimulate fresh discords among them. 

[Footnote 355: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 791. ]

Horace Greeley had expected a nomination from Chautauqua. He hadrelations who promised him support, and with their failure to electhim began that yearning for office which was destined to doom him tomany bitter disappointments. Until now, he had kept his desires tohimself. He wanted to be postmaster of New York in 1841; and, whenSeward failed to anticipate his ambition, he recalled the scripturalinjunction, "Ask, and it shall be given you. " So, he conferred withWeed about the constitutional convention. Washington County wassuggested, then Delaware, and later Albany; but, the nominees havingbeen selected, the project was abandoned, and Horace Greeley waiteduntil the convention of 1867. Weed expressed the belief that ifGreeley's wishes had been known two weeks earlier, his ambition mighthave been gratified, although on only two occasions had non-residentdelegates ever been selected. 

Popular sovereignty attained its highest phase under the Constitutionof 1846; and the convention must always be notable as the greatdividing line between a government by the people, and a governmentdelegated by the people to certain officials--executive, legislative, and judicial--who were invested with general and more or lesspermanent powers. Under the Constitution of 1821, the power ofappointment was placed in the governor, the Senate, and the Assembly. State officers were elected by the Legislature, judges nominated bythe governor and confirmed by the Senate, district attorneys appointedby county courts, justices of the peace chosen by boards ofsupervisors, and mayors of cities selected by the common council. Later amendments made justices of the peace and mayors of citieselective; but, with these exceptions, from 1821 to 1846 theConstitution underwent no organic changes. Under the Constitution of1846, however, all officers became elective; and, to bring them stillnearer the people, an elective judiciary was decentralised, terms ofsenators were reduced from four to two years, and the selection oflegislators was confined to single districts. It was also providedthat amendments to the Constitution might be submitted to the peopleat any time upon the approval of a bare legislative majority. Even theoffice of governor, which had been jealously reserved to nativecitizens, was thrown open to all comers, whether born in the UnitedStates or elsewhere. 

As if to accentuate the great change which public sentiment hadundergone in the preceding twenty years these provisions weregenerally concurred in by large majorities and without political bias. The proposition that a governor need not be either a freeholder or anative citizen was sustained by a vote of sixty-one to forty-nine; theproposal to overcome the governor's veto by a majority instead of atwo-thirds vote was carried by sixty-one to thirty-six; the term ofsenators was reduced from four to two years by a vote of eighty totwenty-three; and their selection confined to single districts by amajority of seventy-nine to thirty-one. An equally large majorityfavoured the provision that no member of the Legislature shouldreceive from the governor or Legislature any civil appointment withinthe State, or to the United States Senate. Charles O'Conor antagonisedthe inhibition of an election to the United States Senate with muchlearning and eloquence. He thought the power of the State to qualifyor restrict the choice of senators was inconsistent with the FederalConstitution; but the great majority of the convention held otherwise. Indeed, so popular did this section become that, in 1874, members ofthe Legislature were prohibited from taking office under a citygovernment. 

The period when property measured a man's capacity and influence alsoseems to have passed away with the adoption of the Constitution of1846. For the first time in the State's history, the great landholderslost control, and provisions as to the land law became clear andwholesome. Feudal tenures were abolished, lands declared allodial, fines and quarter sales made void, and leases of agricultural landsfor longer than twelve years pronounced illegal. Although vestedrights could not be affected, the policy of the new constitutionalconditions, aided by the accessibility of better and cheaper landsalong lines of improved transportation, compelled landlords in theolder parts of the State to seek compromises and to offer greaterinducements. The only persons required to own property in order toenjoy suffrage and the right to hold office were negroes, whocontinued to rest under the ban until the adoption of the fifteenthamendment to the Federal Constitution. The people of New York feltprofound interest in the great conflict between slavery and freedom, but, for more than a quarter of a century after the Wilmot Provisobecame the shibboleth of the Barnburners, a majority of voters deniedthe coloured man equality of suffrage. Among the thirty-two delegatesin the convention of 1846 who refused to allow the people to pass uponthe question of equality of suffrage, appear the names of CharlesO'Conor and Samuel J. Tilden. 

The great purpose of the convention was the reform of the lawsrelating to debt and to the creation of a new judicial establishment. Michael Hoffman headed the committee charged with the solution offinancial problems. He saw the importance of devoting the resources ofthe State to the reduction of its debt. It was important to thecharacter of the people, he thought, that they should be restless andimpatient under the obligation of debt; and the strong ground taken byhim against an enlargement of the Erie and its lateral canals hadresulted in the passage of the famous act of 1842, the substance ofwhich he now desired incorporated into the Constitution. He wouldneither tolerate compromises with debtors of the State, nor allow itscredit to be loaned. He favoured sinking funds, he advocated directtaxation, he insisted upon the strictest observance of appropriationlaws, and he opposed the sale of the canals. In his speeches heprobably exaggerated the canal debt, just as he minimised the canalincome and brushed aside salt and auction duties as of littleimportance; yet everybody recognised him as the schoolmaster of theconvention on financial subjects. His blackboard shone in thesunlight. He was courteous, but without much deference. There wasneither yielding nor timidity. If his flint struck a spark bycollision with another, it made little difference to him. Yet yearsafterward, Thurlow Weed, who backed Seward in his appeal for moreextensive internal improvements, admitted that to Hoffman'senlightened statesmanship, New York was indebted for the financialarticle in the Constitution of 1846, which had preserved the publiccredit and the public faith through every financial crisis. [356]

[Footnote 356: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 34. ]

Hoffman placed the state debt, with interest which must be paid up tothe time of its extinguishment, at thirty-eight million dollars. Outof the canal revenues he wanted $1, 500, 000 paid yearly upon the canaldebt; $672, 000 set apart for the use of the State; and the balanceapplied to the improvement of the Erie canal, whenever the surplusamounted to $2, 500, 000. Further to conserve the interests of theCommonwealth, he insisted that its credit should not be loaned; thatits borrowed money should not exceed one million dollars, except torepel invasion or suppress insurrection; and that no debt should becreated without laying a direct annual tax sufficient to payprincipal and interest in eighteen years. The result showed that, inspite of vigorous opposition, he got all he demanded. Some of theamounts were reduced; others slightly diverted; and the remainingsurplus of the canal revenues, instead of accumulating until itaggregated $2, 500, 000, was applied each year to the enlargement of theErie canal and the completion of the Genesee Valley and Black Rivercanals; but his plan was practically adopted and time has amplyjustified the wisdom of his limitations. In concluding his lastspeech, the distinguished Radical declared "that this legislationwould not only preserve the credit of New York by keeping its debtspaid, but it would cause every State in the Union, as soon as suchStates were able to do so, to sponge out its debts by payment and thusremove from representative government the reproaches cast upon us onthe other side of the water. "[357]

[Footnote 357: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 655. ]

But Hoffman, while exciting the admiration of all men for hispersistence, dexterity, and ability, did not lead the most importantcontest. In 1846, the popular desire for radical changes in thejudiciary was not less peremptory than the expression in 1821. Up tothis time, the courts of the State, in part, antedated the War ofIndependence. Now, in place of the ancient appointive system, thepeople demanded an elective judiciary which should be responsible tothem and bring the courts to them. To make these changes, thepresident of the convention appointed a committee of thirteen, headedby Charles H. Ruggles of Dutchess, which embraced the lawyers of mosteminence among the delegates. After the chairman came Charles O'Conorof New York, Charles P. Kirkland of Utica, Ambrose L. Jordan ofColumbia, Arphaxed Loomis of Herkimer, Alvah Worden of Saratoga, George W. Patterson of Livingston, and several others of lesser note. At the end of the committee appeared a merchant and a farmer, possiblyfor the reason that condiments make a dish more savoury. Ruggles was asimple-hearted and wise man. He had been on the Supreme bench forfifteen years, becoming one of the distinguished jurists of the State. In the fierce conflicts between Clintonians and Bucktails he actedwith the former, and then, in 1828, followed DeWitt Clinton to thesupport of Andrew Jackson. But Ruggles never offended anybody. Hiswise and moderate counsel had drawn the fire from many a wild anddangerous scheme, but it left no scars. Prudence and modesty hadcharacterised his life, and his selection as chairman of the judiciarycommittee disarmed envy and jealousy. He was understood to favour anelective judiciary and moderation in all doubtful reforms. ArphaxedLoomis possessed unusual abilities as a public speaker, and, during abrief career in the Assembly, had become known as an advocate of legalreform. He was afterward, in April, 1847, appointed a commissioner onpractice and pleadings for the purpose of providing a uniform courseof proceedings in all cases; and, to him, perhaps, more than to anyone else, is due the credit of establishing one form of action for theprotection of private rights and the redress of private wrongs. Wordenhad been a merchant, who, losing his entire possessions by failure, began the study of law at the age of thirty-four and quickly took aprominent place among the lawyers of the State. Ambrose L. Jordan, although somewhat younger than Benjamin F. Butler, Thomas Oakley, Henry R. Storrs, and other former leaders of the bar, was theirsuccessful opponent, and had gained the distinction of winning thefirst breach of promise suit in which a woman figured as defendant. Patterson had rare and exquisite gifts which made him many friends andkept him for half a century prominent in political affairs. Though ofundoubted intellectual power, clear-sighted, and positive, he rarelyanswered other men's arguments, and never with warmth or heat. But hehad, however, read and mastered the law, and his voice was helpful inconferring upon the people a system which broke the yoke of the formercolonial subordination. 

The majority report of the judiciary committee provided for a newcourt of last resort, to be called the Court of Appeals, which was toconsist of eight members, four of whom were to be elected from theState at large for a term of eight years, and four to be chosen fromthe justices of the Supreme Court. A new Supreme Court of thirty-twomembers, having general and original jurisdiction in law and equity, was established in place of the old Supreme Court and Court ofChancery, the State being divided into eight districts, in each ofwhich four judges were to be elected. In addition to these greatcourts, inferior local tribunals of civil and criminal jurisdictionwere provided for cities. The report thus favoured three radicalchanges. Judges became elective, courts of law and equity were united, and county courts were abolished. The inclusion of senators in the oldCourt of Errors--which existed from the foundation of the State--hadmade the elective system somewhat familiar to the people, to whom ithad proved more satisfactory than the method of appointment; but theunion of courts of law and equity was an untried experiment in NewYork. It had the sanction of other States, and, in part, of thejudicial system of the United States, where procedure at law and inequity had become assimilated, if not entirely blended, thusabolishing the inconvenience of so many tribunals and affordinggreater facility for the trial of equity causes involving questions offact. 

But delegates were slow to profit by the experience of otherCommonwealths. From the moment the report was submitted attacks uponit became bitter and continuous. Charles O'Conor opposed the electivesystem, the union of the two courts, and the abolition of the countycourt. Charles P. Kirkland proposed that only three members of theCourt of Appeals be elected, the others to be appointed by thegovernor, with the consent of the Senate. Alvah Worden wanted twoCourts of Appeals, one of law and one of chancery, neither of whichshould be elective. Simmons desired a different organisation of theSupreme Court, and Bascom objected to the insufficient number ofsessions of the court provided for the whole State. Others of theminority submitted reports and opinions, until the subject seemedhopelessly befogged and the work of the majority a failure. O'Conorwas especially impatient and restless in his opposition. In skill andability no one could vie with him in making the old ways seem better. He was now forty-two years old. He had a powerful and vigorous frame, and a powerful and vigorous understanding. It was the wonder of hiscolleagues how, in addition to the faithful work performed incommittee, he could get time for the research that was needed to equiphim for the great speeches with which he adorned the debates. He neverheld office, save, during a portion of President Pierce'sadministration, that of United States attorney for the southerndistrict of New York; but his rapid, almost instinctive judgment, histact, his ability to crush sophistries with a single sentence, and hisvigorous rhetoric must have greatly distinguished his administrationof any office which he might have occupied. Yet the conservatism whichfinally separated him from the cordial supporters of the governmentduring the Civil War usually kept him in the minority. His spirit wasnot the spirit that governed; and, in spite of his brilliant anddetermined opposition, the convention of 1846 accepted the electivesystem, approved the union of equity and law courts, prohibited theelection of a member of the Legislature to the United States Senate, and submitted to the decision of the people the right of coloured mento equal suffrage. Only in the retention of the county court wereO'Conor's views sustained; and this came largely through the influenceof Arphaxed Loomis, the material part of whose amendment wasultimately adopted. When, finally, the Constitution in its entiretywas submitted to the convention for its approval, O'Conor was one ofsix to vote against it. 

The Constitution of 1846 was the people's Constitution. It reserved tothem the right to act more frequently upon a large class of questions, introducing the referendum which characterises popular government, and making it a more perfect expression of the popular will. That thepeople appreciated the greater power reserved to them was shown on thethird of November, by a vote of 221, 528 to 92, 436. With fewmodifications, the Constitution of 1846 still remains in force, --ampleproof that wisdom, unalloyed with partisan politics or blindconservatism, guided the convention which framed it. 

CHAPTER X

DEFEAT AND DEATH OF SILAS WRIGHT

1846-1847

The Democratic campaign for governor in 1846 opened with extraordinaryinterest. Before the Legislature adjourned, on May 13, the Hunkersrefused to attend a party caucus for the preparation of the usualaddress. Subsequently, however, they issued one of their own, chargingthe Radicals with hostility to the Polk administration and withselfishness, born of a desire to control every office within the giftof the canal board. The address did not, in terms, name Silas Wright, but the Governor was not blind to its attacks. "They are not verydifferent from what I expected when I consented to take this office, "he wrote a friend in Canton. "I do not yet think it positively certainthat we shall lose the convention, but that its action and theelection are to produce a perfect separation of a portion of our partyfrom the main body I cannot any longer entertain a single doubt. Youmust not permit appearances to deceive you. Although I am notdenounced here by name with others, the disposition to do that, ifpolicy would permit, is not even disguised, and every man known to bestrongly my friend and firmly in my confidence is more bitterlydenounced than any other. "[358]

[Footnote 358: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 756. _Appendix. _]

It is doubtful if Silas Wright himself fully comprehended the realreason for such bitterness. He was a natural gentleman, kindly andtrue. He might sometimes err in judgment; but he was essentially astatesman of large and comprehensive vision, incapable of any meannessor conscious wrong-doing. The masses of the party regarded him as therepresentative of the opportunity which a great State, in a republic, holds out to the children of its humblest and poorest citizens. He wasas free from guile as a little child. To him principle and party stoodbefore all other things; and he could not be untrue to one any morethan to the other. But the leaders of the Hunker wing did not takekindly to him. They could not forget that the Radical state officers, with whom he coincided in principle, in conjuring with his name in1844 had defeated the renomination of Governor Bouck; and, though theymight admit that his nomination practically elected Polk, byextracting the party from the mire of Texas annexation, theypreferred, deep in their hearts, a Whig governor to his continuance inoffice, since his influence with the people for high ends was not inaccord with their purposes. For more than a decade these men, asSamuel Young charged in his closing speech in the Assembly of thatyear, had been after the flesh-pots. They favoured the bankingmonopoly, preferring special charters that could be sold to freefranchises under a general law; they influenced the creation of statestocks in which they profited; they owned lands which would appreciateby the construction of canals and railroads. To all these selfishinterests, the Governor's restrictive policy was opposed; and whilethey did not dare denounce him by name, as the Governor suggested inhis letter, their tactics increased the hostility that was eventuallyto destroy him. 

It must be confessed, however, that the representation of Hunkers atthe Democratic state convention, held at Syracuse on October 1, didnot indicate much popular strength. The Radicals outnumbered them twoto one. On the first ballot Silas Wright received one hundred andtwelve votes out of one hundred and twenty-five, and, upon motion ofHoratio Seymour, the nomination became unanimous. For lieutenant-governor, Addison Gardiner was renominated by acclamation. The convention thenclosed its labours with the adoption of a platform approving there-enactment of the independent treasury law, the passage of theWalker tariff act, and the work of the constitutional convention, with an expression of hope that the Mexican War, which had commencedon the 12th of the preceding May, might be speedily and honourablyterminated. The address concluded with a just eulogy of Silas Wright. At the moment, the contest seemed at an end; but the sequel showed itwas only a surface settlement. 

If Democrats were involved in a quarrel, the Whigs were scarcely ahappy family. It is not easy to pierce the fog which shrouds thedivision of the party; but it is clear that when Seward becamegovernor and Weed dictator, trouble began in respect to men and tomeasures. Though less marked, possibly, than the differences betweenDemocratic factions, the discord seemed to increase with thehopelessness of Whig ascendancy. Undoubtedly it began with Seward'srecommendation of separate schools for the children of foreigners, andin his pronounced anti-slavery views; but it had also festered andexpanded from disappointments, and from Weed's opposition to HenryClay in 1836 and 1840. Even Horace Greeley, already consumed with adesire for public preferment, began to chafe under the domineeringinfluence of Weed and the supposed neglect of Seward; while MillardFillmore, and those acting with him, although retaining personalrelations with Weed, were ready to break away at the firstopportunity. As the Whigs had been in the minority for several years, the seriousness of these differences did not become public knowledge;but the newspapers divided the party into Radicals and Conservatives, the former being represented by the _Evening Journal_ and the_Tribune_, the latter by the New York _Courier and Enquirer_ and theBuffalo _Commercial Advertiser_. 

This division, naturally, led to some difference of opinion about acandidate for governor; and, when the Whig state convention met atUtica on September 23, an informal ballot developed fifty-five votesfor Millard Fillmore, thirty-six for John Young, and twenty-one forIra Harris, with eight or ten scattering. Fillmore had not sought thenomination. Indeed, there is evidence that he protested against thepresentation of his name; but his vote represented the conservativeWhigs who did not take kindly either to Young or to Harris. IraHarris, who was destined to bear a great part in a great history, hadjust entered his forty-fourth year. He was graduated from UnionCollege with the highest honours, studied law with Ambrose Spencer, and slowly pushed himself into the front rank of practitioners at theAlbany bar. In 1844, while absent in the West, the Anti-Rentersnominated him, without his knowledge, for the Assembly, and, with thehelp of the Whigs, elected him. He had in no wise identified himselfwith active politics or with anti-rent associations; but the peoplehonoured him for his integrity as well as for his fearless support ofthe principle of individual rights. In the Assembly he demonstratedthe wisdom of their choice, evidencing distinguished ability andpolitical tact. In 1845 the same people returned him to the Assembly. Then, in the following year, they sent him to the constitutionalconvention; and, some months later, to the State Senate. Beneath hisplain courtesy was great firmness. He could not be otherwise than theconstant friend of everything which made for the emancipation andelevation of the individual. His advocacy of an elective judiciary, the union of law and equity, and the simplification of pleadings andpractice in the courts, showed that there were few stronger or clearerintellects in the constitutional convention. With good reason, therefore, the constituency that sent him there favoured him forgovernor. 

But John Young shone as the popular man of the hour. Young was amiddle-of-the-road Whig, whose candidacy grew out of his recentlegislative record. He had forced the passage of the bill calling aconstitutional convention, and had secured the canal appropriationwhich the Governor deemed it wise to veto. In the Assembly of 1845 and1846, he became his party's choice for speaker; and, though not a manof refinement or scholarly attainments, or one, perhaps, whose wisdomand prudence could safely be relied upon under the stress of greatresponsibilities, he was just then the chief figure of the State andof great influence with the people--especially with the Anti-Rentersand their sympathisers, whose strife and turbulence in Columbia andDelaware counties had been summarily suppressed by Governor Wright. The older leaders of his party thought him somewhat of a demagogue;Thurlow Weed left the convention in disgust when he discovered that apre-arranged transfer of the Harris votes would nominate him. But, with the avowed friendship of Ira Harris, Young was stronger at thistime than Weed, and on the third ballot he received seventy-six votesto forty-five for Fillmore. To balance the ticket, Hamilton Fishbecame the candidate for lieutenant-governor. Fish represented theeastern end of the State, the conservative wing of the party, and NewYork City, where he was deservedly popular. 

There were other parties in the field. The Abolitionists madenominations, and the Native Americans put up Ogden Edwards, a Whig ofsome prominence, who had served in the Assembly, in the constitutionalconvention of 1821, and upon the Supreme bench. But it was the actionof the Anti-Renters, or national reformers as they were called, thatmost seriously embarrassed the Whigs and the Democrats. TheAnti-Renters could scarcely be called a party, although they had growninto a political organisation which held the balance of power inseveral counties. Unlike the Abolitionists, however, they wantedimmediate results rather than sacrifices for principle, and theirsupport was deemed important if not absolutely conclusive. When thelittle convention of less than thirty delegates met at Albany inOctober, therefore, their ears listened for bids. They sought a pardonfor the men convicted in 1845 for murderous outrages perpetrated inDelaware and Schoharie; and, although unsupported by proof, it wasafterward charged and never denied, that, either at the time of theirconvention or subsequently before the election, Ira Harris produced aletter from John Young in which the latter promised executive clemencyin the event of his election. However this may be, it is not unlikelythat Harris' relations with the Anti-Renters aided materially insecuring Young's indorsement, and it is a matter of record that soonafter Young's inauguration the murderers were pardoned, the Governorjustifying his action upon the ground that their offences werepolitical. The democratic Anti-Renters urged Silas Wright to give someassurances that he, too, would issue a pardon; but the Cato of hisparty, who never caressed or cajoled his political antagonists, declined to give any intimation upon the subject. Thereupon, as if toemphasise their dislike of Wright, the Anti-Rent delegates indorsedJohn Young for governor and Addison Gardiner for lieutenant-governor. 

In the midst of the campaign William C. Bouck received the federalappointment of sub-treasurer in New York, under the actre-establishing the independent treasury system. This office was oneof the most important in the gift of the President, and, because theappointee was the recognised head of the Hunkers, the impressionimmediately obtained that the government at Washington disapproved there-election of Silas Wright. It became the sensation of the hour. Manybelieved the success of the Governor would make him a formidablecandidate for President in 1848, and the impropriety of Polk's actionoccasioned much adverse criticism. The President and several membersof his Cabinet privately assured the Governor of their warmestfriendship, but, as one member of the radical wing expressed it, "Bouck's appointment became a significant indication of the guillotineprepared for Governor Wright in November. "

Other causes than the Democratic feud also contributed to thediscomfiture of Silas Wright. John Young had made an admirable recordin the Assembly. He had also, at the outbreak of hostilities withMexico, although formerly opposed to the annexation of Texas, beenamong the first to approve the war, declaring that "Texas was now boneof our bone, flesh of our flesh, and that since the rights of ourcitizens had been trampled upon, he would sustain the country, rightor wrong. "[359] It soon became evident, too, that the Anti-Renters werewarm and persistent friends. His promise to pardon their leadersreceived the severe condemnation of the conservative Whig papers; butsuch censure only added to his vote in Anti-Rent counties. In likemanner, Young's support of the canals and Wright's veto of theappropriation, strengthened the one and weakened the other in all thecanal counties. Indeed, after the election it was easy to trace allthese influences. Oneida, a strong canal county, which had givenWright eight hundred majority in 1844, now gave Young thirteenhundred. Similar results appeared in Lewis, Alleghany, Herkimer, andother canal counties. In Albany, an Anti-Rent county, the Whigmajority of twenty-five was increased to twenty-eight hundred, whileDelaware, another Anti-Rent stronghold, changed Wright's majority ofnine hundred in 1844, to eighteen hundred for Young. On the otherhand, in New York City, where the conservative Whig papers hadbitterly assailed their candidate, Wright's majority of thirty-threehundred in 1844 was increased to nearly fifty-two hundred. In theState Young's majority over Wright exceeded eleven thousand, [360] andGardiner's over Fish was more than thirteen thousand. TheAnti-Renters, who had also indorsed one Whig and one Democratic canalcommissioner, gave them majorities of seven and thirteen thousandrespectively. Of eight senators chosen, the Whigs elected five; and ofthe one hundred and twenty-eight assemblymen, sixty-eight, theminority being made up of fifty Democrats and ten Anti-Renters. TheWhig returns also included twenty-three out of thirty-fourcongressmen. 

[Footnote 359: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 762. ]

[Footnote 360: John Young, 198, 878; Silas Wright, 187, 306; HenryBradley, 12, 844; Ogden Edwards, 6306. --_Civil List, State of New York_(1887), p. 166. ]

It was a sweeping victory--one of the sporadic kind that occur inmoments of political unrest when certain classes are in rebellionagainst some phase of existing conditions. Seward, who happened to bein Albany over Sunday, pictured the situation in one of his racyletters. "To-day, " he says, "I have been at St. Peter's and heard oneof those excellent discourses of Dr. Potter. There was such a jumbleof wrecks of party in the church that I forgot the sermon and fell tomoralising on the vanity of political life. You know my seat. Well, halfway down the west aisle sat Silas Wright, wrapped in a coattightly buttoned to the chin, looking philosophy, which it is hard toaffect and harder to attain. On the east side sat Daniel D. Barnard, upon whom 'Anti-Rent' has piled Ossa, while Pelion only has beenrolled upon Wright. In the middle of the church was Croswell, whoseemed to say to Wright, 'You are welcome to the gallows you erectedfor me. ' On the opposite side sat John Young, the _saved_ among thelost politicians. He seemed complacent and satisfied. "[361]

[Footnote 361: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 34. ]

The defeat of Silas Wright caused no real surprise. It seemed to be inthe air. Everything was against him save his own personal influence, based upon his sincerity, integrity, and lofty patriotism. Seward hadpredicted the result at the time of Wright's nomination in 1844, andWright himself had anticipated it. "I told some friends when Iconsented to take this office, " he wrote John Fine, his Canton friend, in March, 1846, "that it would terminate my public life. "[362] But thestory of Silas Wright's administration as governor was not all arecord of success. He was opposed to a constitutional convention aswell as to a canal appropriation, and, by wisely preventing theformer, it is likely the latter would not have been forced upon him. Without a convention bill and a canal veto, the party would not havedivided seriously, John Young would not have become a popular hero, and the Anti-Renters could not have held the balance of power. Toprevent the calling of a constitutional convention, therefore, or atleast to have confined it within limits approved by the Hunkers, wasthe Governor's great opportunity. It would not have been an easytask. William C. Crain had a profound conviction on the subject, andback of him stood Michael Hoffman, the distinguished and unrelentingRadical, determined to put the act of 1842 into the organic law of theState. But there was a time when a master of political diplomacy couldhave controlled the situation. Even after permitting Crain's defeatfor speaker, the appointment of Michael Hoffman to the judgeshipvacated by Samuel Nelson's transfer to the federal bench would haveplaced a powerful lever in the Governor's hand. Hoffman had not soughtthe office, but the appointment would have softened him into a friend, and with Michael Hoffman as an ally, Crain and his legislativefollowers could have been controlled. 

[Footnote 362: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 756. _Appendix. _]

It is interesting to study the views of Wright's contemporaries as tothe causes of his defeat. [363] One thought he should have forced theconvention and veto issues in the campaign of 1845, compelling peopleand press to thresh them out a year in advance of his own candidacy;another believed if he had vetoed the convention bill a canalappropriation would not have passed; a third charged him with trustingtoo much in old friends who misguided him, and too little in newprinciples that had sprung up while he was absent in the United StatesSenate. One writer, apparently the most careful observer, admitted theinfluence of Anti-Renters and the unpopularity of the canal veto, butinsisted that the real cause of the Governor's defeat was theopposition of the Hunkers, "bound together exclusively by selfishinterests and seeking only personal advancement and personalgain. "[364] This writer named Edwin Croswell as the leader whose wideinfluence rested like mildew upon the work of the campaign, sapping itof enthusiasm, and encouraging Democrats among Anti-Renters and thosefavourable to canals to put in the knife on election day. Such apolicy, of course, it was argued, meant the delivery of Polk from apowerful opponent in 1848, and the uninterrupted leadership of WilliamL. Marcy, who now wielded a patronage, greatly increased by theMexican War, in the interest of the Hunkers and for the defeat ofSilas Wright. If this were not true, continued the writer, William C. Bouck's appointment would have been delayed until after election, andthe work of postmasters and other government officials, who usuallycontributed generously of their time and means in earnest support oftheir party, would not have been deadened. 

[Footnote 363: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 691. ]

[Footnote 364: _Ibid. _, Vol. 3, p. 693. 

"More serious than either of these [Anti-Rent disturbance and veto ofcanal appropriation] was the harm done by the quiet yet persistentopposition of the Hunkers. Nor can it be doubted that the influence ofthe Government at Washington was thrown against him in that criticalhour. Governor Marcy was secretary of war; Samuel Nelson had just beenappointed a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States;Governor Bouck held one of the most influential offices in the city ofNew York--all these were members of that section of the party withwhich Governor Wright was not in sympathy. It was evident that hewould not be able to maintain himself against an opposition of whichthe elements were so numerous, so varied, and so dangerous. "--MorganDix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 227. ]

There is abundant evidence that Governor Wright held similar views. "Ihave neither time nor disposition to speak of the causes of ouroverthrow, " he wrote, a few days after his defeat was assured. "Thetime will come when they must be spoken of, and that plainly, but itwill be a painful duty, and one which I do not want to perform. Ourprinciples are as sound as they ever were, and the hearts of the greatmass of our party will be found as true to them as ever. Hereafter Ithink our enemies will be open enemies, and against such the democracyhas ever been able, and ever will be able to contend successfully. "[365]

[Footnote 365: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 757. _Appendix. _]

Silas Wright's defeat in no wise pained him personally. Like John Jayhe had the habits of seclusion. Manual labour on the farm, hiscorrespondence, and the preparation of an address to be delivered atthe State Agricultural Fair in September, occupied his leisure duringthe spring and summer of 1847. [366] "If I were to attempt to tell youhow happy we make ourselves at our retired home, " he wrote GovernorFairfield of Maine, "I fear you would scarcely be able to credit me. Ieven yet realise, every day and every hour, the relief from publiccares, and if any thought about temporal affairs could make me moreuneasy than another, it would be the serious one that I was again totake upon myself, in any capacity, that ever pressing load. "[367] Thiswas written on the 16th of August, 1847, and on the morning of the27th his useful life came to an end. The day before he had spoken ofapoplexy in connection with the death of a friend, as if he, too, hada premonition of this dread disease. When the end came, the suddenrush of blood to the head left no doubt of its presence. 

[Footnote 366: "Nothing can be imagined more admirable than the conductof that great man under these trying circumstances. He returned atonce to his beloved farm at Canton, and resumed, with apparentdelight, the occupations of a rustic life. Visitors have related howthey found him at work in his fields, in the midst of his farmhands, setting an example of industry and zeal. His house was the shrine ofmany a pilgrimage; and, as profound regret at the loss of such a manfrom the councils of the State took the place of a less honourablesentiment, his popularity began to return. Already, as the time forthe nomination of a President drew near, men were looking to him, asan illustrious representative of the principles and hereditary faithof the Democratic-Republican party, in whose hands the country wouldbe safe, no matter from what quarter the tempest might come. "--MorganDix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 228. ]

[Footnote 367: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 729. ]

The death of Silas Wright produced a profound sensation. Since thedecease of DeWitt Clinton the termination of no public career in theState caused more real sorrow. Until then, the people scarcelyrealised how much they loved and respected him, and all were quick toadmit that the history of the Commonwealth furnished few naturesbetter fitted than his, morally and intellectually, for great publictrusts. Perhaps he cannot be called a man of genius; but he was a manof commanding ability, with that absolute probity and good sense whichare the safest gifts of a noble character. 

On the 12th of the following December, James Kent died in hiseighty-fifth year. He had outlived by eighteen years his contemporary, John Jay; by nearly forty-five years his great contemporary, AlexanderHamilton; and by more than thirty years his distinguished predecessor, Chancellor Livingston. He was the last of the heroic figures that madefamous the closing quarter of the eighteenth and the opening quarterof the nineteenth centuries. He could sit at the table of Philip Hone, amidst eminent judges, distinguished statesmen, and men whose nameswere already famous in literature, and talk of the past with personalknowledge from the time the colony graciously welcomed John Murray, Earl of Dunmore, as its governor, or threateningly frowned uponWilliam Howe, viscount and British general, for shutting up its civilcourts. When, finally, his body was transferred from the sofa in thelibrary where he had written himself into an immortal fame, to thecemetery on Second Avenue, the obsequies became the funeral not merelyof a man but of an age. 

CHAPTER XI

THE FREE-SOIL CAMPAIGN

1847-1848

The fearless stand of Preston King in supporting the WilmotProviso[368] took root among the Radicals, as Seward prophesied, andthe exclusion of slavery from territory obtained from Mexico, becamethe dominant Democratic issue in the State. Because of their approvalof this principle the Radicals were called "Barnburners. " Originally, these factional differences, as noted elsewhere, grew out of the canalcontroversy in 1838 and in 1841, the Conservatives wishing to devotethe surplus canal revenues to the completion of the canals--theRadicals insisting upon their use to pay the state debt. Under thisdivision, Edwin Croswell, William C. Bouck, Daniel S. Dickinson, HenryA. Foster, and Horatio Seymour led the Conservatives; Michael Hoffman, John A. Dix, and Azariah C. Flagg marshalled the Radicals. When theConservatives, "hankering" after the offices, accepted unconditionallythe annexation of Texas, they were called Hunkers. In like manner, theRadicals who sustained the Wilmot Proviso now became Barnburners, being likened to the farmer who burned his barn to get rid of rats. William L. Marcy, Silas Wright, Benjamin F. Butler, and the VanBurens took no part in the canal controversy; but after Martin VanBuren's defeat in 1844 Marcy became a prominent Hunker and enteredPolk's Cabinet, while Wright, Butler, and the Van Burens joined theBarnburners. 

[Footnote 368: "To understand the issue presented by the Wilmot Provisoit must be observed that its advocates sustained it on the distinctground that, as slavery had been abolished throughout the MexicanRepublic, the acquisition of territory without prohibiting slaverywould, on the theory asserted by the Southern States, lead to itsrestoration where it had ceased to exist, and make the United Statesresponsible for its extension to districts in which universal freedomhad been established by the fundamental law. "--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs ofJohn A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 205. ]

Hostilities between the Hunkers and Barnburners, growing out of theslavery question, began at the Democratic state convention, whichconvened at Syracuse, September 7, 1847. [369] Preceding this meetingboth factions had been active, but the Hunkers, having succeeded inseating a majority of the delegates, promptly voted down a resolutionembodying the principle of the Wilmot Proviso. Then the Barnburnersseceded. There was no parleying. The breach opened like a chasm andthe secessionists walked out in a body. This action was followed by anaddress, charging that the anti-slavery resolution had been defeatedby a fraudulent organisation, and calling a mass convention forOctober 26, "to avow their principles and consult as to futureaction. " This meeting became a gathering of Martin Van Buren'sfriends. It did not nominate a ticket, which would have defeated thepurpose of the secession; but, by proclaiming the principles ofFree-soil, it struck the keynote of popular sentiment; divided theDemocratic party, and let the Whigs into power by thirty thousandmajority. It made Millard Fillmore comptroller, Christopher Morgansecretary of state, Alvah Hunt treasurer, Ambrose L. Jordanattorney-general, and Hamilton Fish lieutenant-governor to fill thevacancy occasioned by Addison Gardiner's election to the new Court ofAppeals. The president of this seceders' mass-meeting was Churchill C. Cambreling, an old associate of Martin Van Buren, but its leader andinspiration was John Van Buren. He drafted the address to the people, his eloquence made him its chief orator, and his enthusiasm seemed toendow him with ubiquity. 

[Footnote 369: "In the fall of 1847 I was a spectator at the Democraticstate convention, held in Syracuse. The great chiefs of both factionswere on the ground, and never was there a fiercer, more bitter andrelentless conflict between the Narragansetts and Pequods than thismemorable contest between the Barnburners and Hunkers. Silas Wrightwas the idol of the Barnburners. He had died on the 27th of thepreceding August--less than two weeks before. James S. Wadsworthvoiced the sentiments of his followers. In the convention some onespoke of doing justice to Mr. Wright. A Hunker sneeringly responded, 'It is too late; he is dead. ' Springing upon a table Wadsworth madethe hall ring as he uttered the defiant reply: 'Though it may be toolate to do justice to Silas Wright, it is not too late to do justiceto his assassins. ' The Hunkers laid the Wilmot Proviso upon the table, but the Barnburners punished them at the election. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 159. ]

John Van Buren was unlike the ordinary son of a President of theUnited States. He did not rely upon the influence or the prestige ofhis father. [370] He was able to stand alone--a man of remarkable power, who became attorney-general in 1845, and for ten years was a markedfigure in political circles, his bland and convulsing wit enliveningevery convention and adding interest to every campaign. But his chiefinterest was in his profession. He was a lawyer of great distinction, the peer and often the opponent of Charles O'Conor and William H. Seward. "He possessed beyond any man I ever knew, " said Daniel Lord, "the power of eloquent, illustrative amplification, united with close, flexible logic. "[371]

[Footnote 370: "There could hardly be a wider contrast between two menthan the space that divided the Sage of Lindenwald from Prince John. In one particular, however, they were alike. Each had that personalmagnetism that binds followers to leaders with hooks of steel. Thefather was grave, urbane, wary, a safe counsellor, and accustomed toan argumentative and deliberate method of address that befitted thebar and the Senate. Few knew how able a lawyer the elder Van Burenwas. The son was enthusiastic, frank, bold, and given to wit, repartee, and a style of oratory admirably adapted to swaying popularassemblies. The younger Van Buren, too, was a sound lawyer. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 175. ]

[Footnote 371: _History of the Bench and Bar of New York_, Vol. 1, p. 505. ]

John Van Buren had, as well, a picturesque side to his life. Incollege he was expert at billiards, the centre of wit, and the willingtarget of beauty. Out of college, from the time he danced with thePrincess Victoria at a court ball in London at the age of twenty-two, to the end of his interesting and eventful life, he was known as"Prince John. " His remarkable gifts opened the door to all that wasultra as well as noble. He led in the ballroom, he presided atdinners, he graced every forum, and he moved in the highest socialcircles. Men marvelled at his knowledge, at his unfailing equanimity, and at his political strength; but even to those who were spellboundby his eloquence, or captivated by his adroit, skilful conduct of alawsuit, he was always "Prince John. " There was not a drop ofausterity or intolerance or personal hatred in him. The Dutch blood ofhis father, traced from the Princes of Orange to the days of the NewNetherland patroons, kept him within the limits of moderation if notentirely unspotted, and his finished manners attracted the commonpeople as readily as they charmed the more exclusive. 

John Van Buren's acceptance of Free-soilism did not emanate from adislike of slavery; nor did Free-soil principles root themselvesdeeply in his nature. His father had opposed the admission of Texas, and the son, in resentment of his defeat, hoping to make ananti-slavery party dominant in the State, if not in the nation, proclaimed his opposition to the extension of slavery. But, after thecompromise measures of 1850 had temporarily checked the movement, hefell back into the ranks of the Hunkers, aiding President Pierce'selection, and sustaining the pro-slavery administration of Buchanan. In after years Van Buren frequently explained his connection with theFree-soil revolt by telling a story of the boy who was vigorouslyremoving an overturned load of hay at the roadside. Noticing his wildand rapid pitching, a passer-by inquired the cause of his haste. Theboy, wiping the perspiration from his brow as he pointed to the pileof hay, replied, "Stranger, _dad's under there_!"

But whatever reasons incited John Van Buren to unite with theFree-soilers, so long as he advocated their principles, he was themost brilliant crusader who sought to stay the aggressiveness ofslavery. From the moment he withdrew from the Syracuse convention, inthe autumn of 1847, until he finally accepted the compromise measuresof 1850, he was looked upon as the hope of the Barnburners and themost dangerous foe of the Hunkers. Even Horatio Seymour was afraid ofhim. He did not advocate abolition; he did not treat slavery in theabstract; he did not transcend the Free-soil doctrine. But he spokewith such power and brilliancy that Henry Wilson, afterward VicePresident, declared him "the bright particular star of therevolt. "[372] He was not an impassioned orator. He spoke deliberately, and rarely with animation or with gesture; and his voice, high pitchedand penetrating, was neither mellow nor melodious. But he wasmarvellously pleasing. His perennial wit kept his audiences expectant, and his compact, forceful utterances seemed to break the argument ofan opponent as a hammer shatters a pane of glass. So great was hispopularity at this time, that his return to the Democratic partybecame a personal sorrow to every friend of the anti-slavery cause. "Indeed, such was the brilliant record he then made, " says HenryWilson, "that had he remained true to the principles he advocated, hewould unquestionably have become one of the foremost men of theRepublican party, if not its accepted leader. "[373]

[Footnote 372: Henry Wilson, _Rise and Fall of the Slave Power of theUnited States_, Vol. 2, p. 142. ]

[Footnote 373: _Ibid. _, p. 142. ]

Several historic conventions followed the secession of theBarnburners. Each faction held a state convention to select delegatesto the Democratic national convention which met in Baltimore on May22, 1848, and, on the appointed day, both Hunkers and Barnburnerspresented full delegations, each claiming admission to the exclusionof the other. [374] It was an anxious moment for Democracy. New Yorkheld the key to the election; without its vote the party could nothope to win; and without harmony success was impossible. To excludeeither faction, therefore, was political suicide, and, in the end, thevote was divided equally between them. To the politician, anxious forparty success and hungry for office, perhaps no other compromiseseemed possible. But the device failed to satisfy either side, andLewis Cass was nominated for President without the participation ofthe State that must elect or defeat him. 

[Footnote 374: "The Barnburners made the Monumental City lurid withtheir wrath, frightening the delegates from the back States almost outof their wits. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 162. "Or, asone man said in a speech, 'the regular delegates might occupy half aseat apiece, provided each of them would let a Hunker sit on hislap. '"--_Ibid. _, p. 161. ]

Returning home, the Barnburners issued an address, written by SamuelJ. Tilden, who fearlessly called upon Democrats to act independently. This led to the famous convention held at Utica in June. Samuel Youngpresided, Churchill C. Cambreling was conspicuous on the stage, DavidDudley Field read a letter from Martin Van Buren condemning theplatform and the candidate of the Baltimore convention, and BenjaminF. Butler, Preston King, and John Van Buren illuminated the principlesof the Free-soil party in speeches that have seldom been surpassed inpolitical conventions. In the end Martin Van Buren was nominated forPresident. 

This assembly, in the ability and character of its members, containedthe better portion of the party. Its attitude was strong, defiant, andits only purpose apparently was to create a public sentiment hostileto the extension of slavery. Nevertheless, it was divided into twofactions, one actuated more by a desire to avenge the alleged wrongsof Van Buren, than to limit slavery. To this class belonged ChurchillC. Cambreling, Samuel J. Tilden, John A. Dix, Sanford E. Church, DeanRichmond, John Cochrane, Benjamin F. Butler, and the Van Burens. Onthe anti-slavery side, Preston King, David Dudley Field, James S. Wadsworth, and William Cullen Bryant were conspicuous. Seven yearslater, these men were quick to aid in the formation of the Republicanparty; while the former, for the most part, continued with theDemocratic party. But, whatever the motives that prompted them, theiraction strengthened the Buffalo convention[375] which met on August 9, 1848, giving an impetus to the anti-slavery cause too strong forresentment or revenge to guide it. 

[Footnote 375: "The nomination of Cass for the Presidency by theDemocrats and Taylor by the Whigs led to the Buffalo convention of1848. Pro-slavery Democrats were there to avenge the wrongs of MartinVan Buren. Free-soil Democrats were there to punish the assassins ofSilas Wright. Pro-slavery Whigs were there to strike down Taylorbecause he had dethroned their idol, Henry Clay, in the Philadelphiaconvention. Anti-slavery Whigs were there, breathing the spirit of thedeparted John Quincy Adams. Abolitionists of all shades of opinionwere present, from the darkest type to those of a milder hue, whoshared the views of Salmon P. Chase. "--H. B. Stanton, _RandomRecollections_, pp. 162-63. ]

There have been many important meetings in the history of Americanpolitics, but it may well be doubted if any convention, during thestruggle with slavery, ever exalted the hearts of those who took partin it more than did this assembly of fearless representatives of theFree-soil party in Buffalo, the Queen City of the Lakes. The time wasripe for action, and on that day in August, men eminent and to groweminent, sought the shade of a great tent on the eastern shore of LakeErie. Among them were Joshua R. Giddings, the well-known Abolitionist;Salmon P. Chase, not yet famous, but soon to become a United Statessenator with views of slavery in accord with William H. Seward; andCharles Francis Adams who had already associated his name with that ofhis illustrious father in the growth of anti-slavery opinions in NewEngland. Chase presided over the convention and Adams over themass-meeting. At the outset, it was boldly asserted that they hadassembled "to secure free soil for a free people;" and in closing theythrilled the hearts of all hearers with the memorable declaration thatrang throughout the land like a blast from a trumpet, "We inscribe onour banner Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labour, and Free Men. " It wasa remarkable convention in that it made no mistakes. Lewis Cassrepresented the South and its purposes, while Zachary Taylor lived inthe South and owned four hundred slaves. Neither of these men couldbe supported; but, in the end, rather than put a fourth candidate intothe field, it was resolved unanimously to indorse Martin Van Buren forPresident and Charles Francis Adams for Vice President. Daniel Websterridiculed the idea of "the leader of the Free-_spoil_ party becomingthe leader of the Free-soil party;" but Charles Sumner, whose heartwas in the cause, declared that "it is not for the Van Buren of 1838that we are to vote, but for the Van Buren of to-day--the veteranstatesman, sagacious, determined, experienced, who, at an age whenmost men are rejoicing to put off their armour, girds himself anew andenters the list as a champion of freedom. "[376] To give further dignityand importance to the Free-soil movement, the nomination of John P. Hale, made by the Abolitionists in the preceding November, waswithdrawn, and John A. Dix, then a Democratic senator, accepted theBarnburners' nomination for governor. [377]

[Footnote 376: Charles Sumner, _Works_, Vol. 2, p. 144. 

"It will be remembered that Van Buren, in his inaugural as President, pledged himself to veto any bill for the abolition of slavery in theDistrict of Columbia, unless sanctioned by Maryland and Virginia. Anti-slavery men took great umbrage to this pledge, and while Butlerat the Buffalo convention was graphically describing how theex-President, now absorbed in bucolic pursuits at his Kinderhook farm, had recently leaped a fence to show his visitor a field of sproutingturnips, one of these disgusted Abolitionists abruptly exclaimed, 'Damn his turnips! What are his present opinions about the abolitionof slavery in the District of Columbia?' 'I was just coming to thatsubject, ' responded the oily Barnburner, with a suave bow towards theruffled Whig. 'Well, you can't be a moment too quick in coming to it, 'replied the captious interlocutor. "--H. B. Stanton, _RandomRecollections_, p. 164. ]

[Footnote 377: "General Dix disapproved of the design to make separatenominations, thinking it unwise, and foreseeing that it would increasethe difficulty of bringing about a reconciliation. But that he, aDemocrat of the old school, should find himself associated withgentlemen of the Whig party, from whom he differed on almost everypoint, was a painful and distressing surprise. He was willing, if itmust be so, to go with his own section of the Democratic party, thoughdeeming their course not the wisest. But when it came to an alliancewith Whigs and Abolitionists he lost all heart in the movement. Thisaccounts for his strong expressions in after years to justify himselffrom the charge of being an Abolitionist and false to his oldfaith. "--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 239. ]

The Hunkers were aghast. The movement that let the Whigs into power in1847 had suddenly become a national party, with the most famous anddistinguished Democrat at its head, while the old issues of internalimprovement, the tariff, and the independent treasury were obscured bythe intensity of the people's opposition to the extension of slavery. The Hunkers controlled the party machinery--the Barnburners held thebalance of power. To add to the bitterness of the situation, EdwinCroswell, after a quarter of a century of leadership, had retired fromeditorial and political life, leaving no one who could fill his place. When the Democratic state convention assembled at Syracuse, therefore, it spent itself in rhetorical denunciation of the rebellious faction, and wasted itself in the selection of Reuben H. Walworth for governorand Charles O'Conor for lieutenant-governor. Neither was a popularnomination. Walworth was the last of the chancellors. He came intonotice as an ardent Bucktail in the days of DeWitt Clinton, and, uponthe retirement of Chancellor Kent in 1828 succeeded to that importantand lucrative office. He was a hard worker and an upright judge; buthe did not rank as a great jurist. The lawyers thought him slow andcrabbed, and his exclusion from the office at the age of fifty-nine, after the adoption of the new Constitution in 1846, was not regretted. But Chancellor Walworth had two traits which made him a marked figurein the Commonwealth--an enthusiasm for his profession that spared nolabour and left no record unsearched; and an enthusiastic love for theChurch. 

Of Charles O'Conor's remarkable abilities, mention occurs elsewhere. His conservatism made him a Democrat of the extreme school. In theSlave Jack case and the Lemmon slave case, very famous in their day, he was counsel for the slave-holders; and at the close of the CivilWar he became the attorney for Jefferson Davis when indicted fortreason. O'Conor's great power as a speaker added much to theentertainment of the campaign of 1848, but whether he would havebeaten his sincere, large-hearted, and affectionate Whig opponent hadno third party divided the vote, was a mooted question at the time, and one usually settled in favour of the Chautauquan. 

The Whigs had reason to be hopeful. They had elected Young in 1846 byeleven thousand, and, because of the Barnburner secession, had carriedthe State in 1847 by thirty thousand. Everything indicated that theirsuccess in 1848 would be no less sweeping. But they were far fromhappy. Early in June, 1846, long before the capture of Monterey andthe victory of Buena Vista, the Albany _Evening Journal_ had suggestedthat Zachary Taylor was in the minds of many, and in the hearts ofmore, for President in 1848. Thurlow Weed went further. He sent wordto the brilliant officer that he need not reply to the numerousletters from men of all political stripes offering their support, since the presidential question would take care of itself after histriumphant return from Mexico. But, in the spring of 1848, thequestion became embarrassing. Taylor was a slave-holder. Many northernWhigs were deeply imbued with anti-slavery sentiments, and the actionof the Free-soilers was increasing their sensitiveness. "What plaguesme most of all, " wrote Washington Hunt to Weed, "is to think how I, after all I have said against slavery and its extension, am to lookthe Wilmot Proviso people in the face and ask them to vote for aSouthern slave-holder. "[378] Yet Taylor was a conquering hero; and, although little was known of his political sentiments or sympathies, it was generally believed the Democrats would nominate him forPresident if the Whigs did not. 

[Footnote 378: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 165. ]

As the year grew older it became apparent that Henry Clay was thechoice of a large portion of the Whigs of the country. Besides, DanielWebster had reappeared as a candidate; Winfield Scott had the supportof his former New York friends; and Horace Greeley, "waging a quixoticwar against heroes, " as Seward expressed it, was sure of defeatingTaylor even if shaken in his confidence of nominating Clay. "I hopeyou see your way through this difficulty, " Hunt again wrote Weed. "Youare like a deacon I know. His wife said it always came natural to himto see into the doctrine of election. "[379] Weed believed that ZacharyTaylor, if not nominated by the Whigs, would be taken up by theDemocrats, and he favoured the Southerner because the election ofJackson and Harrison convinced him that winning battles opened a sureway to the White House. But Thurlow Weed was not a stranger toTaylor's sympathies. He had satisfied himself that the bluff oldwarrior, though a native of Virginia and a Louisiana slave-holder, favoured domestic manufactures, opposed the admission of Texas, andhad been a lifelong admirer of Henry Clay; and, with this information, he went to work, cautiously as was his custom, but with none the lessenergy and persistence. Among other things, he visited Daniel Websterat Marshfield to urge him to accept the nomination for Vice President. The great statesman recalled Weed's similar errand in 1839, and thememory of Harrison's sudden death now softened him into a receptivemood; but the inopportune coming of Fletcher Webster, who reportedthat his father's cause was making tremendous progress, changedconsent into disapproval, and for the second time in ten years Websterlost the opportunity of becoming President. 

[Footnote 379: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 167. ]

When the Whig national convention met in Philadelphia on June 8, Thurlow Weed did not doubt the ability of Taylor's friends to nominatehim; but, in that event, several prominent delegates threatened tobolt. It was an anxious moment. The success of the Whig party and theascendancy of Weed's leadership in New York were at stake. It wasurged by the anti-slavery men with great vehemence that Taylor was a"no-party man, " and that as a born Southerner and large slave-holderhe could not be trusted on the slavery question. But when the fivecandidates were finally placed in nomination, and a single ballottaken, it was found, as Weed had predicted, that the hero of BuenaVista was the one upon whom the Whigs could best unite. With fewexceptions, the friends of Clay, Webster, Scott, and John M. Claytoncould go to Taylor better than to another, and on the fourth ballot, amidst anger and disappointment, the latter was nominated by sixtymajority. 

For the moment, the office of Vice President seemed to go a-begging, as it did in the convention of 1839 after the defeat of Henry Clay. Early in the year Seward's friends urged his candidacy; but he gave itno encouragement, preferring to continue the practice of hisprofession, which was now large and lucrative. John Young, who thoughthe would like the place, sent a secret agent to Mexico with letters toTaylor. Young's record as governor, however, did not commend him forother honours, and the scheme was soon abandoned. As the summeradvanced Abbott Lawrence of Massachusetts became the favourite; andfor a time it seemed as if his nomination would be made byacclamation; but, after Taylor's nomination and Clay's defeat, manydelegates promptly declared they would not have "cotton at both endsof the ticket"--referring to Taylor as a grower and Lawrence as amanufacturer of cotton. In this crisis, and after a stormy recess, John A. Collier, a leading lawyer of Binghamton, who had served in theTwenty-second Congress and one year as state comptroller, suddenlytook the platform. In a stirring speech, in which he eloquentlypictured the sorrow and bitterness of Clay's friends, he hopefullyannounced that he had a peace-offering to present, which, if accepted, would, in a measure, reconcile the supporters of all the defeatedcandidates and prevent a fatal breach in the party. Then, to theastonishment of the convention, he named Millard Fillmore for VicePresident, and asked a unanimous response to his nomination. Thisspeech, though not pitched in a very exalted key, was so subtile andtelling, that it threw the convention into applause. Collier recalledFillmore's fidelity to his party; his satisfactory record in Congress, especially during the passage of the tariff act of 1842; his splendid, if unsuccessful canvass, as a candidate for governor in 1844, and hisrecent majority of thirty-eight thousand for comptroller, the largestever given any candidate in the State. At the time, it looked as if aunanimous response might be made; but the friends of Lawrence rallied, and at the close of the ballot Fillmore had won by only six votes. ForCollier, however, it was a great triumph, giving him a reputation as aspeaker that later efforts did not sustain. 

To anti-slavery delegates, the Philadelphia convention was adisappointment. It seemed to lack courage and to be withoutconvictions or principles. Like its predecessor in 1839 it adopted noresolutions and issued no address. The candidates became its platform. In voting down a resolution in favour of the Wilmot Proviso, manydelegates believed the party would prove faithless on the great issue;and fifteen of them, led by Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, proposed anational convention of all persons opposed to the extension ofslavery, to be held at Buffalo early in August. "It is fortunate forus, " wrote Seward, "that the Democratic party is divided. "[380] But theNew Yorkers, some of whom found encouragement in the nomination ofFillmore, who had thus far been inflexible upon the slavery question, patiently waited for the result of the Whig state convention, whichmet at Utica on the 14th of September. By this time, as Seward andWeed predicted, Taylor's nomination had grown popular. Greeley, soonto be a candidate for Congress, advised the _Tribune's_ readers tovote the Whig ticket, while the action of the Buffalo convention, though it united the anti-slavery vote, assured a division of theDemocratic party more than sufficient to compensate for any Whiglosses. Under these circumstances, the Utica convention assembled withreasonable hopes of success. It lacked the spirit of the band ofresolute Free-soilers, who met in the same place on the same day andnominated John A. Dix for governor and Seth M. Gates of Wyoming forlieutenant-governor; but it gave no evidence of the despair that hadsettled upon the convention of the Hunkers in the preceding week. 

[Footnote 380: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 71. ]

One feature of the Whig state convention is worthy of notice. Thegreat influence of the Anti-Renters who held the balance of power inthe convention of 1846 had disappeared. The Governor's anti-rentfriends urged his renomination with the earnest voice of a bravepeople; but John Young was destined to be the comet of a season only. His course in respect to appointments and to the Mexican War hadalienated Thurlow Weed, and his pardon of the anti-rent riotersestranged the conservative Whigs. Although a shrewd politician, withfrank and affable manners, as an administrative officer he lacked thetact displayed so abundantly as a legislator; and its absenceseriously handicapped him. Twenty delegates measured his strength in aconvention that took forty-nine votes to nominate. Under the Tayloradministration, Young received an appointment as assistant treasurerin New York City--the office given to William C. Bouck in 1846--buthis career may be said to have closed the moment he promised to pardona lot of murderous rioters to secure an election as governor. Withthat, he passed out of the real world of state-craft into the class ofpoliticians whose ambition and infirmities have destroyed theirusefulness. He died in April, 1852, at the age of fifty. 

Hamilton Fish was the favourite candidate for governor in the Uticaconvention. His sympathies leaned toward the conservatives of hisparty; but the moderation of his speech and his conciliatory mannerssecured the good wishes of both factions, and he received seventy-sixvotes on the first ballot. Fish was admittedly one of the most popularyoung men in New York City. He had never sought or desired office. In1842, the friends of reform sent him to Congress from a strongDemocratic district, and in 1846, after repeatedly and peremptorilydeclining, the Whig convention, to save the party from disruption, compelled him to take the nomination for lieutenant-governor on the ticketwith John Young. In 1847, after Addison Gardiner, by his appointmentto the Court of Appeals, had vacated the lieutenant-governorship, the convention, in resentment of Fish's defeat by the Anti-Renters, again forced his nomination for the same office, and his electionfollowed by thirty thousand majority. Fish was now thirty-nine yearsold, with more than two-score and five years to live. He was to becomea United States senator, and to serve, for eight years, withdistinguished ability, as secretary of state in the Cabinet ofPresident Grant; yet, in all that period, he never departed from thesimple, sincere life that he was living in September, 1848. Writing ofhim in the _Tribune_, on the day after his nomination for governor, Horace Greeley voiced the sentiment of men irrespective of party. "Wealthy without pride, generous without ostentation, simple inmanners, blameless in life, and accepting office with no otheraspiration than that of making power subserve the common good of hisfellow citizens, Hamilton Fish justly and eminently enjoys theconfidence and esteem of all who know him. "[381]

[Footnote 381: New York _Tribune_, September 15, 1848. ]

On the first ballot, George W. Patterson of Chautauqua receivedeighty-four out of ninety-six votes for lieutenant-governor. In hisgentle manners, simple generosity, and moderation of speech, Pattersonwas not unlike Hamilton Fish. He was a loyal friend of Seward, aconstant correspondent of Weed, and a member of the inner circle ofgoverning Whigs; he had been prominent as an Anti-Mason, satisfactoryas a legislator, and impartial as a speaker of the Assembly; he wasnow recognised as a far-sighted, wise, and cautious politician. Inguiding the convention to the selection of Hamilton Fish and George W. Patterson, it was admitted that Thurlow Weed's leadership vindicatedhis sagacity. 

The political contest in New York, unlike that in the South and insome Western States, presented the novel feature of three powerfulparties in battle array. The Free-soil faction was a strange mixture. Besides Barnburners, there were Conscience Whigs, Proviso Democrats, Land Reformers, Workingmen, and Abolitionists--a formidablecombination of able and influential men who wielded the power ofabsolute disinterestedness, and who kept step with John Van Buren'strenchant and eloquent speeches which resounded through the State. VanBuren was the accepted leader, and in this campaign he reached theheight of his reputation. His features were not striking, but inperson he was tall, symmetrical, and graceful; and no one in the Statecould hold an audience with such delightful oratory and loftyeloquence. 

The ablest Whig to oppose him was William H. Seward, who frequentlyfollowed him in localities where Whigs were likely to act with theFree-soil party. On the slavery question, Seward held views identicalwith those expressed by Van Buren; but he insisted that every Whigvote cast for the third party was only a negative protest against theslavery party. Real friends of emancipation must not be content withprotests. They must act wisely and efficiently. "For myself, " hedeclared, "I shall cast my suffrage for General Taylor and MillardFillmore, freely and conscientiously, on precisely the same grounds onwhich I have hitherto voted. "[382]

[Footnote 382: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 77. ]

As in former presidential years, each party had its flags and banners, its drums and cannon, its bewildering variety of inscriptions andmottoes, and its multitude of speakers charging and countercharginginconsistencies and maladministration. The Whigs accused Cass withhaving printed two biographies, one for the South, in which heappeared as a slavery extensionist, and one for the North, in which hefigured as a Wilmot Provisoist. To this accusation, Democrats retortedthat the Whigs opposed annexation in the North and favoured it in theSouth; denounced the war and nominated its leading general; voted downthe Wilmot Proviso in June, and upheld it in July. 

In New York, New England, and in some parts of the West, the clear, comprehensive, ringing platform of the anti-slavery party had fixedthe issue. Audiences became restless if asked to listen to argumentsupon other topics. Opposition to slavery was, at last, respectable inpolitics. For the first time, none of his party deprecated Seward'sadvanced utterances upon this question, and from August to November hefreely voiced his opinions. The series of professional achievementswhich began with the Freeman case was still in progress; but he laidthem aside that he might pass through his own State into New England, and from thence through New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, into Ohio, where the result, as shown by the October election, was to be veryclose. 

Seward was now in the fulness of his intellectual power. There wasnothing sensational, nothing unfit in his speeches. He believed thatthe conscience of the people was a better guide than individualambitions, and he inspired them with lofty desires and filled themwith sound principles of action. "There are two antagonistic elementsof society in America, " said he, in his speech at Cleveland, "freedomand slavery. Freedom is in harmony with our system of government andwith the spirit of the age, and is, therefore, passive and quiescent. Slavery is in conflict with that system, with justice, and withhumanity, and is, therefore, organised, defensive, active, andperpetually aggressive. Freedom insists on the emancipation andelevation of labour. Slavery demands a soil moistened with tears andblood. These elements divide and classify the American people into twoparties. Each of these parties has its court and sceptre. The throneof the one is amid the rocks of the Allegheny Mountains; the throne ofthe other is reared on the sands of South Carolina. One of theseparties, the party of slavery, regards disunion as among the means ofdefence and not always the last to be employed. The other maintainsthe Union of the States, one and inseparable, now and forever, as thehighest duty of the American people to themselves, to posterity, tomankind. It is written in the Constitution that five slaves shallcount equal to three freemen as a basis of representation, and it iswritten also, in violation of the Divine Law, that we shall surrenderthe fugitive slave who takes refuge at our fireside from hisrelentless pursuers. 'What, then, ' you say; 'can nothing be done forfreedom because the public conscience is inert?' Yes, much can bedone--everything can be done. Slavery can be limited to its presentbounds; it can be ameliorated; it can and must be abolished, and youand I can and must do it. "[383]

[Footnote 383: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 86. ]

This presented an epitome of Seward's views when spoken withoutrestraint. His friends thought them "bold" and his opponents denouncedthem as "most perverse and dogmatic, " but, whether bold or perverse, he devoted the chief part of every speech to them. He was not withouthumour, man's highest gift, but he had more of humanity; he spokeseriously and solemnly, usually to grave, sober, reflecting men of allprofessions and parties; and, at the end of two hours, dismissed themas if from an evening church service. At Boston, a Whig member ofCongress from Illinois spoke with him, principally upon themaladministration of the Democrats and the inconsistencies of LewisCass. After the meeting, while sitting in their hotel, thecongressman, with a thoughtful air, said to Seward: "I have beenthinking about what you said in your speech to-night. I reckon you areright. We have got to deal with this slavery question, and got to givemuch more attention to it hereafter than we have been doing. "[384]This was Seward's first meeting with Abraham Lincoln. The former wasthen forty-seven years old, the latter thirty-nine. 

[Footnote 384: _Ibid. _, p. 80. ]

In New York, the campaign could have but one outcome. The Free-soilfaction divided the Democratic vote nearly by two, giving Van Buren120, 000, Cass 114, 000, and Taylor 218, 000. The returns for governorvaried but slightly from these figures. [385] In the country at largeTaylor secured one hundred and sixty-three electoral votes and Cassone hundred and twenty-seven. But, a Whig majority of one hundred andfour on joint ballot in the Legislature, and the election ofthirty-one out of thirty-four congressmen, showed the wreckage of adivided Democracy in New York. The Hunkers elected only sixassemblymen; the Free-soilers secured fourteen. The Whigs had onehundred and eight. Returns from all the counties and cities in no wisediffered. The Hunkers had been wiped out. If the Free-soilers did notget office, they had demonstrated their strength, and exulted inhaving routed their adversaries. Although Martin Van Buren was not toleave his retirement at Lindenwald, the brilliant son had avenged hisfather's wrongs by dashing Lewis Cass rudely and ruthlessly to theground. 

[Footnote 385: Hamilton Fish, 218, 776; John A. Dix, 122, 811; Reuben H. Walworth, 116, 811; William Goodell, 1593. --_Civil List, State of NewYork_ (1887), p. 166. ]

CHAPTER XII

SEWARD SPLITS THE WHIG PARTY

1849-1850

The Legislature of 1849 became the scene of a contest that ended in arout. John A. Dix's term as United States senator expired on March 4, and the fight for the succession began the moment the Whig membersknew they had a majority. 

William H. Seward's old enemies seemed ubiquitous. They had neitherforgotten his distribution of patronage, nor forgiven his interest inslaves and immigrants. To make their opposition effective, John A. Collier became a candidate. Collier wanted to be governor in 1838, when Weed threw the nomination to Seward; and, although his electionas comptroller in 1841 had restored friendly relations with Weed, hehad never forgiven Seward. It added strength to the coalition, moreover, that Fillmore and Collier were now bosom friends. Thelatter's speech at Philadelphia had made the Buffalonian VicePresident, and his following naturally favoured Collier. It was anoisy company, and, for a time, its opposition seemed formidable. 

"Fillmore and Collier came down the river in the boat with me, " wroteSeward from New York on November 16, 1848. "The versatile people werefull of demonstrations of affection to the Vice President, and Mr. Collier divided the honours. The politicians of New York are engagedin plans to take possession of General Taylor before he comes toWashington. Weed is to be supplanted, and that not for his own sakebut for mine. "[386] As the days passed intrigue became bolder. Hamilton Fish, Washington Hunt, and other prominent members of theparty, were offered the senatorship. "I wish you could see the lettersI get, " Hunt wrote to Weed. "If I wanted to excite your sympathy theywould be sufficient. Some say Seward will be elected. More say neitherSeward nor Collier will be chosen, but a majority are going for athird man by way of compromise, and my consent is invoked to be numberthree. "[387] Then came the letter, purporting to be written by Seward, declaring that "Collier must be defeated, or our influence with theAdministration will be curtailed. You must look to your members, andsee the members from Cattaraugus, if possible. I think Patterson willtake care of Chautauqua. "[388] Out of this forgery grew an acrimoniousmanifesto from Collier, who professed to believe that Seward wasgiving personal attention to the work of making himself senator. Inthe midst of this violent and bitter canvass, Horace Greeley wrote oneof his characteristic editorials. "We care not who may be thenominee, " said the _Tribune_ of January 24, 1849. "We shall gladlycoincide in the fair expression of the will of the majority of theparty, but we kindly caution those who disturb and divide us, thattheir conduct will result only in the merited retribution which anindignant people will visit upon those who prostitute their temporarypower to personal pique or selfish purposes. "

[Footnote 386: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 87. ]

[Footnote 387: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 173. ]

[Footnote 388: New York _Herald_, December 1, 1848. ]

Seward was continuously in Baltimore and Washington, studying briefsthat had accumulated in his long absence during the campaign; butWeed, the faithful friend, like a sentinel on the watch-tower, keptclosely in touch with the political situation. "The day before thelegislative caucus, " wrote an eye-witness, "the Whig members of theLegislature gathered around the editor of the _Evening Journal_ forcounsel and advice. It resembled a President's levee. He remainedstanding in the centre of the room, conversing with those about himand shaking hands with new-comers; but there was nothing in hismanner to indicate the slightest mystery or excitement so common withpoliticians. "[389]

[Footnote 389: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 174. ]

The Whig senators met in caucus on January 29, and by a vote of twelveto eleven decided to join the Assembly. Then the fight began. WilliamS. Johnson, a Whig senator from New York City, declared that he wouldneither vote for Seward in caucus nor support him in the Legislature. "It would be equivalent, " he continued, "to throwing a firebrand intothe South and aiding in the dissolution of the Whig party and of theUnion. " Thereupon the eleven withdrew from further participation inthe proceedings. When the caucus of the two houses convened, fourteenmembers declared it inexpedient to support either Seward or Collier;but an informal ballot gave Seward eighty-eight votes and Colliertwelve, with twenty-two scattering. Three days later, on joint ballot, Seward received one hundred and twenty-one out of one hundred andthirty Whig votes. "We were always confident that the caucus couldhave but one result, " said the _Tribune_, "and the lofty anticipationswhich the prospect of Seward's election has excited will not bedisappointed. "

Successful as Seward had been in his profession since leaving theoffice of governor, he was not entirely happy. "I look upon my life, busy as it is, as a waste, " he wrote, in 1847. "I live in a world thatneeds my sympathies, but I have not even time nor opportunity to dogood. "[390] His warm and affectionate heart seemed to envy the strifeand obloquy that came to champions of freedom; yet his publishedcorrespondence nowhere directly indicates a desire to return to publiclife. "You are not to suppose me solicitous on the subject that dragsme so unpleasantly before the public, " he wrote Weed on January 26, 1849, three days before the caucus. "I have looked at it in all itsrelations, and cannot satisfy myself that it would be any better forme to succeed than to be beaten. "[391] This assumed indifference, however, was written with a feeling of absolute confidence that hewas to succeed, a confidence that brought with it great content, sincethe United States Senate offered the "opportunity" for which he sighedin his despondent letter of 1847. On the announcement of his election, conveyed to him by wire at Washington, he betrayed no feeling exceptone of humility. "I tremble, " he wrote his wife, "when I think of thedifficulty of realising the expectations which this canvass hasawakened in regard to my abilities. "[392] To Weed, he added: "I recallwith fresh gratitude your persevering and magnanimous friendship. "[393]

[Footnote 390: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 56. ]

[Footnote 391: _Ibid. _, p. 97. ]

[Footnote 392: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 98. ]

[Footnote 393: _Ibid. _, p. 99. ]

From the outset, difficulties confronted the new senator. The questionof limiting slavery excited the whole country, and one holding hisviews belonged in the centre of the struggle. But strife for officegave him more immediate embarrassment. Apprehensive of party discord, Thurlow Weed, at a dinner given the Vice President and Senator, hadarranged for conferences between them upon important appointmentswithin the State; but Seward's first knowledge of the New Yorkcustom-house appointments came to him in an executive session fortheir confirmation. Seward, as Lincoln afterward said, "was a manwithout gall, " and he did not openly resent the infraction of theagreement; but when Weed, upon reaching Washington, discovered thatFillmore had the ear of the simple and confiding President, he quicklysought the Vice President. Fillmore received him coldly. From thatmoment began an estrangement between Weed and the Buffalo statesmanwhich was to last until both were grown gray and civil war hadobliterated differences of political sentiment. For twenty years, their intimacy had been uninterrupted and constantly strengthening. Even upon the slavery question their views coincided, and, althoughFillmore chafed under his growing preference for Seward and thelatter's evident intellectual superiority, he had exhibited noimpatience toward Weed. But Fillmore was now Vice President, withaspirations for the Presidency, and he saw in Seward a formidablerival who would have the support of Weed whenever the Senator neededit. He rashly made up his mind, therefore, to end their relationship. 

With Taylor, Weed was at his ease. The President remembered theeditor's letter written in 1846, and what Weed now asked he quicklygranted. When Weed complained, therefore, that the Vice President wasfilling federal offices with his own friends, the President droppedFillmore and turned to the Senator for suggestions. Seward acceptedthe burden of looking after patronage. "I detest and loathe thisrunning to the President every day to protest against this man orthat, "[394] he wrote; but the President cheerfully responded to hisrequests. "If the country is to be benefited by our services, " he saidto the Secretary of the Treasury, "it seems to me that you and I oughtto remember those to whose zeal, activity, and influence we areindebted for our places. "[395]

[Footnote 394: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 113. ]

[Footnote 395: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 175. ]

While Weed employed his time in displacing Hunker office-holders withWhigs, the Democratic party was trying to reunite. It called for abold hand. John Van Buren, with a courage born of genius, had struckit a terrible blow in the face of tremendous odds, the effect of whichwas as gratifying to the Barnburners as it was disastrous to theHunkers. But, in 1849, the party professed to believe that a union ofthe factions would result in victory, since their aggregate vote in1848 exceeded the Whig vote by sixteen thousand. It is difficult torealise the arguments which persuaded the Barnburners to rejoin theiradversaries whom they had declared, in no measured terms, to be guiltyof the basest conduct; but, after infinite labour, Horatio Seymourestablished constructive harmony and practical co-operation. "We areasked to compromise our principles, " said John Van Buren. "The day ofcompromises is past; but, in regard to candidates for state offices, we are still a commercial people. We will unite with our lateantagonists. "[396]

[Footnote 396: H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 165. ]

Seymour and Van Buren did not unite easily. From the first they wererivals. As an orator, Seymour was the more persuasive, logical, andcandid--Van Buren the more witty, sarcastic, and brilliant. Seymourwas conciliatory--Van Buren aggressive. Indeed, they had little incommon save their rare mental and social gifts, and that personalmagnetism which binds followers with hooks of steel. But they stoodnow at the head of their respective factions. When Van Buren, therefore, finally consented to join Seymour in a division of thespoils, the two wings of the party quickly coalesced in the fall of1849 for the election of seven state officers. The Free-soil factionprofessed to retain its principles; and, by placing severalAbolitionists upon the ticket, nine-tenths of that party also joinedthe combination. But the spirit of the Free-soiler was absent. The manwhose genius and whose eloquence had been the most potent factor indiscrediting the Hunkers now had no anti-slavery speeches to make andno anti-slavery resolutions to present. John Van Buren'sidentification with the great movement, which he prophesied wouldstand so strong and work such wonders, was destined, after he hadavenged the insult to his father, to vanish like a breath. Nor did thecoalition of Hunkers, Barnburners, and Abolitionists prove so numerousor so solid that it could sweep the State. It did, indeed, carry theAssembly by two majority, and with the help of a portion of theAnti-Renters, who refused to support their own ticket, it elected fourminor state officers; but the Whigs held the Senate, and, withmajorities ranging from fifteen hundred to five thousand, chose thecomptroller, the secretary of state, and the treasurer. WashingtonHunt, the popular Whig candidate for comptroller, led the ticket bynearly six thousand, a triumph that was soon to bring him higherhonours. 

The Whigs, however, were to have their day of trouble. The election ofTaylor and Fillmore had fired the Southern heart with zeal to defendslavery. More than eighty members of Congress issued an address, drawnby John C. Calhoun, rebuking the agitation of the slavery question, insisting upon their right to take slaves into the territories, andcomplaining of the difficulty of recovering fugitives. The VirginiaLegislature affirmed that the adoption and attempted enforcement ofthe Wilmot Proviso would be resisted to the last extremity, and thatthe abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia would be a directattack upon the institution of the Southern States. These resolutionswere indorsed by Democratic conventions, approved at public meetings, and amplified by state legislatures. In Missouri, Tennessee, andKentucky the feeling quickly reached fever heat; in the cotton Statessentiment boldly favoured "A Southern Confederacy. " Sectional interestmelted party lines. "The Southern Whigs want the great questionsettled in such a manner as shall not humble and exasperate theSouth, " said the New York _Tribune_; "the Southern Democrats want itso settled as to conduce to the extension of the power and influenceof slavery. "

In the midst of this intense southern feeling Henry Clay, from hisplace in the United States Senate, introduced the historic resolutionswhich bear his name, proposing an amicable adjustment of all questionsgrowing out of the subject of slavery. This series of compromises wasto admit California, establish territorial governments in the regionsacquired from Mexico without provision for or against slavery, pay thedebt and fix the western boundary of Texas, declare it inexpedient toabolish slavery in the District of Columbia, deny the right ofCongress to obstruct the slave trade between States, and to enact amore stringent fugitive slave law. It was in January, 1850, that Clayopened the memorable debate upon these resolutions, which continuedeight months and included Webster's great speech of the 7th of March. When the debate ended in September Zachary Taylor was dead, MillardFillmore was President, a new Cabinet had been appointed, slaveryremained undisturbed in the District of Columbia, Mexico and Utah hadbecome territories open to slave-holders, and a new fugitive slavelaw bore the approval of the new Chief Executive. During these monthsthe whole country had been absorbed in events at Washington. Privateletters, newspapers, public meetings, and state legislatures echoedthe speeches of the three distinguished Senators who had long been inthe public eye, and who, it was asserted at the time, were closingtheir life work in saving the Union. 

In this discussion, Daniel S. Dickinson favoured compromise; WilliamH. Seward stood firmly for his anti-slavery convictions. The latterspoke on the 11th of March. He opposed the fugitive slave law because"we cannot be true Christians or real freemen if we impose on anothera chain that we defy all human power to lay on ourselves;"[397] hedeclared for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, "and if I shall be asked what I did to embellish the capital of mycountry, I will point to her freemen and say--these are the monumentsof my munificence;" he antagonised the right to take slaves into newterritories, affirming that the Constitution devoted the domain tounion, to justice, and to liberty. "But there is a higher law than theConstitution, " he said, "which regulates our authority over thedomain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. " In treating ofthreats of disunion he looked with a prophet's eye fourteen years intothe future. That vision revealed border warfare, kindred convertedinto enemies, onerous taxes, death on the field and in the hospital, and conscription to maintain opposing forces. "It will then appearthat the question of dissolving the Union is a complex question; thatit embraces the fearful issue whether the Union shall stand andslavery be removed by gradual, voluntary effort, and withcompensation, or whether the Union shall be dissolved and civil warensue, bringing on violent but complete and immediate emancipation. Weare now arrived at that stage of our national progress when thatcrisis can be foreseen--when we must foresee it. "[398]

[Footnote 397: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 126. ]

[Footnote 398: _Ibid. _, p. 127. ]

A less fearless and determined nature must have been overwhelmed bythe criticism, the censure, and the insulting sneers which this speechprovoked. Southern feeling dominated the Senate chamber. Many northernmen, sincerely desirous of limiting slavery, preferred giving up theWilmot Proviso for the sake of peace. Thousands of Whigs regardeddissent from Clay and Webster, their time-honoured leaders, as boldand presumptuous. In reviewing Seward's speech, these peoplepronounced it pernicious, unpatriotic, and wicked, especially since"the higher law" theory, taken in connection with his criticism of thefugitive slave law, implied that a humane and Christian people couldnot or would not obey it. But the Auburn statesman resented nothingand retracted nothing. "With the single exception of the argument inpoor Freeman's case, " he wrote, "it is the only speech I ever madethat contains nothing I could afford to strike out or qualify. "[399]

[Footnote 399: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 129. ]

But Seward's speech did not influence votes. Clay's compromises passedamidst the wildest outbursts of popular enthusiasm. They appealed to amajority of both the great parties as a final settlement of theslavery question. In New York and other cities throughout the State, flags were hoisted, salutes fired, joy bells rung, illuminationsflamed at night, and speakers at mass-meetings congratulated theirfellow citizens upon the wisdom of a President and a Congress that hadhappily averted the great peril of disunion. 

These exhibitions of gratitude were engrossing the attention of thepeople when the Whig state convention met at Utica on the 26th ofSeptember, 1850. Immediately, the approval of Seward's course assumedsupreme importance. Unusual excitement had attended the selection ofdelegates. The new administration became aggressive. No secret wasmade of its purpose to crush Thurlow Weed; and when the conventionassembled, Hugh Maxwell, collector of the port of New York, and JohnYoung, sub-treasurer, were there to control it. A test vote fortemporary chairman disclosed sixty-eight Radicals and forty-oneConservatives present, but in the interest of harmony Francis Grangerbecame the permanent president. 

Granger was a man of honour and a man of intellect, whose qualities offairness and fitness for public life have already been described. Whenhe entered Harrison's Cabinet in 1841, as postmaster-general, theSouth classed him as an Abolitionist; when he left Congress in 1843, in the fulness of his intellectual strength, his home at Canandaiguabecame the centre of an admiring group of Whigs who preferred the leadof Clay and the conservative policy of Webster. He now appeared as anally of President Fillmore. It was natural, perhaps, that inappointing a committee on resolutions, Granger should give advantageof numbers to his own faction, but the Radicals were amazed at thequestionable action of his committee. It delayed its report upon thepretext of not being ready, and then, late in the evening, in theabsence of many delegates, presented what purported to be a unanimousexpression, in which Seward was left practically without mention. Asthe delegates listened in profound silence the majority becamepainfully aware that something was wanting, and, before action upon itcould be taken, they forced an adjournment by a vote of fifty-six tofifty-one. 

The next morning the Radicals exhibited a desire for less harmony andmore justice. By a vote of seventy-three to forty-six the originalresolutions were recommitted to an enlarged committee, and afternominating Washington Hunt for governor and George J. Cornwell forlieutenant-governor, substitute resolutions were adopted by a vote ofseventy-four to forty-two. One difference between the original and thesubstitute centred in the organisation of new territories. Themajority opposed any surrender or waiver of the exclusion of slaveryin any act establishing a regular civil organisation; the minoritythought that, since it was impossible to secure the Wilmot Proviso, aninsistence upon which would prevent any territorial organisation, itwould be better to organise them without it, relying upon nature andthe known disposition of the inhabitants to follow the lead ofCalifornia. This difference, however, could probably have been healedhad the Radicals not insisted that "the thanks of the Whig party areespecially due to William H. Seward for the signal ability andfidelity with which he sustained those beloved principles of publicpolicy so long cherished by the Whigs of the Empire State, expressedin state and county conventions as well as in the votes andinstructions of the state legislature. " Upon this resolution theConservatives demanded a roll call, and when its adoption, by thesurprising vote of seventy-five to forty, was announced, the minority, amidst the wildest excitement, left the hall in a body, followed byFrancis Granger, whose silver gray hair gave a name to the seceders. Their withdrawal was not a surprise. Like the secession of theBarnburners three years before, loud threats preceded action. Indeed, William A. Duer, the Oswego congressman, admitted travelling fromWashington to Syracuse with instructions from Fillmore to bolt theapproval of Seward. But the secession seemed to disturb only theSilver-Grays themselves, who now drafted an address to the Whigs ofthe State and called a new convention to assemble at Utica on October17. 

The Democrats in their state convention, which met at Syracuse onSeptember 11, repeated the policy of conciliation so skilfullyengineered in 1849 by Horatio Seymour. They received Barnburnerdelegates, they divided the offices, and they allowed John Van Burento rule. It mattered not what were the principles of the captivatingPrince and his followers so long as they accepted "the recentsettlement by Congress of questions which have unhappily divided thepeople of these States. " Thus the Free-soil Barnburners disappeared asa political factor. Some of them continued to avow their anti-slaveryprinciples, but no one had the temerity to mention them in convention. Men deemed it politic and prudent to affect to believe that theslavery question, which had threatened to disturb the national peace, was finally laid at rest. The country so accepted it, trade andcommerce demanded it, and old political leaders conceded it. In thisframe of mind, delegates found it easy to nominate Horatio Seymour forgovernor and Sanford E. Church for lieutenant-governor. The next daythe Abolitionists, tired of their union with Hunkers and Barnburners, nominated William L. Chaplin and Joseph Plumb. 

The convention of the Silver-Grays, held at Utica in October, did notexalt its members. It was simply a protest. A lion-hearted man hadpresumed to voice his convictions, and, although the conventionfavoured exercising a liberal spirit of toleration toward thecompromise measures, it refused to exercise such a spirit towardWilliam H. Seward, or to tolerate him at all. It gave the President aflattering indorsement for his approval of the fugitive slave law, itaccepted Washington Hunt as its nominee for governor, and it listenedto several addresses, among them one from James O. Putnam of Buffalo;but the proceedings lacked the enthusiasm that springs from a clearprinciple, backed by a strong and resolute band of followers. Thespeech of Putnam, however, attracted wide attention. Putnam was ayoung man then, less than thirty-three years old, passionately devotedto Daniel Webster, and a personal friend of Millard Fillmore. As aspeaker he was polished, smooth, and refined, and even whenimpassioned kept his passion well within conventional bounds. On thisoccasion his mellow and far-reaching voice, keyed to the pitch ofsustained rhetoric, dropped his well-balanced and finely mouldedsentences into the convention amidst hearty applause. He did not thensee with the clearness of Seward's vision. He belonged rather to themore enlightened and intelligent conservatives who had begun to feelthe ultimate disaster slavery must bring, and who desired that suchdisaster should be put off as long as possible; but the day was soonto dawn in which he would become a loyal supporter of the principlesthat were to be forever settled in the civil strife which Seward sovividly portrayed in the speech that created the Silver-Grays. 

The recently adopted compromise did not become an issue in the NewYork campaign of 1850. If its opponents could not approve, they deemedsilence wise. The followers of Fillmore in the up-state countiesgenerally acted with the Seward men in support of Washington Hunt; buta great meeting, held at Castle Garden, near the close of thecampaign, partially succeeded in uniting Democrats and AdministrationWhigs in New York City. A letter was read from Daniel Webster, callingupon all good citizens not to rekindle the flames of "useless anddangerous controversy;" resolutions favouring a vigorous enforcementof the fugitive slave law were adopted; and a coalition ticket withSeymour at its head was agreed upon. This meeting, called a greatpopular protest against demagoguery, opened an aggressive canvass todefeat Hunt and destroy the Syracuse indorsement of Seward by raisingthe cry that Seward Whigs preferred civil war to a peaceableenforcement of the fugitive slave law. Seward took no part in thiscampaign. After Congress adjourned on the last day of September, hedevoted the short time between the sessions to his law business. Hisfriends, however, were active. Weed attacked the Castle Garden meetingwith a bitterness and vigour rarely disclosed in the columns of the_Evening Journal_, and Greeley poured one broadside after another intowhat he regarded as the miserable mismanagement, blundering, andconfusion of the Administration. 

While waiting the result of the election, people were startled intosadness by the sudden death of Samuel Young at the age of seventy-two. He had retired in usual health, but died during the night. Hisdistinguished career, covering nearly two-score years, wascharacterised by strong prejudices, violent temper, and implacableresentments, which, kept him behind men of less aptitude for publicservice; but he was always a central figure in any assemblage favouredwith his presence. He had a marvellous force of oratory. His, voice, his gestures, his solemn pauses, followed by lofty and sustaineddeclamation, proved irresistible and sometimes overwhelming in theireffect. But it was his misfortune to be an orator with jaundicedvision, who seemed not always to see that principles controlledoftener than rhetoric. Yet, he willingly walked on in his own wild, stormy way, apparently enjoying the excitement with no fear of danger. "In his heart there was no guile, " said Horace Greeley; "in his faceno dough. "

It was several weeks after the election, before it was ascertainedwhether Seymour or Hunt had been chosen. Both were popular, and ofabout the same age. Washington Hunt seems to have devoted his life toan earnest endeavour to win everybody's good will. At this timeGreeley thought him "capable without pretension, " and "animated by ananxious desire to win golden opinions by deserving them. " He had beensix years in Congress, and, in 1849, ran far ahead of his ticket ascomptroller. Horatio Seymour was no less successful in winningapprobation. He had become involved in the canal controversy, butcarefully avoided the slavery question. Greeley found it in his heartto speak of him as "an able and agreeable lawyer of good fortune andcompetent speaking talent, who would make a highly respectablegovernor. " But 1850 was not Seymour's year. His associates upon theticket were elected by several thousand majority, and day after dayhis own success seemed probable. The New York City combine gave him asatisfactory majority; in two or three Hudson river counties he madelarge gains; but the official count gave Hunt two hundred andsixty-two plurality, [400] with a safe Whig majority in theLegislature. The Whigs also elected a majority of the congressmen. "These results, " wrote Thurlow Weed, "will encourage the friends offreedom to persevere by all constitutional means and through allrightful channels in their efforts to restrain the extension ofslavery, and to wipe out that black spot wherever it can be donewithout injury to the rights and interests of others. "[401]

[Footnote 400: Washington Hunt, 214, 614; Horatio Seymour, 214, 352. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

[Footnote 401: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 189. ]

CHAPTER XIII

THE WHIGS' WATERLOO

1850-1852

The Assembly of 1851 has a peculiar, almost romantic interest for NewYorkers. A very young man, full of promise and full of performance, the brilliant editor of a later day, the precocious politician of thatday, became its speaker. Henry Jarvis Raymond was then in histhirty-first year. New York City had sent him to the Assembly in 1850, and he leaped into prominence the week he took his seat. He was readyin debate, temperate in language, quick in the apprehension ofparliamentary rules, and of phenomenal tact. The unexcelled courtesyand grace of manner with which he dropped the measured and beautifulsentences that made him an orator, undoubtedly aided in obtaining theposition to which his genius entitled him. But his politicalinstincts, also, were admirable, and his aptness as an unerringcounsellor in the conduct of complicated affairs always turned to theadvantage of his party. There came a time, after the assassination ofPresident Lincoln, when he made a mistake so grievous that he wasnever able to regain his former standing; when he was dropped from thelist of party leaders; when his cordial affiliation with members ofthe Republican organisation ceased; when his removal from thechairmanship of the National Committee was ratified by the action of astate convention; but the sagacity with which he now commented uponwhat he saw and heard made the oldest members of the Assembly leanupon him. And when he came back to the Legislature in January, 1851, they put him in the speaker's chair. 

Raymond seems never to have wearied of study, or to have found itdifficult easily to acquire knowledge. He could read at three years ofage; at five he was a speaker. In his sixteenth year he taught schoolin Genesee County, where he was born, wrote a Fourth of July odecreditable to one of double his years, and entered the University ofVermont. As soon as he reached an age to appreciate his tastes and toform a purpose, he began equipping himself for the career of apolitical journalist. He was not yet twenty-one when he made Whigspeeches in the campaign of 1840 and gained employment with HoraceGreeley on the _New Yorker_ and a little later on the _Tribune_. "Inever found another person, barely of age and just from his studies, who evinced so much and so versatile ability in journalism as he did, "wrote Greeley. "Abler and stronger men I may have met; a cleverer, readier, more generally efficient journalist I never saw. He is theonly assistant with whom I ever felt required to remonstrate for doingmore work than any human brain and frame could be expected long toendure. His services were more valuable in proportion to their costthan those of any one who ever worked on the _Tribune_. "[402] In 1843, when Raymond left the _Tribune_, James Watson Webb, already acquaintedwith the ripe intelligence and eager genius of the young man oftwenty-three, thought him competent to manage the _Courier andEnquirer_, and in his celebrated discussion with Greeley on thesubject of socialism he gave that paper something of the glory whichtwelve years later crowned his labours upon the New York _Times_. 

[Footnote 402: Horace Greeley, _Recollections of a Busy Life_, pp. 138, 139. ]

It was inevitable that Raymond should hold office. The readiness withwhich he formulated answers to arguments in the Polk campaign, hissympathy with the Free-soil movement, the canal policy, and the commonschool system, produced a marked impression upon the dawning wisdom ofhis readers. But it was near the end of his connection with the_Courier_ before he yielded his own desires to the urgent solicitationof the Whigs of the ninth ward and went to the Assembly. He had notyet quarrelled with James Watson Webb. That came in the spring of1851 when he refused to use his political influence as speaker againstHamilton Fish for United States senator and in favour of the owner ofthe _Courier and Enquirer_. His anti-slavery convictions and strongprejudices against the compromise measures of 1850 also rapidlywidened the gulf between him and his superior; and when the breakfinally came he stepped from the speaker's chair into the editorialmanagement of the New York _Times_, his own paper, pure in tone andreasonable in price, which was destined to weaken the _Courier_ as apolitical organ, to rival the _Tribune_ as a family and party journal, and to challenge the _Herald_ as a collector of news. 

The stormy sessions of the Legislature of 1851 needed such a speakeras Raymond. At the outset, the scenes and tactics witnessed atSeward's election to the Senate in 1849 were repeated in the selectionof a successor to Daniel S. Dickinson, whose term expired on the 4thof March. Webb's candidacy was prosecuted with characteristic zeal. For a quarter of a century he had been a picturesque, aggressivejournalist, with a record adorned with libel suits and duels--theresult of pungent paragraphs and bitter personalities--making him anobject of terror to the timid and a pistol target for the fearless. Onone occasion, through the clemency of Governor Seward, he escaped atwo years' term in state's prison for fighting the brilliant "Tom"Marshall of Kentucky, who wounded him in the leg, and it is notimpossible that Jonathan Cilley might have wounded him in the otherhad not the distinguished Maine congressman refused his challengebecause he was "not a gentleman. " This reply led to the foolish andfatal fray between Cilley and William J. Graves, who took up Webb'squarrel. 

Webb was known as the Apollo of the press, his huge form, erect andmassive, towering above the heads of other men, while his greatphysical strength made him noted for feats of endurance and activity. As a young man he held a minor commission in the army, but in 1827, atthe age of twenty-five, he resigned to become the editor of the_Courier_, which, in 1829, he combined with the _Enquirer_. For twentyyears, under his management, this paper, first as a supporter ofJackson and later as an advocate of Whig policies, ranked among theinfluential journals of New York. After Raymond withdrew, however, itbecame the organ of the Silver-Grays, and began to wane, until, in1860, it lapsed into the _World_. 

Webb's chief title to distinction in political life was allegiance tohis own principles regardless of the party with which he happened tobe affiliated, and his fidelity to men who had shown him kindness. Hefollowed President Jackson until the latter turned against the UnitedStates Bank, and he supported the radical Whigs until Clay, in 1849, defeated his confirmation for minister to Austria; but, to the last, he seems to have remained true to Seward, possibly because Seward kepthim out of state's prison, although, in the contest for United Statessenator in 1851, Hamilton Fish was the candidate of the Seward Whigs. Fish had grown rapidly as governor. People formerly recognised him asan accomplished gentleman, modest in manners and moderate in speech, but his conduct and messages as an executive revealed those higherqualities of statesmanship that ranked him among the wisest public menof the State. Thurlow Weed had accepted rather than selected him forgovernor in 1848. "I came here without claims upon your kindness, "Fish wrote on December 31, 1850, the last day of his term. "I shallleave here full of the most grateful recollections of your favours andgood will. "[403] This admission was sufficient to dishonour him withthe Fillmore Whigs, and, although he became the caucus nominee forsenator on the 30th of January, his opponents, marshalled by Fillmoreoffice-holders in support of James Watson Webb, succeeded indeadlocking his election for nearly two months. [404]

[Footnote 403: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 190. ]

[Footnote 404: "The Whigs held the Senate by only two majority, andwhen the day for electing a United States senator arrived, sixteenWhigs voted for Fish, and fifteen Democrats voted for as manydifferent candidates, so that the Fish Whigs could not double overupon them. James W. Beekman, a Whig senator of New York City, whoclaimed that Fish had fallen too much under the control of Weed, votedfor Francis Granger. Upon a motion to adjourn, Beekman voted 'yes'with the Democrats, creating a tie, which the lieutenant-governorbroke by also voting in the affirmative. The Whigs then waited for afew weeks, but one morning, when two Democrats were in New York City, they sprung a resolution to go into an election, and, after anunbroken struggle of fourteen hours, Fish was elected. The exultantcannon of the victors startled the city from its slumbers, andconvinced the Silver-Grays that the Woolly Heads still held thecapitol. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 172. ]

In the meantime, other serious troubles confronted the young speaker. The Assembly, pursuant to the recommendation of Governor Hunt, passedan act authorising a loan of nine million dollars for the immediateenlargement of the Erie canal. Its constitutionality, seriouslydoubted, was approved by Daniel Webster and Rufus Choate, and theWhigs, needing an issue for the campaign, forced the bill ahead untileleven Democratic senators broke a quorum by resigning their seats. The Whigs were scarcely less excited than the Democrats. Such asecession had never occurred before. Former legislators held theopinion that they were elected to represent and maintain the interestsof their constituents--not to withdraw for the sake of indulging somepetulant or romantic impulse because they could not have their ownway. Two opposition senators had the good sense to take this view andremain at their post. Governor Hunt immediately called an extrasession, and, in the campaign to fill the vacancies, six of the elevenseceders were beaten. Thus reinforced in the Senate, the Whig policybecame the law; and, although, the Court of Appeals, in the followingMay, held the act unconstitutional, both parties got the benefit ofthe issue in the campaign of 1851. 

In this contest the Whigs followed the lead of the Democrats inavoiding the slavery question. The fugitive slave law was absorbingpublic attention. The "Jerry rescue" had not occurred in Syracuse; norhad the killing of a slave-holder in a negro uprising on the border ofan adjoining State advertised the danger of enforcing the law; yetthe Act had not worked as smoothly as Fillmore's friends wished. Ittook ten days of litigation at a cost of more than the fugitive'svalue to reclaim a slave in New York City. Trustworthy estimates fixedthe number of runaways in the free States at fifteen thousand, and asouthern United States senator bitterly complained that only four orfive had been recaptured since the law's enactment. Enough had beendone, however, to inflame the people into a passion. Ralph WaldoEmerson declared the Act "a law which every one of you will break onthe earliest occasion--a law which no man can obey, or abet theobeying, without loss of self-respect and forfeiture of the name ofgentleman. "[405] Seward did not hesitate to publish similarsentiments. "Christendom, " he wrote, "might be searched in vain for aparallel to the provisions which make escape from bondage a crime, andwhich, under vigorous penalties, compel freemen to aid in the captureof slaves. "[406] The Albany _Evening Journal_ declared that "theexecution of the fugitive slave law violently convulses thefoundations of society. Fugitives who have lived among us for manyyears cannot be seized and driven off as if they belonged to the brutecreation. The attempt to recover such fugitives will proveabortive. "[407]

[Footnote 405: J. E. Cabot, _Life of Emerson_, p. 578. Emerson'saddress at Concord, May 3, 1851. ]

[Footnote 406: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 163. ]

[Footnote 407: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 185. ]

It is impossible to read these expressions without believing that theywere written under the inspiration of genuine emotion, and that solong as such conditions continued men of sentiment could think oflittle else. Danger to the Union, at least assumed danger, could notin any way soften their hearts or change their purposes. Yet the stateconventions which met in Syracuse on September 10 and 11, 1851, talkedof other things. The Democrats nominated a ticket divided betweenHunkers and Barnburners; and, after condemning the Whig management ofthe canals as lavish, reckless, and corrupt, readopted the slaveryresolutions of the previous year. The Whigs likewise performed theirduty by making up a ticket of Fillmore and inoffensive Seward men, pledging the party to the enlargement of the Erie canal. Thus it waspublicly announced that slavery should be eliminated from the thoughtand action of parties. 

This policy of silence put the Whigs under painful restraint. Therescue of a fugitive at Syracuse by a band of resolute men, led byGerrit Smith and Samuel J. May, and the killing of a slave-owner atChristiana, Pennsylvania, while attempting to reclaim his property, seriously disturbed the consciences of men who thought as did Emersonand Seward; but not a word appeared in Whig papers about the greatunderlying question which persistently forced itself on men'sthoughts. Greeley wrote of the tariff and the iron trade; Seward spentthe summer in Detroit on professional engagements; and Weed, whosegreat skill had aided in successfully guiding the canal loan through alegislative secession, continued to urge that policy as the key to thecampaign as well as to New York's commerce. But after the votes werecounted the Whigs discovered that they had played a losing game. Twominor state officers out of eight, with a tie in the Senate and twomajority in the Assembly, summed up their possessions. The defeat ofGeorge W. Patterson for comptroller greatly distressed his friends, and the loss of the canal board, with all its officers, plunged thewhole Whig party into grief. Several reasons for this unexpectedresult found advocates in the press. There were evidences ofinfidelity in some of the up-state counties, especially in the Auburndistrict, where Samuel Blatchford's law partnership with Seward haddefeated him for justice of the Supreme Court; but the wholesaleproscription in New York City by Administration or "Cotton Whigs, " asthey were called, fully accounted for the overthrow. It was taken as adeclaration of war against Sewardism. "The majorities againstPatterson and his defeated associates, " said the _Tribune_, in itsissue of November 20, "imply that no man who is recognised as afriend of Governor Seward and a condemner of the fugitive slave lawmust be run on our state ticket hereafter, or he will be beaten by theCotton influence in this city. " Hamilton Fish took a similar view. "Anoble, glorious party has been defeated--destroyed--by its ownleaders, " he wrote Weed. "Webster has succeeded better under Fillmorethan he did under Tyler in breaking up the Whig organisation andforming a third party. I pity Fillmore. Timid, vacillating, credulous, unjustly suspicious when approached by his prejudices, he has allowedthe sacrifice of that confiding party which has had no honours toohigh to confer upon him. It cannot be long before he will realise thetremendous mistake he has made. "[408]

[Footnote 408: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 196. ]

What Hamilton Fish said the great majority of New York Whigs thought, and in this frame of mind they entered the presidential campaign of1852. Fillmore, Scott, and Webster were the candidates. Fillmore hadnot spared the use of patronage to further his ambition. It matterednot that the postmaster at Albany was the personal friend of ThurlowWeed, or that the men appointed upon the recommendation of Seward werethe choice of a majority of their party, the proscription extended toall who disapproved the Silver-Grays' bolt of 1850, or refused torecognise their subsequent convention at Utica. Under thesecircumstances thirst for revenge as well as a desire to nominate awinning candidate controlled the selection of presidential delegates;and in the round-up seven favoured Fillmore, two preferred Webster, while twenty-four supported Scott. Naturally the result was a greatshock to Fillmore. The Silver-Grays had been growing heartily sick oftheir secession, and if they needed further evidence of its rashnessthe weakness of their leader in his home State furnished it. 

Fillmore's strength proved to be chiefly in the South. His vigorousexecution of the fugitive slave law had been more potent than hisunsparing use of patronage; and when the Whig convention assembled atBaltimore on June 16 the question whether that law should be declareda finality became of supreme importance. Fillmore could not stand onan anti-slavery platform, and a majority of the New Yorkers refusedtheir consent to any sacrifice of principle. But, in spite of theirprotest, the influence of a solid southern delegation, backed by themarvellous eloquence of Rufus Choate, forced the passage of aresolution declaring that "the compromise acts, the act known as thefugitive slave law included, are received and acquiesced in by theWhig party of the United States as a settlement in principle andsubstance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace. We insist upon their strict enforcement; and we deprecate all furtheragitation of the question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace, andwill discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitationwhenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be made. " A roll calldeveloped sixty-six votes in the negative, all from the North, andone-third of them from New York. 

This was a Fillmore-Webster platform, and the first ballot gave them amajority of the votes cast, Fillmore having 133, Webster 29, Scott131. The number necessary to a choice was 147. The activity of theFillmore delegates, therefore, centred in an effort to concentrate thevotes of the President and his secretary of state. Both were inWashington, their relations were cordial, and an adjournment of theconvention over Sunday gave abundant opportunity to negotiate. When itbecame manifest that Webster's friends would not go to Fillmore, anextraordinary effort was made to bring the President's votes toWebster. This was agreeable to Fillmore, who placed a letter ofwithdrawal in the hands of a Buffalo delegate to be used whenever hedeemed it proper. But twenty-two Southern men declined to betransferred, while the most piteous appeals to the Scott men of NewYork met with cold refusals. They professed any amount of duty totheir party, but as regards the Fillmore combine they were implacable. They would listen to no terms of compromise while their great enemyremained in the field. Meantime, the Scott managers had not beenasleep. In the contest over the platform, certain Southern delegateshad agreed to vote for Scott whenever Fillmore reached his finish, provided Scott's friends supported the fugitive slave plank; and thesedelegates, amidst the wildest excitement, now began changing theirvotes to the hero of Lundy's Lane. On the fifty-third ballot, thesoldier had twenty-six majority, the vote standing: Scott, 159;Fillmore, 112; Webster, 21. 

The prophecy of Hamilton Fish was fulfilled. Fillmore now realised, ifnever before, "the tremendous mistakes he had made. " Upon his electionas Vice President, and especially after dreams of the White Housebegan to dazzle him, he seemed to sacrifice old friends and cherishedprinciples without a scruple. Until then, the Buffalo statesman hadbeen as pronounced upon the slavery question as Seward; and after hebecame President, with the tremendous influence of Daniel Websterdriving him on, it was not believed that he would violate theprinciples of a lifetime by approving a fugitive slave law, revoltingto the rapidly growing sentiment of justice and humanity toward theslave. But, unlike Webster, the President manifested no feeling ofchagrin or disappointment over the result at Baltimore. Throughout thecampaign and during the balance of his term of office he bore himselfwith courage and with dignity. Indeed, his equanimity seemed almostlike the fortitude of fatalism. No doubt, he was sustained by theconviction that the compromise measures had avoided civil war, and bythe feeling that if he had erred, Clay and Webster had likewise erred;but he could have had no presentiment of the depth of the retirementto which he was destined. He was to reappear, in 1856, as apresidential candidate of the Americans; and, after civil war had rentthe country in twain, his sympathy for the Union was to reveal itselfearly and with ardour. But the fugitive slave law, which, next totreason itself, had become the most offensive act during the ante-warcrisis, filled the minds of men with a growing dislike of the onewhose pen gave it life, and, in spite of his high character, his longpublic career, and his eminence as a citizen, he was associated withPierce and Buchanan, who, as Northern men, were believed to havesurrendered to Southern dictation. [409]

[Footnote 409: "When Fillmore withdrew from the presidential office, the general sentiment proclaimed that he had filled the place withability and honour. He was strictly temperate, industrious, orderly, and of an integrity above suspicion. If Northern people did notapprove the fugitive slave law, they at least looked upon it withtoleration. It is quite true, however, that after-opinion has beenunkind to Fillmore. The judgment on him was made up at a time when thefugitive slave law had become detestable, and he was remembered onlyfor his signature and vigorous execution of it. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 297, 301. ]

In the national convention at Baltimore, which met June 1, 1852, theNew York Democrats were likewise destined to suffer by theirdivisions. Lewis Cass, James Buchanan, and Stephen A. Douglas were theleading candidates; though William L. Marcy and Daniel S. Dickinsonalso had presidential ambitions. Marcy was a man of different mouldfrom Dickinson. [410] With great mental resources, rare administrativeability, consummate capacity in undermining enemies, and an intuitivesagacity in the selection of friends, Marcy was an opponent to bedreaded. After the experiences of 1847 and 1848, he had bitterlydenounced the Barnburners, refusing even to join Seymour in 1849 inhis heroic efforts to reunite the party; but when the Barnburners, influenced by the Utica statesman, began talking of him for Presidentin 1852 he quickly put himself in accord with that wing of his party. Instantly, this became a call to battle. The Hunkers, provoked at hisapostacy and encouraged by the continued distrust of many Barnburners, made a desperate effort, under the leadership of Dickinson, to securea majority of the delegates for Cass. The plastic hand of HoratioSeymour, however, quickly kneaded the doubting Barnburners into Marcyadvocates; and when the contest ended the New York delegation stoodtwenty-three for Marcy and thirteen for Cass. 

[Footnote 410: "It was certain that Mr. Dickinson could not carry NewYork. . . . Governor Marcy was strongly urged in many quarters, and itwas thought the State might be carried by him; but many were of theopinion that his friends kept his name prominently before the publicwith the hope of obtaining a cabinet appointment for him and thussecuring the influence of that section of the New York Democracy towhich he belonged. This was precisely the result that followed. "--MorganDix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 266. ]

Dickinson, who had been a steadfast friend of the South, relied withconfidence upon Virginia and other Southern States whenever successwith Cass seemed impossible. On the other hand, Marcy expected atransfer of support from Buchanan and Douglas if the break came. Onthe first ballot Cass had 116, Buchanan 93, Douglas 20, and Marcy 27;necessary to a choice, 188. As chairman of the New York delegation, Horatio Seymour held Marcy's vote practically intact throughthirty-three ballots; but, on the thirty-fourth, he dropped to 23, andVirginia cast its fifteen votes for Dickinson, who, up to that time, had been honoured only with the vote of a solitary delegate. In themidst of some applause, the New Yorker, who was himself a delegate, thanked his Virginia friends for the compliment, but declared that hisadherence to Cass could not be shaken. [411] Dickinson had carefullyarranged for this vote. The day before, in the presence of theVirginia delegation, he had asked Henry B. Stanton's opinion of hisability to carry New York. "You or Marcy or any man nominated cancarry New York, " was the laconic reply. Dickinson followed Stanton outof the room to thank him for his courtesy, but regretted he did notconfine his answer to him alone. After Virginia's vote Dickinson againsought Stanton's opinion as to its adherence. "It is simply acompliment, " was the reply, "and will leave you on the next ballot, "which it did, going to Franklin Pierce. "Dickinson's friends used toassert, " continued Stanton, "that he threw away the Presidency on thisoccasion. I happened to know better. He never stood for a moment wherehe could control the Virginia vote--the hinge whereon all was toturn. "[412]

[Footnote 411: "I could not consent to a nomination here withoutincurring the imputation of unfaithfully executing the trust committedto me by my constituents--without turning my back on an old and valuedfriend. Nothing that could be offered me--not even the highestposition in the Government, the office of President of the UnitedStates--could compensate me for such a desertion of my trust. "--DanielS. Dickinson, _Letters and Speeches_, Vol. 1, p. 370. ]

[Footnote 412: H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 181. ]

In the meantime Marcy moved up to 44. It had been evident for two daysthat the favourite candidates could not win, and for the next thirteenballots, amidst the greatest noise and confusion, the conventionsought to discover the wisest course to pursue. Seymour endeavoured toside-track the "dark horse" movement by turning the tide to Marcy, whose vote kept steadily rising. When, on the forty-fifth ballot, hereached 97, the New York delegation retired for consultation. Seymourat once moved that the State vote solidly for Marcy; but protests fellso thick, exploding like bombshells, that he soon withdrew the motion. This ended Marcy's chances. [413] On the forty-ninth ballot, NorthCarolina started the stampede to Pierce, who received 282 votes to 6for all others. Later in the day, the convention nominated William R. King of Alabama for Vice President, and adopted a platform, declaringthat "the Democratic party of the Union will abide by, and adhere to, a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measuressettled by the last Congress--the act for reclaiming fugitive slavesfrom service of labour included; which act, being designed to carryout an express provision of the Constitution, cannot with fidelitythereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair itsefficiency. "

[Footnote 413: "Marcy held the war portfolio under Polk, but hisconduct of the office had not added to his reputation, for it hadgalled the Administration to have the signal victories of the MexicanWar won by Whig generals, and it was currently believed that the WarMinister had shared in the endeavour to thwart some of the plans ofScott and Taylor. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 246-7. 

"The conflict became terrific, until, when the ballots had run up towithin one of fifty, the Virginia nominee was announced as the choiceof the convention. "--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 268. ]

Some time before the convention it was suggested, with Marcy'sapproval, that the New York delegation should vote as a unit forDickinson if he proved the stronger candidate outside the State, and, upon the same condition, a solid delegation should vote for Marcy. This proposition did not reach Dickinson until his leading friends hadcommitted themselves by a second choice; but, in speaking of thematter to Thurlow Weed ten years afterward, Dickinson said that had itcome in time he would cheerfully have accepted it, adding thatwhatever may have been his opinion in 1852, he now knew it would haveresulted in Marcy's nomination. 

The disturbance among the New York delegates at Baltimore had itsinfluence at Syracuse when the Democratic state convention assembledon September 1. Seymour was the leading candidate for governor, andDickinson opposed him with a bitterness born of a desire for revenge. The night before the convention Seymour's chances were pronounceddesperate. Whatever disappointments had come at Baltimore were laid athis door. Seymour made Cass' defeat possible; Seymour refused to helpBuchanan; Seymour was responsible for a dark horse; Seymour filledMarcy's friends with hopes of ultimate victory, only to heighten theirdisappointment in the end. All these allegations were merely foundedupon his steadfastness to Marcy, and he might have answered thateverything had been done with the approval of a majority of the NewYork delegation. But Dickinson was no match for the Utica statesman. Seymour's whole life had been a training for such a contest. As RoscoeConkling said of him many years later, he had sat at the feet of EdwinCroswell and measured swords with Thurlow Weed. He was one of the menwho do not lose the character of good fighters because they areexcellent negotiators. Even the cool-headed and astute John Van Buren, who joined Dickinson in his support of John P. Beekman of New YorkCity for governor, found that Seymour could cut deeply when he choseto wield a blade. [414] Seymour, moreover, gave his friends greatsatisfaction by the energy with which he entered the gubernatorialcontest. When the first ballot was announced he had 59 votes toBeekman's 7, with only 64 necessary to a choice. On the second ballot, the Utican had 78 and Beekman 3. This concluded the convention'scontest. Sanford E. Church was then renominated for lieutenant-governor, and the Baltimore platform approved. 

[Footnote 414: "Seymour was among the most effective and eloquentplatform orators in New York. Less electrical than John Van Buren, hewas more persuasive; less witty, he was more logical; less sarcastic, he was more candid; less denunciatory of antagonists, he was moreconvincing to opponents. These two remarkable men had little in commonexcept lofty ambition and rare mental and social gifts. Their salientcharacteristics were widely dissimilar. Seymour was conciliatory, andcultivated peace. Van Buren was aggressive, and coveted war. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 178. ]

The Whig state convention met at Syracuse on September 22 and promptlyrenominated Washington Hunt for governor by acclamation. Raymondwanted it, and Greeley, in a letter to Weed, admitted an ambition, while a strong sentiment existed for George W. Patterson. Hunt hadveered toward Fillmore's way of thinking. "The closing paragraphs ofhis message are a beggarly petition to the South, " wrote GeorgeDawson, the quaint, forceful associate of Weed upon the _EveningJournal_. [415] But Hunt's administration had been quiet andsatisfactory, and there was little disposition to drop him. He did nothave the patience of Hamilton Fish, but he resembled him in moderationof speech. 

[Footnote 415: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 218. ]

William Kent, a son of the Chancellor, received the nomination forlieutenant-governor. Kent was a scholarly, able lawyer. He had servedfive years upon the circuit bench by appointment of Governor Seward. He co-operated with Benjamin F. Butler in the organisation of the lawschool of the New York University, becoming one of its originallecturers, and was subsequently called to Harvard as a professor oflaw. Like his distinguished father he was a man of pure character, andof singular simplicity and gentleness. 

The adoption of a platform gave the Whig delegates more trouble thanthe nomination of candidates. A large majority opposed the slaveryplank of the Baltimore platform. But the Seward Whigs, having littlefaith in the ultimate result, accepted a general declaration that "anhonest acquiescence in the action of the late national convention uponall subjects legitimately before it is the duty of every Whig. " HoraceGreeley suggested that "those who please can construe this concessioninto an approval. "

In opening the canvass of 1852, the Whigs attempted to repeat thecampaign of 1840. Scott's record in the War of 1812 was not lessbrilliant than Harrison's, and if his Mexican battles were not foughtagainst the overwhelming odds that Taylor met at Buena Vista, he wasnone the less entitled to the distinction of a conqueror. It wasthought proper, therefore, to start his political campaign where hismilitary career began, and, as the anniversary of Lundy's Laneoccurred in July, extensive preparations were made for celebrating theday at Niagara Falls, the nearest American point to the scene of hisdesperate courage. The great meeting, made up of large delegationsfrom nearly every Northern State, rivalled in numbers and inenthusiasm the memorable meetings of the Harrison campaign. To add tothe interest, two hundred and twenty officers and soldiers of the Warof 1812, some of whom had taken part in the battle, participated inthe festivities. Speakers declared that it inaugurated a new career oftriumph, which might be likened to the onslaught of Lundy's Lane, theconflict of Chippewa, the siege of Vera Cruz, and the storm of CerroGordo; and which, they prophesied, would end in triumphant possession, not now of the Halls of the Montezumas, but of the White House ofAmerican Presidents. The meeting lasted two days. Thomas Ewing, ofOhio, acted as president, and among the speakers was Henry WinterDavis. 

But this was the only demonstration that recalled the Harrisoncampaign. The drum and cannon did conspicuous work, flags floated, andspeakers found ready and patriotic listeners, but the hearts of manypeople were not enlisted in the discussion of tariffs and publicimprovements. They were thinking of the fugitive slave law and itsenforcement, and some believed that while speakers and editors werecharging Pierce with cowardice on the field of Churubusco they did notthemselves have the courage to voice their honest convictions on theslavery question. As election drew near signs of victory disappeared. Conservative Whigs did not like the candidate and anti-slavery Whigsobjected to the platform. "This wretched platform, " Seward declared, "was contrived to defeat Scott in the nomination, or to sink him inthe canvass. "[416] Horace Greeley's spirited protest against thefugitive slave plank gave rise to the phrase, "We accept thecandidate, but spit upon the platform. " Among the business men of NewYork City an impression obtained that if Scott became President, Seward would control him; and their purpose to crush the soldierseemed to centre not so much in hostility to Scott as in their desireto destroy Seward. Greeley speaks of this "extraordinary feature" ofthe campaign. "Seward has been the burden of our adversaries' songfrom the outset, " he writes; "and mercantile Whigs by thousands haveever been ready not merely to defeat but to annihilate the Whig partyif they might thereby demolish Seward. "[417] In answer to the chargeof influencing Scott's administration, the Senator promptly declaredthat he would neither ask nor accept "any public station or prefermentwhatever at the hands of the President. "[418] But this in nowisesilenced their batteries. To the end of the canvass Scott continued tobe advertised as the "Seward candidate. "

[Footnote 416: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 188. 

"Many thought: the voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the handsof Esau. Seward was the political juggler, or Mephistopheles, as somecalled him, and the result was regarded as his triumph. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 262. "Some of theprominent Whig newspapers of Georgia declined to sustain Scott, because his election would mean Free-soilism and Sewardism. An addresswas issued on July 3 by Alexander H. Stephens, Robert Toombs, and fiveother Whig representatives, in which they flatly refused to supportScott because he was 'the favourite candidate of the Free Soil wing ofthe Whig party. '"--_Ibid. _, p. 262. ]

[Footnote 417: New York _Tribune_, October, 1852. ]

[Footnote 418: _Seward's Works_, Vol. 3, p. 416. Date of letter, June26, 1852. ]

After the September elections, it became manifest that something mustbe done to strengthen Whig sentiment, and Scott made a trip throughthe doubtful States of Ohio and New York. Although Harrison had madeseveral speeches in 1840, there was no precedent for a presidentialstumping tour; and, to veil the purpose of the journey, recourse washad to a statute authorising the general of the army to visit Kentuckywith the object of locating an asylum for sick and disabled soldiersat Blue Lick Springs. He went from Washington by way of Pittsburg andreturned through New York, stopping at Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Lockport, Rochester, Auburn, Syracuse, Rome, Utica, and Albany. Everywhere great crowds met him, but cheers for the hero mingled withcheers for a Democratic victory in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, indicating the certain election of Pierce in November. At Auburn, Seward referred to him as "the greatest of American heroes since theRevolutionary age. " At Albany, John C. Spencer's presence recalled thedistinguished services of Governor Tompkins and Chief Justice AmbroseSpencer in the War of 1812. "It was these men, " said Scott, "who wereaware of the position on the frontier, that urged me on to achievesomething that would add to the future honour of our country. " NewYork City received him with one of the largest ovations ever witnessedup to that time. He avoided politics in his speeches, insisting thathe did not come to solicit votes. But he did not thereby help hiscause or escape ridicule. Indeed, the ill-advised things said anddone, created the impression that obtained thirty-two years laterafter the tour of James G. Blaine. 

Though the Democrats at first accepted Franklin Pierce as they hadreceived James K. Polk, coldness and distrust gradually disappeared. At Tammany's Fourth of July celebration, the presence of the prominentleaders who bolted in 1848 gave evidence of the party's reunion. Thechief speaker was John Van Buren. Upon the platform sat John A. Dix, Preston King, and Churchill C. Cambreling. Of the letters read, onecame from Martin Van Buren, who expressed pleasure that "thedisturbing subject of slavery has, by the action of both the greatparties of the country, been withdrawn from the canvass. " Among theeditors who contributed most powerfully to the Free-soil movement, William Cullen Bryant now supported Pierce on the theory that he andthe platform were the more favourable to freedom. [419] John VanBuren's spacious mind and his genius for giving fascination towhatever he said convulsed his audience with wit and thrilled it withforceful statements. The country, he declared, was tired of theagitation of slavery, which had ceased to be a political question. Itonly remained to enforce in good faith the great compromise. Heasserted that trade was good and the country prosperous, and that theDemocratic party had gained the confidence of the people because itwas a party of pacification, opposed to the agitation of slavery, insistent upon sacredly observing the compromises of the Constitution, and certain to bring settled political conditions. 

[Footnote 419: "The argument of the _Post_, that the Democraticcandidate and platform were really more favourable to liberty than theWhig, was somewhat strained; the editor failed to look the situationsquarely in the face. He was, however, acting in perfect harmony withthe prominent New York Democrats who had, four years previously, bolted the regular nomination. Salmon P. Chase, although still aDemocrat, would not support Pierce, but gave his adherence to theFree-soil nominations, and tried hard, though in vain, to bring totheir support his former New York associates. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 264-65. ]

Prince John proved himself equal to the occasion. If no longer thegreat apostle of the Free-soilers he was now the accepted champion ofthe Democracy. He had said what everybody believed who voted forPierce and what many people thought who voted for Scott. There is nodoubt his speech created an immense sensation. Greeley ridiculed it, Weed belittled it, and the Free-soilers denounced it, but it becamethe keynote of the campaign, and the Prince, with his rich, brilliantcopiousness that was never redundant, became the picturesque andpopular speaker of every platform. There were other Democraticorators. [420] Charles O'Conor's speeches were masterpieces ofdeclamation, and James T. Brady, then thirty-seven years old, butalready famous as one of the foremost criminal lawyers of the time, discovered the same magnetic eloquence that made him almostirresistible before a jury. His sentences, rounded and polished, rolled from his mouth in perfect balance. Van Buren was kaleidoscopic, becoming by turn humourous, sarcastic, gravely logical, and famouslywitty; Brady and O'Conor inclined to severity, easily dropping intovituperation, and at times exhibiting bitterness. Van Buren's hardesthits came in the form of sarcasm. It mattered not who heard him, allwent away good-natured and satisfied with the entertainment. Therewere moments when laughter drowned his loudest utterances, whensilence made his whispers audible, and when an eloquent epigrammoistened the eye. 

[Footnote 420: John A. Dix spoke in the New England and the MiddleStates. From October 11 to 29 he made thirteen speeches "in the greatcanvass which is upon us. "--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, pp. 269, 271. ]

The election proved a Waterloo to the Whigs. Twenty-seven States gavemajorities for Pierce, only four were for Scott. Seymour ran 22, 000votes ahead of Hunt. [421] In the Assembly the Democrats numberedeighty-five, the Whigs forty-three. Of the thirty-three congressmen, the Democrats elected twenty-one, the Whigs ten, the Free-soilers andLand Reformers one each. It was wittily said that the Whig party "diedof an attempt to swallow the fugitive slave law. " The election ofPierce and Seymour surprised none of the Whig leaders. Thurlow Weed, convinced of the hopelessness of Whig success, went off to Europe forsix months preceding the campaign. The _Tribune_ talked of victory, but in his private correspondence Greeley declared that "we shall losethe Legislature and probably everything at home. "

[Footnote 421: Horatio Seymour, 264, 121; Washington Hunt, 241, 525. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

Winfield Scott seems to have been the only man really surprised. "Helooked forward buoyantly to an easy and triumphant victory, " saysWeed, who dined with him on a Sunday in October. [422] But, thoughPierce's election produced no surprise, his majority of 212 electoralvotes astounded everybody. It eclipsed the result of the romanticcampaign of 1840, and seemed to verify the assertions of John VanBuren, in his Fourth of July speech at Tammany Hall. The people werenot only tired of slavery agitation, but trade was good, the countryprosperous, and a reunited Democracy, by unreservedly indorsing thecompromise measures of 1850, promised settled conditions. 

[Footnote 422: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 219. ]

It is not without historical interest to notice that Gerrit Smith, oneof the most uncompromising opponents of slavery in any country, received an election to Congress in a district that gave Pierce andSeymour upward of one thousand majority. It showed that thesmouldering fire, which had suddenly blazed out in the Free-soilcampaign of 1848, was not extinguished by the coalition of Barnburnersand Hunkers, and the acceptance of the great compromise by the twoBaltimore conventions. Gerrit Smith was a noble example of thechampions of freedom. He had not the passion of Garrison, or thegenius of Henry Ward Beecher; but his deep voice of marvellousrichness, the grace and dignity of his person, and the calm, gentle, dispassionate tone in which he declared his principles without fear, was to command the earnest and respectful attention of the nationalHouse of Representatives. 

CHAPTER XIV

THE HARDS AND THE SOFTS

1853

In New York a Democratic victory had come to mean a succession ofDemocratic defeats. It was so after the victory of 1844; and it wasdestined to be so after the victory of 1852. But defeat occurreddifferently this time. In 1847 the Barnburners had seceded from theHunkers; in 1853 the Hunkers seceded from the Barnburners. For sixyears the Barnburners had played bold politics. After defeating theDemocratic ticket in 1847 and the state and national tickets in 1848, they returned to the party practically upon their own terms. Insteadof asking admittance they walked in without knocking. They did noteven apologise for their Free-soil principles. These they left behindbecause they had put them off; but the sorrow that follows repentancewas absent. In the convention of 1849, John Van Buren was receivedlike a prodigal son and his followers invited to an equal division ofthe spoils. Had the Hunkers declared they didn't know them asDemocrats in their unrepentant attitude, the Barnburner host must havemelted like frost work; but, in their desire to return to power, theHunkers asked no questions and fixed no conditions. In the process ofthis reunion Horatio Seymour, the cleverest of the Hunkers, coalescedwith the shrewdest of the Barnburners, who set about to captureWilliam L. Marcy. Seymour knew of Marcy's ambition to become acandidate for the Presidency and of the rivalry of Cass and Dickinson;and so when he agreed to make him the Barnburners' candidate, Marcycovenanted to defeat Cass at Baltimore and Dickinson in New York. Though the Barnburners failed to make Marcy a nominee for President, he did not fail to defeat Cass and slaughter Dickinson. [423]

[Footnote 423: "Seymour resisted the Barnburner revolt of 1847, andsupported Cass for President in 1848. But he warmly espoused themovement to reunite the party the next year. He was in advance ofMarcy in that direction. Seymour pushed forward, while Marcy hungback. Seymour rather liked the Barnburners, except John Van Buren, ofwhom he was quite jealous and somewhat afraid. But Marcy, after theexperiences of 1847 and 1848, denounced them in hard terms, untilSeymour and the Free-soil Democrats began talking of him for Presidentin 1852, when the wily old Regency tactician mellowed toward them. Nothing was wanted to carry Marcy clear over except the hostility ofDickinson, who stood in his way to the White House. This he soonencountered, which reconciled him to the Barnburners. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 177. ]

To add to the Hunkers' humiliation, President Pierce now sided withthe Barnburners. He invited John A. Dix to visit him at Concord, andin the most cordial manner offered him the position of secretary ofstate. [424] This was too much for the pro-slavery Hunkers, for Dix hadbeen a Free-soil candidate for governor in 1848; and the notes ofdefiance compelled the Concord statesman to send for Dix again, whograciously relieved him of his embarrassment. [425] Then the Presidentturned to William L. Marcy, whose return from Florida was coincidentwith the intrigue against Dix. The former secretary of war had notmustered with the Free-soilers, but his attitude at Baltimore made him_persona non grata_ to Dickinson. This kept Pierce in trouble. Hewanted a New Yorker, but he wanted peace, and so he delayed actionuntil the day after his inauguration. [426] When it proved to beMarcy, with Dix promised the mission to France, [427] and Dickinsonoffered nothing better than the collectorship of the port of New York, the Hunkers waited for an opportunity to make their resentment felt. 

[Footnote 424: Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 271. ]

[Footnote 425: _Ibid. _, Vol. 1, p. 272. ]

[Footnote 426: "To satisfy the greatest number was the aim of thePresident, to whom this problem became the subject of serious thoughtsand many councils; and although the whole Cabinet, as finallyannounced, was published in the newspapers one week before theinauguration, Pierce did not really decide who should be secretary ofstate until he had actually been one day in office, for up to themorning of March 5, that portfolio had not been offered toMarcy. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 389. ]

[Footnote 427: "The President offered Dix the mission to France. Thetime fixed was early in the summer of that year. Meanwhile passage wastaken for Havre, preparations for a four years' residence abroad weremade, and every arrangement was completed which an anticipated absencefrom home renders necessary. But political intrigue was instantlyresumed, and again with complete success. The opposition now came, orappears to have come, mainly from certain Southern politicians. Charges were made--such, for example, as this: that General Dix was anAbolitionist, and that the Administration would be untrue to the Southby allowing a man of that extreme and fanatical party to represent itabroad. . . . But though these insinuations were repelled, the influencewas too strong to be resisted. In fact, the place was wanted for aneminent gentleman from Virginia. "--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, pp. 273, 274, 275. ]

This was the situation when the Democratic state convention met atSyracuse on September 13, 1853, with thirty-six contested seats. Thefaction that won these would legally control the convention. When thedoors opened, therefore, an eager crowd, amidst the wildest confusionand uproar, took possession of the hall, and, with mingled cheers andhisses, two chairmen were quickly nominated, declared elected, andforced upon the platform. Each chairman presided. Two conventionsoccupied one room; and that one faction might have peaceablepossession it tried to put the other out. Finally, when out of breathand out of patience, both factions agreed to submit the contest forseats to a vote of the convention; and while the roll was beingprepared the riotous proceedings were adjourned until four o'clock. But the Hunkers had seen and heard enough. It was evident theBarnburners proposed organising the convention after the tactics ofthe Hunkers in 1847; and, instead of returning to the hall, theHunkers went elsewhere, organising a convention with eighty-onedelegates, including the contestants. Here everything was done inorder and with dispatch. Committees on permanent officers, resolutions, and nominations made unanimous reports to a unanimousconvention, speeches were vociferously applauded, and the conduct ofthe Barnburners fiercely condemned. Governor Willard of Indiana, whohappened to be present, declared, in a thrilling speech, that a"bully" stood ready to shoot down the Hunker chairman as he tried tocall the convention to order. One of the delegates said he thought hislife was in danger as he saw a man with an axe under his arm. But intheir hall of refuge no one appeared to molest them; and by sixo'clock the convention had completed its work and adjourned. Amongthose nominated for office appeared the names of George W. Clinton ofBuffalo, the distinguished son of DeWitt Clinton, for secretary ofstate, and James T. Brady, the brilliant lawyer of New York City, forattorney-general. The resolutions indorsed the Baltimore platform, approved the President's inaugural on slavery, commended the amendmentto the Constitution appropriating ten and a half million dollars forthe enlargement and completion of the canals, and complimented DanielS. Dickinson. 

Meanwhile the Barnburners, having reassembled at four o'clock witheighty-seven delegates, sent word to the Hunkers that the conventionwas in session and prepared to organise. To this the chairman replied:"We do not consider ourselves in safety in an assemblage controlledand overawed by bullies, imported for that purpose. " The Barnburnerslaughed, but in order to give the Hunkers time to sleep over it JohnVan Buren opposed further proceedings until the next day. In theevening, Horatio Seymour, now the Governor, met the convention leadersand with them laid out the morrow's work. 

When Seymour began co-operating with the Barnburners, ambitionprompted him to modify his original canal views so far as to opposethe Whig law authorising a loan of nine million dollars to enlarge theErie canal. But after his election as governor, he recognised that noparty could successfully appeal to the people in November, 1853, weighted with such a policy; and with courage and genius fordiplomatic negotiations, he faced the prejudices which hadcharacterised the Barnburners during their entire history by favouringa constitutional amendment appropriating ten and a half millions forthe enlargement of the Erie and the completion of the lateral canals. He had displayed a bold hand. The help of the Barnburners was neededto carry the amendment; and when the regular session expired withoutthe accomplishment of his purpose Seymour quickly called an extrasession. Even this dragged into the summer. Finally, in June, to theamazement of the people, the amendment passed and was approved. It wasthis work, which had so brilliantly inaugurated his administration, that Seymour desired indorsed, and, although it was morning, and notvery early morning, before the labour of the night ended, it wasagreed to adopt a canal resolution similar to that of the Hunkers andto indorse the Governor's administration, a compliment which theHunkers carefully avoided. 

After the settlement of the canal question, the work of the conventionwas practically done. A majority of the candidates were taken from thesupporters of Cass in 1848, and included Charles H. Ruggles ofPoughkeepsie, and Hiram Denio of Utica, whom the Hunkers had nominatedfor judges of the Court of Appeals. Ruggles was the wise chairman ofthe judiciary committee in the constitutional convention of 1846, andhad been a member of the Court of Appeals since 1851. Denio wasdestined to become one of the eminent judges of the State. He was notalways kind in his methods. Indeed, it may be said that he was one ofthose upright judges who contrived to make neither honour norrectitude seem lovable qualities; yet his abilities finally earned himan enviable reputation as a justice of New York's court of lastresort. 

The factions differed little in men or in principle, and not at allupon the question of slavery. Two conventions were, therefore, absolutely unnecessary except upon the theory that the Hunkers, havinglittle to gain and nothing to lose, desired to embarrass theadministrations of Governor Seymour and President Pierce. Theirsecession was certainly not prompted by fear of bullies. Neitherfaction was a stranger to blows. If fear possessed the Hunkers, itgrew out of distrust of their supporters and of their numericalstrength; and, rather than be beaten, they preferred to follow theexample of the Barnburners in 1847, and of the Silver-Grays in 1850, two precedents that destroyed party loyalty to gratify the spirit ofrevenge. 

It was at this time that the Hunkers were first called Hardshells or"Hards, " and the Barnburners Softshells or "Softs. " These designationsmeant that Dickinson and his followers never changed their principles, and that the Marcy-Seymour coalition trimmed its sails to catch thefavouring breeze. 

The action of the Hards in September, 1853, left the prestige ofregularity with the Softs. The latter also had the patronage of thestate and national administrations, the possession of Tammany, and thesupport of a large majority of the newspapers. But the Hards stilltreated the Softs as the real secessionists. "We have gotten rid ofthe mischievous traitors, " said Daniel S. Dickinson, in his Buffalospeech of September 23, "and let us keep clear of them. It is truethey say we are all on one platform, but when did we get there? Nolonger ago than last winter, when such resolutions as the platform nowembodies were introduced into the Assembly, a cholera patient couldnot have scattered these very men more effectually. "[428] Dickinsonwas not blessed with John Van Buren's humour. A flash of wit rarelyenlivened his speeches, yet he delighted in attacking an adversaryeven if compelled to do it with gloomy, dogged rhetoric. Of all theSofts, however, Horatio Seymour was the one whom Dickinson hated. "Itwas the first time a governor was ever found in their convention, "continued the Binghamton statesman, "and I know it will be the lasttime _that_ Governor will be guilty of such an impropriety. Hetempted them on with spoils in front, while the short boys of New Yorkpricked them up with bowie knives in the rear. "[429]

[Footnote 428: New York _Tribune_, September 27, 1853. ]

[Footnote 429: New York _Tribune_, September 27, 1853. ]

Seymour appears to have taken Dickinson's animosity, as he took mostthings, with composure. Nevertheless, if he looked for harmony onelection day, the letters of Charles O'Conor and Greene C. Bronson, declining an invitation to ratify the Softs' ticket at a meeting inTammany Hall, must have extinguished the hope. O'Conor was UnitedStates attorney and Bronson collector of the port of New York; butthese two office-holders under Pierce used no varnish in theircorrespondence with the Pierce-Seymour faction. "As a lover of honestyin politics and of good order in society, " wrote Bronson, "I cannotapprove of nominations brought about by fraud and violence. Those whointroduce convicts and bullies into our conventions for the purpose ofcontrolling events must not expect their proceedings will besanctioned by me. " Then he betrayed the old conservative's deepdislike of the Radicals' canal policy, the memory of which stillrankled. "If all the nominees were otherwise unexceptionable, " hecontinued, "they come before the public under the leadership of menwho have been striving to defeat the early completion of the publicworks, and after the shameless breach of past pledges in relation tothe canals, there can be no reasonable ground for hope that newpromises will be performed. "[430]

[Footnote 430: _Ibid. _, September 26, 1853. ]

Charles O'Conor, with the envenomed skill of a practised prosecutorcoupled with a champion's coolness, aimed a heavier blow at theoffending Softs. "Judging the tickets by the names of the leadingmembers of the two conventions no reasonable doubt can be entertainedwhich of them is most devoted to preserving union and harmony betweenthe States of this confederacy. One of the conventions wasuncontaminated by the presence of a single member ever known as anagitator of principles or practices tending in any degree to disturbthat union and harmony; the leaders of the other were but recentlyengaged in a course of political action directly tending to discordbetween the States. It has, indeed, presented a platform of principlesunqualifiedly denouncing that political organisation as dangerous tothe permanency of the Union and inadmissible among Democrats; but whenit is considered that the leaders, with one unimpressive exception, formerly withheld assent to that platform, or repudiated it, theresolution adopting it is not, in my opinion, entitled to anyconfidence whatever. I adopt that ticket which was made by aconvention whose platform was adopted with sincerity and correspondswith the political life and actions of its framers. "[431]

[Footnote 431: New York _Tribune_, September 26, 1853. ]

Bronson's letter was dated September 22, 1853; and in less than amonth he was removed from his post as collector. In resentment, several county conventions immediately announced him as theircandidate for governor in 1854. O'Conor continued in office a littlelonger, but eventually he resigned. "This proscriptive policy foropinion's sake will greatly accelerate and aggravate the decompositionof the Democratic party in this State, " said the _Tribune_. "Thatprocess was begun long since, but certain soft-headed quacks hadthought it possible, by some hocus pocus, to restore the old unity andhealth. "[432]

[Footnote 432: _Ibid. _, October 24, 1853. ]

The Whigs delayed their state convention until the 5th of October. Washington Hunt, its chairman, made a strong plea for harmony, and inthe presence of almost certain victory, occasioned by a dividedDemocracy, the delegates turned their attention to the work of makingnominations. It took three ballots to select a candidate forattorney-general. Among the aspirants were Ogden Hoffman of New Yorkand Roscoe Conkling of Utica, then a young man of twenty-five, whobore a name that was already familiar from an honourable parentage. The people of Oneida had elected him district attorney as soon as hegained his majority, and, in the intervening years, the successfullawyer had rapidly proved himself a successful orator and politicianwho would have to be reckoned with. [433]

[Footnote 433: "With advancing years Mr. Conkling's temperamentchanged slightly. The exactions of legal life, and, to some extent, the needs of his political experience, apparently estranged him fromthe masses, although he was naturally one of the most approachable ofmen. "--Alfred R. Conkling, _The Life and Letters of Roscoe Conkling_, pp. 203, 204. ]

But Conkling did not get the coveted attorney-generalship. The greatreputation of Ogden Hoffman, who has been styled "the Erskine of theAmerican bar, " and who then stood in isolated splendour among theorators of his party, gave him the right of way. Hoffman had served inCongress during Van Buren's administration and as United Statesattorney under Harrison and Tyler. He was now sixty years of age, afit opponent to the brilliant Brady, twenty-two years his junior. "Butfor indolence, " said Horace Greeley, "Hoffman might have been governoror cabinet minister ere this. Everybody likes him and he always runsahead of his ticket. "[434] There was also an earnest effort to securea place upon the ticket for Elbridge G. Spaulding of Buffalo. He hadbeen district attorney, city clerk, alderman, and mayor of his city. In 1848 he went to the Assembly and in 1849 to Congress. He hadalready disclosed the marked ability for finance that subsequentlycharacterised his public and business career, giving him thedistinguishing title of "father of the greenback. " His friends nowwanted to make him comptroller, but when this place went to James M. Cook of Saratoga, a thrifty banker and manufacturer, who had beenstate treasurer, Spaulding accepted the latter office. In itsplatform, the convention hailed with satisfaction the prospect of aspeedy completion of the canals under Whig management, and boastedthat the Democrats had at last been forced to accept the Whig policy, "so necessary to the greatness and prosperity of the State. "

[Footnote 434: New York _Tribune_, October 6, 1853. ]

The success of the Whigs was inevitable. The secession of the Hardscould not operate otherwise than in a division of the Democratic vote;but no one dreamed it would split the party in the middle. The Hardshad fought against the prestige of party regularity, the power ofpatronage, the influence of Tammany, and the majority of the press, while the removal of Bronson served notice upon office-holders thatthose who favoured the Hards voluntarily mounted a guillotine. "Headsof this class, " said Greeley, "rolled as recklessly as pumpkins from aharvest wagon. "[435] Yet the Softs led the Hards by an averagemajority of only 312. It was a tremendous surprise at Washington. Acartoon represented Pierce and Marcy as Louis XVI and his minister, onthe memorable 10th of August. "Why, this is revolt!" said the amazedKing. "No, sire, " responded the minister, "it is Revolution. "

[Footnote 435: New York _Tribune_, October 8, 1853. ]

The Whigs polled 162, 000 votes, electing their state officers by anaverage plurality of 66, 000 and carrying the Legislature by a majorityof forty-eight on joint ballot. Yet Ruggles and Denio, whose namesappeared upon the ticket of each Democratic faction, were elected tothe Court of Appeals by 13, 000 majority, showing that a unitedDemocratic party would have swept the State as it did in 1852. 

The Whigs accepted their success as Sheridan said the English receivedthe peace of Amiens--as "one of which everybody was glad and nobodywas proud. " Of the 240, 000 Whigs who voted in 1852, less than 170, 000supported the ticket in 1853. Some of this shrinkage was doubtless dueto the natural falling off in an "off year" and to an unusually stormyelection day; but there were evidences of open revolt and studiedapathy which emphasised the want of harmony and the necessity forfixed principles. 

CHAPTER XV

A BREAKING-UP OF PARTY TIES

1854

While the Hards and Softs quarrelled, and the Whigs showed weaknessbecause of a want of harmony and the lack of principles, a greatcontest was being waged at Washington. In December, 1853, Stephen A. Douglas, from his place in the United States Senate, introduced thefamous Nebraska bill affirming that the Clay compromise of 1850 hadrepealed the Missouri compromise of 1820. This sounded the trumpet ofbattle. The struggle of slavery and freedom was now to be fought to afinish. The discussion in Congress began in January, 1854, and endedon May 30. When it commenced the slavery question seemed settled; whenit closed the country was in a ferment. Anti-slavery Whigs foundcompanionship with Free-soil Democrats; the titles of "Nebraska" and"Anti-Nebraska" distinguished men's politics; conventions ofDemocrats, Whigs, and Free-soilers met to resist "the iniquity;" andon July 6 the Republican party, under whose banner the great fight wasto be finished, found a birthplace at Jackson, Michigan. 

Rufus King's part in the historic struggle of the Missouri Compromisewas played by William H. Seward in the great contest over its repeal. He was the leader of the anti-slavery Whigs of the country, just ashis distinguished predecessor had been the leader of the anti-slaveryforces in 1820. He marshalled the opposition, and, when he finallytook the floor on the 17th of February, he made a legal argument asclose, logical, and carefully considered as if addressed to theSupreme Court of the United States. He developed the history ofslavery and its successive compromises; he answered every argument infavour of the bill; he appealed to its supporters to admit that theynever dreamed of its abrogating the compromise of 1820; he ridiculedthe idea that it was in the interest of peace; and he again referredto the "higher law" that had characterised his speech in 1850. "Theslavery agitation you deprecate so much, " he said in concluding, "isan eternal struggle between conservatism and progress; between truthand error; between right and wrong. You may sooner, by act ofCongress, compel the sea to suppress its upheavings, and the roundearth to extinguish its internal fires. You may legislate, andabrogate, and abnegate, as you will, but there is a Superior Powerthat overrules all; that overrules not only all your actions and allyour refusals to act, but all human events, to the distant butinevitable result of the equal and universal liberty of all men. "[436]

[Footnote 436: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 221. ]

Seward was not an orator. He could hardly be called an effectivespeaker. He was neither impassioned nor always impressive; but when hespoke he seemed to strike a blow that had in it the whole vigour andstrength of the public sentiment which he represented. So far as onecan judge from contemporary accounts he never spoke better than onthis occasion; or when it was more evident that he spoke with all thesincere emotion of one whose mind and heart alike were filled with thecause for which he pleaded. "Some happy spell, " he wrote his wife, "seemed to have come over me and to have enabled me to speak with morefreedom and ease than on any former occasion here. "[437] Rhodessuggests that Seward "could not conceal his exultation that theDemocrats had forsaken their high vantage ground and played into thehands of their opponents. "[438] He became almost dramatic when hethrew down his gauntlet at the feet of every member of the Senate in1850 and challenged him to say that he knew, or thought, or dreamed, that by enacting the compromise of 1850 he was directly or indirectlyabrogating, or in any degree impairing the Missouri Compromise. "Ifit were not irreverent, " he continued, "I would dare call up theauthor of both the compromises in question, from his honoured, thoughyet scarcely grass-covered grave, and challenge any advocate of thismeasure to confront that imperious shade, and say that, in making thecompromise of 1850, Henry Clay intended or dreamed that he wassubverting or preparing the way for a subversion of his greater workof 1820. Sir, if that spirit is yet lingering here over the scene ofits mortal labours, it is now moved with more than human indignationagainst those who are perverting its last great public act. "[439]

[Footnote 437: _Ibid. _, p. 222. ]

[Footnote 438: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 453. ]

[Footnote 439: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 220. ]

Seward's speech created a profound impression throughout New York andthe North. "It probably affected the minds of more men, " says Rhodes, "than any speech delivered on that side of this question inCongress. "[440] Senator Houston had it translated into German andextensively circulated among the Germans of western Texas. Even EdwinCroswell congratulated him upon its excellence. It again directed theattention of the country to his becoming a presidential candidate, about which newspapers and politicians had already spoken. MontgomeryBlair's letter of May 17, 1873, to Gideon Welles, charges Seward withboasting that he had "put Senator Dixon up to moving the repeal of theMissouri Compromise as an amendment to Douglas' first Kansas bill, andhad himself forced the repeal by that movement, and had thus broughtlife to the Republican party. "[441] Undoubtedly Seward read the signsof the times, and saw clearly and quickly that repeal would probablyresult in a political revolution, bringing into life an anti-slaveryparty that would sweep the country. But the charge that he claimed tohave suggested the repeal, smells too strongly of Welles' dislike ofSeward, and needs other evidence than Blair's telltale letter tosupport it. It is on a par with Senator Atchinson's assertion, madeunder the influence of wine, that he forced Douglas to bring in theNebraska bill--a statement that the Illinois Senator promptly stampedas false. 

[Footnote 440: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 453. ]

[Footnote 441: Gideon Welles, _Lincoln and Seward_, p. 68. ]

The temper of the people of the State began to change very soon afterthe introduction of Douglas' proposal. Remonstrances, letters, andresolutions poured in from Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, andother cities. Senator Fish presented a petition headed by the Bishopof the Episcopal Church and signed by a majority of the clergymen ofNew York City. Merchants, lawyers, and business men generally, who hadactively favoured the compromise of 1850, now spoke in earnest protestagainst the repeal of the compromise of 1820. From the first, theGermans opposed it. Of their newspapers only eight out of eighty-eightwere favourable. Public meetings, full of enthusiasm and noblesentiment, resembled religious gatherings enlisted in a holy waragainst a great social evil. The first assembled in New York City asearly as January 30, six days after the repeal was agreed upon. Another larger meeting occurred on the 18th of February. It was herethat Henry Ward Beecher's great genius asserted the fulness of itsintellectual power. He had been in Brooklyn five years. The series offorensic achievements which began at the Kossuth banquet in 1851 hadalready made him the favourite speaker of the city, but, on the 18thof February, he became the idol of the anti-slavery host. Wit, wisdom, patriotism, and pathos, mingled with the loftiest strains ofeloquence, compelled the attention and the admiration of everylistener. When he concluded the whole assembly rose to do him honour;tears rolled down the cheeks of men and women. Everything wasforgotten, save the great preacher and the cause for which he stood. "The storm that is rising, " wrote Seward, "is such an one as thiscountry has never yet seen. The struggle will go on, but it will be astruggle for the whole American people. "[442] In the _Tribune_ of May17, Greeley said that Pierce and Douglas had made more Abolitionistsin three months than Garrison and Phillips could have made in half acentury. 

[Footnote 442: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 222. ]

The agitation resulted in an anti-Nebraska state convention, held atSaratoga on the 16th of August. It was important in the men whocomposed it. John A. King called it to order; Horace Greeley reportedthe resolutions; Henry J. Raymond represented the district that hadtwice sent him to the Assembly; and Moses H. Grinnell became chairmanof its executive committee. In the political struggles of two decadesmost of its delegates had filled prominent and influential positions. These men were now brought together by an absorbing sense of duty anda common impulse of resistance to the encroachments of slavery. Peoplesupposed a new party would be formed and a ticket nominated as inMichigan; but after an animated and at times stormy discussion, thedelegates concluded that in principle too little difference existed towarrant the present disturbance of existing organisations. So, afterdeclaring sentiments which were to become stronger than party ties orparty discipline, it agreed to reassemble at Auburn on September26. [443]

[Footnote 443: "After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, it wouldseem as if the course of the opposition were plain. That the differentelements of opposition should be fused into one complete whole seemedpolitical wisdom. That course involved the formation of a new partyand was urged warmly and persistently by many newspapers, but by nonewith such telling influence as by the New York _Tribune_. It hadlikewise the countenance of Chase, Sumner, and Wade. There were threeelements that must be united--the Whigs, the Free-soilers, and theAnti-Nebraska Democrats. The Whigs were the most numerous body and asthose at the North, to a man, had opposed the repeal of the MissouriCompromise they thought, with some quality of reason, that the fightmight well be made under their banner and with their name. For theorganisation of a party was not the work of a day. Why, then, go toall this trouble, when a complete organisation is at hand ready foruse? This view of the situation was ably argued by the New York_Times_, and was supported by Senator Seward. As the New York Senatorhad a position of influence superior to any one who had opposed theKansas-Nebraska bill, strenuous efforts were made to get his adhesionto a new party movement, but they were without avail. 'Seward hangsfire, ' wrote Dr. Bailey. 'He agrees with Thurlow Weed. '--(Bailey toJ. S. Pike, May 30, 1854, _First Blows of the Civil War_, p. 237. ) 'Weare not yet ready for a great national convention at Buffalo orelsewhere, ' wrote Seward to Theodore Parker; 'it would bring togetheronly the old veterans. The States are the places for activity justnow. '--(_Life of Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 232. ) Yet many Whigs who were notdevoted to machine politics saw clearly that a new party must beformed under a new name. They differed, however, in regard to theirbond of union. Some wished to go to the country with simply _Repeal ofthe Kansas-Nebraska act_ inscribed on their banner. Others wished toplant themselves squarely on prohibition of slavery in all theterritories. Still others preferred the resolve that not another slaveState should be admitted into the Union. Yet after all, the timeseemed ripe for the formation of a party whose cardinal principlemight be summed up as opposition to the extension of slavery. "--JamesF. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 45-7. ]

The Nebraska Act also became a new source of division to Democrats. Marcy's opposition, based upon apprehensions of its disastrous effectin New York, was so pronounced that he contemplated resigning assecretary of state--a step that his friends persuaded him to abandon. John Van Buren was equally agitated. "Could anything but a desire tobuy the South at the presidential shambles dictate such anoutrage?"[444] he asked Senator Clemens of Alabama. But nothing couldstop the progress of the Illinois statesman; and, while the Whigs ofNew York ably and uniformly opposed repeal, Democrats broke along thelines dividing the Hards and the Softs. Of twenty-one Democraticcongressmen, nine favoured and twelve opposed it. Among the former wasWilliam M. Tweed, the unsavoury boss of later years; among the latter, Reuben E. Fenton, Rufus W. Peckham, and Russell Sage. The Democraticpress separated along similar lines. Thirty-seven Hards supported themeasure; thirty-eight Softs opposed it. 

[Footnote 444: New York _Evening Post_, February 11, 1854. ]

The Hards held their state convention on the 12th of July. Their latetrial of strength with the Softs had resulted in a drawn battle, andit was now their purpose to force the Pierce-Seymour Softs out of theparty. The proceedings began with a challenge. Lyman Tremaine spokeof the convention as one in which the President had no minions; SamuelBeardsley, the chairman, after charging Pierce with talking one wayand acting another, declared that the next Chief Executive would bothtalk and act like a national Democrat. Further, to emphasise itsindependence and dislike of the President, the convention nominatedGreene C. Bronson for governor as the representative of Pierce'sproscriptive policy for opinion's sake. But there was no dispositionto criticise Pierce's pro-slavery policy. It favoured the repeal ofthe Missouri Compromise, proclaiming the doctrine of non-interventionby Congress and the right of the territories to make their own locallaws, including regulations relating to domestic servitude. It alsoapproved the recently ratified canal amendment and strongly favouredthe prohibitive liquor law vetoed by Governor Seymour. 

Greene C. Bronson's career had been distinguished. He had served asassemblyman, as attorney-general for seven years, as chief justice ofthe Supreme Court, and as an original member of the Court of Appeals. Although now well advanced in years, age had not cowed his spirit orlessened the purity of a character which shone in the gentleness ofamiable manners; but his pro-slavery platform hit his consistency ahard blow. In 1819, as secretary of a mass-meeting called to opposethe Missouri Compromise, he had declared that Congress possessed theclear and indisputable power to prohibit the admission of slavery inany State or territory thereafter to be formed. If this was good lawin 1819 it was good law in 1854, and the acceptance of a contrarytheory put him at a serious disadvantage. His attitude on the liquorquestion also proved a handicap. He showed that the position of judgein interpreting the law was a very different thing from that of makingthe law by steering a party into power in a crucial campaign. 

The convention of the Softs followed on September 6. Two preliminarycaucuses indicated a strong anti-Nebraska sentiment. But a bold andresolute opposition, led by federal officials and John Cochrane, theBarnburners' platform-maker, portended trouble. There was nodisagreement on state issues. The approval of Seymour's administrationsettled the policy of canal improvement and anti-prohibition, but thedelegates balked on the cunningly worded resolution declaring therepeal of the Missouri Compromise inexpedient and unnecessary, yetrejoicing that it would benefit the territories and forbidding anyattempt to undo it. It put the stamp of Nebraska upon the proceedings, and the deathlike stillness which greeted its reading shook the nervesof the superstitious as an unfavourable omen. Immediately, a shortsubstitute was offered, unqualifiedly disapproving the repeal as aviolation of legislative good faith and of the spirit of Christiancivilisation; and when Preston King took the floor in its favour thedeafening applause disclosed the fact that the anti-Nebraskans had theenthusiasm if not the numbers. As the champion of the Wilmot Provisoconcluded, the assembly resembled the Buffalo convention of 1848 atthe moment of its declaration for free soil, free speech, free labour, and free men. But the roll call changed the scene. Of the 394delegates, 245 voted to lay the substitute on the table. 

This result was a profound surprise. The public expected differentaction and the preliminary caucuses showed an anti-Nebraska majority;but the Custom-House had done its work well. The promise of anomination for lieutenant-governor had changed the mind of William H. Ludlow, chairman of the convention, who packed the committee onresolutions. Similar methods won fifty other delegates. But despitethe shock, Preston King did not hesitate. He might be broken, but hecould not be bent. Rising with dignity he withdrew from theconvention, followed by a hundred others who ceased to act furtherwith it. Subsequent proceedings reflected the gloom of a body out ofwhich the spirit had departed. Delegates kept dropping out until onlyone hundred and ninety-nine remained to cheer the nomination ofHoratio Seymour. On a roll call for lieutenant-governor, PhilipDorsheimer declared it a disgrace to have his name called in aconvention that had adopted such a platform. 

The Whig convention followed on September 20. A divided Democracyagain made candidates confident, and eight or ten names were presentedfor governor. Horace Greeley thought it time his turn should come. Hehad been pronounced in his advocacy of the Maine liquor law and activein his hostility to the Nebraska Act. As these were to be the issuesof the campaign, he applied with confidence to Weed for help. TheAlbany editor frankly admitted that his friends had lost control ofthe convention, and that Myron H. Clark would probably get thenomination. Then Greeley asked to be made lieutenant-governor. Weedreminded him of the outcry in the Whig national convention of 1848against having "cotton at both ends of the ticket. " "I suppose youmean, " replied Greeley, laughing, "that it won't do to haveprohibition at both ends of our state ticket. "[445] But, though helaughed, the editor of the _Tribune_ went away nettled and humiliated. In the contest, which became exciting, Greeley's friends urged hisselection for governor without formally presenting his name to theconvention; but on the third ballot Clark received the nomination, obtaining 82 out of the 132 votes cast. 

[Footnote 445: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 226. 

"Mr. Greeley called upon me at the Astor House and asked if I did notthink that the time and circumstances were favourable to hisnomination. I replied that I did not think the time and circumstancesfavourable to his election, if nominated, but that my friends had lostcontrol of the state convention. This answer perplexed him, but a fewwords of explanation made it quite clear. Admitting that he hadbrought the people up to the point of accepting a temperance candidatefor governor, I remarked that another aspirant had 'stolen histhunder. ' In other words, while he had shaken the temperance bush, Myron H. Clark would catch the bird. I informed Mr. Greeley thatKnow-Nothing or 'Choctaw' lodges had been secretly organisedthroughout the State, by means of which many delegates for Mr. Clarkhad been secured. Mr. Greeley saw that the 'slate' had been broken, and cheerfully relinquished the idea of being nominated. But a fewdays afterwards Mr. Greeley came to Albany, and said in an abrupt butnot unfriendly way, 'Is there any objection to my running forlieutenant-governor?'. . . After a little more conversation, Mr. Greeleybecame entirely satisfied that a nomination for lieutenant-governorwas not desirable, and left me in good spirits. "--_Ibid. _, Vol. 2, p. 226. ]

Myron H. Clark, now in his forty-ninth year, belonged to the class ofmen generally known as fanatics. He was a plain man of humblepretensions and slender attainments. He was originally a cabinet-makerand afterward a merchant. Then he became a reformer. He sympathisedwith the Native Americans; he approved Seward's views upon slavery;and he interested himself in the workingmen. But his hobby wastemperance. Its advocates made his home in Canandaigua theirheadquarters, and during the temperance revival which swept over theState in the early fifties, he aided in directing the movement. Thisexperience opened his way, in 1851, to the State Senate. Here hedisplayed some of the legislative gifts that distinguished John Young. He had patience and persistence; he could talk easily and well; and, underneath his enthusiasm, lingered the shrewdness of a skilleddiplomat. When, at last, the Maine liquor bill, which he hadintroduced and engineered, passed the Legislature, his name was ahousehold word throughout the State. Seymour's veto of the measurestrengthened Clark. People realised that a governor no less than alegislature was needed to make laws, and, with the spirit ofreformers, the delegates demanded his nomination. To Weed it seemedhazardous; but a majority of the convention, believing that Clark'spublic career had been sagacious and upright, refused to take another. 

Clark's nomination made the selection of a candidate forlieutenant-governor more difficult. The prohibitionists weresatisfied; Greeley was not. In their anxiety, the delegates canvassedseveral names without result. Finally, with great suddenness andamidst much enthusiasm, Henry J. Raymond was nominated. This deeplywounded Greeley. "He had cheerfully withdrawn his own name, " wroteWeed, "but he could not submit patiently to the nomination of hispersonal, professional, and political rival. "[446] Greeley believedit was not the convention, but Weed himself, who brought it about. Onthe contrary, Weed declared that he had no thought of Raymond in thatconnection until his name was suggested by others. Nevertheless, the_Tribune's_ editor held to his own opinion. "No other name could havebeen put upon the ticket so bitterly humbling to me, "[447] heafterward wrote Seward. To Greeley, Raymond was "The little Villain ofthe _Times_;" to Raymond, Greeley was "The big Villain of the_Tribune_. "[448] In any aspect, Raymond was an unfortunate nominationfor Weed, since it began the quarrel that culminated in the defeat ofSeward at Chicago in 1860. 

[Footnote 446: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 227. ]

[Footnote 447: _Ibid. _, p. 280. ]

[Footnote 448: In a letter to Charles A. Dana, dated March 2, 1856, Greeley indicates his feeling toward Raymond. "Have we got tosurrender a page of the next _Weekly_ to Raymond's bore of anaddress?" he says, referring to the Pittsburgh convention's appeal. "The man who could inflict six columns on a long-suffering public, onsuch an occasion, cannot possibly know enough to write an address. "]

Early in the campaign, Greeley favoured dropping the name of Whig andorganising an anti-Nebraska or Republican party, with a ticket ofWhigs and Democrats, as had been done in some of the Western States. But Seward and Weed, with a majority of the Whig leaders, thought thatwhile fusion might be advisable wherever the party was essentiallyweak, as in Ohio and Indiana, it was wiser, in States like New Yorkand Massachusetts where Whigs were in power, to retain the party nameand organisation. [449] In so deciding, however, they agreed withGreeley that the platform should be thoroughly anti-Nebraska, and theygave it a touch that kindled the old fire in the hearts of theanti-slavery veterans. It condemned the repeal of the MissouriCompromise, approved the course of the New York senators andrepresentatives who resisted it, declared that it discharged the partyfrom further obligation to support any compromise with slavery, anddenounced "popular sovereignty" as a false and deceptive cry, "tooflimsy to mislead any but those anxious to be deluded and eager to beled astray. " This declaration of principles was summarised as"Justice, Temperance, and Freedom. " One delegate, amidst greatapplause, said he felt glorified that the party was disenthralled andredeemed. Roscoe Conkling, a vice president, spoke of the conventionas belonging to "the Republican party. " Greeley declared the platform"as noble as any friend of freedom could have expected. " Other stateorganisations also approved it. The anti-Nebraska convention, uponreassembling in Auburn on September 26, adopted the Whig ticket. Thestate temperance convention indorsed the nomination of Clark andRaymond, and the Free Democrats accepted Clark. This practically madea fusion ticket. 

[Footnote 449: "I was a member of the first anti-Nebraska orRepublican State Convention, which met at Saratoga Springs inSeptember; but Messrs. Weed and Seward for a while stood aloof fromthe movement, preferring to be still regarded as Whigs. "--HoraceGreeley, _Recollections of a Busy Life_, p. 314. ]

Early in October the Native Americans went into council. Thisorganisation, which had elected a mayor of New York in 1844, suddenlyrevived in 1854; and, in spite of its intolerant and prescriptivespirit, the movement spread rapidly. Mystery surrounded its methods. It held meetings in unknown places; its influence could not bemeasured; and its members professed to know nothing. Thus it becameknown as the "Know-Nothing" party. Members recognised each other bythe casual inquiry, "Have you seen Sam?" and when one of the oldparties collapsed at a local election the reply came, "We have seenSam. " Its secrecy fascinated young men, and its dominant principle, "America for Americans, " stirred them into unusual activity. Theskilful use of patriotic phrases also had its influence. The "StarSpangled Banner" was its emblem, Washington its patron saint, and histhrilling command, "Put none but Americans on guard to-night, " itsfavourite password. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts joined it as aninstrument for destroying the old parties, which he regarded anobstacle to freedom; but Seward thought this was doing evil that goodmight come. Everything is un-American, he argued, which makes adistinction between the native-born American and the one who renounceshis allegiance to a foreign land and swears fealty to the country thatadopts him. "Why, " he asked, "should I exclude the foreigner to-day?He is only what every American citizen or his ancestor was at sometime or other. "[450]

[Footnote 450: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 234. ]

The voting strength of this party in New York was estimated at 65, 000, divided between Hards, Softs, and Whigs, with one-fifth each, and theSilver-Grays with two-fifths. On the question of putting up a stateticket, its council divided. The Silver-Grays, it was said, favouredcandidates in order to defeat Clark; while the Whigs and Softspreferred making no nominations. In the end, Daniel Ullman, areputable New York lawyer of mediocre ability, received the nominationfor governor. The great overmastering passion of Ullman was a desirefor office. For many years he had been a persistent and unsuccessfulknocker at the door of city, county and state Whig conventions, andwhen the Know-Nothings appeared he turned to them to back hisambition. Possibly they knew that his parents were foreign-born, butthe mystery surrounding his own birthplace became a comical feature ofthe canvass. It was claimed, upon what seemed proper evidence at thetime, that Ullman was born in India and had not become a naturalisedcitizen of the United States. This made him ineligible as thecandidate of his party, and disqualified him from serving as governorif elected. 

The campaign opened with two clearly defined issues--limitation of theliquor traffic and condemnation of the Nebraska Act. Clark stood forboth, Ullman stood for neither; Bronson and Seymour opposedprohibition and approved the Nebraska Act. Greeley declared that thetwo Democratic candidates differed only "as to whether the contemptuniversally felt for President Pierce should be openly expressed, ormore decorously cherished in silence. " As the canvass advanced, thereal contest became prohibition, with Bronson and Seymour apparentlyrunning a race for the liquor vote, while Ullman was silently securingthe votes of men who thought the proscription of foreign-born citizensmore important than either freedom or temperance. To the most adroitpolitical prognosticators the situation was confused. Greeleyestimated Clark's strength at 200, 000, and that of the next highest, either Seymour or Bronson, at 150, 000; but so little was known of theKnow-Nothings that he omitted Ullman from the calculation. Anotherprophet fixed Ullman's strength at 65, 000. The surprise was great, therefore, when the returns disclosed a Know-Nothing vote of 122, 000, with Clark and Seymour running close to 156, 000 each, and Bronson withless than 35, 000. The people did not seem to have been thinking aboutBronson at all. Seymour's veto commended the Governor to the largercities, and it swept him on like a whirlwind. New York gave him26, 000. His election was conceded by the Whigs and claimed by theDemocrats; but, after several weeks of anxious waiting, the officialcount made Clark the governor by a plurality of 309. [451] Includingdefective votes plainly intended for Seymour, Clark's plurality wasonly 153. Raymond ran 600 ahead of Clark, but his plurality overLudlow was 20, 000, since the latter's vote was 20, 000 less thanSeymour's. These twenty thousand preferred to vote for Elijah Ford ofBuffalo, who ran for lieutenant-governor on the ticket with Bronson, possibly because of Ludlow's alleged perfidy at the Syracuseconvention. Of the congressmen elected, twenty-five were Whigs, threeSofts, two Anti-Nebraskans, and three Know-Nothings; in the Assemblythere were eighty-one Whigs, twenty-six Softs, and seventeen Hards. 

[Footnote 451: Myron H. Clark, 156, 804; Horatio Seymour, 156, 495;Daniel Ullman, 122, 282; Green C. Bronson, 33, 850. --_Civil List, Stateof New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

The result of the election could scarcely be called a Whig victory;but it was a popular rebuke to the Nebraska bill. Clark's majority, slender as it finally appeared by the official count, was due to theWhigs occupying common ground with Free-soilers who discarded partyattachments in behalf of their cherished convictions. The Silver-Graysfound a home with the Hards and the Know-Nothings, and many Democrats, unwilling to go to the Whigs, voted for Ullman. 

It was the breaking-up of old parties. The great political crisiswhich had been threatening the country for many years was about toburst, and, like the first big raindrops that precede a downpour, thechanges in 1854 announced its presence. It had been so long in comingthat John W. Taylor of Saratoga, the champion opponent of the MissouriCompromise, was dying when Horace Greeley, at the anti-Nebraskaconvention held in Taylor's home in August, 1854, was writing into theplatform of the new Republican party the principles that Taylor triedto write into the old Republican party in 1820. "Whoever readsTaylor's speeches in that troubled period, " says Stanton, "will findthem as sound in doctrine, as strong in argument, as splendid indiction, as any of the utterances of the following forty-five years, when the thirteenth amendment closed the controversy for alltime. "[452]

[Footnote 452: H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 164. John W. Taylor served twenty consecutive years in Congress--a longercontinuous service than any New York successor. Taylor also bears theproud distinction of being the only speaker from New York. Twice hewas honoured as the successor of Henry Clay. He died at the home ofhis daughter in Cleveland, Ohio, in September, 1854, at the age ofseventy, leaving a place in history strongly marked. ]

CHAPTER XVI

THE FORMATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

1854-5

The winter of 1855 became a turning-point in the career of William H. Seward. The voice of the anti-slavery Whigs proclaimed him the onlyman fitted by position, ability, and character to succeed himself inthe United States Senate. To them he possessed all the necessaryqualities for leadership. In his hands they believed the banner ofopposition to the extension of slavery would be kept at the front andevery other cause subordinated to it. This feeling was generouslyshared by the press of New York. "The repeal of the MissouriCompromise, " said Henry J. Raymond in the _Times_, "has developed apopular sentiment in the North which will probably elect GovernorSeward to the Presidency in 1856 by the largest vote from the freeStates ever cast for any candidate. "[453] Even the Democratic _EveningPost_ admitted that "Seward is in the ascendancy in this State. "[454]

[Footnote 453: New York _Times_, June 1, 1854. ]

[Footnote 454: New York _Evening Post_, May 23, 1854. ]

The Legislature was overwhelmingly Whig. Nearly three-fourths of theAssembly and two-thirds of the Senate had been elected as Whigs. Although Seward did not make a speech or appear publicly in thecampaign of 1854, he had been active in seeing that members werechosen who would vote for him. But, notwithstanding the Whigscontrolled the Legislature, many of them belonged to theKnow-Nothings, whose noisy opposition soon filled the air with rumoursof their intention to defeat Seward. The secrecy that veiled thedoings of the order now concealed the strength of their numbers; but, as Seward's course had been sufficient to array its entire membershipagainst him, there was little doubt of the attitude of all itsrepresentatives. Though he had not violently denounced them as Douglasdid at Philadelphia, men of otherwise liberal opinions were angrybecause he seemed deliberately to support views opposed to their mostcherished principles. His recommendation, while governor, to dividethe public money with Catholic schools was recalled with bittercomment. The more recent efforts of Bishop Hughes, an ardent friend ofthe Senator, to exclude the Bible from the public schools, added tothe feeling; while the coming of a papal nuncio to adjust acontroversy in regard to church property between a bishop and aCatholic congregation in Buffalo which had the law of the State on itsside, greatly increased the bitterness. Thus the old controversy wastorn open, hostility increasing so rapidly that Thurlow Weed declared"there is very much peril about the senator question. "

The plan of the Know-Nothings was to prevent an election in the Senateand then block a joint session of the two houses. This scheme hadsucceeded in defeating Ambrose Spencer in 1825 and Nathaniel P. Tallmadge in 1845, and there was no apparent reason why similarmethods might not be invoked in 1855, unless the manifest inability ofSeward's adversaries to unite upon some one opponent gave hissupporters the upper hand. Millard Fillmore, Ira Harris, andWashington Hunt had their friends; but an anti-slavery Know-Nothingcould not support Fillmore or Hunt, and a Silver-Gray Whig did nottake kindly to Harris. This was the cornerstone of Greeley'sconfidence. Besides, the more bitter the criticism of Seward's record, the more inclined were certain senators of the Democratic party, whodid not sympathise with the Know-Nothing aversion to foreigners, tosupport the Auburn statesman. [455] There was no hope for Seymour, orDix, or Preston King, and some of their friends in the Senate whoadmired the anti-slavery views of Seward could stop the play of theKnow-Nothings. 

[Footnote 455: "There is about as much infidelity among Whigs atAlbany as was expected; perhaps a little more. But there is also acounteracting agency in the other party, it is said, which promises tobe an equilibrium. "--F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 243. ]

Thus the contest grew fiercer. It was the chief topic in Albany. Alldebate ended in its discussion. When, at last, DeWitt C. Littlejohn, vacating the speaker's chair, took the floor for the distinguished NewYorker, the excitement reached its climax. The speaker's bold andfearless defence met a storm of personal denunciation that broke fromthe ranks of the Know-Nothings; but his speech minimised theiropposition and inspired Seward's forces to work out a magnificentvictory. "Our friends are in good spirits and reasonably confident, "wrote Seward. "Our adversaries are not confident, and are out oftemper. "[456] Finally, on February 1, the caucus met. Five Whigsenators and twenty assemblymen, representing the bulk of theopposition, were absent; but of the eighty present, seventy-four votedfor Seward. This stifled the hope of the Silver-Gray Know-Nothings. Indeed, several of Seward's opponents now fell into line, giving himeighteen out of thirty-one votes in the Senate and sixty-nine out ofone hundred and twenty-six in the Assembly. The five dissenting Whigsenators voted for Fillmore, Ullman, Ogden Hoffman, Preston King, andGeorge R. Babcock of Buffalo. Of the nineteen opposing Whig votes inthe Assembly, Washington Hunt received nine and Fillmore four. Whenthe two houses compared the vote in joint session, Henry J. Raymond, the lieutenant-governor, announced with evident emotion to asympathetic audience which densely packed the Assembly chamber, that"William H. Seward was duly elected as a senator of the United Statesfor six years from the fourth of March, 1855. "

[Footnote 456: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 243. ]

Seward did not visit Albany or Auburn during the contest. A patentsuit kept him busy in New York City until the middle of January, afterwhich he returned to his place in the Senate. He professed to "havethe least possible anxiety about it, " writing Weed early in Decemberthat "I would not have you suffer one moment's pain on the groundthat I am not likely to be content and satisfied with whatever mayhappen;"[457] yet a letter written five months afterward, on hisfifty-fifth birthday, gives a glimpse of what defeat would have meantto him. "How happy I am, " he says, "that age and competence bring noserious and permanent disappointment to sour and disgust me withcountry or mankind. "[458] To Weed he shows a heart laden withgratitude. "I snatch a minute, " he writes, "to express not so much mydeep and deepened gratitude to you, as my amazement at the magnitudeand complexity of the dangers through which you have conducted ourshattered bark, and the sagacity and skill with which you have savedus from so imminent a wreck. "[459] But Seward was not more amazed atthe dangers he had escaped than at the great number of congratulationsnow pouring in from opponents. "Was ever anything more curious, " hewrites his wife, "than the fact that this result is scarcely moresatisfactory to my truest friends, than, as it seems, to so manylifelong opponents? We have nothing but salutations andcongratulations here. How strange the mutations of politics. "[460]

[Footnote 457: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 243. ]

[Footnote 458: _Ibid. _, p. 251. ]

[Footnote 459: _Ibid. _, p. 245. ]

[Footnote 460: _Ibid. _, p. 246. ]

After Seward's re-election the Kansas troubles began attractingattention. Governor Reeder fixed March 30, 1855, for the election of aterritorial legislature, and just before it occurred five thousandMissourians, "with guns upon their shoulders, revolvers stuffing theirbelts, bowie-knives protruding from their boot-tops, and generousrations of whiskey in their wagons, "[461] marched into the territoryto superintend the voting. This army intimidated such of the electionjudges as were not already pro-slavery men; and of six thousand votes, three-fourths of them were cast by the Missourians in the interest ofslavery. The Northern press recorded the fraud. If further evidencewere needed, Governor Reeder's speech, published in the New York_Times_ of May 1, in which he declared that the fierce violence andwild outrages reported by the newspapers were in no wise exaggerated, set all controversy at rest. Instantly the North was in a ferment. Thepredominant sentiment demanded that Kansas should be free, and theexcitement aroused by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise wasquickly rekindled when the South approved the murderous methodsintended to make it a slave State. A journal published in thepro-slavery interest threatened "to lynch and hang, tar and feather, and drown every white-livered Abolitionist who dares to pollute oursoil, " and secret societies, organised for the purpose of keeping outNorthern immigrants, resolved "that we recognise the institution ofslavery as already existing in this territory, and adviseslave-holders to introduce their property as early as possible. "

[Footnote 461: Spring's _Kansas_, p. 44; see also, Sara Robinson, _Kansas_, p. 27. ]

As the year went on matters got worse. The territorial legislature, elected by admitted and wholesale fraud, unseated all free-statemembers whose election was contested, and proceeded to pass lawsupholding and fortifying slavery. It declared it a felony, punishableby two years' imprisonment, to write or maintain that persons have notthe right to hold slaves in the territory; it disqualified allanti-slavery men from sitting as jurors; it made one's presence in theterritory sufficient qualification to vote; and it punished with deathany one who assisted in the escape of fugitive slaves. When Reedervetoed these acts the Legislature passed them over his head anddemanded the Governor's removal. To add to the popular feeling, already deeply inflamed, President Pierce met this demand withaffirmative action. 

In the midst of this political excitement, the Hards met in conventionat Syracuse on August 23, 1855. That party had been sorely punished inthe preceding election; but it had in no way changed its attitudetoward opponents. It refused to invite the Softs to participate; itdenounced the national administration, and it condemned theKnow-Nothings. Daniel E. Sickles, then thirty-four years old, who wasdestined to play a conspicuous part when the country was indifficulty and the Government in danger, sought to broaden andliberalise its work; but the convention sullenly outvoted him. Itapproved the Nebraska Act, refused to listen to appeals in behalf offreedom in Kansas, and rebuked all efforts to restore the MissouriCompromise. Only upon the liquor question did it modify its formerdeclarations. The Hards had started off in 1854 in favour ofprohibition. But during the campaign, Bronson changed his position, or, as Greeley put it, "he first inclined to water, then to rum andwater, and finally he came out all rum. " To keep in accord with theirleader's latest change, the delegates now declared the prohibitory lawunconstitutional and demanded its repeal. This law, passed on April 9, 1855, and entitled "An Act for the prevention of intemperance, pauperism, and crime, " permitted the sale of liquors for mechanical, chemical, and medicinal uses; but prohibited the traffic for otherpurposes. Its regulations, providing for search, prosecutions, and thedestruction of forfeited liquors, were the very strongest, and itsenforcement gave rise to much litigation. Among other things it deniedtrial by jury. In May, 1856, the Court of Appeals declared itunconstitutional. But while it lasted it gave the politicians muchconcern. The Democrats disapproved and other parties avoided it. 

On August 29, the Softs met in convention. The Barnburners, who hadvainly extended the olive branch to the Hards, now faced an array ofanti-slavery delegates that would not condone the Kansas outrages. They would disapprove prohibition, commend Marcy's admirable foreignpolicy, and praise the President's management of the exchequer; butthey would not countenance border ruffianism, encourage slaverypropagandists in Kansas, or submit to the extension of slavery in thefree territories. It was a stormy convention. For three days thecontest raged; but when final action was taken, although the platformdid not in terms censure Pierce's administration, it condemned theKansas outrages which the President had approved by the removal ofGovernor Reeder, and disapproved the extension of slavery into freeterritories. Among the candidates nominated were Samuel J. Tilden forattorney-general, and Samuel L. Selden of Rochester for judge of theCourt of Appeals. Selden, who had been a district judge since 1847, was also nominated by the Hards. 

The Kansas disclosures had the effect of drawing into closer communionthe various shades of anti-slavery opinion in New York. Early in thesummer, the question was earnestly considered of enlisting all menopposed to the aggressions of slavery under the banner of theRepublican party, a political organisation formed, as has been stated, at Jackson, Michigan, on July 6, 1854. Horace Greeley had suggestedthe name "Republican" as an unobjectionable one for the new party;and, within a week after its adoption at Jackson, it became the nameof the Free-soilers who marshalled in Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The anti-Nebraska convention of New York, which reassembled in Auburn on the 27th of September, 1854, alsoadopted the name, calling its executive committee "the Republicanstate committee. " It was not a new name in the Empire State. Voters inmiddle life had all been Republicans in their early years; and longafter the formation of the National Republicans in 1828, and of theWhig party in 1834, the designation had been used with approval by theRegency. In 1846, Silas Wright spoke of belonging to "the Republicanparty;" and, in 1848, Horace Greeley suggested "Taylor Republicans" asa substitute for Whigs. But for twenty years the name had practicallyfallen into disuse, and old questions associated with it had died outof popular memory. 

After full conferences between the Whig and Republican statecommittees, calls were issued for two state conventions to meet atSyracuse on September 26. This meant an opportunity for the formalunion of all anti-slavery voters. Of the two hundred and fifty-sixdelegates allotted to the Republican convention, over two hundredassembled, with Reuben E. Fenton as their presiding officer. Fenton, then thirty-six years old, was serving his first term in Congress. Hewas a man of marked intellectual vigour, unquestioned courage, andquiet courtesy, whose ability to control men was to give him, within afew years, something of the influence possessed by Thurlow Weed as amanaging politician, with this difference, perhaps, that Fentontrusted more to the prevalence of ideas for which he stood. He keptstep with progress. His reason for being a Barnburner, unlike that ofJohn A. Dix, [462] grew out of an intense hatred of slavery, and afterthe historic break in 1847, he never again, with full-heartedness, co-operated with the Democratic party. Fenton studied law, and, for atime, practised at the bar, but if the dream and highest ambition ofhis youth were success in the profession, his natural love for tradeand politics quickly gained the ascendant. It is doubtful if he wouldhave become a leading lawyer even in his own vicinage, for he showedlittle real capacity for public speaking. Indeed, he was rather a dulltalker. The _Globe_, during his ten years in Congress, rarely revealshim as doing more than making or briefly sustaining a motion, and, although these frequently occurred at the most exciting moments ofpartisan discussion, showing that he was carefully watching, if notfearlessly directing affairs, it is evident that for the hard blows indebate he relied as much as Weed did upon the readiness of otherspeakers. 

[Footnote 462: "He never became unduly excited about slavery. He hadno sympathy for the religious or sentimental side of abolitionism, norwas he moved by the words of the philanthropists, preachers, or poetsby whom the agitation was set ablaze and persistently fanned. Heprobably regarded it as an evil of less magnitude than several othersthat threatened the country. "--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 338. ]

The Whigs, who had represented only a meagre minority of the voters ofthe State since the Know-Nothing defection, now responded to the callwith a full quota of delegates, and elected John A. King president. King was nearly double the age of Fenton. He had been a lieutenant ofcavalry in the War of 1812 and an opponent of DeWitt Clinton in theearly twenties. The two men presented a broad contrast, yet Kingrepresented the traditions of the past along the same lines thatFenton represented the hopes of the future. One looked his full age, the other appeared younger than he was, but both were serious. Whatever their aspirations, they existed without rivalry orill-feeling, the desire for the success of their principles aloneanimating leaders and followers. 

Each convention organised separately, and, after adopting platformsand dividing their tickets equally between men of Whig and Democraticantecedents, conference committees of sixteen were appointed, whichreported that the two bodies should appoint committees of sixteen onresolutions and of thirty-two on nominations. These committees havingquickly agreed to what had already been done, the Whigs marched in abody to the hall of the Republican convention, the delegates risingand greeting them with cheers and shouts of welcome as they took theseats reserved for them in the centre of the room. 

The occasion was one of profound rejoicing. The great coalition whichwas to stand so strong and to work such wonders during the nexthalf-century doubtless had a period of feebleness in the first monthsof its existence; but never in its history has it had stronger or moreinfluential men in its ranks, or abler and more determined leaders todirect its course. Horace Greeley reported its platform, demandingthat Congress expressly prohibit slavery in the territories, andcondemning the doctrines and methods of the Know-Nothings; John A. King, Edwin D. Morgan, and Reuben E. Fenton, destined to lead it tovictory as its candidate for governor, sat upon the stage; Henry J. Raymond occupied a delegate's seat; and, back of the scenes, stood thegreat manager, Thurlow Weed, who had conferred with the Free-soilleaders, and anticipated and arranged every detail. Present in spirit, though absent in body, was William H. Seward, who, within a few weeks, put himself squarely at the head of the new organisation in a speechthat was read by more than half a million voters. 

After the enthusiasm had subsided the two chairmen, John A. King andReuben E. Fenton, standing side by side, called the joint conventionto order. This was the signal for more cheering. One delegate declaredthat not being quite sure which convention he ought to attend, he hadapplied to Seward, who wrote him it didn't make any difference. "Youwill go in by two doors, but you will all come out through one. " Theneverything went by acclamation. Speaker Littlejohn of the Assemblymoved that the two conventions ratify the platforms passed by eachconvention; Elbridge G. Spaulding moved that the presidents of the twoconventions appoint a state central committee; and John A. King movedthat the names of the candidates, at the head of whom was Preston Kingfor secretary of state, be given to the people of the State as the"Republican Ticket. " Only when an effort was made to procure theindorsement of liquor prohibition did the convention show its teeth. The invitation, it was argued, included all men who were disposed tounite in resisting the aggressions and the diffusion of slavery, and amajority, by a ringing vote, declared it bad faith to insist upon amatter for which the convention was not called and upon which it wasnot unanimous. 

The Know-Nothing state convention met at Auburn on September 26. Itwas no longer a secret society. The terrors surrounding its mysteriousmachinery had vanished with the exposure of its secrets and theexploiting of its methods. It was now holding open politicalconventions and adopting political platforms under the title of theAmerican party; and, as in other political organisations, the slaveryquestion provoked hot controversies and led to serious breaks in itsranks. At its national council, held at Philadelphia in the precedingJune, the New York delegation, controlled by the Silver-Gray factionwhich forced Daniel Ullman's nomination for governor in 1854, hadjoined the Southern delegates in carrying a pro-slavery resolutionabandoning further efforts to restore the Missouri Compromise. In thisaction the anti-slavery members of other Northern States, led withgreat ability and courage by Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, refused toacquiesce, preferring to abandon the Order rather than sacrifice theirprinciples. The contest in New York was renewed at the state council, held at Binghamton on August 28; and, after a bitter session, amajority resolved that slavery should derive no extension from therepeal of the Missouri Compromise. The convention at Auburn now tooksimilar ground. It was not a great victory for the anti-slavery wingof the party; but it disproved the assurances of their delegates thatthe Americans of New York would uphold the pro-slavery action atPhiladelphia, while the fervent heat of the conflict melted the zealof thousands of anti-Nebraska Know-Nothings, who soon found their wayinto the Republican party. 

But the main body of the Americans, crushed as were its hopes ofnational unity, was still powerful. It put a ticket into the field, headed by Joel T. Headley for secretary of state, and greatlystrengthened by George F. Comstock of Syracuse for judge of the Courtof Appeals. Headley was a popular and prolific writer. He had beeneducated for the ministry at Union College and Auburn TheologicalSeminary, but his pen paid better than the pulpit, and he soon settleddown into a writer of melodramatic biography, of which _Napoleon andHis Marshals_ attained, perhaps, the greatest popularity. Possiblylittle interest now clings to his books, which ordinarily rest on thehigh shelf with Abbott's _History of Napoleon_; but, in their day, itwas far pleasanter to read the entertaining and dramatic pages ofHeadley, with their impassioned, stirring pictures of war and heroism, than the tame, tedious biographies that then filled the libraries. Headley's _History of the War of 1812_ immediately preceded hisentrance to the Assembly in 1854, where his cleverness attracted theattention of his party and led to his selection for secretary ofstate. George F. Comstock, now in his forty-first year, had alreadywon an enviable reputation at the Onondaga bar. Like Headley he was agraduate of Union College. In 1847, Governor Young had appointed himthe first reporter for the Court of Appeals, and five years laterPresident Fillmore made him solicitor of the Treasury Department. Hebelonged to the Hards, but he sympathised with the tenets of the youngAmerican party. 

There were other parties in the field. The Free Democracy met inconvention on August 7, and the Liberty party, assembling at Utica onSeptember 12, nominated Frederick Douglass of Monroe, then a youngcoloured man of thirty-eight, for secretary of state, and Lewis Tappanof New York for comptroller. Douglass' life had been full of romance. Neither his white father nor coloured mother appears to have had anyidea of the prodigy they brought into the world; but it is certain hisMaryland master discovered in the little slave boy the great talentsthat a hard life in Baltimore could not suppress. Douglass secretlybegan teaching himself to read and write before he was ten years ofage, and three years after his escape from slavery at the age oftwenty-one, he completely captured an audience at an anti-slaveryconvention in Nantucket by his brilliant speaking. This gave himemployment as an agent of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, andfour years later brought him crowded audiences, in England, Scotland, and Ireland. 

Frederick Douglass was a favourite everywhere. He had wit and humour, and spoke with the refinement of a cultivated scholar. He did notbecome a narrow and monotonous agitator. The variety of hisintellectual sympathies, controlled by the constancy of a high moralimpulse, wholly exempted him from the rashness of a conceited zealot;and, though often brilliant and at times rhetorical, his style wasquiet and persuasive, reaching the reason as easily as the emotions. Coming as he did, out of slavery, at a time when the anti-slaverysentiment was beginning to be aggressive and popular in New Englandand other free States, Douglass seemed to be the Moses of his race asmuch as Booker T. Washington in these later years. Englishmen raisedone hundred and fifty pounds and bought his freedom in 1846. The nextyear, as a Garrisonian disunionist, he began the publication of aweekly journal in Rochester; but he soon renounced disunionism, maintaining that slavery was illegal and unconstitutional. In the yearthe Liberty party nominated him for secretary of state, his publisherssold eighteen thousand copies of his autobiography, entitled _MyBondage and My Freedom_. 

Before the campaign was far advanced it became evident that theRepublican party was not drawing all the anti-slavery elements towhich it was thought to be entitled; and, on the 12th of October, Seward made a speech in Albany, answering the question, "Shall we forma new party?" The hall was little more than two-thirds filled, and anabsence of joyous enthusiasm characterised the meeting. Earnest mensat with serious faces, thinking of party ties severed and the work ofa lifetime apparently snuffed out, with deep forebodings for thefuture of the new organisation. This was a time to appeal toreason--not to the emotions, and Seward met it squarely with astorehouse of arguments. He sketched the history of slavery's growthas a political power; he explained that slave-holders were aprivileged class, getting the better of the North in appropriationsand by the tariff. "Protection is denied to your wool, " he said, "while it is freely given to their sugar. " Then he pointed out howslavery had grasped the territories as each one presented itself foradmission into the Union--Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, andAlabama, almost at the very outset of the national career; thenFlorida, when acquired from Spain; then as much of the LouisianaPurchase as possible; then Texas and the territory acquired fromMexico--all the while deluding the North with the specious pretencethat each successive seizure of free soil was a "compromise" and afinal settlement of the slavery question. This opened the way to thematter in hand--how to meet slavery's aggressiveness. "Shall we takethe American party?" he asked. "It stifles its voice, and suppressesyour own free speech, lest it may be overheard beyond the Potomac. Inthe slave-holding States it justifies all wrongs committed againstyou. Shall we unite ourselves to the Democratic party? If so, towhich faction? The Hards who are so stern in defending theaggressions, and in rebuking the Administration through whose agencythey are committed? or the Softs who protest against the aggressions, while they sustain and invigorate the Administration? What is it butthe same party which has led in the commission of all thoseaggressions, and claims exclusively the political benefits? Shall wereport ourselves to the Whig party? Where is it? It was a strong andvigorous party, honourable for energy, noble achievement, and stillmore noble enterprises. It was moved by panics and fears to emulatethe Democratic party in its practised subserviency; and it yielded inspite of your remonstrances, and of mine, and now there is neitherWhig party nor Whig south of the Potomac. Let, then, the Whig partypass. It committed a grievous fault, and grievously hath it answeredit. Let it march off the field, therefore, with all the honours. . . . The Republican organisation has laid a new, sound, and liberalplatform. Its principles are equal and exact justice; its speech open, decided, and frank. Its banner is untorn in former battles, andunsullied by past errors. That is the party for us. "[463]

[Footnote 463: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 256. Forfull speech, see _Seward's Works_, Vol. 4, p. 225. ]

When the meeting ended the people went out satisfied. The smallness ofthe audience had been forgotten in the clear, homely arguments, and inthe glow kindled in every heart; nor did they know that the speechspoken in their hearing would be read and pondered by half a millionvoters within a month. Richard H. Dana pronounced it "the keynote ofthe new party. "[464] But though sown in fruitful soil, insufficienttime was to elapse before election for such arguments to root andblossom; and when the votes were counted in November, theKnow-Nothings had polled 146, 001, the Republicans 135, 962, the Softs90, 518, and the Hards 58, 394. Samuel L. Selden, the candidate of theHards and Softs for judge of the Court of Appeals, had 149, 702. George F. Comstock was also declared elected, having received 141, 094, or nearly 5000 less than Headley for secretary of state. In theAssembly the Republicans numbered 44, the Know-Nothings 39, and theHards and Softs 45. 

[Footnote 464: _Diary of R. H. Dana_, C. F. Adams, _Life of Dana_, Vol. 1, p. 348. ]

"The events of the election, " wrote Seward, "show that theSilver-Grays have been successful in a new and attractive form, so asto divide a majority of the people in the cities and towns from thegreat question of the day. That is all. The rural districts stillremain substantially sound. A year is necessary to let the cheat wearoff. "[465] To a friend who was greatly alarmed at the success of theKnow-Nothings, he wrote: "There is just so much gas in any ascendingballoon. Before the balloon is down, the gas must escape. But theballoon is always sure not only to come down, but to come down _veryquick_. The heart of the country is fixed on higher and nobler things. Do not distrust it. "[466]

[Footnote 465: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 258. ]

[Footnote 466: _Ibid. _, p. 259. ]

After the election, some people held the opinion that the prospect ofa united anti-slavery party was not so favourable as it had been atthe close of 1854; and men were inclined then, as some historians arenow, to criticise Seward for not forcing the formation of theRepublican party in New York in 1854 and putting himself at its headby making speeches in New England and the West as well as in New York. "Had Seward sunk the politician in the statesman, " says Rhodes; "hadhe vigorously asserted that every cause must be subordinate to Unionunder the banner of opposition to the extension of slavery--the closeof the year would have seen a triumphant Republican party in everyNorthern State but California, and Seward its acknowledged leader. Itwas the tide in Seward's affairs, but he did not take it at theflood. "[467]

[Footnote 467: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 69. See also p. 68. "Seward, " says the historian, "had theposition, the ability and the character necessary for the leadershipof a new party. He was the idol of the anti-slavery Whigs. . . . Perhapshis sympathies were heartily enlisted in the movement for a new partyand he was held back by Thurlow Weed. Perhaps he would have felt lesstrammelled had not his senatorship been at stake in the fall election. The fact is, however, that the Republican movement in the West and NewEngland received no word of encouragement from him. He did not make aspeech, even in the State of New York, during the campaign. His careand attention were engrossed in seeing that members of the Legislaturewere elected who would vote for him for senator. " On July 27, 1854, the New York _Independent_ asked: "Shall we have a new party? Theleaders for such a party do not appear. Seward adheres to the Whigparty. " In the New York _Tribune_ of November 9, Greeley asserted that"the man who should have impelled and guided the general uprising ofthe free States is W. H. Seward. "]

Looking back into the fifties from the viewpoint of the present, thissuggestion of the distinguished historian seems plausible. UndoubtedlyThurlow Weed's judgment controlled in 1854, and back of it was thirtyyears of successful leadership, based upon the sagacity of a statesmanas well as the skill of a clever politician. It was inevitable thatWeed should be a Republican. He had opposed slavery before he was ofage. The annexation of Texas met his strenuous resistance, the WilmotProviso had his active approval, and he assailed the fugitive slavelaw and the Nebraska Act with unsparing bitterness. With a singlenessof purpose, not excelled by Seward or Sumner, his heart quicklyresponded to every movement which should limit, and, if possible, abolish slavery; but, in his wisdom, with Know-Nothings recruitingmembers from the anti-slavery ranks, and the Whig party confident ofsuccess because of a divided Democracy, he did not see his way safelyto organise the Republican party in New York in 1854. It is possiblehis desire to re-elect Seward to the United States Senate may haveincreased his caution. Seward's re-election was just then a veryimportant factor in the successful coalition of the anti-slaveryelements of the Empire State. Besides, Weed knew very well that defeatwould put the work of coalition into unfriendly hands, and it might bedisastrous if a hostile majority were allowed to deal with itaccording to their own designs and their own class interests. Nevertheless, his delay in organising and Seward's failure to lead thenew party in 1854, left an indelible impression to their injury in theWest, if not in New York and New England, "for unto whomsoever much isgiven, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committedmuch, of him they will ask the more. "

CHAPTER XVII

THE FIRST REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR

1856

Kansas troubles did not subside after the election. The Pierceadministration found itself harassed by the most formidable oppositionit had yet encountered. Reeder was out of the way for the moment; butthe Northern settlers, by planning a flank movement which included theorganisation of a state government and an appeal to Congress foradmission to the Union, proved themselves an enemy much morepertinacious and ingenious than the removed Governor. To aid them intheir endeavour, friends sent a supply of Sharpe's rifles, marked"books. " Accordingly, on the 9th of October, 1855, delegates wereelected to a convention which met at Topeka on the 23d of the samemonth and framed a Constitution prohibiting slavery and providing forits submission to the people. 

This practically established a second government. Governor Shannon, the successor of Reeder, recognised the action of the fraudulentlychosen territorial Legislature, while the free-state settlers, withheadquarters at Lawrence, repudiated its laws and resisted theirenforcement. Things could not long remain in this unhappy condition, and when, at last, a free-state man was killed it amounted to adeclaration of hostilities. Immediately, the people of Lawrence threwup earthworks; the Governor called out the militia; and theMissourians again crossed the border. By the 1st of December a coupleof regiments were encamped in the vicinity of Lawrence, behind whosefortifications calmly rested six hundred men, half of them armed withSharpe's rifles. A howitzer added to their confidence. Finally, theborder ruffians, who had heard of the breech-loading rifles andlearned of the character of the men behind them, after dallying forseveral weeks, recrossed the river and permitted the settlers toratify the new Constitution. In January, 1856, a governor andlegislature were chosen, and, in February, the Legislature, meeting atTopeka, memorialised Congress, asking that Kansas be admitted into theUnion. Thereupon, Senator Douglas reported a bill providing thatwhenever the people of Kansas numbered 93, 420 inhabitants they mightorganise a State. Instantly, Senator Seward offered a substitute, providing for its immediate admission with the Topeka Constitution. 

The events leading up to this parliamentary situation had been noisyand murderous, rekindling a spirit of indignation in the South as wellas in the North, which brought out fiery appeals from the press. TheGeorgia Legislature proposed to appropriate sixty thousand dollars toaid emigration to Kansas. A chivalrous colonel of Alabama who issuedan appeal for three hundred men willing to fight for the cause of theSouth, began his march from Montgomery with two hundred, having firstreceived a blessing from a Methodist minister and a Bible from adivine of the Baptist church. One young lady of South Carolina set theexample of selling her jewelry to equip men with rifles. The samespirit manifested itself in the North. Public meetings encouragedarmed emigration. "The duty of the people of the free States, " saidthe _Tribune_, "is to send more true men, more Sharpe's rifles, andmore howitzers to Kansas. "[468] William Cullen Bryant wrote hisbrother that "by the 1st of May there will be several thousand morefree-state settlers in Kansas. Of course they will go wellarmed. "[469] Henry Ward Beecher, happening to be present at a meetingin which an orthodox deacon who had enlisted seventy-nine emigrantsasked for more rifles, declared that a Sharpe's rifle was a greatermoral agency than the Bible, and that if half the guns needed werepledged on the spot Plymouth Church would furnish the rest. [470]Thus, the equipment of Northern emigrants to Kansas became known as"Beecher's Bibles. "[471] Henry J. Raymond said that "the question ofslavery domination must be fought out on the plains of Kansas. "[472]To add to Northern bitterness, President Pierce, in a special messageto the United State Senate, condemned the emigrant aid societies, threatening to call out the army, and approving the acts of thepro-slavery Legislature. 

[Footnote 468: New York _Weekly Tribune_, February 2, 1856. ]

[Footnote 469: Parke Godwin, _Life of Bryant_, Vol. 2, p. 88. ]

[Footnote 470: New York _Independent_, March 26, 1856. ]

[Footnote 471: New York _Independent_, February 7, 1856. ]

[Footnote 472: New York _Times_, February 1, 1856. ]

In the midst of this excitement, Senator Douglas began the debate onhis Kansas bill which was destined to become more historic than theoutrages of the border ruffians themselves. Douglas upheld the acts ofthe territorial Legislature as the work of law and order, denouncingthe Northern emigrants as daring and defiant revolutionists, andcharging that "the whole responsibility for all the disturbance restedupon the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company and its affiliatedsocieties. "[473] Horace Greeley admitted the force and power ofDouglas' argument, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, the gifted author of_Uncle Tom's Cabin_, was so profoundly impressed with the matchlessorator that she thought it "a merciful providence that with all hisalertness and adroitness, all his quick-sighted keenness, Douglas isnot witty--that might have made him too irresistible a demagogue forthe liberties of our laughter-loving people, to whose weakness he isaltogether too well adapted now. "[474] The friends of a free Kansasappreciated the superiority in debate of the Illinois statesman, whosearguments now called out half a dozen replies from as many Republicansenators. It afforded a fine opportunity to define and shape theprinciples of the new party, and each senator attracted wideattention. But the speech of Seward, who took the floor on the 9th ofApril in favour of the immediate admission of Kansas as a State, seemsto have impressed the country as far the ablest. He sketched thehistory of the Kansas territory; reviewed the sacrifices of itspeople; analysed and refuted each argument in support of thePresident's policy; and defended the settlers in maintaining theirstruggle for freedom. "Greeley expressed the opinion of the countryand the judgment of the historian, " says Rhodes, "when he wrote to hisjournal that Seward's speech was 'the great argument' and stood'unsurpassed in its political philosophy. '"[475] The _Times_pronounced it "the ablest of all his speeches. "[476] On the day of itspublication the _Weekly Tribune_ sent out 162, 000 copies. Seward wroteWeed that "the demand for it exceeds what I have ever known. I amgiving copies away by the thousand for distribution in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other States. "[477]

[Footnote 473: Report of Committee on Territories, U. S. Senate, March12, 1856. ]

[Footnote 474: New York _Independent_, May 1, 1856, Letters fromWashington. ]

[Footnote 475: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 130. ]

[Footnote 476: New York _Times_, April 9, 1856. ]

[Footnote 477: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 270. ]

A month later, on the 19th and 20th of May, came the speech of CharlesSumner, entitled "The Crime Against Kansas. " Whittier called it "agrand and terrible philippic. " Sumner had read it to Senator and Mrs. Seward, who advised the omission of certain personal allusions toSenator Butler;[478] but he delivered it as he wrote it, and two dayslater the country was startled by Preston S. Brooks' assault. TheNorth received this outrage with horror as the work of the slavepower. In public meetings, the people condemned it as a violation ofthe freedom of speech and a blow at the personal safety of public menhaving the courage to express their convictions. "The blows that fellon the head of the Senator from Massachusetts, " said Seward, "havedone more for the cause of human freedom in Kansas and in theterritories of the United States than all the eloquence which hasresounded in these halls since the days of Rufus King and John QuincyAdams. "[479] The events surrounding the assault--Brooks' resignation, his unanimous re-election, his challenge to Burlingame, and hisrefusal to fight in Canada--all tended to intensify Northern feeling. Close upon the heels of this excitement came news from Kansas of theburning of Lawrence, the destruction of Osawatomie, the sacking offree-state printing offices, and the murder of Northern immigrants. Tocomplete the list of crimes against free speech and freedom, thecommander of a force of United States troops dispersed the TopekaLegislature at the point of the bayonet. 

[Footnote 478: Statement of William H. Seward, Jr. , to the Author. ]

[Footnote 479: This speech was made on June 24, 1856. ]

This was the condition of affairs when the two great political partiesof the country assembled in national convention in June, 1856, toselect candidates for President and Vice President. At their stateconvention, in January, to select delegates-at-large to Cincinnati, the Softs had put themselves squarely in accord with the pro-slaverywing of their party. They commended the administration of Pierce, approved the Nebraska Act, and denounced as "treasonable" the Kansaspolicy of the Republican party. This was a wide departure from theirposition of August, 1855, which had practically reaffirmed theprinciples of the Wilmot Proviso; but the trend of public eventscompelled them either to renounce all anti-slavery leanings or abandontheir party. Their surrender, however, did not turn their reception atCincinnati into the welcome of prodigals. The committee on credentialskept them waiting at the door for two days, and when they were finallyadmitted they were compelled to enter on an equality with the Hards. Horatio Seymour pleaded for representation in proportion to the votescast, which would have given the Softs three-fifths of the delegation, but the convention thought them entitled to no advantages because oftheir "abolition principles, " and even refused a request foradditional seats from which their colleagues might witness theproceedings. To complete their humiliation the convention requiredthem formally to deny the right of Congress or of the people of aterritory to prohibit slavery in any territory of the United States. It was a bitter dose. The Democracy of the Empire State had beenaccustomed to control conventions--not to serve them. For twenty yearsthey had come with candidates for the Presidency, and if none oftheir statesmen had been nominated since 1836 they were recognised asresolute men, bold in diplomacy, ready for any emergency, and asformidable to their enemies as they were dear to their friends. Fornearly three decades a New Yorker had been in the Cabinet of everyadministration. But the glory of former days had now departed. Fortwelve years the party had been divided and weakened, until, at last, it had neither presidential candidate to offer nor cabinet position toexpect. 

The leading candidates at Cincinnati were Franklin Pierce, Stephen A. Douglas, and James Buchanan. Northern delegates had been inclined tosupport Pierce or Douglas; but since the assault upon Sumner and thedestruction of Lawrence, the conciliation of the North by thenomination of a candidate who had not participated in the events ofthe past three years seemed the wisest and safest policy. Buchanan hadbeen minister to England since the birth of the Pierce administration;and the fact that he hailed from Pennsylvania, a very important Statein the election, strengthened his availability. The Softs recognisedthe wisdom of this philosophy, but, under the leadership of Marcy, whohad given them the federal patronage for three years, they voted forthe President, with the hope that his supporters might ultimatelyunite with those of Douglas. The Hards, on the contrary, supportedBuchanan. They had little use for Pierce, who had persecuted them. 

On the first ballot Buchanan had 135 votes, Pierce 122, Douglas 33, and Cass 5, with 197 necessary to a choice. This made Buchanan'ssuccess probable if his forces stood firm; and as other ballotsbrought him additional votes at the expense of Pierce, his nominationseemed certain. The Softs, however, continued with Pierce until hiswithdrawal on the fourteenth ballot; then, putting aside anopportunity to support the winning candidate, they turned to Douglas. But to their great surprise, Douglas withdrew at the end of the nextballot, leaving the field to Buchanan. This placed the Softs, who nowjoined the Hards because there was no longer any way of keeping apart, in an awkward position. Seymour, however, gracefully accepted thesituation, declaring that, although the Softs came into the conventionunder many disadvantages, they desired to do all in their power toharmonise the vote of the convention and to promote the discontinuanceof factional differences in the great State of New York. Greene C. Bronson, who smiled derisively as he heard this deathbed repentance, did not know how soon Horatio Seymour was destined again to commandthe party. 

The Republican national convention convened at Philadelphia on the17th of June. Recent events had encouraged Republicans with the hopeof ultimate victory. Nathaniel P. Banks' election as speaker of thenational House of Representatives on the one hundred andthirty-seventh ballot, after a fierce contest of two months, was agreat triumph; interest in the Pittsburg convention on the 22d ofFebruary had surpassed expectations; and the troubles of "bleedingKansas, " which seemed to culminate in the assault upon Sumner and thedestruction of Lawrence, had kept the free States in a condition ofprofound excitement. Such brutal outrages, it was thought, wouldcertainly discredit any party that approved the policy leading tothem. Sustained by this hope the convention, in its platform, arraigned the Administration for the conduct of affairs; demanded theimmediate admission of Kansas into the Union under the TopekaConstitution; and resolved, amidst the greatest enthusiasm, that "itis both the right and duty of Congress to prohibit in the territoriesthose twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery. "

The selection of a presidential candidate gave the delegates moretrouble. They wanted an available man who could carry Pennsylvania;and between the supporters of John C. Fremont and the forces of JohnMcLean, for twenty-six years a member of the United States SupremeCourt, the canvass became earnest and exciting. Finally, on aninformal ballot, Fremont secured 359 of the 555 votes in theconvention. William L. Dayton of New Jersey was then nominated forVice President over Abraham Lincoln, who received 110 votes. 

William H. Seward was the logical candidate for President. Herepresented Republican principles and aims more fully than any man inthe country, but Thurlow Weed, looking into the future through theeyes of a practical politician, disbelieved in Republican success. Heargued that, although Republicans were sure of 114 electoral votes, itwas essential to carry Pennsylvania to secure the additional 35, andthat Pennsylvania could not be carried. This belief was strengthenedafter the nomination of Buchanan, who pledged himself to give fairplay to Kansas, which many understood to mean a free State. Underthese conditions Weed advised Seward not to become a candidate, on thetheory that defeat in 1856 would sacrifice his chances in 1860. 

Seward, as usual, acquiesced in Weed's judgment. "I once heard Sewarddeclare, " wrote Gideon Welles, "that 'Seward is Weed and Weed isSeward. What I do, Weed approves. What he says, I indorse. We areone. '"[480] On this occasion, however, it is certain Seward acceptedWeed's judgment with much reluctance. His heart was set upon thenomination, and his letters reveal disappointment and even disgust atthe arrangement. "It is a delicate thing, " he wrote, on the 27th ofApril, "to go through the present ordeal, but I am endeavouring to doso without giving any one just cause to complain of indifference on mypart to the success of the cause. I have shut out the subject itselffrom conversation and correspondence, and, so far as possible, from mythoughts. "[481] But he could not close his ears. "From all I hear'availability' is to be indulged next week and my own friends are tomake the sacrifice, " he wrote his wife, on June 11, six days beforethe convention opened. "Be it so; I shall submit with better gracethan others would. "[482] Two days later he said: "It tries my patienceto hear what is said and to act as if I assented, under expectation ofpersonal benefits, present and prospective. "[483]

[Footnote 480: Gideon Welles, _Lincoln and Seward_, p. 23. "I am sorryto hear the remark, " said the late Chief Justice Chase, "for while Iwould strain a point to oblige Mr. Seward, I feel under no obligationsto do anything for the special benefit of Mr. Weed. The two are notand never can be one to me. "--_Ibid. _, p. 23. ]

[Footnote 481: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 270. ]

[Footnote 482: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 277. ]

[Footnote 483: _Ibid. _, p. 277. ]

What especially gravelled Seward was the action of his opponents. "Theunderstanding all around me is, " he wrote his wife, on June 14, "thatGreeley has struck hands with enemies of mine and sacrificed me forthe good of the cause, to be obtained by the nomination of a moreavailable candidate, and that Weed has concurred in demanding myacquiescence. "[484] Seward suspected the truth of this "understanding"as to Greeley, but it is doubtful if he then believed Weed hadbetrayed him. Perhaps this thought came later after he heard ofFremont's astonishing vote and learned that the newspapers were againnominating the Path-finder for a standard-bearer in 1860. "Seward morethan hinted to confidential friends, " wrote Henry B. Stanton, "thatWeed betrayed him for Fremont. " Then Stanton tells the story of Weedand Seward riding up Broadway, and how, when passing the bronze statueof Lincoln in Union Square, Seward said, "Weed, if you had beenfaithful to me, I should have been there instead of Lincoln. ""Seward, " replied Weed, "is it not better to be alive in a carriagewith me than to be dead and set up in bronze?"[485]

[Footnote 484: _Ibid. _, p. 277. ]

[Footnote 485: H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 194. ]

How much Weed's advice to Seward was influenced by the arguments ofopponents nowhere appears, but the disappointment of Democrats andconservative Americans upon the announcement of Seward's withdrawalproves that these objections were serious. His views were regarded astoo extreme for a popular candidate. It was deemed advisable not toput in issue either the abolition of slavery in the District ofColumbia, or the repeal of the fugitive slave law, and Seward'spronounced attitude on these questions, it was asserted, would involvethem in the campaign regardless of the silence of the platform. It wasargued, also, that although the Whigs were numerically the largestportion of the Republican party, a candidate of Democratic antecedentswould be preferable, especially in Pennsylvania, a State, theydeclared, which Seward could not carry. To all this Greeleyundoubtedly assented. The dissolution of the firm of Seward, Weed, andGreeley, announced in Greeley's remarkable letter of November 11, 1854, but not yet made public, had, indeed, taken effect. The resultwas not so patent, certainly not so vitriolic, as it appeared atChicago in 1860, but Greeley now began insinuating doubts of Seward'spopular strength, exaggerating local prejudices against him, andyielding to objections raised by his avowed opponents. His hostilityfound no place in the columns of the _Tribune_, but it coloured hisconversations and private correspondence. To Richard A. Dana he wrotethat Callamer's speech on the Kansas question "is better thanSeward's, in my humble judgment;"[486] yet the _Tribune_ pronouncedSeward's "the great argument" and "unsurpassed in politicalphilosophy. " The importance of Pennsylvania became as prominent afactor in the convention of 1856 as it did in that of 1860, andGreeley did not hesitate to affirm Seward's inability to carry it, declaring that such weakness made his nomination fatal to partysuccess. 

[Footnote 486: Letters of April 7, 1856. ]

The opponents of Seward, however, could not have prevented hisnomination had he decided to enter the race. He was the unanimouschoice of the New York delegation. The mere mention of his name atPhiladelphia met with the loudest applause. When Senator Wilson ofMassachusetts spoke of him as "the foremost American statesman, " thecheers made further speaking impossible for several minutes. He wasthe idol of the convention as he was the chief figure of his party. John A. King declared that could his name have been presented "itwould have received the universal approbation of the convention. "Robert Emmet, the son of the distinguished Thomas Addis Emmet, and thetemporary chairman of the convention, made a similar statement. EvenThurlow Weed found it difficult to prevail upon his friends to bidetheir time until the next national convention. "Earnest friendsrefused to forego my nomination, " Seward wrote his wife on June 17, the day the convention opened, "without my own authority. "[487]

[Footnote 487: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 278. ]

When the several state conventions convened at Syracuse each partysought its strongest man for governor. The Hards and the Softs werefirst in the field, meeting in separate conventions on July 30. Afterinviting each other to join in a union meeting they reassembled as onebody, pledged to support the Cincinnati platform. It was not anoccasion for cheers. Consolidation was the only alternative, withchances that the ultra pro-slavery platform meant larger losses if notcertain defeat. In this crisis Horatio Seymour assumed the leadershipthat had been his in 1852, and that was not to be laid down for morethan a decade. Seymour was now in his prime--still under fifty yearsof age. He had become a leader of energy and courage; and, althoughdestined for many years to lead a divided and often a defeatedorganisation, he was ever after recognised as the most gifted andnotable member of his party. He was a typical Northern Democrat. Hehad the virtues and foibles that belonged to that character in hisgeneration, the last of whom have now passed from the stage of publicaction. 

The effort to secure a Democratic nominee for governor required fourballots. Addison Gardiner, David L. Seymour, Fernando Wood, and AmasaJ. Parker were the leading candidates. David Seymour had been a steadysupporter of the Hards. He belonged to the O'Conor type ofconservatives, rugged and stalwart, who seemed unmindful of thechanging conditions in the political growth of the country. AtCincinnati, he opposed the admission of the Softs as an unjust andutterly irrational disqualification of the Hards, who, he said, hadalways stood firmly by party platforms and party nominationsregardless of personal convictions. Fernando Wood belonged to adifferent type. [488] He had already developed those regrettablequalities which gave him a most unsavoury reputation as mayor of NewYork; but of the dangerous qualities that lay beneath the winningsurface of his gracious manner, men as yet knew nothing. Just now hisgubernatorial ambition, fed by dishonourable methods, found support ina great host of noisy henchmen who demanded his nomination. AddisonGardiner was the choice of the Softs. Gardiner had been electedlieutenant-governor on the ticket with Silas Wright in 1844, and laterbecame an original member of the Court of Appeals, from which heretired in 1855. He was a serious, simple-hearted, wise man, wellfitted for governor. But Horatio Seymour made up his mind that Parker, although far below Gardiner and David L. Seymour in number of votes, would better unite the convention, and upon Gardiner's withdrawalParker immediately received the nomination. 

[Footnote 488: Fernando Wood was a Quaker and a Philadelphian bybirth. In early youth he became a cigarmaker, then a tobacco dealer, and later a grocer. At Harrisburg, his first introduction to politicsresulted in a fist-fight with a state senator who was still on thefloor when Wood left the bar-room. Then he went to New York, and, in1840, was elected to Congress at the age of twenty-eight. Wood had afascinating personality. He was tall and shapely, his handsomefeatures and keen blue eyes were made the more attractive by anabundance of light hair which fell carelessly over a high, broadforehead. But, as a politician, he was as false as his capacity wouldallow him to be, having no hesitation, either from principle or fear, to say or do anything that served his purpose. He has been called thesuccessor of Aaron Burr and the predecessor of William M. Tweed. In1858, he organised Mozart Hall, a Democratic society opposed toTammany. ]

Amasa J. Parker was then forty-nine years of age, an eminent, successful lawyer. Before his thirty-second birthday he had servedDelaware County as surrogate, district attorney, assemblyman, andcongressman. Later, he became a judge of the Supreme Court and removedto Albany, where he resided for forty-six years, until his death in1890. Parker was a New England Puritan, who had been unusually wellraised. He passed from the study of his father, a Congregationalclergyman, to the senior class at Union College, graduating ateighteen; and from his uncle's law library to the surrogate's office. All his early years had been a training for public life. He hadassociated with scholars and thinkers, and in the estimation of hiscontemporaries there were few stronger or clearer intellects in theState. But his later political career was a disappointment. His partybegan nominating him for governor after it had fallen into theunfortunate habit of being beaten, and, although he twice ran ahead ofhis ticket, the anti-slavery sentiment that dominated New York after1854 kept him out of the executive chair. 

The Republican state convention assembled at Syracuse on the 17th ofSeptember. A feeling existed that the election this year would extractthe people from the mire of Know-Nothingism, giving the State itsfirst Republican governor; and confidence of success, mingled with anunusual desire to make no mistake, characterised the selection of anominee for chief executive. Myron H. Clark, a man of the people, hadmade a good governor, but he was too heavily weighted with prohibitionto suit the older public men, who did not take kindly to him. Theyturned to Moses H. Grinnell, whose pre-eminence as a large-hearted, public-spirited merchant always kept him in sight. Grinnell was nowfifty-three years of age. His broad, handsome face showed an absenceof bigotry and intolerance, while the motives that controlled his lifewere public and patriotic, not personal. Probably no man in New YorkCity, since the time John Jay left it, had ever had more admirers. Hewas a favourite of Daniel Webster, who appointed Washington Irvingminister to Spain upon his request. This interest in the famousauthor, as well as his recent promotion of Dr. Kane's expedition tothe Arctic seas in search of Sir John Franklin, indicated the broadphilanthropy that governed his well-ordered life. But he declined toaccept office. The distinguished house that had borne his name fortwenty-seven years, decided that its senior member could not bespared, even temporarily, to become governor of the State, and soGrinnell's official life was limited to a single term in Congress, although his public life may be said to have spanned nearly two-thirdsof his more than three score years and ten. 

Grinnell's decision seemed to leave an open field, and upon the firstballot John A. King received 91 votes, James S. Wadsworth 72, SimeonDraper 23, Myron H. Clark 22, and Ira Harris 22. Thurlow Weed and thewheel horses of Whig descent, however, preferring that the young partyhave a governor of their own antecedents, familiar with politicaldifficulties and guided by firmness and wisdom, had secretlydetermined upon King. But Wadsworth, although he quickly felt theinfluence of their decision, declined to withdraw. Wadsworth was aborn fighter. In the Free-soil secession of 1847, he proclaimeduncompromising hostility to the extension of slavery, and he neverchanged his position until death ended his gallant and noble servicein the Civil War. 

Wadsworth descended from a notable family. His father, JamesWadsworth, a graduate of Yale, leaving his Connecticut home in youngmanhood, bought of the Dutch and of the Six Nations twenty thousandacres in the Genesee Valley, and became one of the earliest settlersand wealthiest men in Western New York. He was, also, the mostpublic-spirited citizen. He believed in normal schools and in districtschool libraries, and he may properly be called one of the founders ofthe educational system of the State. But he never cared for politicaloffice. It was said of him that his refusal to accept public place wasas inflexible as his determination to fight Oliver Kane, a well-knownmerchant of New York City, after trouble had occurred at the cardtable. The story, told at the time, was that the two, after separatingin anger, met before sunrise the next morning, without seconds orsurgeons, under a tall pine tree on a bluff, and after politelymeasuring the distance and taking their places, continued shooting ateach other until Kane, slightly wounded, declared he had enough. [489]

[Footnote 489: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p. 153. ]

James S. Wadsworth discovered none of his father's aversion to holdingoffice. He, also, graduated at Yale and studied law in the office ofDaniel Webster, but he preferred politics and agriculture to thetroubles of clients, and, although never successful in getting office, all admitted his fitness for it. He was brave, far-sighted, and formedto please. He had a handsome face and stately presence. Many peoplewho never saw him were strongly attracted to him by sympathy ofpolitical opinions and by gratitude for important services renderedthe country. There was to come a time, in 1862, when these radicalfriends, looking upon him as the Lord's Anointed, and indifferent tothe wishes of Thurlow Weed and the more conservative leaders, forcedhis nomination for governor by acclamation; but, in 1856, John A. Kinghad the weightiest influence, and, on the second ballot, he took thestrength of Draper, Clark, and Harris, receiving 158 votes to 73 forWadsworth. It was not soon forgotten, however, that in the memorablestampede for King, Wadsworth more than held his own. 

John Alsop King was the eldest son of Rufus King. While the father wasminister to the court of St. James, the son attended the famous schoolat Harrow, had as classmates Lord Byron and Sir Robert Peel, and wentthe usual rounds of continental travel. For nearly four decades he hadbeen conspicuous in public life as assemblyman, senator, congressman, and in the diplomatic service. Starting as a Federalist and an earlyadvocate of anti-slavery sentiments, he had been an Anti-Mason, aNational Republican, and a Whig. Only when he acted with Martin VanBuren against DeWitt Clinton did he flicker in his politicalconsistency. Although now sixty-eight years old, he was stillrugged--a man of vigorous sense and great public spirit. Hiscongressional experience came when the hosts of slavery and freedomwere marshalling for the great contest for the territory between theMississippi and the Pacific, and at the side of Preston King heresisted Clay's compromise measures, especially the fugitive slavelaw, and warmly supported the admission of California as a free State. "I have come to have a great liking for the Kings, " wrote Seward, in1850. "They have withstood the seduction of the seducers, and are likea rock in the defence of the right. They have been tried as throughfire. "[490] John A. King was not ambitious for public place. He waitedto be called to an office, but he did not wait to be called to join amovement which would be helpful to the public. His ear was to the skyrather than to the ground. He believed Ralph Waldo Emerson's saying:"That is the one base thing in the universe, to receive benefits andrender none. " Like his distinguished father, he was tolerant indealing with men who differed from him, but he never shrank from theexpression of an opinion because it would bring sacrifice orostracism. 

[Footnote 490: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 140. ]

The ticket was strengthened by the nomination of Henry R. Selden ofMonroe for lieutenant-governor. Selden belonged to a family that hadbeen prominent for two centuries in the Connecticut Valley. Like hisolder brother, Samuel L. Selden, who lived at Rochester, he was anable lawyer and a man of great industry. These brothers brought to theservice of the people a perfect integrity, coupled with a graciousurbanity that kept them in public life longer than either desired toremain. One was a Republican, the other a Democrat. Samuel became apartner of Addison Gardiner in 1825, and Henry, after studying lawwith them, opened an office at Clarkson in the western part of thecounty. In 1851, Henry became reporter for the Court of Appeals, andthen, lieutenant-governor. Samuel's public service began earlier. Hebecame judge of the Court of Common Pleas in 1831, of the SupremeCourt in 1847, and of the Court of Appeals in 1856. When he resignedin 1862, Henry took his place by appointment, and afterward byelection. Finally, in 1865, he also resigned. The brothers were muchalike in the quality they brought to the public service; and theirwork, as remarkable for its variety as for its dignity, made Samuel anoriginal promoter of the electric telegraph system and Henry adefender of Susan B. Anthony when arrested on the charge of illegallyvoting at a presidential election. 

The Americans nominated Erastus Brooks for governor. He was a youngerbrother of James Brooks, who founded the New York _Express_ in 1836. The Brookses were born in Maine, and early exhibited the industry andcourage characteristic of the sons of the Pine Tree State. At eightyears of age, Erastus began work in a grocery store, fitting himselffor Brown University at a night school, and, at twenty, he became aneditor on his brother's paper. His insistence upon the taxation ofproperty of the Catholic Church, because, being held in the name ofthe Bishops, it should be included under the laws governing personalholdings in realty, brought him prominently before the Americans, whosent him to the State Senate in 1854. But Brooks' political career, like that of his brother, really began after the Civil War, althoughhis identification with the Know-Nothings marked him as a man offorce, capable of making strong friends and acquiring much influence. 

The activity of the Americans indicated firm faith in their success. Six months before Brooks' nomination they had named Millard Fillmorefor President. At the time, the former President was in Europe. On hisreturn he accepted the compliment and later received the indorsementof the old-line Whigs. Age had not left its impress. Of imposingappearance, he looked like a man formed to rule. The peculiar tenetsof the Americans, except as exemplified in the career of theircandidate for governor, did not enter into Fillmore's campaign. Herested his hopes upon the conservative elements of all parties whocondemned the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and opposed theformation of a party which, he declared, had, for the first time inthe history of the Republic, selected candidates for President andVice President from the free States alone, with the avowed purpose ofelecting them by the suffrages of one part of the Union to rule overthe other part. 

This was also the argument of Buchanan. In his letter of acceptance hesounded the keynote of his party, claiming that it was strictlynational, devoted to the Constitution and the Union, and that theRepublican party, ignoring the historic warning of Washington, wasformed on geographic lines. [491] All this made little impression uponthe host of Northern men who exulted in the union of all theanti-slavery elements. But their intense devotion to the positiveutterances of their platform took away the sense of humour which oftenrelieves the tension of political activity, and substituted an elementof profound seriousness that was plainly visible in speakers andaudiences. Seward did not hasten into the campaign. Richard H. Danawrote, confidentially, that "Seward was awful grouty. " It was October2 when he began speaking. Congress had detained him until August 30, and then his health was so impaired, it was explained, that he neededrest. But other lovers of freedom were deeply stirred. The pulpitbecame a platform, and the great editors spoke as well as wrote. Henry Ward Beecher seemed ubiquitous; Greeley and Raymond madeextended tours through the State; Bryant was encouraged to overcomehis great timidity before an audience; and Washington Irving declaredhis intention of voting, if not of speaking, for Fremont. 

[Footnote 491: Horatio Seymour used the same argument with greateffect. "Another tie which has heretofore held our country togetherhas been disbanded, and from its ruins has sprung a politicalorganisation trusting for its success to sectional prejudices. Itexcludes from its councils the people of nearly one-half of the Union;it seeks a triumph over one-half our country. The battlefields ofYorktown, of Camden, of New Orleans, are unrepresented in theirconventions; and no delegates speak for the States where rest theremains of Washington, Jefferson, Marion, Sumter, or Morgan, or of thelater hero, Jackson. They cherish more bitter hatred of their owncountrymen than they have ever shown towards the enemies of our land. If the language they hold this day had been used eighty years since, we should not have thrown off the British yoke; our nationalconstitution would not have been formed; and if their spirit of hatredcontinues, our Constitution and Government will cease toexist. "--Seymour at Springfield, Mass. , July 4, 1856. Cook and Knox, _Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, p. 2. 

"John A. Dix supported the Democratic candidates in the canvass of1856; he did not, however, take an active part in the contest. "--MorganDix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 319. ]

This campaign also welcomed into political life a young man whosefirst speech made it plain that a new champion, with bright andwell-tempered sword, had taken up the cause of freedom with thecourage of the cavalier. George William Curtis was then thirty-twoyears old. He had already written the Howadji books, which earned himrecognition among men of letters, and _Prue and I_, which had securedhis fame as an author. In the campaign of 1856, the people for thefirst time saw and knew this man whose refined rhetoric, characterisedby tender and stirring appeal, and guided by principle and conviction, was, thereafter, for nearly forty years, to be heard at its best onone side of every important question that divided American politicallife. Nathaniel P. Willis, who drove five miles in the evening to hearhim deliver a "stump speech, " thought Curtis would be "too handsomeand too well dressed" for a political orator; but when he heard himunfold his logical argument step by step, occasionally bursting into astrain of inspiring eloquence that foreshadowed the more studied workof his riper years, it taught him that the author was as caustic andunconstrained on the platform as he appeared in _The Potiphar Papers_. 

Curtis' theme was resistance to the extension of slavery. His wife'sfather, Francis G. Shaw, had stimulated his zeal in the cause offreedom; and he treated the subject with a finish and strength thatcame from larger experience and longer observation than a young man ofthirty-two could usually boast. To him, the struggle for freedom inKansas was not less glorious than the heroic resistance in 1776, andhe made it vivid by the use of historic associations. "Through thesevery streets, " he said, "they marched who never returned. They felland were buried, but they can never die. Not sweeter are the flowersthat make your valley fair, not greener are the pines that give yourvalley its name, than the memory of the brave men who died forfreedom. And yet no victim of those days, sleeping under the greensod, is more truly a martyr of Liberty than every murdered man whosebones lie bleaching in this summer sun upon the silent plains ofKansas. And so long as Liberty has one martyr, so long as one drop ofblood is poured out for her, so long from that single drop of bloodysweat of the agony of humanity shall spring hosts as countless as theforest leaves and mighty as the sea. "[492]

[Footnote 492: Edward Cary, _Life of George William Curtis_, p. 113;New York _Weekly Tribune_, August 16, 1856. ]

Curtis thought the question of endangering the Union a mere pretence. "Twenty millions of a moral people, politically dedicated to Liberty, are asking themselves whether their government shall be administeredsolely in the interest of three hundred and fifty thousandslave-holders. " He did not believe that these millions would dissolvethe Union in the interest of these thousands. "I see a risingenthusiasm, " he said, in closing; "but enthusiasm is not an election;and I hear cheers from the heart, but cheers are not voters. Every manmust labour with his neighbour--in the street, at the plough, at thebench, early and late, at home and abroad. Generally we are concernedin elections with the measures of government. This time it is with theessential principle of government itself. "[493]

[Footnote 493: _Ibid. _, August 16, 1856. ]

The result of the election was not a surprise. Fremont's loss ofPennsylvania and Indiana had been foreshadowed in October, making hisdefeat inevitable, but the Republican victory in New York was moresweeping than the leaders had anticipated, Fremont securing a majorityof 80, 000 over Buchanan, and John A. King 65, 000 over Amasa J. Parker. [494] The average vote was as follows: Republican, 266, 328;Democrat, 197, 172; Know-Nothing, 129, 750. West and north of Albany, every congressman and nearly every assemblyman was a Republican. Reuben E. Fenton, who had been beaten for Congress in 1854 by 1676votes, was now elected by 8000 over the same opponent. The Assemblystood 82 Republicans, 37 Democrats, and 8 Know-Nothings. In thecountry at large, Buchanan obtained 174 electoral votes out of 296, but he failed to receive a majority of the popular vote, leaving thevanquished more hopeful and not less cheerful than the victors. Fillmore received the electoral vote of Maryland and a popular vote of874, 534, nearly one-half as many as Buchanan and two-thirds as many asFremont. In other words, he had divided the vote of the North, makingit possible for Buchanan to carry Pennsylvania and Indiana. 

[Footnote 494: John A. King, 264, 400; Amasa J. Parker, 198, 616;Erastus Brooks, 130, 870. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

CHAPTER XVIII

THE IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT

1857-1858

It was the duty of the Legislature of 1857 to elect a successor toHamilton Fish, whose term as United States senator expired on the 4thof March. Fish had not been a conspicuous member of the Senate; buthis great wisdom brought him large influence at a time when slaverystrained the courtesy of that body. He was of a most gracious andsweet nature, and, although he never flinched from uttering ormaintaining his opinions, he was a lover and maker of peace. In his_Autobiography of Seventy Years_, Senator Hoar speaks of him as theonly man of high character and great ability among the leaders of theRepublican party, except President Grant, who retained the friendshipof Roscoe Conkling. 

The contest over the senatorship brought into notice a dispositionamong Republicans of Democratic antecedents not to act in perfectaccord with Thurlow Weed, a danger that leading Whigs had anticipatedat the formation of the party. Weed's management had been disliked byanti-slavery Democrats as much as it had been distrusted by a portionof the Whig party, and, although political associations now broughtthem under one roof, they did not accept him as a guiding orcontrolling spirit. This disposition manifested itself at the stateconvention in the preceding September; and to allay any bitterness offeeling which the nomination of John A. King might occasion, it wasprovided that, in the event of success, the senator should be ofDemocratic antecedents. The finger of fate then pointed to PrestonKing. He had resisted the aggressions of the slave power, and in theformation of the Republican party his fearless fidelity to itscornerstone principle made him doubly welcome in council; but whenthe Legislature met, other aspirants appeared, prominent among whomwere Ward Hunt, James S. Wadsworth, and David Dudley Field. 

Hunt, who was destined to occupy a place on the Court of Appeals, and, subsequently, on the Supreme Court of the United States, had takenlittle interest in politics. He belonged to the Democratic party, and, in 1839, had served one term in the Assembly; but his consistentdevotion to Free-soilism, and his just and almost prescientappreciation of the true principles of the Republican party, gave himgreat prominence in the ranks of the young organisation and created astrong desire to send him to the United States Senate. Hunt wasanxious and Wadsworth active. The latter's supporters, standing forhim as their candidate for governor, had forced the agreement of theyear before, and they now demanded that he become senator; but in theinterest of harmony, both finally withdrew in favour of David DudleyField. 

The inspiration of an historic name did not yet belong to the Fieldfamily. The projector of the Atlantic cable, the future justice of theSupreme Court of the United States, and the eminent New York editor, had not taken their places among the most gifted of the land, butDavid Dudley's activity in the Free-soil contests had made him asconspicuous a member of the new party as his celebrated Code of CivilProcedure, passed by the Legislature of 1848, had distinguished him inhis profession. Promotion did not move his way, however. Thurlow Weedinsisted upon Preston King. It is likely the Albany editor had notforgotten that Field, acting for George Opdyke, a millionaire client, had sued him for libel, and that, although the jury disagreed, theexciting trial had crowded the courtroom for nineteen days and costseventeen thousand dollars; but Weed did not appeal to Field's record, since he claimed the agreement at the state convention included JohnA. King for governor and Preston King for senator, and to avoidcontroversy he adroitly consented to leave the matter to Republicanlegislators of Democratic antecedents, who decided in favour of King. This ended the contest, the caucus giving King 65 votes and Hunt 17. 

In 1857, events gave the Republican party little encouragement in NewYork. Public interest in Kansas had largely died out, and, althoughthe Dred Scott decision, holding inferentially that the Constitutioncarried with it the right and power to hold slaves everywhere, hadstartled the nation, leading press, pulpit, and public meetings todenounce it as a blow at the rights of States and to the rights ofman, yet the Democrats carried the State in November, electing GideonJ. Tucker secretary of state, Sanford E. Church comptroller, LymanTremaine attorney-general, and Hiram Denio to the Court of Appeals. Itwas not a decisive victory. The Know-Nothings, who held the balance ofpower, involuntarily contributed a large portion of their strength tothe Democratic party, giving it an aggregate vote of 194, 000 to175, 000 for the Republicans, and reducing the vote of James O. Putnam, of Buffalo, the popular American candidate for secretary of state, toless than 67, 000, or one-half the number polled in the preceding year. 

Other causes contributed to the apparent decrease of Republicanstrength. The financial disturbance of 1857 appeared with greatsuddenness in August. There had been fluctuations in prices, with ageneral downward tendency, but when the crisis came it was a surpriseto many of the most watchful financiers. Industry and commerce wereless affected than in 1837, but the failures, representing a largeramount of capital than those of any other year in the history of thecountry up to 1893, astonished the people, associating in the publicmind the Democratic charge of Republican extravagance with the generalcry of hard times. 

But whatever the cause of defeat, the outlook for the Republicansagain brightened when Stephen A. Douglas opposed President Buchanan'sLecompton policy. The Kansas Lecompton Constitution was the work of arump convention controlled by pro-slavery delegates who declared that"the right of property is before and higher than any constitutionalsanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and itsincrease is as inviolable as the right of the owner of any propertywhatever. " To secure its approval by the people it was ingeniouslyarranged that the vote taken in December, 1857, should be "for theconstitution with slavery" or "for the constitution without slavery, "so that in any event the constitution, with its objectionable section, would become the organic law. This shallow scheme, hatched in theSouth to fix slavery upon a territory that had already declared forfreedom by several thousand majority, obtained the support of thePresident. Douglas immediately pronounced it "a trick" and "a fraudupon the rights of the people. "[495] The breach between the IllinoisSenator and the Administration thus became complete. 

[Footnote 495: This debate occurred December 22, 1857. ]

Meantime, the governor of Kansas convened the territorial legislaturein an extra session, which provided for a second election in January, 1858. The December election had stood: for the constitution withslavery, 6226; for the constitution without slavery, 569. Of these2720 were subsequently shown to be fraudulent. The January electionstood: for the constitution with slavery, 138; for the constitutionwithout slavery, 24; against the constitution, 10, 226. The President, accepting the "trick election, " as Douglas called it, in which thefree-state men declined to participate, forwarded a copy of theconstitution to Congress, and, in spite of Douglas, it passed theSenate. An amendment in the House returned it to the people with thepromise, if accepted, of a large grant of government land; but theelectors spurned the bribe--the free-state men, at a third electionheld on August 2, 1858, rejecting the constitution by 11, 000 out of13, 000 votes. 

This ended the Lecompton episode, but it was destined to leave abreach in the ranks of the Democrats big with consequences. StephenA. Douglas was now the best known and most popular man in the North, and his popular sovereignty doctrine, as applied to the LecomptonConstitution, seemed so certain of settling the slavery question inthe interest of freedom that leading Republicans of New York, notablyHenry J. Raymond and Horace Greeley, not only favoured the return ofDouglas to the Senate unopposed by their own party, but seriouslyconsidered the union of Douglas Democrats and Republicans. It was evensuggested that Douglas become the Republican candidate for President. This would head off Seward and please Greeley, whose predilection foran "available" candidate was only equalled by his growing distrust ofthe New York Senator. The unanimous nomination of Abraham Lincoln forUnited States senator and his great debate with Douglas, disclosingthe incompatibility between Douglasism and Republicanism, abruptlyended this plan; but the plausible assumption that the inhabitants ofa territory had a natural right to establish, as well as prohibit, slavery had made such a profound impression upon Northern Democratsthat they did not hesitate to approve the Douglas doctrine regardlessof its unpopularity in the South. 

In the summer of 1858, candidates for governor were nominated in NewYork. The Republican convention, convened at Syracuse on the 8th ofSeptember, like its predecessor in 1856, was divided into Weed andanti-Weed delegates. The latter, composed of Know-Nothings, Radicalsof Democratic antecedents, and remnants of the prohibition party, wanted Timothy Jenkins for governor. Jenkins was a very skilfulpolitical organiser. He had served Oneida County as district attorneyand for six years in Congress, and he now had the united support ofmany men who, although without special influence, made a veryformidable showing. But Weed was not looking in that direction. Hisearliest choice was Simeon Draper of New York City, whom he had thrustaside two years before, and when sudden financial embarrassmentrendered Draper unavailable, he encouraged the candidacy of James H. Cook of Saratoga until Jenkins' strength alarmed him. Then he took upEdwin D. Morgan, and for the first time became a delegate to a stateconvention. 

Weed found a noisy company at Syracuse. Horace Greeley as usual was ina receptive mood. The friends of George Patterson thought it time forhis promotion. Alexander S. Diven of Elmira, a state senator andforceful speaker, who subsequently served one term in Congress, hadseveral active, influential backers, while John A. King's friendsfeebly resisted his retirement. The bulk of the Americans opposedEdwin D. Morgan because of his broad sympathies with foreign-borncitizens; but Weed clung to him, and on the first ballot he received116 of the 254 votes. Jenkins got 51 and Greeley 3. On the next ballotone of Greeley's votes went to Jenkins, who received 52 to 165 forMorgan. Robert Campbell of Steuben was then nominated forlieutenant-governor by acclamation and Seward's senatorial courseunqualifiedly indorsed. 

Edwin D. Morgan was in his forty-eighth year. He had been alderman, merchant, and railroad president; for four years in the early fiftieshe served as a state senator; more recently, he had acted as chairmanof the Republican state committee and of the Republican nationalconvention. Weed did not have Morgan's wise, courageous course as wargovernor, Union general, and United States senator to guide him, buthe knew that his personal character was of the highest, his publiclife without stain, and that he had wielded the power of absolutedisinterestedness. Morgan was a fine specimen of manhood. He stoodperfectly erect, with well poised head, his large, lustrous eyesinviting confidence; and the urbanity of his manner softening theanswers that showed he possessed a mind of his own. No man among hiscontemporaries had a larger number of devoted friends. He was a NewEnglander by birth. More than one person of his name and blood inConnecticut was noted for public spirit, but none developed greatercourage, or evidenced equal sagacity and efficiency. 

For several weeks before the convention, the Americans talked of afusion ticket with the Republicans, and to encourage the plan bothstate conventions met at the same time and place. In sentiment theywere in substantial accord, and men like Washington Hunt, the formergovernor, and James O. Putnam, hoped for union. Hunt had declined tojoin the Republican party at its formation, and, in 1856, had followedFillmore into the ranks of the Americans; but their division in 1857disgusted him, and, with Putnam and many others, he was now favourableto a fusion of the two parties. After conferring for two days, however, the Republicans made the mistake of nominating candidates forgovernor and lieutenant-governor before agreeing upon a division ofthe offices, at which the Americans took offence and put up a separateticket, with Lorenzo Burrows for governor. Burrows was a man ofconsiderable force of character, a native of Connecticut, and aresident of Albion. He had served four years in Congress as a Whig, and in 1855 was elected state comptroller as a Know-Nothing. 

The failure of the fusionists greatly pleased the Democrats, who, inspite of the bitter contest for seats in the New York City delegation, exhibited confidence and some enthusiasm at their state convention onSeptember 15. The Softs, led by Daniel E. Sickles, representedTammany; the Hards, marshalled by Fernando Wood, were known as thecustom-house delegation. In 1857, the city delegates had been evenlydivided between the two factions; but this year the Softs, confidentof their strength, insisted upon having their entire delegationseated, and, on a motion to make Horatio Seymour temporary chairman, they proved their control by a vote of 54 to 35. The admission ofTammany drew a violent protest from Fernando Wood and his delegates, who then left the convention in a body amidst a storm of hisses andcheers. 

A strong disposition existed to nominate Seymour for governor. Havingbeen thrice a candidate and once elected, however, he peremptorilydeclined to stand. This left the way open to Amasa J. Parker, anexceptionally strong candidate, but one who had led the ticket todefeat in 1856. John J. Taylor of Oswego, whose congressional careerhad been limited to a single term because of his vote for theKansas-Nebraska bill in 1854, became the nominee for lieutenant-governorby acclamation. In its platform, the convention very cunninglyresolved that it was "content" to have the American people judgePresident Buchanan's administration by its acts, and that it "hailedwith satisfaction" the fact that the people of Kansas had settled theLecompton question by practically making the territory a free State. 

Thus Parker stood for Buchanan and popular sovereignty, while theRepublicans denounced the Lecompton trick as a wicked scheme tosubvert popular sovereignty. It was a sharp issue. The whole power ofthe Administration had been invoked to carry out the Lecompton plan, and New York congressmen were compelled to support it or be castaside. But in their speeches, Parker and his supporters sought tominimise the President's part and to magnify the Douglas doctrine. Itwas an easy and plausible way of settling the slavery question, andone which commended itself to those who wished it settled by theDemocratic party. John Van Buren's use of it recalled something of theinfluence and power that attended his speeches in the Free-soilcampaign of 1848. Since that day he had been on too many sides, perhaps, to command the hearty respect of any, but he loved fair play, which the Lecompton scheme had outraged, and the application of thedoctrine that seemed to have brought peace and a free State to thepeople appealed to him as a correct principle of government that mustmake for good. He presented it in the clear, impassioned style forwhich he was so justly noted. His speeches contained much that did notbelong in the remarks of a statesman; but, upon the question ofpopular sovereignty, as illustrated in Kansas, John Van Buren preparedthe way in New York for the candidacy and coming of Douglas in 1860. 

Roscoe Conkling, now for the first time a candidate for Congress, exhibited something of the dexterity and ability that characterisedhis subsequent career. The public, friends and foes, did not yetjudge him by a few striking and picturesque qualities, for his vanity, imperiousness, and power to hate had not yet matured, but already hewas a close student of political history, and of great capacity as anorator. The intense earnestness of purpose, the marvellous power ofrapidly absorbing knowledge, the quickness of wit, and the firmnesswhich Cato never surpassed, marked him then, as afterward upon thefloor of Congress, a mighty power amidst great antagonists. Perhapshis anger was not so quickly excited, nor the shafts of his sarcasm sobarbed and cruel, but his speeches--dramatic, rhetorical, with theever-present, withering sneer--were rapidly advancing him toleadership in central New York. A quick glance at his tall, gracefulform, capacious chest, and massive head, removed him from the class ofordinary persons. Towering above his fellows, he looked the patrician. It was known, too, that he had muscle as well as brains. Indeed, hisnomination to Congress had been influenced somewhat by the recentassault on Charles Sumner. "Preston Brooks won't hurt him, " said theleader of the Fifth Ward, in Utica. [496]

[Footnote 496: Alfred R. Conkling, _Life and Letters of RoscoeConkling_, p. 77. ]

The keynote of the campaign, however, was not spoken until Seward madehis historic speech at Rochester on October 25. The October success inPennsylvania had thrilled the Republicans; and the New York electionpromised a victory like that of 1856. Whatever advantage could begained by past events and future expectations was now Seward's. Lincoln's famous declaration, "I believe this government cannot endurepermanently half slave and half free, " had been uttered in June, andhis joint debate with Douglas, concluded on October 15, had clearedthe political atmosphere, making it plain that popular sovereignty wasnot the pathway for Republicans to follow. Seward's utterance, therefore, was to be the last word in the campaign. 

It was not entirely clear just what this utterance would be. Sewardhad shown much independence of late. In the preceding February hiscourse on the army bill caused severe comment. Because ofdifficulties with the Mormons in Utah it was proposed to increase thearmy; but Republicans objected, believing the additional force wouldbe improperly used in Kansas. Seward, however, spoke and voted for thebill. "He is perfectly bedevilled, " wrote Senator Fessenden; "hethinks himself wiser than all of us. "[497] Later, in March, he caughtsomething of the popular-sovereignty idea--enough, at least, to draw amild protest from Salmon P. Chase. "I regretted, " he wrote, "theapparent countenance you gave to the idea that the Douglas doctrine ofpopular sovereignty will do for us to stand upon for thepresent. "[498] Seward did not go so far as Greeley and Raymond, buthis expressions indicated that States were to be admitted with orwithout slavery as the people themselves decided. Before, he hadinsisted that Congress had the right to make conditions; now, hiswillingness cheerfully to co-operate with Douglas and other "newdefenders of the sacred cause in Kansas" seemed to favour a newcombination, if not a new party. In other words, Seward had beenfeeling his way until it aroused a faint suspicion that he wastrimming to catch the moderate element of his party. If he had had anythought of harmony of feeling between Douglas and the Republicans, however, the Lincoln debate compelled him to abandon it, and in hisspeech of October 25 he confined himself to the discussion of the tworadically different political systems that divided the North and theSouth. 

[Footnote 497: James S. Pike, _First Blows of the Civil War_, p. 379. ]

[Footnote 498: Warden, _Life of Chase_, p. 343. ]

The increase in population and in better facilities for internalcommunication, he declared, had rapidly brought these two systems intoclose contact, and collision was the result. "Shall I tell you whatthis collision means? They who think it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators, and thereforeephemeral, mistake the case altogether. It is an irrepressibleconflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that theUnited States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely aslave-holding nation, or entirely a free labour nation. Either thecotton and rice fields of South Carolina and the sugar plantations ofLouisiana will ultimately be tilled by free labour, and Charleston andNew Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else therye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must againbe surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the productionof slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets for tradein the bodies and souls of men. "[499]

[Footnote 499: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 351. ]

It was one of the most impressive and commanding speeches that hadever come from his eloquent lips, but there was nothing new in it. Asearly as 1848 he had made the antagonism between freedom and slaverythe leading feature of a speech that attracted much attention at thetime, and in 1856 he spoke of "an ancient and eternal conflict betweentwo entirely antagonistic systems of human labour. " Indeed, for tenyears, in company with other distinguished speakers, he had beenringing the changes on this same idea. Only four months before, Lincoln had proclaimed that "A house divided against itself cannotstand. "[500] Yet no one had given special attention to it. But now thetwo words, "irrepressible conflict, " seemed to sum up the antipathybetween the two systems, and to alarm men into a realisation of thereal and perhaps the immediate danger that confronted them. "Hitherto, " says Frederick W. Seward in the biography of his father, "while it was accepted and believed by those who followed hispolitical teachings, among his opponents it had fallen upon unheedingears and incredulous minds. But now, at last, the country wasbeginning to wake up to the gravity of the crisis, and when he pointedto the 'irrepressible conflict' he was formulating, in clear words, avague and unwilling belief that was creeping over every intelligentNorthern man. "[501]

[Footnote 500: _Lincoln-Douglas Debates_, p. 48. ]

[Footnote 501: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 352. ]

The effect was instantaneous. Democratic press and orators becamehysterical, denouncing him as "vile, " "wicked, " "malicious, " and"vicious. " The _Herald_ called him an "arch-agitator, " more dangerousthan Beecher, Garrison, or Theodore Parker. It was denied that anyconflict existed except such as he was trying to foment. Even the NewYork _Times_, his own organ, thought the idea of abolishing slavery inthe slave States rather fanciful, while the Springfield _Republican_pronounced his declaration impolitic and likely to do him and hisparty harm. On the other hand, the radical anti-slavery papers thoughtit bold and commendable. "With the instinct of a statesman, " the_Tribune_ said, "Seward discards all minor, temporary, and delusiveissues, and treats only of what is final and essential. Clear, calm, sagacious, profound, and impregnable, showing a masterly comprehensionof the present aspect and future prospects of the great question whichnow engrosses our politics, this speech will be pondered by everythoughtful man in the land and confirm the eminence so long maintainedby its author. "[502] James Watson Webb, in the _Courier and Enquirer_, declared that it made Seward and Republicanism one and inseparable, and settled the question in New York as to who should be thestandard-bearer in 1860. 

[Footnote 502: New York _Daily Tribune_, October 27, 1858. 

"Few speeches from the stump have attracted so great attention orexerted so great an influence. The eminence of the man combined withthe startling character of the doctrine to make it engross the publicmind. Republicans looked upon the doctrine announced as thewell-weighed conclusion of a profound thinker and of a man of wideexperience, who united the political philosopher with the practicalpolitician. It is not probable that Lincoln's 'house divided againstitself' speech had any influence in bringing Seward to this position. He would at this time have scorned the notion of borrowing ideas fromLincoln; and had he studied the progress of the Illinois canvass, hemust have seen that the declaration did not meet with general favour. In February of this year there had been bodied forth in Seward thepolitician. Now, a far-seeing statesman spoke. One was compared toWebster's 7th-of-March speech, --the other was commended by theAbolitionists. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, pp. 344-5. ]

The result of the election was favourable to the Republicans, Morgan'smajority over Parker being 17, 440. [503] Ninety-nine members of theLegislature and twenty-nine congressmen were either Republicans oranti-Lecompton men. But, compared with the victory of 1856, it was adisappointment. John A. King had received a majority of 65, 000 overParker. The _Tribune_ was quick to charge some of this loss to Seward. "The clamour against Sewardism lost us many votes, " it declared themorning after the election. Two or three days later, as the reducedmajority became more apparent, it explained that "A knavish clamourwas raised on the eve of election by a Swiss press against GovernorSeward's late speech at Rochester as revolutionary and disunionist. Our loss from this source is considerable. " The returns, however, showed plainly that one-half of the Americans, following the precedentset in 1857, had voted for Parker, while the other half, irritated bythe failure of the union movement at Syracuse, had supported Burrows. Had the coalition succeeded, Morgan's majority must have been largerthan King's. But, small as it was, there was abundant cause forRepublican rejoicing, since it kept the Empire State in line with theRepublican States of New England, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin, which were now joined for the first time by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Minnesota. Indeed, of the free States, only California and Oregonhad indorsed Buchanan's administration. 

[Footnote 503: Edwin D. Morgan, 247, 953; Amasa J. Parker, 230, 513;Lorenzo Burrows, 60, 880; Gerrit Smith, 5470. --_Civil List, State ofNew York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

CHAPTER XIX

SEWARD'S BID FOR THE PRESIDENCY

1859-1860

The elections in 1858 simplified the political situation. With theexception of Pennsylvania, where the tariff question played aconspicuous part, all the Northern States had disapproved PresidentBuchanan's Lecompton policy, and the people, save the old-line Whigs, the Abolitionists, and the Americans, had placed themselves under theleadership of Seward, Lincoln, and Douglas, who now clearlyrepresented the political sentiments of the North. If any hope stilllingered among the Democrats of New York, that the sectional divisionof their party might be healed, it must have been quickly shattered bythe fierce debates over popular sovereignty and the Africanslave-trade which occurred in the United States Senate in February, 1859, between Jefferson Davis, representing the slave power of theSouth, and Stephen A. Douglas, the recognised champion of his party inthe free States. 

Under these circumstances, the Democratic national convention, calledto meet in Charleston, South Carolina, on April 23, 1860, became thecentre of interest in the state convention, which met at Syracuse onthe 14th of September, 1859. Each faction desired to control thenational delegation. As usual, Daniel S. Dickinson was a candidate forthe Presidency. He believed his friends in the South would prefer himto Douglas if he could command an unbroken New York delegation, and, with the hope of having the delegates selected by districts as thesurer road to success, he flirted with Fernando Wood until thelatter's perfidy turned his ear to the siren song of the Softs, whopromised him a solid delegation whenever it could secure hisnomination. Dickinson listened with distrust. He was the last of theold leaders of the Hards. Seymour and Marcy had left them; but"Scripture Dick, " as he was called, because of his many Biblequotations, stood resolutely and arrogantly at his post, defying themachinations of his opponents with merciless criticism. The BinghamtonStalwart did not belong in the first rank of statesmen. He was neitheran orator nor a tactful party leader. It cannot be said of him that hewas a quick-witted, incisive, and successful debater;[504] but, oncritical days, when the fate of his faction hung in the balance, hewas a valiant fighter, absolutely without fear, who took blows asbravely as he gave them, and was loyal to all the interests which heespoused. He now dreaded the Softs bearing gifts. But their evidentfrankness and his supreme need melted the estrangement that had longexisted between them. 

[Footnote 504: "'Scripture Dick, ' whom we used to consider thesorriest of slow jokers, has really brightened up. "--New York_Tribune_, March 17, 1859. ]

In the selection of delegates to the state convention Fernando Woodand Tammany had a severe struggle. Tammany won, but Wood appeared atSyracuse with a full delegation, and for half an hour before theconvention convened Wood endeavoured to do by force what he knew couldnot be accomplished by votes. He had brought with him a company ofroughs, headed by John C. Heenan, "the Benicia Boy, " and fifteenminutes before the appointed hour, in the absence of a majority of thedelegates, he organised the convention, electing his own chairman andappointing his own committees. When the bulk of the Softs arrived theyproceeded to elect their chairman. This was the signal for a riot, inthe course of which the chairman of the regulars was knocked down andan intimidating display of pistols exhibited. Finally the regularsadjourned, leaving the hall to the Wood contestants, who completedtheir organisation, and, after renominating the Democratic stateofficers elected in 1857, adjourned without day. 

Immediately, the regulars reappeared; and as the Hards from theup-state counties answered to the roll call, the Softs vociferouslyapplauded. Then Dickinson made a characteristic speech. He did notfully decide to join the Softs until Fernando Wood had sacrificed theonly chance of overthrowing them; but when he did go over, he burnedthe bridges behind him. The Softs were delighted with Dickinson'sbearing and Dickinson's speech. It united the party throughout theState and put Tammany in easy control of New York City. 

With harmony restored there was little for the convention to do exceptto renominate the state officers, appoint delegates to the Charlestonconvention who were instructed to vote as a unit, and adopt theplatform. These resolutions indorsed the administration of PresidentBuchanan; approved popular sovereignty; condemned the "irrepressibleconflict" speech of Seward as a "revolutionary threat" aimed atrepublican institutions; and opposed the enlargement of the Erie canalto a depth of seven feet. 

The Republican state convention had previously assembled on September7 and selected a ticket, equally divided between men of Democratic andWhig antecedents, headed by Elias W. Leavenworth for secretary ofstate. Great confidence was felt in its election until the Americansmet in convention on September 22 and indorsed five of its candidatesand four Democrats. This, however, did not abate Republican activity, and, in the end, six of the nine Republican nominees were elected. Theweight of the combined opposition, directed against Leavenworth, caused his defeat by less than fifteen hundred, showing thatRepublicans were gradually absorbing all the anti-slavery elements. 

Upon what theory the American party nominated an eclectic ticket didnot appear, although the belief obtained that it hoped to cloudSeward's presidential prospects by creating the impression that theSenator was unable, without assistance, to carry his own State on theeve of a great national contest. But whatever the reason, the resultdeeply humiliated the party, since its voting strength, reduced toless than 21, 000, proved insufficient to do more than expose theweakness. This was the last appearance of the American party. It hadendeavoured to extend its life and increase its influence; but afterits refusal to interdict slavery in the territories it rapidly meltedaway. Henry Wilson, senator and Vice President, declared that he wouldgive ten years of his life if he could blot out his membership in theKnow-Nothing party, since it associated him throughout his long andattractive public career with proscriptive principles of which he wasashamed. 

In the midst of the campaign the country was startled by John Brown'sraid at Harper's Ferry. For two years Brown had lived an uneventfullife in New York on land in the Adirondack region given him by GerritSmith. In 1851, he moved to Ohio, and from thence to Kansas, where hebecame known as John Brown of Osawatomie. He had been a consistentenemy of slavery, working the underground railroad and sympathisingwith every scheme for the rescue of slaves; but once in Kansas, hereadily learned the use of a Sharpe's rifle. In revenge for thedestruction of Lawrence, he deliberately massacred the pro-slaverysettlers living along Pottawatomie creek. "Without the shedding ofblood there is no remission of sins, " was a favourite text. Hisactivity made him a national character. The President offered $250 forhis arrest and the governor of Missouri added $3000 more. In 1858, hereturned East, collected money to aid an insurrection among the slavesof Virginia, and on October 17, 1859, with eighteen men, began hisquixotic campaign by cutting telegraph wires, stopping trains, andseizing the national armory at Harper's Ferry. At one time he hadtaken sixty prisoners. 

The affair was soon over, but not until the entire band was killed orcaptured. Brown, severely hurt, stood between two of his sons, onedead and the other mortally wounded, refusing to surrender so long ashe could fight. After his capture, he said, coolly, in reply to aquestion: "We are Abolitionists from the North, come to release andtake your slaves. "

The trial, conviction, and execution of Brown and his capturedcompanions ended the episode, but its influence was destined to befar-reaching. John Brown became idealised. His bearing as he stoodbetween his dead and dying sons, his truth-telling answers, and theevidence of his absolute unselfishness filled many people in the Northwith a profound respect for the passion that had driven him on, whilehis bold invasion of a slave State and his reckless disregard of lifeand property alarmed the South into the sincere belief that hismethods differed only in degree from the teachings of those who talkedof an irrepressible conflict and a higher law. To aid him in regaininghis lost position in the South, Stephen A. Douglas proclaimed it ashis "firm and deliberate belief that the Harper Ferry crime was thenatural, logical, and inevitable result of the doctrine and teachingsof the Republican party. "[505]

[Footnote 505: _Congressional Globe_, 36th Cong. , 1st Sess. , pp. 553-4(January 23, 1860). ]

The sentimentalists of the North generally sympathised with Brown. Emerson spoke of him as "that new saint awaiting his martyrdom, andwho, if he shall suffer, will make the gallows glorious like thecross. "[506] In the same spirit Thoreau called him "an angel oflight, " and Longfellow wrote in his diary on the day of the execution:"The date of a new revolution, quite as much needed as the oldone. "[507] But the Republican leaders deprecated the affair, characterising it as "among the gravest of crimes, " and denying thatit had any relation to their party except as it influenced the mindsof all men for or against slavery. 

[Footnote 506: James E. Cabot, _Life of Emerson_, p. 597. ]

[Footnote 507: Samuel Longfellow, _Life of Longfellow_, Vol. 2, p. 347. ]

William H. Seward was in Europe at the time of the raid. Early in May, 1859, his friends had celebrated his departure from New York, escorting him to Sandy Hook, and leaving him finally amidst shoutsand music, bells and whistles, and the waving of hats andhandkerchiefs. Such a scene is common enough nowadays, but then it wasunique. His return at the close of December, after an absence of eightmonths, was the occasion of great rejoicing. A salute of a hundredguns was fired in City Hall Park, the mayor and common counciltendered him a public reception, and after hours of speech-making andhand-shaking he proceeded slowly homeward amidst waiting crowds atevery station. At Auburn the streets were decorated, and the people, regardless of creed or party, escorted him in procession to his home. Few Republicans in New York had any doubt at that moment of hisnomination and election to the Presidency. 

On going to Washington Seward found the United States Senateinvestigating the Harper's Ferry affair and the House ofRepresentatives deadlocked over the election of a speaker. Bitternessand threats of disunion characterised the proceeding at both ends ofthe Capitol. "This Union, " said one congressman, "great and powerfulas it is, can be tumbled down by the act of any one Southern State. IfFlorida withdraws, the federal government would not dare attack her. If it did, the bands would dissolve as if melted by lightning. "[508]Referring to the possibility of the election of a RepublicanPresident, another declared that "We will never submit to theinauguration of a Black Republican President. You may elect Seward tobe President of the North; but of the South, never! Whenever aPresident is elected by a fanatical majority of the North, those whomI represent are ready, let the consequences be what they may, to fallback on their reserved rights, and say, 'As to this Union we have nolonger any lot or part in it. '"[509]

[Footnote 508: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 441. ]

[Footnote 509: _Ibid. _, p. 442. ]

In the midst of these fiery, disunion utterances, on the 21st ofFebruary, 1860, Seward introduced a bill for the admission of Kansasinto the Union. After the overwhelming defeat of the LecomptonConstitution, the free-state men had controlled the territoriallegislature, repealed the slave code of 1855, and, in the summer of1859, convened a constitutional convention at Wyandotte. A few weekslater the people ratified the result of its work by a large majority. It was this Wyandotte Constitution under which Seward proposed toadmit Kansas, and he fixed the consideration of his measure for the29th of February. This would be two days after Abraham Lincoln hadspoken in New York City. 

Lincoln, whose fame had made rapid strides in the West since hisdebate with Douglas in 1858, had been anxious to visit New York. Itwas the home of Seward, the centre of Republican strength, and to himpractically an unknown land. Through the invitation of the Young Men'sCentral Republican Union he was now to lecture at Cooper Institute onthe 27th of February. It was arranged at first that he speak in HenryWard Beecher's church, but the change, relieving him from too closeassociation with the great apostle of abolition, opened a wider doorfor his reception. Personally he was known to very few people in thecity or State. In 1848, on his way to New England to take the stump, he had called upon Thurlow Weed at Albany, and together they visitedMillard Fillmore, then candidate for Vice President; but the meetingmade such a slight impression upon the editor of the _Evening Journal_that he had entirely forgotten it. Thirty years before, in one of hisjourneys to Illinois, William Cullen Bryant had met him. Lincoln wasthen a tall, awkward lad, the captain of a militia company in theBlack Hawk War, whose racy and original conversation attracted theyoung poet; but Bryant, too, had forgotten him, and it was long afterthe famous debate that he identified his prairie acquaintance as theopponent of Douglas. Lincoln, however, did not come as a stranger. Hisencounter with the great Illinoisan had marked him as a powerful andlogical reasoner whose speeches embraced every political issue of theday and cleared up every doubtful point. Well-informed peopleeverywhere knew of him. He was not yet a national character, but hehad a national reputation. 

Though Lincoln's lecture was one of a course, the admission fee didnot restrain an eager audience from filling the commodious hall. "Since the day of Clay and Webster, " said the _Tribune_, "no man hasspoken to a larger assemblage of the intellect and mental culture ofour city. "[510] Bryant acted as chairman of the meeting, and otherwell-known men of the city occupied the stage. In his _Life ofLincoln_, Herndon suggests that the new suit of clothes which seemedso fine in his Springfield home was in such awkward contrast with theneatly fitting dress of the New Yorkers that it disconcerted him, andthe brilliant audience dazzled and embarrassed him; but his hearersthought only of the pregnant matter of the discourse, so calmly andlogically discussed that Horace Greeley, years afterward, pronouncedit "the very best political address to which I ever listened, and Ihave heard some of Webster's grandest. "[511]

[Footnote 510: New York _Tribune_, February 28, 1860. ]

[Footnote 511: _Century Magazine_, July, 1891, p. 373. An address ofGreeley written in 1868. ]

Lincoln had carefully prepared for the occasion. He came East to showwhat manner of man he was, and while he evidenced deep moral feelingwhich kept his audience in a glow, he combined with it rare politicalsagacity, notably in omitting the "house divided against itself"declaration. He argued that the Republican party was notrevolutionary, but conservative, since it maintained the doctrine ofthe fathers who held and acted upon the opinion that Congress had thepower to prohibit slavery in the territories. "Some of you, " he said, addressing himself to the Southern people, "are for reviving theforeign slave trade; some for Congress forbidding the territories toprohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery inthe territories through the judiciary; some for the 'great principle'that if one man would enslave another, no third man should object, fantastically called popular sovereignty; but never a man among you isin favour of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of our fathers who formed the governmentunder which we live. You say we have made the slavery question moreprominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is moreprominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you whodiscarded the old policy of the fathers. " Of Southern threats ofdisunion, he said: "Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that youwill destroy the government unless you be allowed to construe andenforce the Constitution as you please on all points in disputebetween you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. " Referring tothe Harper's Ferry episode, he said: "That affair in its philosophycorresponds with the many attempts related in history at theassassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over theoppression of a people, until he fancies himself commissioned byheaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt which ends in littleelse than his own execution. "

Lincoln's lecture did not disappoint. He had entertained andinterested the vast assemblage, which frequently rang with cheers andshouts of applause as the gestures and the mirth-provoking lookemphasised the racy hits that punctuated the address. "No man, " saidthe _Tribune_, "ever before made such an impression on his firstappeal to a New York audience. He is one of Nature's orators. "[512]

[Footnote 512: New York _Tribune_, March 1, 1860. ]

Two days later, Seward addressed the United States Senate. There is noevidence that he fixed this date because of the Cooper Institutelecture. The gravity of the political situation demanded someexpression from him; but the knowledge of the time of Lincoln's speechgave him ample opportunity to arrange to follow it with one of hisown, if he wished to have the last word, or to institute a comparisonof their respective views on the eve of the national convention. However this may be, Seward regarded his utterances on this occasionof the utmost importance. He was the special object of Southernvituperation. A "Fire-Eater" of the South publicly advertised that hewould be one of one hundred "gentlemen" to give twenty-five dollarseach for the heads of Horace Greeley, Henry Ward Beecher, and fortyother prominent Northern leaders in and out of Congress, but for thehead of Seward his proposed subscription was multiplied twenty fold. It is noticeable that in this long list of "traitors" the name ofAbraham Lincoln does not appear. It was Seward whom the South expectedthe Republican party would nominate for President, and in him it sawthe narrow-minded, selfish, obstinate Abolitionist who hated them asintensely as they despised him. To dispossess the Southern mind ofthis feeling the Auburn statesman now endeavoured to show that ifelected President he would not treat the South unfriendly. 

Seward's speech bears evidence of careful preparation. It was not onlyread to friends for criticism, but Henry B. Stanton, in his _RandomRecollections_, says that Seward, before the day of its delivery, assisted him in describing such a scene in the Senate as he desiredlaid before the public. On his return to Washington, Seward had notbeen received with a show of friendship by his associates from theSouth. It was remarked that while Republican senators greeted himwarmly, "his Southern friends were afraid to be seen talking to him. "On the occasion of his speech, however, he wished the record to showevery senator in his place and deeply interested. 

Visitors to the Senate on the 29th of February crowded every availablespot in the galleries. "But it was on the floor itself, " wrote Stantonto the _Tribune_, "that the most interesting spectacle presenteditself. Every senator seemed to be in his seat. Hunter, Davis, Toombs, Mason, Slidell, Hammond, Clingman, Brown, and Benjamin paid closestattention to the speaker. Crittenden listened to every word. Douglasaffected to be self-possessed; but his nervousness of mien gave tokenthat the truths now uttered awakened memories of the Lecomptoncontest, when he, Seward, and Crittenden, the famous triumvirate, ledthe allies in their attack upon the Administration. The members of theHouse streamed over to the north wing of the Capitol almost in abody, leaving Reagan of Texas to discourse to empty benches, whileSeward held his levee in the Senate. "[513]

[Footnote 513: New York _Tribune_, March 1, 1860. ]

Seward lacked the tones, the kindly eye, and the mirth-provoking lookof Lincoln. His voice was husky, his manner didactic, and his physiqueunimposing, but he had the gift of expression, and the ability toformulate his opinions and marshal his facts in lucid sentences thatharmonised with Northern sentiments and became at once the creed andrallying cry of his party; and, on this occasion, he held the Senatespellbound for two hours, the applause at one time becoming so longcontinued that the presiding officer threatened to clear thegalleries. He was always calm and temperate. But it seemed now to behis desire, in language more subdued, perhaps, than he had ever usedbefore, to allay the fears of what would happen should the Republicanparty succeed in electing a President; and, without the sacrifice ofany principle, he endeavoured to outline the views of Republicans andthe spirit that animated himself. There was nothing new in his speech. He avoided the higher law and irrepressible conflict doctrines, andomitted his former declarations that slavery "can and must beabolished, and you and I can and must do it. " In like manner he failedto demand, as formerly, that the Supreme Court "recede from itsspurious judgment" in the Dred Scott case. But he reviewed with thesame logic that had characterised his utterances for twenty years, therelation of the Constitution to slavery; the influence of slavery uponboth parties; the history of the Kansas controversy; and the manifestadvantages of the Union, dwelling at length and with much originalityupon the firm hold it had upon the people, and the certainty that itwould survive the rudest shocks of faction. Of the Harper's Ferryaffair, Seward spoke with more sympathy than Lincoln. "While generousand charitable natures will probably concede that John Brown acted onearnest, though fatally erroneous convictions, " he said, "yet all goodcitizens will nevertheless agree that this attempt to execute anunlawful purpose in Virginia by invasion, involving servile war, wasan act of sedition and treason, and criminal in just the extent thatit affected the public peace and was destructive of human happinessand life. "

It has been noted with increasing admiration that Lincoln and Seward, without consultation and in the presence of a great impending crisis, paralleled one another's views so closely. Each embodied theconvictions and aspirations of his party. The spirit of an unsectarianpatriotism that characterised Seward's speech proved highlysatisfactory to the great mass of Republicans. The New York _Times_rejoiced that its tone indicated "a desire to allay and removeunfounded prejudice from the public mind, " and pronounced "the wholetenor of it in direct contradiction to the sentiments which have beenimputed to him on the strength of declarations which he has hithertomade. "[514] Samuel Bowles of the Springfield _Republican_ wroteThurlow Weed that the state delegation--so "very marked" is thereaction in Seward's favour--would "be so strong for him as to beagainst anybody else, " and that "I hear of ultra old Whigs in Bostonwho say they are ready to take him up on his recent speech. "[515]Charles A. Dana, then managing editor of the _Tribune_, declared that"Seward stock is rising, " and Salmon P. Chase admitted that "thereseems to be at present a considerable set toward Seward. " Nathaniel P. Banks, who was himself spoken of as a candidate, thought Seward'sprospects greatly enhanced. 

[Footnote 514: New York _Times_, March 2, 1860. ]

[Footnote 515: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 260. ]

But a growing and influential body of men in the Republican partyseverely criticised the speech because it lacked the moral earnestnessof the "higher law" spirit. To them it seemed as if Seward had made abid for the Presidency, and that the irrepressible conflict of 1858was suddenly transformed into the condition of a mild and patientlover who is determined not to quarrel. "Differences of opinion, evenon the subject of slavery, " he said, "are with us political, notsocial or personal differences. There is not one disunionist ordisloyalist among us all. We are altogether unconscious of any processof dissolution going on among us or around us. We have never been morepatient, and never loved the representatives of other sections morethan now. We bear the same testimony for the people around us here. Webear the same testimony for all the districts and States werepresent. "

This did not sound like the terrible "irrepressible conflict" picturedat Rochester. Wendell Phillips' famous epigram that "Seward makes aspeech in Washington on the tactics of the Republican party, butphrases it to suit Wall street, "[516] voiced the sentiment of hiscritics. Garrison was not less severe. "The temptation which provedtoo powerful for Webster, " he wrote, "is seducing Seward to take thesame downward course. "[517] Greeley did not vigorously combat thisidea. "Governor Seward, " he said, "has so long been stigmatised as aradical that those who now first study his inculcations carefully willbe astonished to find him so eminently pacific and conservative. Future generations will be puzzled to comprehend how such sentimentsas his, couched in the language of courtesy and suavity which noprovocation can induce him to discard, should ever have been denouncedas incendiary. "[518]

[Footnote 516: New York _Tribune_, March 22, 1860. ]

[Footnote 517: _The Liberator_, March 9, 1860. ]

[Footnote 518: New York _Tribune_, March 2, 1860. ]

No doubt much of this criticism was due to personal jealousy, or tothe old prejudice against him as a Whig leader who had kept himself inaccord with the changing tendencies of a progressive people, alternately exciting them with irrepressible conflicts and soothingthem with sentences of conservative wisdom; but Bowles, in approvingthe speech because it had brought ultra old Whigs of Boston toSeward's support, exposed the real reason for the adverse criticism, since an address that would capture an old-line Whig, who indorsedFillmore in 1856, could scarcely satisfy the type of Republicans whobelieved, with John A. Andrew, that whether the Harper's Ferryenterprise was wise or foolish, "John Brown himself is right. " It islittle wonder, perhaps, that these people began to doubt whetherSeward had strong convictions. 

CHAPTER XX

DEAN RICHMOND'S LEADERSHIP AT CHARLESTON

1860

When the Democratic national convention opened at Charleston, SouthCarolina, on April 23, 1860, Fernando Wood insisted upon the admissionof his delegation on equal terms with Tammany. The supreme questionwas the nomination of Stephen A. Douglas, and the closeness of thecontest between the Douglas and anti-Douglas forces made New York'sthirty-five votes most important. Wood promised his support, ifadmitted, to the anti-Douglas faction; the Softs, led by DeanRichmond, encouraged Douglas and whispered kindly words to thesupporters of James Guthrie of Kentucky. It was apparent that Wood'sdelegation had no standing. It had been appointed before the legalhour for the convention's assembling in the absence of a majority ofthe delegates, and upon no theory could its regularity be accepted;but Wood, mild and bland in manner, made a favourable impression inCharleston. No one would have pointed him out in a group of gentlemenas the redoubtable mayor of New York City, who invented surprises, and, with a retinue of roughs, precipitated trouble in conventions. His adroit speeches, too, had won him advantage, and when he pledgedhimself to the ultra men of the South his admission became a necessaryfactor to their success. This, naturally, threw the Softs into thecamp of Douglas, whose support made their admission possible. [519]

[Footnote 519: "The Fernando Wood movement was utterly overthrown inthe preliminary stages. Several scenes in the fight were highlyentertaining. Mr. Fisher of Virginia was picked out to make theonslaught, when John Cochrane of New York, who is the brains of theCagger-Cassidy delegation, shut him off with a point of order. "--M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 20. ]

The New York delegation, composed of distinguished business men andadroit politicians, was divided into two factions, each one fancyingitself the more truly patriotic, public-spirited, and independent. [520]The Softs had trapped the Hards into allegiance with the promise of asolid support for Dickinson whenever the convention manifested adisposition to rally around him--and then gagged them by a rigid unitrule. This made Dickinson declamatory and bitter, while the Softsthemselves, professing devotion to Douglas, exhibited an unrest whichindicated that changed conditions would easily change their devotion. Altogether, it was a disappointing delegation, distrusted by theDouglas men, feared by the South, and at odds with itself; yet, it isdoubtful if the Empire State ever sent an abler body of men to anational convention. Its chairman, Dean Richmond, now at the height ofhis power, was a man of large and comprehensive vision, and, althoughsometimes charged with insincerity, his rise in politics had not beenmore rapid than his success in business. Before his majority he hadbecome the director of a bank, and at the age of thirty-eight he hadestablished himself in Buffalo as a prosperous dealer and shipper. Then, he aided in consolidating seven corporations into the New YorkCentral Railroad--securing the necessary legislation for thepurpose--and in 1853 had become its vice president. Eleven yearslater, and two years before his death, he became its president. In1860, Dean Richmond was in his forty-seventh year, incapable of anymeanness, yet adroit, shrewd, and skilful, stating very perfectly thejudgment of a clear-headed and sound business man. As chairman of theDemocratic state committee, he was a somewhat rugged but an intenselyinteresting personality, who had won deservedly by his work a foremostplace among the most influential national leaders of the party. Hisopinion carried great weight, and, though he spoke seldom, his mindmoved rapidly by a very simple and direct path to correctconclusions. [521]

[Footnote 520: "Many of New York's delegates were eminent men ofbusiness, anxious for peace; others were adroit politicians, adept ata trade and eager to hold the party together by any means. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 474. ]

[Footnote 521: "Though destitute of all literary furnishment, Richmondcarried on his broad shoulders one of the clearest heads in the ranksof the Barnburners. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 183. ]

Around Richmond were clustered August Belmont and Augustus Schell ofNew York City, Peter Cagger and Erastus Corning of Albany, David L. Seymour of Troy, Sanford E. Church of Albion, and a dozen others quiteas well known. Perhaps none of them equalled the powerful Richardsonof Illinois, who led the Douglas forces, or his brilliant lieutenant, Charles E. Stuart of Michigan, whose directions and suggestions on thefloor of the convention, guided by an unerring knowledge ofparliamentary law, were regarded with something of dread even by CalebCushing, the gifted president of the convention; but John Cochrane ofNew York City, who had attended Democratic state and nationalconventions for a quarter of a century, was quite able to representthe Empire State to its advantage on the floor or elsewhere. He was aman of a high order of ability, and an accomplished and forcefulpublic speaker, whose sonorous voice, imposing manner, and skilfultactics made him at home in a parliamentary fight. "Cochrane is alarge but not a big man, " said a correspondent of the day, "full inthe region of the vest, and wears his beard, which is coarse andsandy, trimmed short. His head is bald, and his countenance bold, andthere are assurances in his complexion that he is a generous liver. Heis a fair type of the fast man of intellect and culture, whoseambition is to figure in politics. He is in Congress and can commandthe ear of the House at any time. His great trouble is his Free-soilrecord. He took Free-soilism like a distemper and mounted the Buffaloplatform. He is well over it now, however, with the exception of asingle heresy--the homestead law. He is for giving homesteads to theactual settlers upon the public land. "[522]

[Footnote 522: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 20. ]

Douglas had a majority of the delegates in the Charleston convention. But, with the aid of California and Oregon, the South had seventeen ofthe thirty-three States. This gave it a majority of the committee onresolutions, and, after five anxious days of protracted and earnestdebate, that committee reported a platform declaring it the duty ofthe federal government to protect slavery in the territories, anddenying the power of a territory either to abolish slavery or todestroy the rights of property in slaves by any legislation whatever. The minority reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform of 1856, with thefollowing preamble and resolution: "Inasmuch as differences of opinionexist in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of thepowers of a territorial legislature, and as to the powers and dutiesof Congress over the institution of slavery within the territories;Resolved, that the Democratic party will abide by the decisions of theSupreme Court on the questions of constitutional law. "

It was quickly evident that the disagreement which had plunged thecommittee into trouble extended to the convention. The debate becamehot and bitter. In a speech of remarkable power, William L. Yancey ofAlabama upbraided the Northern delegates for truckling to theFree-soil spirit. "You acknowledged, " he said, "that slavery did notexist by the law of nature or by the law of God--that it only existedby state law; that it was wrong, but that you were not to blame. Thatwas your position, and it was wrong. If you had taken the positiondirectly that slavery was right . . . You would have triumphed. But youhave gone down before the enemy so that they have put their foot uponyour neck; you will go lower and lower still, unless you change frontand change your tactics. When I was a schoolboy in the NorthernStates, abolitionists were pelted with rotten eggs. But now this bandof abolitionists has spread and grown into three bands--the blackRepublican, the Free-soilers, and squatter sovereignty men--allrepresenting the common sentiment that slavery is wrong. "[523] Againstthis extreme Southern demand that Northern Democrats declare slaveryright and its extension legitimate, Senator Pugh of Ohio vigorouslyprotested. "Gentlemen of the South, " he thundered, "you mistakeus--you mistake us! we will not do it. "[524]

[Footnote 523: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 48. ]

[Footnote 524: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 50. ]

The admission of the Softs and the adoption of a rule allowingindividual delegates from uninstructed States to vote as they pleasedhad given the Douglas men an assured majority, and on the seventh day, when the substitution of the minority for the majority report by avote of 165 to 138 threatened to culminate in the South's withdrawal, the Douglas leaders permitted a division of their report into itssubstantive propositions. Under this arrangement, the Cincinnatiplatform was reaffirmed by a vote of 237-1/2 to 65. The danger pointhad now been reached, and Edward Driggs of Brooklyn, scenting thebrewing mischief, moved to table the balance of the report. Driggsfavoured Douglas, but, in common with his delegation, he favoured aunited party more, and could his motion have been carried at thatmoment with a show of unanimity, the subsequent secession might havebeen checked if not wholly avoided. The Douglas leaders, however, notyet sufficiently alarmed, thought the withdrawal of two or threeSouthern States might aid rather than hinder the nomination of theirchief, and on this theory Driggs' motion was tabled. But, whenAlabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi withdrew their votes, and nearlythe entire South refused to express an opinion on the popularsovereignty plank, the extent of the secession suddenly flashed uponRichardson, who endeavoured to speak in the din of the wildestexcitement. Richardson had withdrawn Douglas' name at the Cincinnaticonvention in 1856; and, thinking some way out of their presenttrouble might now be suggested by him, John Cochrane, in a voice asmusical as it was far-reaching, urged the convention to hear one whomhe believed brought another "peace offering;" but objection was made, and the roll call continued. Richardson's purpose, however, had notescaped the vigilant New Yorkers, who now retired for consultation. The question was, should they strike out the only resolution havingthe slightest significance in the minority report? By the time theyhad decided in the affirmative, and returned to the hall, the wholeDouglas army was in full retreat, willing, finally, to stand solelyupon the reaffirmation of the Cincinnati platform, where the Driggsmotion would have landed them two hours earlier. 

But the Douglas leaders were not yet satisfied. Writhing under theirforced surrender, Stuart of Michigan took the floor, and by aninflammatory speech of the most offensive type started the stampedewhich the surrender of the Douglas platform was intended to avoid. Alabama led off, followed by Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas. Glenn of Mississippi, pale with emotion, spoke the sentiments of the seceders. "Our going, " he said, "is notconceived in passion or carried out from mere caprice ordisappointment. It is the firm resolve of the great body we represent. The people of Mississippi ask, what is the construction of theplatform of 1856? You of the North say it means one thing; we of theSouth another. They ask which is right and which is wrong? The Northhave maintained their position, but, while doing so, they have notacknowledged the rights of the South. We say, go your way and we willgo ours. But the South leaves not like Hagar, driven into thewilderness, friendless and alone, for in sixty days you will find aunited South standing shoulder to shoulder. "[525]

[Footnote 525: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 66. ]

This declaration, spoken with piercing emphasis, was received with themost enthusiastic applause that had thus far marked the proceedings ofthe convention. "The South Carolinians cheered long and loud, " says aneye-witness, "and the tempest of shouts made the circuit of thegalleries and the floor several times before it subsided. A largenumber of ladies favoured the secessionists with their sweetest smilesand with an occasional clapping of hands. "[526]

[Footnote 526: _Ibid. _, p. 68. ]

All this was telling hard upon the New York delegation. [527] It wantedharmony more than Douglas. Dickinson aspired to bring Southern friendsto his support, [528] while Dean Richmond was believed secretly toindulge the hope that ultimately Horatio Seymour might be nominated;and, under the plausible and patriotic guise of harmonising the party, the delegation had laboured hard to secure a compromise. It was shownthat Douglas need not be nominated; that with the South present hecould not receive a two-thirds majority; that with another candidatethe Southern States would continue in control. It was known that amajority of the delegation stood ready even to vote for a conciliatoryresolution, a mild slave code plank, declaring that all citizens ofthe United States have an equal right to settle, with their property, in the territories, and that under the Supreme Court's decisionsneither rights of person nor property could be destroyed or impairedby congressional or territorial legislation. This was Richmond's lastcard. In playing it he took desperate chances, but he was tired of thestrain of maintaining the leadership of one faction, and of avoiding atotal disruption with the other. 

[Footnote 527: "There was a Fourth of July feeling in Charleston thatnight--a jubilee. The public sentiment was overwhelmingly andenthusiastically in favour of the seceders. The Douglas men lookedbadly, as though they had been troubled with bad dreams. Thedisruption is too serious for them. They find themselves in theposition of a semi-Free Soil sectional party, and the poor fellowstake it hard. The ultra South sectionalists accuse them of cleavingunto heresies as bad as Sewardism. "--M. Halstead, _National PoliticalConventions of 1860_, p. 76. ]

[Footnote 528: "Dickinson has ten votes in the New York delegation andno more. "--New York _Tribune's_ report from Charleston, April 24, 1860. ]

To the Southern extremists, marshalled by Mason and Slidell, theplatform was of secondary importance. They wanted to destroy Guthrie, a personal enemy of Slidell, as well as to defeat Douglas, and, although it was apparent that the latter could not secure a two-thirdsmajority, it was no less evident that the Douglas vote could nominateGuthrie. To break up this combination, therefore, the ultras saw noway open except to break up the convention on the question of aplatform. This phase of the case left Richmond absolutely helpless. The secession of the cotton States might weaken Douglas, but it couldin nowise aid the chances of a compromise candidate, since the latter, if nominated, must rely upon a large portion of the Douglas vote. 

But Dean Richmond did not lose sight of his ultimate purpose. Thesecession left the convention with 253 out of 304 votes; and a motionrequiring a candidate to obtain two-thirds of the original numberbecame a test of devotion to Douglas, who hoped to get two-thirds ofthe remaining votes, but who could not, under any circumstances, receive two-thirds of the original number. As New York's vote was nowdecisive, it put the responsibility directly upon Richmond. It was hisopportunity to help or to break Douglas. The claim that precedentrequired two-thirds of the electoral vote to nominate was rejected byStuart as not having the sanction of logic. "Two-thirds of the votegiven in this convention" was the language of the rule, he argued, andit could not mean two-thirds of all the votes originally in theconvention. Cushing admitted that a rigid construction of the ruleseemed to refer to the votes cast on the ballot in this convention, but "the chair is not of the opinion, " he said, "that the words of therule apply to the votes cast for the candidate, but to two-thirds ofall the votes to be cast by the convention. " This ruling in nowiseinfluenced the solid delegations of Douglas' devoted followers fromOhio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota; andif Richmond had been as loyal in his support, it was reasoned, NewYork would have followed the Northwestern States. But Cushing's rulingafforded Richmond a technical peg upon which to hang a reason for notdeliberately and decisively cutting off the Empire State from thepossibilities of a presidential nomination, and, apparently withoutany scruples whatever, he decided that the nominee must receive theequivalent of two-thirds of the electoral college. [529] After thatvote one can no more think of Richmond or the majority of hisdelegation as inspired with devoted loyalty to Douglas. One delegatedeclared that it sounded like clods falling upon the Little Giant'scoffin. [530]

[Footnote 529: "The drill of the New York delegation and its unitedvote created a murmur of applause at its steady and commandingfront. "--New York _Tribune_, June 19, 1860. ]

[Footnote 530: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 85. ]

Little enthusiasm developed over the naming of candidates. Six wereplaced in nomination--Douglas of Illinois, Guthrie of Kentucky, Hunterof Virginia, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, Lane of Oregon, andDickinson of New York. George W. Patrick of California namedDickinson, and on the first ballot he received two votes fromPennsylvania, one from Virginia, and four from California, while NewYork cast its thirty-five votes for Douglas with as much éclat as ifit had not just made his nomination absolutely impossible. [531] Theresult gave Douglas 145-1/2 to 107-1/2 for all others, with 202necessary to a choice. On the thirty-third ballot, Douglas, amidstsome enthusiasm, reached 152-1/2 votes, equivalent to a majority ofthe electoral college; but, as the balloting proceeded, it becamemanifest that this was his limit, and on the ninth day motions toadjourn to New York or Baltimore in June became frequent. Thefifty-seventh ballot, the last of the session, gave Douglas 151-1/2, Guthrie 65-1/2, Dickinson 4, and all others 31. Dickinson hadflickered between half a vote and sixteen, with an average of five. Never perhaps in the history of political conventions did an ambitiouscandidate keep so far from the goal of success. 

[Footnote 531: "After the vote of New York had decided that it wasimpossible to nominate Douglas, it proceeded, the roll of States beingcalled, to vote for him as demurely as if it meant it. "--M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 84. ]

It was now apparent that the convention could not longer survive. Thelistless delegates, the absence of enthusiasm, and the uncrowdedgalleries, showed that all hope of a nomination was abandoned, especially since the friends of Douglas, who could prevent theselection of another, declared that the Illinoisan would not withdrawunder any contingency. It is dreary reading, the record of the lastthree days. If any further evidence were needed to show the uttercollapse of the dwindling, discouraged convention, the dejected, despairing appearance of Richardson, until now supported by a brightheroism and cheery good humour, would have furnished it. Accordingly, on the tenth day of the session, it was agreed to reassemble atBaltimore on Monday, June 18. Meantime the seceders had formedthemselves into a convention, adopted the platform recently reportedby the majority, and adjourned to meet at Richmond on the same day. 

Bitter thoughts filled the home-going delegates. Douglas' Northwesternfriends talked rancorously of the South; while, in their bitterness, Yancey and his followers exulted in the defeat of the IllinoisSenator. "Men will be cutting one another's throats in a littlewhile, " said Alexander H. Stephens. "In less than twelve months weshall be in war, and that the bloodiest in history. Men seem to beutterly blinded to the future. "[532]

[Footnote 532: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 453. ]

"Do you not think matters may be adjusted at Baltimore?" asked R. M. Johnston. "Not the slightest chance of it, " was the reply. "The partyis split forever. Douglas will not retire from the stand he has taken. The only hope was at Charleston. If the party would be satisfied withthe Cincinnati platform and would cordially nominate Douglas, weshould carry the election; but I repeat to you that is impossible. "[533]

[Footnote 533: _Ibid. _, p. 455. ]

Between the conventions the controversy moved to the floor of theUnited States Senate. "We claim protection for slavery in theterritories, " said Jefferson Davis, "first, because it is our right;secondly, because it is the duty of the general government. "[534] Inreplying to Davis several days later, Douglas said: "My name neverwould have been presented at Charleston except for the attempt toproscribe me as a heretic, too unsound to be the chairman of acommittee in this body, where I have held a seat for so many yearswithout a suspicion resting on my political fidelity. I was forced toallow my name to go there in self-defence; and I will now say that hadany gentleman, friend or foe, received a majority of that conventionover me the lightning would have carried a message withdrawing myname. "[535]

[Footnote 534: _Ibid. _, p. 453. ]

[Footnote 535: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 455. ]

A few days afterward Davis referred to the matter again. "I have adeclining respect for platforms, " he said. "I would sooner have anhonest man on any sort of a rickety platform you could construct thanto have a man I did not trust on the best platform which could bemade. " This stung Douglas. "If the platform is not a matter of muchconsequence, " he demanded, "why press that question to the disruptionof the party? Why did you not tell us in the beginning of this debatethat the whole fight was against the man and not upon theplatform?"[536]

[Footnote 536: _Ibid. _, p. 456. ]

These personalities served to deepen the exasperation of the sections. The real strain was to come, and there was great need that cool headsand impersonal argument should prevail over misrepresentation andpassion. But the coming event threw its shadow before it. 

CHAPTER XXI

SEWARD DEFEATED AT CHICAGO

1860

The Republican national convention met at Chicago on May 16. It wasthe prototype of the modern convention. In 1856, an ordinary hall inPhiladelphia, with a seating capacity of two thousand, sufficed toaccommodate delegates and spectators, but in 1860 the large building, called a "wigwam, " specially erected for the occasion and capable ofholding ten thousand, could not receive one-half the people seekingadmission, while marching clubs, bands of music, and spaciousheadquarters for state delegations, marked the new order of things. Asusual in later years, New York made an imposing demonstration. Thefriends of Seward took an entire hotel, and an organised, well-drilledbody of men from New York City, under the lead of Tom Hyer, a notedpugilist, headed by a gaily uniformed band, paraded the streets amidstadmiring crowds. For the first time, too, office-seekers were presentin force at a Republican convention; and, to show their devotion, theypacked hotel corridors and the convention hall itself with bodies ofmen who vociferously cheered every mention of their candidate's name. Such tactics are well understood and expected nowadays, but in 1860they were unique. 

The convention, consisting of 466 delegates, represented one southern, five border, and eighteen free States. "As long as conventions shallbe held, " wrote Horace Greeley, "I believe no abler, wiser, moreunselfish body of delegates will ever be assembled than that which metat Chicago. "[537] Governor Morgan, as chairman of the Republicannational committee, called the convention to order, presenting DavidWilmot, author of the famous proviso, for temporary chairman. GeorgeAshmun of Massachusetts, the favourite friend of Webster, becamepermanent president. The platform, adopted by a unanimous vote on thesecond day, denounced the Harper's Ferry invasion "as among thegravest of crimes;" declared the doctrine of popular sovereignty "adeception and fraud;" condemned the attempt of President Buchanan toforce the Lecompton Constitution upon Kansas; denied "the authority ofCongress, of a territorial legislature, or of an individual to givelegal existence to slavery in any territory;" demanded a liberalhomestead law; and favoured a tariff "to encourage the development ofthe industrial interests of the whole country. " The significantsilence as to personal liberty bills, the Dred Scott decision, thefugitive slave law, and the abolition of slavery in the District ofColumbia, evidenced the handiwork of practical men. 

[Footnote 537: New York _Tribune_, June 2, 1860. ]

Only one incident disclosed the enthusiasm of delegates for thedoctrine which affirms the equality and defines the rights of man. Joshua E. Giddings sought to incorporate the sentiment that "all menare created free and equal, " but the convention declined to accept ituntil the eloquence of George William Curtis carried it amidstdeafening applause. It was not an easy triumph. Party leaders hadpreserved the platform from radical utterances; and, with onedisapproving yell, the convention tabled the Giddings amendment. Instantly Curtis renewed the motion; and when it drowned his voice, hestood with folded arms and waited. At last, the chairman's gavel gavehim another chance. In the calm, his musical voice, in tones thatpenetrated and thrilled, begged the representatives of the party offreedom "to think well before, upon the free prairies of the West, inthe summer of 1860, you dare to shrink from repeating the words of thegreat men of 1776. "[538] The audience, stirred by an unwonted emotion, applauded the sentiment, and then adopted the amendment with a shoutmore unanimous than had been the vote of disapproval. 

[Footnote 538: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 137. ]

The selection of a candidate for President occupied the third day. Friends of Seward who thronged the city exhibited absoluteconfidence. [539] They represented not only the discipline of themachine, with its well-drilled cohorts, called the "irrepressibles, "and its impressive marching clubs, gay with banners and badges, butthe ablest leaders on the floor of the convention. And back of all, stood Thurlow Weed, the matchless manager, whose adroitness and wisdomhad been crowned with success for a whole generation. "He is one ofthe most remarkable men of our time, " wrote Samuel Bowles, in thepreceding February. "He is cool, calculating, a man of expedients, whoboasts that for thirty years he had not in political affairs let hisheart outweigh his judgment. " Governor Edwin D. Morgan and Henry J. Raymond were his lieutenants, William M. Evarts, his floor manager, and a score of men whose names were soon to become famous acted as hisassistants. The brilliant rhetoric of George William Curtis, wheninsisting upon an indorsement of the Declaration of Independence, gavethe opposition a taste of their mettle. 

[Footnote 539: "Mr. Seward seemed to be certain of receiving thenomination at Chicago. He felt that it belonged to him. His flatterershad encouraged him in the error that he was the sole creator of theRepublican party. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 214. "Ihear of so many fickle and timid friends as almost to make me sorrythat I have ever attempted to organise a party to save my country. "Letter of W. H. Seward to his wife, May 2, 1860. --F. W. Seward, _Life ofW. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 448. ]

Seward, confident of the nomination, had sailed for Europe in May, 1859, in a happy frame of mind. The only serious opposition had comefrom the _Tribune_ and from the Keystone State; but on the eve of hisdeparture Simon Cameron assured him of Pennsylvania, and Greeley, apparently reconciled, had dined with him at the Astor House. "The skyis bright, and the waters are calm, " was the farewell to hiswife. [540] After his return there came an occasional shadow. "I hearof so many fickle and timid friends, " he wrote;[541] yet he hadconfidence in Greeley, who, while calling with Weed, exhibited suchfriendly interest that Seward afterward resented the suggestion of hisdisloyalty. [542] On reaching Auburn to await the action of theconvention, his confidence of success found expression in the beliefthat he would not again return to Congress during that session. As thework of the convention progressed his friends became more sanguine. The solid delegations of New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Kansas, supplemented by the expected votes of NewEngland and other States on a second roll call, made the nominationcertain. Edward Bates had Missouri, Delaware, and Oregon, but theirvotes barely equalled one-half of New York's; Lincoln was positivelysure of only Illinois, and several of its delegates preferred Seward;Chase had failed to secure the united support of Ohio, and Dayton inNew Jersey was without hope. Cameron held Pennsylvania in reversionfor the New York Senator. So hopeless did the success of theopposition appear at midnight of the second day, that Greeleytelegraphed the _Tribune_ predicting Seward's nomination, and the"irrepressibles" anticipated victory in three hundred bottles ofchampagne. As late as the morning of the third day, the confidence ofthe Seward managers impelled them to ask whom the opposition preferredfor Vice President. 

[Footnote 540: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 360. ]

[Footnote 541: _Ibid. _, p. 448. ]

[Footnote 542: "Mr. Julius Wood of Columbus, O. , an old and truefriend of Mr. Weed, met Mr. Seward in Washington, and reiterated hisfears in connection with the accumulation of candidates. 'Mr. Lincolnwas brought to New York to divide your strength, ' he said. But Mr. Seward was not disconcerted by these warnings. Less than a fortnightafterwards Mr. Wood was at the Astor House, where he again met Mr. Weed and Mr. Seward. Sunday afternoon Mr. Greeley visited the hoteland passing through one of the corridors met Mr. Wood, with whom hebegan conversation. 'We shan't nominate Seward, ' said Mr. Greeley, 'we'll take some more conservative man, like Pitt Fessenden or Bates. 'Immediately afterwards Mr. Wood went to Mr. Seward's room. 'Greeleyhas just been here with Weed, ' said Mr. Seward. 'Weed brought him uphere. You were wrong in what you said to me at Washington aboutGreeley; he is all right. ' 'No, I was not wrong, ' insisted Mr. Wood. 'Greeley is cheating you. He will go to Chicago and work against you. 'At this Mr. Seward smiled. 'My dear Wood, ' said he, 'your zealsometimes gets a little the better of your judgment. '"--Thurlow WeedBarnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 269. ]

But opponents had been industriously at work. They found thatRepublicans of Know-Nothing antecedents, especially in Pennsylvania, still disliked Seward's opposition to their Order, and thatconservative Republicans recoiled from his doctrine of the higher lawand the irrepressible conflict. Upon this broad foundation of unrest, the opposition adroitly builded, poisoning the minds of unsettleddelegates with stories of his political methods and too closeassociation with Thurlow Weed. No one questioned Seward's personalintegrity; but the distrust of the political boss existed then as muchas now, and his methods were no less objectionable. "Themisconstruction put on his phrase 'the irrepressible conflict betweenfreedom and slavery' has, I think, damaged him a good deal, " wroteWilliam Cullen Bryant, "and in this city there is one thing which hasdamaged him still more. I mean the project of Thurlow Weed to givecharters for a set of city railways, for which those who receive themare to furnish a fund of from four to six hundred thousand dollars, tobe expended for the Republican cause in the next presidentialelection. "[543] Such a scheme would be rebuked even in this day oftrust and corporation giving. People resented the transfer toWashington of the peculiar state of things at Albany, and when JamesS. Pike wrote of Seward's close connection with men who schemed forpublic grants, it recalled his belief in the adage that "Money makesthe mare go. " Allusion to Seward's "bad associates, " as Bryant calledthem, and to the connection between "Seward stock" and "New Yorkstreet railroads" had become frequent in the correspondence of leadingmen, and now, when delegates could talk face to face in theconfidence of the party council chamber, these accusations made aprofound impression. The presence of Tom Hyer and his rough marchersdid not tend to eliminate these moral objections. "If you do notnominate Seward, where will you get your money?" was their stockargument. [544]

[Footnote 543: Parke Godwin, _Life of William Cullen Bryant_, Vol. 2, p. 127. ]

[Footnote 544: Horace Greeley, New York _Tribune_, May 22, 1860. ]

Horace Greeley, sitting as a delegate from Oregon, stayed with thefriends of Bates and Lincoln at the Tremont Hotel. The announcementstartled the New Yorkers. He had visited Weed at Albany on his way toChicago, leaving the impression that he would support Seward, [545] butonce in the convention city his disaffection became quickly known. Ofall the members of the convention none attracted more attention, orhad greater influence with the New England and Western delegates. Hispeculiar head and dress quickly identified him as he passed throughthe hotel corridors from delegation to delegation, and whenever hestopped to speak, an eager crowd of listeners heard his reasons whySeward could not carry the doubtful States. He marshalled all thefacts and forgot no accusing rumour. His remarkable letter of 1854, dissolving the firm of Weed, Seward, and Greeley, had not then beenpublished, leaving him in the position of a patriot and prophet whoopposed the Senator because he sincerely believed him a weakcandidate. "If we have ever demurred to his nomination, " he said inthe _Tribune_ of April 23, in reply to the _Times'_ charge ofhostility, "it has been on the ground of his too near approximation inprinciple and sentiment to our standard to be a safe candidate justyet. We joyfully believe that the country is acquiring a just andadequate conception of the malign influence exerted by the slave powerupon its character, its reputation, its treatment of its neighbour, and all its great moral and material interests. In a few years more webelieve it will be ready to elect as its President a man who not onlysees but proclaims the whole truth in this respect--in short, such aman as Governor Seward. We have certainly doubted its being yet so faradvanced in its political education as to be ready to choose forPresident one who looks the slave oligarchy square in the eye andsays, 'Know me as your enemy. '"

[Footnote 545: "At this time there was friendly intercourse betweenMr. Greeley and Mr. Weed, nor did anybody suppose that Mr. Greeley wasnot on good terms with Governor Seward. He had, indeed, in 1854, written to Mr. Seward a remarkable letter, 'dissolving the firm ofSeward, Weed & Greeley, ' but Mr. Weed had never seen such a letter, nor did Mr. Greeley appear to remember its existence. Mr. Weed and Mr. Greeley met frequently in New York, not with all of the oldcordiality, perhaps, but still they had by no means quarrelled. Mr. Greeley wrote often to Mr. Weed, in the old way, and he and his familywere visitors at Mr. Weed's house. Indeed--though that seemsimpossible--Mr. Greeley stopped at Mr. Weed's house, in Albany, on hisway West, before the Chicago convention, and made a friendly visit ofa day or so, leaving the impression that he was going to support Mr. Seward when he reached Chicago. "--Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life ofThurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 268. ]

Greeley favoured Bates of Missouri, but was ready to support anybodyto beat Seward. Bryant, disliking what he called the "pliant politics"of the New York Senator, had been disposed to favour Chase until theCooper Institute speech. Lincoln left a similar trail of friendsthrough New England. The Illinoisan's title of "Honest Old Abe, "given, him by his neighbours, contrasted favourably with the whisperedreports of "bad associates" and the "New York City railroad scheme. "Gradually, even the radical element in the unpledged delegations beganquestioning the advisability of the New Yorker's selection, and when, on the night preceding the nomination, Andrew Curtin of Pennsylvaniaand Henry S. Lane[546] of Indiana, candidates for governor in theirrespective States, whose defeat in October would probably bringdefeat in November, declared that Seward's selection would cost themtheir election, the opposition occupied good vantage ground. DavidDavis, the Illinois manager for Lincoln, against the positiveinstructions of his principal, strengthened these declarations bypromising to locate Simon Cameron and Caleb B. Smith in the Cabinet. The next morning, however, the anti-Seward forces entered theconvention without having concentrated upon a candidate. Lincoln hadwon Indiana, but Pennsylvania and Ohio were divided; New Jersey stoodfor Dayton; Bates still controlled Missouri, Delaware, and Oregon. 

[Footnote 546: "I was with my husband in Chicago, and may tell younow, as most of the actors have joined the 'silent majority, ' what noliving person knows, that Thurlow Weed, in his anxiety for the successof Seward, took Mr. Lane out one evening and pleaded with him to leadthe Indiana delegation over to Seward, saying they would send enoughmoney from New York to insure his election for governor, and carry theState later for the New York candidate. " Letter of Mrs. Henry S. Lane, September 16, 1891. --Alex. K. McClure, _Lincoln and Men of War Times_, p. 25, _note_. ]

William M. Evarts presented Seward's name amidst loud applause. But atthe mention of Lincoln's the vigour of the cheers surprised thedelegates. The Illinois managers had cunningly filled the desirableseats with their shouters, excluding Tom Hyer and his marchers, whoarrived too late, so that, although the applause for Seward was"frantic, shrill, and wild, " says one correspondent, the cheers forLincoln were "louder and more terrible. "[547] Whether this had theinfluence ascribed to it at the time by Henry J. Raymond and othershas been seriously questioned, but it undoubtedly aided in fixing thewavering delegates, and in encouraging the friends of other candidatesto rally about the Lincoln standard. 

[Footnote 547: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 145. ]

The first roll call proved a disappointment to Seward. Though thepledged States were in line, New England fell short, Pennsylvaniashowed indifference, and Virginia created a profound surprise. Nevertheless, the confidence of the Seward forces remained unshaken. Of the 465 votes, Seward had 173-1/2, Lincoln 102, Cameron 50-1/2, Chase 49, and Bates 48, with 42 for seven others; necessary to achoice, 233. On the second ballot Seward gained four votes from NewJersey, two each from Texas and Kentucky, and one each fromMassachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska--making a total of 184-1/2. Lincoln moved up to 133. The action of Ohio in giving fourteen votesto Lincoln had been no less disappointing to the Seward managers thanthe transfer of Vermont's vote to the same column; but, before theycould recover from this shock, Cameron was withdrawn and 48 votes fromPennsylvania carried Lincoln's total to 181. 

The announcement of this change brought the convention to its feetamid scenes of wild excitement. Seward's forces endeavoured to avertthe danger, but the arguments of a week were bearing fruit. As thethird roll call proceeded, the scattering votes turned to Lincoln. Seward lost four from Rhode Island and half a vote from Pennsylvania, giving him 180, Lincoln 231-1/2, Chase 24-1/2, Bates 22, and 7 forthree others. At this moment, an Ohio delegate authorised a change offour votes from Chase to Lincoln, and instantly one hundred guns, fired from the top of an adjoining building, announced the nominationof "Honest Old Abe. " In a short speech of rare felicity and greatstrength, William M. Evarts moved to make the nomination unanimous. 

The New York delegation, stunned by the result, declined the honour ofnaming a candidate for Vice President; and, on reassembling in theafternoon, the convention nominated Hannibal Hamlin of Maine. AsEvarts was leaving the wigwam he remarked, with characteristic humour:"Well, Curtis, at least we have saved the Declaration ofIndependence!"

Three days after the nomination Greeley wrote James S. Pike:"Massachusetts was right in Weed's hands, contrary to all reasonableexpectation. It was all we could do to hold Vermont by the mostdesperate exertions; and I at some times despaired of it. The rest ofNew England was pretty sound, but part of New Jersey was somehowinclined to sin against the light and knowledge. If you had seen thePennsylvania delegation, and known how much money Weed had in hand, you would not have believed we could do so well as we did. Give Curtinthanks for that. Ohio looked very bad, yet turned out well, andVirginia had been regularly sold out; but the seller could notdeliver. We had to rain red-hot bolts on them, however, to keep themajority from going for Seward, who got eight votes here as it was. Indiana was our right bower, and Missouri above praise. It was afearful week, such as I hope and trust I shall never seerepeated. "[548] That Greeley received credit for all he did isevidenced by a letter from John D. Defrees, then a leading politicianof Indiana, addressed to Schuyler Colfax. "Greeley slaughtered Sewardand saved the party, " he wrote. "He deserves the praises of all menand gets them now. Wherever he goes he is greeted with cheers. "[549]

[Footnote 548: James S. Pike, _First Blows of the Civil War_, p. 519. ]

[Footnote 549: Hollister, _Life of Colfax_, p. 148. ]

The profound sorrow of Seward's friends resembled the distress ofHenry Clay's supporters in 1840. It was not chagrin; it was not theselfish fear that considers the loss of office or spoils; it was notdiscouragement or despair. Apprehensions for the future of the partyand the country there may have been, but their grief found itsfountain-head in the feeling that "his fidelity to the country, theConstitution and the laws, " as Evarts put it; "his fidelity to theparty, and the principle that the majority govern; his interest in theadvancement of our party to victory, that our country may rise to itstrue glory, "[550] had led to his sacrifice solely for assumedavailability. The belief obtained that a large majority of thedelegates preferred him, and that had the convention met elsewhere hewould probably have been successful. In his _Life of Lincoln_, Alex. K. McClure of Pennsylvania, an anti-Seward delegate, says that "of thetwo hundred and thirty-one men who voted for Lincoln on the third andlast ballot, not less than one hundred of them voted reluctantlyagainst the candidate of their choice. "[551]

[Footnote 550: William M. Evarts' speech making Lincoln's nominationunanimous. F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 451. ]

[Footnote 551: Alex. K. McClure, _Life of Lincoln_, p. 171. ]

At Auburn a funeral gloom settled upon the town. [552] Admiration forSeward's great ability, and a just pride in the exalted position heoccupied in his party and before the country, had long ago displacedthe local spirit that refused him a seat in the constitutionalconvention of 1846; and after the defeat his fellow townsmen could notbe comforted. Sincere sorrow filled their hearts. But Seward's bearingwas heroic. When told that no Republican could be found to write aparagraph for the evening paper announcing and approving thenominations, he quickly penned a dozen lines eulogistic of theconvention and its work. To Weed, who shed bitter tears, he wroteconsolingly. "I wish I were sure that your sense of disappointment isas light as my own, " he said. "It ought to be equally so, if we havebeen equally thoughtful and zealous for friends, party, and country. Iknow not what has been left undone that could have been done, or donethat ought to be regretted. "[553] During the week many friends fromdistant parts of the State called upon him, "not to console, " as theyexpressed it, "but to be consoled. " His cheerful demeanour under adisappointment so overwhelming to everybody else excited the inquiryhow he could exhibit such control. His reply was characteristic. "Fortwenty years, " he said, "I have been breasting a daily storm ofcensure. Now, all the world seems disposed to speak kindly of me. Inthat pile of papers, Republican and Democratic, you will find hardlyone unkind word. When I went to market this morning I confess I wasunprepared for so much real grief as I heard expressed at everycorner. "[554]

[Footnote 552: "On the day the convention was to ballot for acandidate, Cayuga County poured itself into Auburn. The streets werefull, and Mr. Seward's house and grounds overflowed with his admirers. Flags were ready to be raised and a loaded cannon was placed at thegate whose pillars bore up two guardian lions. Arrangements had beenperfected for the receipt of intelligence. At Mr. Seward's right hand, just within the porch, stood his trusty henchman, Christopher Morgan. The rider of a galloping steed dashed through the crowd with atelegram and handed it to Seward, who passed it to Morgan. For Seward, it read, 173-1/2; for Lincoln, 102. Morgan repeated it to themultitude, who cheered vehemently. Then came the tidings of the secondballot: For Seward, 184-1/2--for Lincoln, 181. 'I shall be nominatedon the next ballot, ' said Seward, and the throng in the houseapplauded, and those on the lawn and in the street echoed the cheers. The next messenger lashed his horse into a run. The telegram read, 'Lincoln nominated. T. W. ' Seward turned as pale as ashes. The sadtidings crept through the vast concourse. The flags were furled, thecannon was rolled away, and Cayuga County went home with a cloudedbrow. Mr. Seward retired to rest at a late hour, and the night breezein the tall trees sighed a requiem over the blighted hopes of NewYork's eminent son. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, pp. 215-16. ]

[Footnote 553: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 453. ]

[Footnote 554: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 453. ]

But deep in his heart despondency reigned supreme. "The reappearanceat Washington in the character of a leader deposed by his own party, in the hour of organisation for decisive battle, thank God ispast--and so the last of the humiliations has been endured, " he wrotehis wife. "Preston King met me at the depot and conveyed me to myhome. It seemed sad and mournful. Dr. Nott's benevolent face, LordNapier's complacent one, Jefferson's benignant one, and Lady Napier'sloving one, seemed all like pictures of the dead. Even 'Napoleon atFontainebleau' seemed more frightfully desolate than ever. At theCapitol the scene was entirely changed from my entrance into thechamber last winter. Cameron greeted me kindly; Wilkinson ofMinnesota, and Sumner cordially and manfully. Other Republicansenators came to me, but in a manner that showed a consciousness ofembarrassment, which made the courtesy a conventional one; only Wilsoncame half a dozen times, and sat down by me. Mason, Gwin, Davis, andmost of the Democrats, came to me with frank, open, sympathisingwords, thus showing that their past prejudices had been buried in thevictory they had achieved over me. Good men came through the day tosee me, and also this morning. Their eyes fill with tears, and theybecome speechless as they speak of what they call 'ingratitude. ' Theyconsole themselves with the vain hope of a day of 'vindication, ' andmy letters all talk of the same thing. But they awaken no response inmy heart. I have not shrunk from any fiery trial prepared for me bythe enemies of my cause. But I shall not hold myself bound to try, asecond time, the magnanimity of its friends. "[555] To Weed he wrote:"Private life, as soon as I can reach it without grieving orembarrassing my friends, will be welcome to me. It will come the 4thof next March in my case, and I am not unprepared. "[556]

[Footnote 555: _Ibid. _, p. 454. ]

[Footnote 556: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 270. ]

Defeat was a severe blow to Seward. For the moment he seemed well-nighfriendless. The letter to his wife after he reached Washington was athrenody. He was firmly convinced that he was a much injured man, andhis attitude was that of the martyr supported by the serenity of thesaint. But to the world he bore himself with the courage and thedignity that belong to one whose supremacy is due to superiority oftalents. The country could not know that he was to become a secretaryof state of whom the civilised world would take notice; but one ofSeward's prescience must have felt well satisfied in his own mind, even when telling Weed how "welcome" private life would be, that, although he was not to become President, he was at the opening of agreater political career. 

CHAPTER XXII

NEW YORK'S CONTROL AT BALTIMORE

1860

The recess between the Charleston and Baltimore conventions did notallay hostilities. Jefferson Davis' criticism and Douglas' tartretorts transferred the quarrel to the floor of the United StatesSenate, and by the time the delegates had reassembled at Baltimore onJune 18, 1860, the factions exhibited greater exasperation than hadbeen shown at Charleston. Yet the Douglas men seemed certain ofsuccess. Dean Richmond, it was said, had been engaged in privateconsultation with Douglas and his friends, pledging himself to standby them to the last. On the other hand, rumours of a negotiation inwhich the Southerners and the Administration at Washington had offeredthe New Yorkers their whole strength for any man the Empire Statemight name other than Douglas and Guthrie, found ready belief amongthe Northwestern delegates. It was surmised, too, that the defeat ofSeward at Chicago had strengthened the chances of Horatio Seymour, onthe ground that the disappointed and discontented Seward Republicanswould allow him to carry the State. Whatever truth there may have beenin these reports, all admitted that the New York delegation had in itshands the destiny of the convention, if not that of the partyitself. [557]

[Footnote 557: "There was no question that the New York delegation hadthe fate of the convention in its keeping; and while it was understoodthat the strength of Douglas in the delegation had been increasedduring the recess by the Fowler defalcation (Fowler's substitute beingreported a Douglas man) and by the appearance of regular delegateswhose alternates had been against Douglas at Charleston, it wasobvious that the action of the politicians of New York could not becounted upon in any direction with confidence. Rumours circulated thata negotiation had been carried on in Washington by the New Yorkerswith the South, to sell out Douglas, the Southerners and theAdministration offering their whole strength to any man New York mightname, provided that State would slaughter Douglas. On the other hand, it appeared that Dean Richmond, the principal manager of the NewYorkers, had pledged himself, as solemnly as a politician could do, tostand by the cause of Douglas to the last. "--M. Halstead, _NationalPolitical Conventions of 1860_, p. 159. ]

The apparent breaking point at Charleston was the adoption of aplatform; at Baltimore it was the readmission of seceding delegates. Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas presented their originaldelegations, who sought immediate admission; but a resolution, introduced by Sanford E. Church of New York, referred them to thecommittee on credentials, with the understanding that personsaccepting seats were bound in honour to abide the action of theconvention. The Douglas men, greeting this resolution with tremendousapplause, proposed driving it through without debate; but New Yorkhesitated to order the previous question. Then it asked permission towithdraw for consultation, and when it finally voted in the negative, deeming it unwise to stifle debate, it revealed the fact that itsaction was decisive on all questions. 

An amendment to the Church resolution proposed sending only contestedseats to the credentials committee, without conditions as to loyalty, and over this joinder of issues some very remarkable speechesdisclosed malignant bitterness rather than choice rhetoric. Richardson, still the recognised spokesman of Douglas, received markedattention as he argued boldly that the amendment admitted delegatesnot sent there, and decided a controversy without a hearing. "I do notpropose, " he said, "to sit side by side with delegates who do notrepresent the people; who are not bound by anything, when I am boundby everything. We are not so hard driven yet as to be compelled toelect delegates from States that do not choose to send any here. "[558]

[Footnote 558: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 167. ]

Russell of Virginia responded, declaring that his State intended, inthe interest of fair play, to cling to the Democracy of the South. "Ifwe are to be constrained to silence, " he vociferated, "I beg gentlemento consider the silence of Virginia ominous. If we are notgentlemen--if we are such knaves that we cannot trust one another--wehad better scatter at once, and cease to make any effort to bind eachother. "[559] Speaking on similar lines, Ewing of Tennessee asked whatwas meant. "Have you no enemy in front? Have you any States to spare?We are pursued by a remorseless enemy, and yet from all quarters ofthis convention come exclamations of bitterness and words that burn, with a view to open the breach in our ranks wider and wider, until atlast, Curtius-like, we will be compelled to leap into it to close itup. "

[Footnote 559: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 168. ]

But it remained for Montgomery of Pennsylvania, in spite of Cochrane'sconciliatory words, to raise the political atmosphere to thetemperature at Charleston just before the secession. "For the firsttime in the history of the Democratic party, " he said, "a number ofdelegations of sovereign States, by a solemn instrument in writing, resigned their places upon the floor of the convention. They went outwith a protest, not against a candidate, but against the principles ofa party, declaring they did not hold and would not support them. Andnot only that, but they called a hostile convention, and sat side byside with us, deliberating upon a candidate and the adoption of aplatform. Principles hostile to ours were asserted and a nominationhostile to ours was threatened. Our convention was compelled toadjourn in order to have these sovereign States represented. Whatbecame of the gentlemen who seceded? They adjourned to meet atRichmond. Now they seek to come back and sit upon this floor with us, and to-day they threaten us if we do not come to their terms. Godknows I love the star spangled banner of my country, and it is becauseI love the Union that I am determined that any man who arrays himselfin hostility to it shall not, with my consent, take a seat in thisconvention. I am opposed to secession either from this Union or fromthe Democratic convention, and when men declare the principles of theparty are not their principles, and that they will neither supportthem nor stay in a convention that promulgates them, then I say it ishigh time, if they ask to come back, that they shall declare they havechanged their minds. "[560]

[Footnote 560: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, pp. 168-171. ]

This swung the door of vituperative debate wide open, and after anadjournment had closed it in the hall, the crowds continued it in thestreet. At midnight, while Yancey made one of his silver-tonedspeeches, which appears, by all accounts, to have been a piece ofgenuine eloquence, the friends of Douglas, on the opposite side ofMonument Square, kept the bands playing and crowds cheering. 

When the convention assembled on the second day, Church, in theinterest of harmony, withdrew the last clause of his resolution, and, without a dissenting voice, all contested seats went to the committeeon credentials. Then the convention impatiently waited three days fora report, while the night meetings, growing noisier and more arrogant, served to increase the bitterness. The Douglasites denounced theiropponents as "disorganisers and disunionists;" the Southernersretorted by calling them "a species of sneaking abolitionists. " Yanceyspoke of them as small men, with selfish aims. "They areostrich-like--their head is in the sand of squatter sovereignty, andthey do not know their great, ugly, ragged abolition body is exposed. "

On the fourth day, the committee presented two reports, the majority, without argument, admitting the contestants--the minority, in aremarkably strong document of singular skill and great clearness, seating the seceders on the ground that their withdrawal was not aresignation and was not so considered by the convention. Aresignation, it argued, must be made to the appointing power. Thewithdrawing delegates desired the instruction of their constituencies, who authorised them in every case except South Carolina to repair toBaltimore and endeavour once more to unite their party and promoteharmony and peace in the great cause of their country. 

This report made a profound impression upon the convention, and themotion to substitute it for the majority report at once threw New Yorkinto confusion. That delegation had already decided to sustain themajority, but the views of the seceders, so ably and logicallypresented, had reopened the door of debate, and a resolute minority, combining more than a proportionate share of the talent and worth ofthe delegation, insisted upon further time. After the convention hadgrudgingly taken a recess to accommodate the New Yorkers, William H. Ludlow reappeared and apologised for asking more time. This createdthe impression that Richmond's delegation, at the last moment, proposed to slaughter Douglas[561] as it did at Charleston, and thelatter's friends, maddened and disheartened over what they called "NewYork's dishonest and cowardly procrastination, " would gladly haveprevented an adjournment. But the Empire State held the key to thesituation. Without it Douglas could get nothing and in a hopeless sortof way his backers granted Ludlow's request. [562]

[Footnote 561: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 185. ]

[Footnote 562: "The _real_ business transacting behind the scenes hasbeen the squelching of Douglas, which is understood to be as good asbargained for. The South is in due time to concentrate on acandidate--probably Horatio Seymour of our own State--and then NewYork is to desert Douglas for her own favourite son. Such is theprogramme as it stood up to last evening. "--New York _Tribune_(editorial), June 20, 1860. "There are plenty of rumours, but nothinghas really form and body unless it be a plan to have Virginia bringforward Horatio Seymour, whom New York will then diffidently accept inplace of Douglas. "--_Ibid. _ (telegraphic report). ]

The situation of the New York delegation was undoubtedly mostembarrassing. Their admission to the Charleston convention haddepended upon the Douglas vote, but their hope of success hinged uponharmony with the cotton States. A formidable minority favoured thereadmission of the seceders and the abandonment of Douglas regardlessof their obligation. This was not the policy of Dean Richmond, whowas the pivotal personage. His plan included the union of the partyby admitting the seceders, and the nomination of Horatio Seymour withthe consent of the Northwest, after rendering the selection of Douglasimpossible. It was a brilliant programme, but the inexorable demand ofthe Douglas men presented a fatal drawback. Richmond implored andpleaded. He knew the hostility of the Douglasites could make Seymour'snomination impossible, and he knew, also, that a refusal to admit theseceders would lead to a second secession, a second ticket, and ahopelessly divided party. Nevertheless, the Douglas men wereremorseless. [563] Even Douglas' letter, sent Richardson on the thirdday, and his dispatch to Dean Richmond, [564] received on the fifthday, authorising the withdrawal of his name if it could be donewithout sacrificing the principle of non-intervention, did not relievethe situation. Rule or ruin was now their motto, as much as it was theSouth's, and between them Richmond's diplomatic resistance, [565] whichonce seemed of iron, became as clay. Nevertheless, Richmond's controlof the New York delegation remained unbroken. The minority tried newarguments, planned new combinations, and racked their brains for newdevices, but when Richmond finally gave up the hopeless and thanklesstask of harmonising the Douglasites and seceders, a vote of 27 to 43forced the minority of the delegation into submission by the screw ofthe Syracuse unit rule, and New York finally sustained the majorityreport. 

[Footnote 563: "The Soft leaders still shiver on the brink of adecision. But a new light broke on them yesterday, when theydiscovered that, if they killed Douglas, his friends were able andresolved to kill Seymour in turn. "--New York _Tribune_ (editorial), June 21. "The action of New York is still a subject of great doubt andanxiety. As it goes so goes the party and the Union of course. "--_Ibid. _(telegraphic report). ]

[Footnote 564: "A dispatch from Douglas to Richmond was sent because aletter containing similar suggestions to Richardson had been kept inthe latter's pocket. But Richmond suppressed the dispatch asRichardson had suppressed the letter. "--M. Halstead, _NationalPolitical Conventions of 1860_, p. 195. "Richardson afterwardexplained that the action of the Southerners had put it out of hispower to use Douglas' letter. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of theUnited States_, Vol. 2, p. 415. ]

[Footnote 565: "It was asserted in Baltimore and believed in politicalcircles that New York offered to reconsider her vote on the Louisianacase, and make up the convention out of the original materials, withthe exception of the Alabama delegation. It could not agree to admitYancey & Co. But the seceders and their friends would not hear to anysuch proposition. They scorned all compromise. "--M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 195. "Many were theexpedients devised to bring about harmony; but it was to attempt theimpossible. The Southerners were exacting, the delegates from theNorthwest bold and defiant. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the UnitedStates_, Vol. 2, p. 474. ]

After this, the convention became the theatre of a dramatic eventwhich made it, for the moment, the centre of interest to the politicalworld. The majority report seated the Douglas faction from Alabama andLouisiana, and then excluded William L. Yancey, a representativeseceder, and let in Pierre Soulé, a representative Douglasite. It issufficient proof of the sensitiveness of the relations between the twofactions that an expressed preference for one of these men shouldagain disrupt the convention, but the moving cause was far deeper thanthe majority's action. Yancey belonged to the daring, resolute, andunscrupulous band of men who, under the unhappy conditions thatthreatened their defeat, had already decided upon disunion; and, whenthe convention repudiated him, the lesser lights played their part. Virginia led a new secession, followed by most of the delegates fromNorth Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Maryland, andfinally by Caleb Cushing himself, the astute presiding officer, whoseaction anticipated the withdrawal of Massachusetts. 

When they were gone, Pierre Soulé took the floor and made the speechof the convention, fascinating all who saw and heard. An eye-witnessspeaks of his rolling, glittering, eagle eye, Napoleonic head andface, sharp voice with a margin of French accent, and piercing, intense earnestness of manner. "I have not been at all discouraged, "he said, "by the emotion which has been attempted to be created inthis body by those who have seceded from it. We from the furthestSouth were prepared; we had heard the rumours which were to beinitiatory of the exit which you have witnessed on this day, and weknew that conspiracy, which had been brooding for months past, wouldbreak out on this occasion, and for the purposes which are obvious toevery member. Sirs, there are in political life men who were oncehonoured by popular favour, who consider that the favour has become tothem an inalienable property, and who cling to it as to something thatcan no longer be wrested from their hands--political fossils so muchincrusted in office that there is hardly any power that can extractthem. They saw that the popular voice was already manifesting to thisglorious nation who was to be her next ruler. Instead of bringing acandidate to oppose him; instead of creating issues upon which thechoice of the nation could be enlightened; instead of principlesdiscussed, what have we seen? An unrelenting war against theindividual presumed to be the favourite of the nation! a war waged byan army of unprincipled and unscrupulous politicians, leagued with apower which could not be exerted on their side without disgracingitself and disgracing the nation. " Secession, he declared, meantdisunion, "but the people of the South will not respond to the call ofthe secessionists. "[566]

[Footnote 566: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 207. ]

The effect of Soulé's speech greatly animated and reassured thefriends of Douglas, who now received 173-1/2 of the 190-1/2 votescast. Dickinson got half a vote from Virginia, and Horatio Seymour onevote from Pennsylvania. At the mention of the latter's name, David P. Bissell of Utica promptly withdrew it upon the authority of a letter, in which Seymour briefly but positively declared that under nocircumstances could he be a candidate for President or Vice President. On the second ballot, Douglas received all the votes but thirteen. This was not two-thirds of the original vote, but, in spite of theresolution which Dean Richmond passed at Charleston, Douglas wasdeclared, amidst great enthusiasm, the nominee of the convention, since two-thirds of the delegates present had voted for him. BenjaminFitzpatrick, United States senator from Alabama, was then nominatedfor Vice President. When he afterwards declined, the nationalcommittee appointed Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia in his place. 

Meantime the Baltimore seceders, joined by their seceding colleaguesfrom Charleston, met elsewhere in the city, adopted the Richmondplatform, and nominated John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky forPresident, and Joseph Lane of Oregon for Vice President. A few dayslater the Richmond convention indorsed these nominations. 

After the return of the New York delegation, the gagged minority, through the lips of Daniel S. Dickinson, told the story of themajority's purpose at Charleston and Baltimore. Dickinson was notdepressed or abashed by his failure; neither was he a man to be rudelysnuffed out or bottled up; and, although his speech at the CooperInstitute mass-meeting, called to ratify the Breckenridge and Laneticket, revealed a vision clouded with passion and prejudice, itclearly disclosed the minority's estimate of the cardinal object ofDean Richmond's majority. "Waiving all questions of the merits ordemerits of Mr. Douglas as a candidate, " he said, his silken whitehair bringing into greater prominence the lines of a handsome face, "his pretensions were pressed upon the convention in a tone andtemper, and with a dogged and obstinate persistence, which was wellcalculated, if it was not intended, to break up the convention, orforce it into obedience to the behests of a combination. The authorsof this outrage, who are justly and directly chargeable with it, werethe ruling majority of the New York delegation. They held the balanceof power, and madly and selfishly and corruptly used it for thedisruption of the Democratic party in endeavouring to force it tosubserve their infamous schemes. They were charged with highresponsibilities in a crisis of unusual interest in our history, andin an evil moment their leprous hands held the destinies of a nobleparty. They proclaimed personally and through their accredited organsthat the Southern States were entitled to name a candidate, but fromthe moment they entered the convention at Charleston until it wasfinally broken up at Baltimore by their base conduct and worse faith, their every act was to oppose any candidate who would be acceptable tothose States. 

"Those who controlled the New York delegation through the fraudulentprocess of a unit vote--a rule forced upon a large minority to stifletheir sentiments--will hereafter be known as political gamblers. TheDemocratic party of New York, founded in the spirit of Jefferson, has, in the hands of these gamblers, been disgraced by practices whichwould dishonour a Peter Funk cast-off clothing resort; cheating thepeople of the State, cheating a great and confiding party, cheatingthe convention which admitted them to seats, cheating delegations whotrusted them, cheating everybody with whom they came in contact, andthen lamenting from day to day, through their accredited organ, thatthe convention had not remained together so that they might finallyhave cheated Douglas. Political gamblers! You have perpetrated yourlast cheat--consummated your last fraud upon the Democratic party. Henceforth you will be held and treated as political outlaws. There isno fox so crafty but his hide finally goes to the hatter. "[567]

[Footnote 567: New York _Tribune_, July 19, 1860. ]

In his political controversies, Dickinson acted on the principle thatan opponent is necessarily a blockhead or a scoundrel. But there waslittle or no truth in his severe arraignment. Richmond's purpose wasplainly to nominate Horatio Seymour if it could be done with theconsent of the Northwestern States, and his sudden affection for atwo-thirds rule came from a determination to prolong the conventionuntil it yielded consent. At no time did he intend leaving Douglas forany one other than Seymour. On the other hand, Dickinson had alwaysfavoured slavery. [568] Neither the Wilmot Proviso nor the repeal ofthe Missouri Compromise disturbed him. What slavery demanded hegranted; what freedom sought he denounced. His belief that the Southwould support him for a compromise candidate in return for hisfidelity became an hallucination. It showed itself at Cincinnati in1852 when he antagonised Marcy; and his position in 1860 was even lessadvantageous. Nevertheless, Dickinson nursed his delusion until theguns at Fort Sumter disclosed the real design of Yancey and the men inwhom he had confided. 

[Footnote 568: "The obduracy, the consistency of Mr. Dickinson'sDemocracy are of the most marked type. Ever since he changed his votefrom Van Buren to Polk, with such hearty alacrity in the Baltimoreconvention of 1844, he has promptly yielded to every requisition whichthe Southern Democracy has made upon their Northern allies. All alongthrough the stormy years when the star of the Wilmot Proviso was inthe ascendant, and when Wright and Dix bowed to the gale, and evenMarcy and Bronson bent before it, Dickinson, on the floor of theSenate, stood erect and immovable. "--New York _Tribune_, July 4, 1860. ]

CHAPTER XXIII

RAYMOND, GREELEY, AND WEED

1860

It was impossible that the defeat of Seward at Chicago, so unexpected, and so far-reaching in its effect, should be encountered without someattempt to fix the responsibility. To Thurlow Weed's sorrow[569] wasadded the mortification of defeat. He had staked everything uponsuccess, and, although he doubtless wished to avoid any unseemlydemonstration of disappointment, the rankling wound goaded him into adesire to relieve himself of any lack of precaution. Henry J. Raymondscarcely divided the responsibility of management; but his newspaper, which had spoken for Seward, shared in the loss of prestige, while the_Tribune_, his great rival in metropolitan journalism, disclosedbetween the lines of assumed modesty an exultant attitude. 

[Footnote 569: "Mr. Weed was for a time completely unnerved by theresult. He even shed tears over the defeat of his old friend. "--ThurlowWeed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 271. 

"After the joy of Lincoln's nomination had subsided, " wrote LeonardSwett of Chicago, "Judge Davis and I called upon Mr. Weed. This wasthe first time either of us had met him. He did not talk angrily as tothe result, nor did he complain of any one. Confessing with muchfeeling to the great disappointment of his life, he said, 'I hoped tomake my friend, Mr. Seward, President, and I thought I could serve mycountry in so doing. ' He was a larger man intellectually than Ianticipated, and of finer fibre. There was in him an element ofgentleness and a large humanity which won me, and I was pleased noless than surprised. "--_Ibid. _, Vol. 2, p. 292. ]

Greeley had played a very important part in the historic convention. The press gave him full credit for his activity, and he admitted itin his jubilant letter to Pike; but after returning to New York heseemed to think it wise to minimise his influence, claiming that theresult would have been the same had he remained at home. "The factthat the four conspicuous doubtful States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois, " he wrote, "unanimously testified that theycould not be carried for Seward was decisive. Against this Malakoffthe most brilliant evolutions of political strategy could notavail. "[570] This two-column article, modestly concealing his ownwork, might not have led to an editorial war between the three greatRepublican editors of the State, had not Greeley, in the exordium of aspeech, published in the _Tribune_ of May 23, exceeded the limits ofhuman endurance. "The past is dead, " he said. "Let the dead past buryit, and let the mourners, if they will, go about the streets. "

[Footnote 570: New York _Tribune_, May 22, 1860. ]

The exultant sentences exasperated Raymond, who held the opinion whichgenerally obtained among New York Republican leaders, that Greeley'spersistent hostility was not only responsible for Seward's defeat, butthat under the guise of loyalty to the party's highest interests hehad been insidious and revengeful, and Raymond believed it needed onlya bold and loud-spoken accusation against him to fill the mind of thepublic with his guilt. In this spirit he wrote a stinging reply. "Withthe generosity which belongs to his nature, and which a feeling notunlike remorse may have stimulated into unwonted activity, " said thisAmerican Junius, "Mr. Greeley awards to others the credit whichbelongs transcendently to himself. The main work of the Chicagoconvention was the defeat of Governor Seward, and in that endeavourMr. Greeley laboured harder, and did tenfold more, than the wholefamily of Blairs, together with all the gubernatorial candidates, towhom he modestly hands over the honours of the effective campaign. Mr. Greeley had special qualifications, as well as a special love, forthis task. For twenty years he had been sustaining the politicalprinciples and vindicating the political conduct of Mr. Sewardthrough the columns of the most influential political newspaper in thecountry. His voice was potential precisely where Governor Seward wasstrongest, because it was supposed to be that of a friend, strong inhis personal attachment and devotion, and driven into opposition onthis occasion solely by the despairing conviction that the welfare ofthe country and the triumph of the Republican cause demanded thesacrifice. For more than six months Mr. Greeley had been preparing theway for this consummation. He was in Chicago several days before themeeting of the convention and he devoted every hour of the interval tothe most steady and relentless prosecution of the main business whichtook him thither. 

"While it was known to some that nearly six years ago he hadprivately, but distinctly, repudiated all further political friendshipfor and alliance with Governor Seward, for the avowed reason thatGovernor Seward had never aided or advised his elevation to office, nouse was made of this knowledge in quarters where it would havedisarmed the deadly effect of his pretended friendship for the manupon whom he was thus deliberately wreaking the long hoarded revengeof a disappointed office-seeker. . . . Being thus stimulated by a hatredhe had secretly cherished for years, protected by the forbearance ofthose whom he assailed, and strong in the confidence of those uponwhom he sought to operate, it is not strange that Mr. Greeley'sefforts should have been crowned with success. But it is perfectlysafe to say that no other man--certainly no one occupying a positionless favourable for such an assault--could possibly have accomplishedthat result. "[571]

[Footnote 571: New York _Times_, May 25, 1860. ]

Raymond's letter produced a profound impression. It excited theastonishment and incredulity of every one. He had made a distinctcharge that Greeley's opposition was the revenge of a disappointedoffice-seeker, and the public, resenting the imputation, demanded theevidence. Greeley himself echoed the prayer by a blast from his silvertrumpet which added to the interest as well as to the excitement. "This carefully drawn indictment, " he said, "contains a very artfulmixture of truth and misrepresentation. No intelligent reader of the_Tribune_ has for months been left in doubt of the fact that I deemedthe nomination of Governor Seward for President at this time unwiseand unsafe; and none can fail to understand that I did my best atChicago to prevent that nomination. My account of 'Last Week atChicago' is explicit on that point. True, I do not believe myinfluence was so controlling as the defeated are disposed to representit, but this is not material to the issue. It is agreed that I didwhat I could. 

"It is not true--it is grossly untrue--that at Chicago I commendedmyself to the confidence of delegates 'by professions of regard andthe most zealous friendship for Governor Seward, but presented defeat, _even in New York_, as the inevitable result of his nomination. ' Thevery reverse of this is the truth. I made no professions before thenomination, as I have uttered no lamentations since. It was the simpleduty of each delegate to do just whatever was best for the Republicancause, regardless of personal considerations. And this is exactly whatI did. . . . As to New York, I think I was at least a hundred times askedwhether Governor Seward could carry this State;[572] and I am sure Iuniformly responded affirmatively, urging delegates to consider theNew York delegation the highest authority on that point as I wasstrenuously urging that the delegations from Pennsylvania, NewJersey, Indiana, and Illinois must be regarded as authority as to whocould and who could not carry their respective States. 

[Footnote 572: "At Chicago, Seward encountered the opposition from hisown State of such powerful leaders as Greeley, Dudley Field, Bryant, and Wadsworth. The first two were on the ground and very busy. The twolatter sent pungent letters that were circulated among the delegatesfrom the various States. The main point of the attack was that Sewardcould not carry New York. Soon after the adjournment of theconvention, William Curtis Noyes, a delegate, told me that a carefulcanvass of the New York delegation showed that nearly one-fourth ofits members believed it was extremely doubtful if Seward could obtaina majority at the polls in that State. "--H. B. Stanton, _RandomRecollections_, pp. 214-15. "Perhaps the main stumbling block overwhich he fell in the convention was Thurlow Weed. "--_Ibid. _, p. 215. ]

"Mr. Raymond proceeds to state that I had, 'in November, 1854, privately but distinctly repudiated all further political friendshipfor and alliance with Governor Seward, and menaced him with hostilitywherever it could be made most effective; for the avowed reason thatGovernor Seward had never advised my elevation to office, ' &c. This isa very grave charge, and, being dated 'Auburn, Tuesday, May 22, 1860, 'and written by one who was there expressly and avowedly to consolewith Governor Seward on his defeat and denounce me as its author, itis impossible not to see that Governor Seward is its responsiblesource. I, therefore, call on him for the private letter which I didwrite him in November, 1854, that I may print it verbatim in the_Tribune_, and let every reader judge how far it sustains the chargeswhich his mouthpiece bases thereon. I maintain that it does notsustain them; but I have no copy of the letter, and I cannot discussits contents while it remains in the hands of my adversaries, to beused at their discretion. I leave to others all judgment as to theunauthorised use which has already been made of this private andconfidential letter, only remarking that this is by no means the firsttime it has been employed to like purpose. I have heard of itscontents being dispensed to members of Congress from Governor Seward'sdinner-table; I have seen articles based on it paraded in the columnsof such devoted champions of Governor Seward's principles and aims asthe Boston _Courier_. It is fit that the New York _Times_ shouldfollow in their footsteps; but I, who am thus fired on from an ambush, demand that the letter shall no longer be thus employed. Let me havethe letter and it shall appear verbatim in every edition of the_Tribune_. Meantime, I only say that, when I fully decided that Iwould no longer be devoted to Governor Seward's personal fortunes, itseemed due to candour and fair dealing that I should privately but inall frankness apprise him of the fact. It was not possible that Icould in any way be profited by writing that letter; I well understoodthat it involved an abdication of all hopes of political advancement;yet it seemed due to my own character that the letter should bewritten. Of course I never dreamed that it could be published, or usedas it already has been; but no matter--let us have the letter inprint, and let the public judge between its writer and his open andcovert assailants. At all events I ask no favour and fear no openhostility. 

"There are those who will at all events believe that my opposition toGovernor Seward's nomination was impelled by personal considerations;and among these I should expect to find the Hon. Henry J. Raymond. With these I have no time for controversy; in their eyes I desire novindication. But there is another and far larger class who willrealise that the obstacles to Governor Seward's election were in nodegree of my creation, and that their removal was utterly beyond mypowers. The whole course of the _Tribune_ has tended to facilitate theelevation to the Presidency of a statesman cherishing the pronouncedanti-slavery views of Governor Seward; it is only on questions offinance and public economy that there has been any perceptibledivergence between us. Those anti-democratic voters of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana, and Illinois, who could not be induced to votefor Governor Seward, have derived their notions of him in some measurefrom the _Times_, but in no measure from the _Tribune_. Thedelegations from those States, with the candidates for governor inPennsylvania and Indiana, whose representations and remonstrancesrendered the nomination of Governor Seward, in the eyes of allintelligent, impartial observers, a clear act of political suicide, were nowise instructed or impelled by me. They acted on viewsdeliberately formed long before they came to Chicago. It is not mypart to vindicate them; but whoever says they were influenced by me, other than I was by them, does them the grossest injustice. 

"I wished first of all to succeed; next, to strengthen and establishour struggling brethren in the border slave States. If it had seemedto me possible to obtain one more vote in the doubtful States forGovernor Seward than for any one else, I should have struggled for himas ardently as I did against him, even though I had known that theRaymonds who hang about our party were to be his trusted counsellorsand I inflexibly shut out from his confidence and favour. If there beany who do not believe this, I neither desire their friendship nordeprecate their hostility. "[573]

[Footnote 573: New York _Tribune_, June 2, 1860. ]

Greeley's demand for his letter did not meet with swift response. Itwas made on June 2. When Seward passed through New York on his way toWashington on the 8th, a friend of Greeley waited upon him, but he hadnothing for the _Tribune_. Days multiplied into a week, and stillnothing came. Finally, on June 13, Greeley received it through thehands of Thurlow Weed and published it on the 14th. It bore date "NewYork, Saturday evening, November 11, 1854, " and was addressed simplyto "Governor Seward. " Its great length consigned it to nonpareil instrange contrast to the long primer type of the editorial page, butits publication became the sensation of the hour. To this day its finethought-shading is regarded the best illustration of Greeley'smatchless prose. 

"The election is over, " he says, "and its results sufficientlyascertained. It seems to me a fitting time to announce to you thedissolution of the political firm of Seward, Weed & Greeley, by thewithdrawal of the junior partner--said withdrawal to take effect onthe morning after the first Tuesday in February next. And, as it mayseem a great presumption in me to assume that any such firm exists, especially since the public was advised, rather more than a year ago, by an editorial rescript in the _Evening Journal_, formally reading meout of the Whig party, that I was esteemed no longer either useful orornamental in the concern, you will, I am sure, indulge me in somereminiscences which seem to befit the occasion. 

"I was a poor young printer and editor of a literary journal--a veryactive and bitter Whig in a small way, but not seeking to be known outof my own ward committee--when, after the great political revulsion of1837, I was one day called to the City Hotel, where two strangersintroduced themselves as Thurlow Weed and Lewis Benedict, of Albany. They told me that a cheap campaign paper of a peculiar stamp at Albanyhad been resolved on, and that I had been selected to edit it. Theannouncement might well be deemed flattering by one who had never evensought the notice of the great, and who was not known as a partisanwriter, and I eagerly embraced their proposals. They asked me to fixmy salary for the year; I named $1, 000, which they agreed to; and Idid the work required to the best of my ability. It was work that madeno figure and created no sensation; but I loved it and did it well. When it was done you were Governor, dispensing offices worth $3000 to$20, 000 per year to your friends and compatriots, and I returned to mygarret and my crust, and my desperate battle with pecuniaryobligations heaped upon me by bad partners in business and thedisastrous events of 1837. I believe it did not then occur to me thatsome of these abundant places might have been offered to me withoutinjustice; I now think it should have occurred to you. If it did occurto me, I was not the man to ask you for it; I think that should nothave been necessary. I only remember that no friend at Albany inquiredas to my pecuniary circumstances; that your friend (but not mine), Robert C. Wetmore, was one of the chief dispensers of your patronagehere; and that such devoted compatriots as A. H. Wells and John Hookswere lifted by you out of pauperism into independence, as I am glad Iwas not; and yet an inquiry from you as to my needs and means at thattime would have been timely, and held ever in grateful remembrance. 

"In the Harrison campaign of 1840 I was again designated to edit acampaign paper. I published it as well, and ought to have madesomething by it, in spite of its extremely low price; my extremepoverty was the main reason why I did not. It compelled me to hirepresswork, mailing, etc. , done by the job, and high charges for extrawork nearly ate me up. At the close I was still without property andin debt, but this paper had rather improved my position. 

"Now came the great scramble of the swell mob of coon minstrels andcider suckers at Washington--I not being counted in. Several regimentsof them went on from this city; but no one of the whole crowd--thoughI say it who should not--had done so much toward General Harrison'snomination and election as yours respectfully. I asked nothing, expected nothing; _but you_, Governor Seward, _ought to have askedthat I be postmaster of New York_. Your asking would have been invain; but it would have been an act of grace neither wasted norundeserved. 

"I soon after started the _Tribune_, because I was urged to do so bycertain of your friends, and because such a paper was needed here. Iwas promised certain pecuniary aid in so doing; it might have beengiven me without cost or risk to any one. All I ever had was a loan bypiecemeal of $1000, from James Coggeshall. God bless his honouredmemory! I did not ask for this, and I think it is the one sole case inwhich I ever received a pecuniary favour from a political associate. Iam very thankful that he did not die till it was fully repaid. 

"And let me here honour one grateful recollection. When the Whig partyunder your rule had offices to give, my name was never thought of; butwhen in '42-'43, we were hopelessly out of power, I was honoured withthe nomination for state printer. When we came again to have a stateprinter to elect, as well as nominate, the place went to Weed, as itought. Yet it was worth something to know that there was once a timewhen it was not deemed too great a sacrifice to recognise me asbelonging to your household. If a new office had not since beencreated on purpose to give its valuable patronage to H. J. Raymond andenable St. John to show forth his _Times_ as the organ of the Whigstate administration, I should have been still more grateful. 

"In 1848 your star again rose, and my warmest hopes were realised inyour election to the Senate. I was no longer needy, and had no moreclaim than desire to be recognised by General Taylor. I think I hadsome claim to forbearance from you. What I received thereupon was amost humiliating lecture in the shape of a decision in the libel caseof Redfield and Pringle, and an obligation to publish it in my own andthe other journal of our supposed firm. I thought and still think thislecture needlessly cruel and mortifying. The plaintiffs, after usingmy columns to the extent of their needs or desires, stopped writingand called on me for the name of their assailant. I proffered it tothem--a thoroughly responsible man. They refused to accept it unlessit should prove to be one of the four or five first men inBatavia!--when they had known from the first who it was, and that itwas neither of them. They would not accept that which they haddemanded; they sued me instead for money, and money you were atliberty to give them to their heart's content. I do not think you_were_ at liberty to humiliate me in the eyes of my own and yourpublic as you did. I think you exalted your own judicial sternness andfearlessness unduly at my expense. I think you had a better occasionfor the display of these qualities when Webb threw himself entirelyupon you for a pardon which he had done all a man could do to demerit. His paper is paying you for it now. 

"I have publicly set forth my view of your and our duty with respectto fusion, Nebraska, and party designations. I will not repeat any ofthat. I have referred also to Weed's reading me out of the Whigparty--my crime being, in this as in some other things, that of doingto-day what more politic persons will not be ready to do tillto-morrow. 

"Let me speak of the late canvass. I was once sent to Congress forninety days merely to enable Jim Brooks to secure a seat therein forfour years. _I think I never hinted to any human being that I wouldhave liked to be put forward for any place. _ But James W. White (youhardly know how good and true a man he is) started my name forCongress, and Brooks' packed delegation thought I could help himthrough; so I was put on behind him. But this last spring, after theNebraska question had created a new state of things at the North, oneor two personal friends, of no political consideration, suggested myname as a candidate for governor, and I did not discourage them. Soon, the persons who were afterward mainly instrumental in nominating Clarkcame about me, and asked if I could secure the Know-Nothing vote. Itold them I neither could nor would touch it; on the contrary, Iloathed and repelled it. Thereupon they turned upon Clark. 

"I said nothing, did nothing. A hundred people asked me who should berun for governor. I sometimes indicated Patterson; I never hinted atmy own name. But by and by Weed came down, and called me to him, totell me why he could not support me for governor. I had never askednor counted on his support. 

"I am sure Weed did not mean to humiliate me; but he did it. Theupshot of his discourse (very cautiously stated) was this: If I were acandidate for governor, I should beat not myself only, but you. Perhaps that was true. But as I had in no manner solicited his or yoursupport, I thought this might have been said to my friends rather thanto me. I suspect it is true that I could not have been electedgovernor as a Whig. But had he and you been favourable, there wouldhave been a party in the State ere this which could and would haveelected me to _any_ post, without injuring itself or endangering yourre-election. 

"It was in vain that I urged that I had in no manner asked anomination. At length I was nettled by his language--well intended, but _very_ cutting as addressed by him to me--to say, in substance, 'Well, then, make Patterson governor, and try my name for lieutenant. To lose this place is a matter of no importance; and we can seewhether I am really so odious. '

"I should have hated to serve as lieutenant-governor, but I shouldhave gloried in running for the post. I want to have my enemies allupon me at once; am tired of fighting them piecemeal. And, though Ishould have been beaten in the canvass, I know that my running wouldhave helped the ticket, and helped my paper. 

"It was thought best to let the matter take another course. No othername could have been put on the ticket so bitterly humbling to me asthat which was selected. The nomination was given to Raymond; thefight left to me. And, Governor Seward, _I have made it_, though it beconceited in me to say so. Even Weed has not been (I speak of hispaper) hearty in this contest, while the journal of the Whiglieutenant-governor has taken care of its own interests and let thecanvass take care of itself, as it early declared it would do. Thatjournal has (because of its milk-and-water course) some twentythousand subscribers in this city and its suburbs, and of these twentythousand, I venture to say more voted for Ullman and Scroggs than forClark and Raymond; the _Tribune_ (also because of its character) hasbut eight thousand subscribers within the same radius, and I ventureto say that of its habitual readers, nine-tenths voted for Clark andRaymond--very few for Ullman and Scroggs. I had to bear the brunt ofthe contest. . . . 

"Governor Seward, I know that some of your most cherished friendsthink me a great obstacle to your advancement; that John Schoolcraft, for one, insists that you and Weed should not be identified with me. Itrust, after a time, you will not be. I trust I shall never be foundin opposition to you; I have no further wish than to glide out of thenewspaper world as quietly and as speedily as possible, join my familyin Europe, and, if possible, stay there quite a time--long enough tocool my fevered brain and renovate my over-tasked energies. All I askis that we shall be counted even on the morning after the firstTuesday in February, as aforesaid, and that I may thereafter take suchcourse as seems best without reference to the past. 

"You have done me acts of valued kindness in the line of yourprofession; let me close with the assurance that these will ever begratefully remembered by Yours, Horace Greeley. "[574]

[Footnote 574: New York _Tribune_, June 14, 1860. ]

At the time Seward received this letter he regarded it as only apassing cloud-shadow. "To-day I have a long letter from Greeley, fullof sharp, pricking thorns, " he wrote Weed. "I judge, as we mightindeed well know from his nobleness of disposition, that he has noidea of saying or doing anything wrong or unkind; but it is sad to seehim so unhappy. Will there be a vacancy in the Board of Regents thiswinter? Could one be made at the close of the session? Could he haveit? Raymond's nomination and election is hard for him to bear. "[575]Two or three weeks later, after a call at the _Tribune_ office, Sewardagain wrote Weed, suggesting that "Greeley's despondency isoverwhelming, and seems to be aggravated by the loss of subscribers. But below this is chagrin at the failure to obtain officialposition. "[576] With such inquiries and comments Seward put the famousletter away. [577]

[Footnote 575: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 239. ]

[Footnote 576: _Ibid. _, p. 240. ]

[Footnote 577: "My personal relations with Governor Seward were whollyunchanged by this letter. We met frequently and cordially after it waswritten, and we very freely conferred and co-operated during the longstruggle in Congress for Kansas and Free Labour. He understood as wellas I did that my position with regard to him, though more independentthan it had been, was nowise hostile, and that I was as ready tosupport his advancement as that of any other statesman, whenever myjudgment should tell me that the public good required it. I was nothis adversary, but my own and my country's freeman. "--Horace Greeley, _Recollections of a Busy Life_, p. 321. ]

Its publication did not accomplish all that Raymond expected. Peoplewere amazed, and deep in their hearts many persons felt that Greeleyhad been treated unfairly. The inquiry as to a vacancy in the Board ofRegents showed that Seward himself shared this opinion at the time. But the question that most interested the public in 1860 was, why, ifGreeley had declared war upon Seward in 1854, did not Weed make itknown in time to destroy the influence of the man who had"deliberately wreaked the long-hoarded revenge of a disappointedoffice-seeker?" This question reflected upon Weed's management ofSeward's campaign, and to avoid the criticism he claimed to have been"in blissful ignorance of its contents. " This seems almost impossible. But in explaining the groundlessness of Greeley's complaints, Weedwrote an editorial, the dignity and patriotism of which contrastedfavourably with Greeley's self-seeking. 

"There are some things in this letter, " wrote the editor of the_Evening Journal_, "requiring explanation--all things in it, indeed, are susceptible of explanations consistent with Governor Seward's fullappreciation of Mr. Greeley's friendship and services. The letter wasevidently written under a morbid state of feeling, and it is less amatter of surprise that such a letter was thus written, than that itswriter should not only cherish the ill-will that prompted it for sixyears, but allow it to influence his action upon a question whichconcerns his party and his country. 

"Mr. Greeley's first complaint is that this journal, in an 'editorialrescript formally read him out of the Whig party. ' Now, here is the'editorial rescript formally reading' Mr. Greeley out of the Whigparty, taken from the _Evening Journal_ of September 6, 1853:

 "'The _Tribune_ defines its position in reference to the approaching election. Regarding the "Maine law" as a question of paramount importance, it will support members of the legislature friendly to its passage, irrespective of party. For state officers it will support such men as it deems competent and trustworthy, irrespective also of party, and without regard to the "Maine law. " In a word, it avows itself, for the present, if not forever, an independent journal (it was pretty much so always), discarding party usages, mandates, and platforms. 

 "'We regret to lose, in the _Tribune_, an old, able, and efficient co-labourer in the Whig vineyard. But when carried away by its convictions of duty to other, and, in its judgment, higher and more beneficent objects, we have as little right as inclination to complain. The _Tribune_ takes with it, wherever it goes, an indomitable and powerful pen, a devoted, a noble, and an unselfish zeal. Its senior editor evidently supposes himself permanently divorced from the Whig party, but we shall be disappointed if, after a year or two's sturdy pulling at the oar of reform, he does not return to his long-cherished belief that great and beneficent aims must continue, as they commenced, to be wrought out through Whig instrumentalities. 

 "'But we only intended to say that the _Tribune_ openly and frankly avows its intention and policy; and that in things about which we cannot agree, we can and will disagree as friends. '

"Pray read this article again, if its purpose and import be notclearly understood! At the time it appeared, the _Tribune_ was underhigh pressure 'Maine law' speed. That question, in Mr. Greeley's view, was paramount to all others. It was the _Tribune's_ 'higher law. ' Mr. Greeley had given warning in his paper that he should support 'Mainelaw' candidates for the legislature, and for state offices, regardlessof their political or party principles and character. And this, too, when senators to be elected had to choose a senator in Congress. Butinstead of 'reading' Mr. Greeley 'out of the Whig party, ' it will beseen that after Mr. Greeley had read himself out of the party bydiscarding 'party usages, mandates, and platforms, ' the _EveningJournal_, in the language and spirit of friendship, predicted justwhat happened, namely, that, in due time, Mr. Greeley would 'return tohis long-cherished belief that great and beneficent aims mustcontinue, as they commenced, to be wrought out through Whiginstrumentalities. '

"We submit, even to Mr. Greeley himself, whether there is one word orthought in the article to which he referred justifying his accusationthat he had been 'read out of the Whig party' by the _EveningJournal_. 

"In December, 1837, when we sought the acquaintance and co-operationof Mr. Greeley, we were, like him, a 'poor printer, ' working as hardas he worked. We had then been sole editor, reporter, news collector, 'remarkable accident, ' 'horrid murder, ' 'items' man, etc. , etc. , forseven years, at a salary of $750, $1000, $1250, and $1500. We had alsobeen working hard, for poor pay, as an editor and politician, for thetwelve years preceding 1830. We stood, therefore, on the same footingwith Mr. Greeley when the partnership was formed. We knew that Mr. Greeley was much abler, more indomitably industrious, and, as webelieved, a better man in all respects. We foresaw for him a brilliantfuture; and, if we had not started with utterly erroneous views of hisobjects, we do not believe that our relations would have jarred. Webelieved him indifferent alike to the temptations of money and office, desiring only to become both 'useful' and 'ornamental, ' as the editorof a patriotic, enlightened, leading, and influential public journal. For years, therefore, we placed Horace Greeley far above the 'swellmob' of office-seekers, for whom, in his letter, he expresses so muchcontempt. Had Governor Seward known, in 1838, that Mr. Greeley covetedan inspectorship, he certainly would have received it. Indeed, if ourmemory be not at fault, Mr. Greeley was offered the clerkship of theAssembly in 1838. It was certainly pressed upon us, and, though atthat time, like Mr. Greeley, desperately poor, it was declined. 

"We cannot think that Mr. Greeley's political friends, after the_Tribune_ was under way, knew that he needed the 'pecuniary aid' whichhad been promised. When, about that period, we suggested to him (afterconsulting some of the board) that the printing of the common council, might be obtained, he refused to have anything to do with it. 

"In relation to the state printing, Mr. Greeley knows that there neverwas a day when, if he had chosen to come to Albany, he might not havetaken whatever interest he pleased in the _Journal_ and its stateprinting. But he wisely regarded his position in New York, and thefuture of the _Tribune_, as far more desirable. 

"For the 'creation of the new office for the _Times_, ' Mr. Greeleyknows perfectly well that Governor Seward was in no mannerresponsible. 

"That Mr. Greeley should make the adjustment of the libel suit ofMessrs. Redfield and Pringle against the _Tribune_ a ground ofaccusation against Governor Seward is a matter of astonishment. Governor Seward undertook the settlement of that suit as the friend ofMr. Greeley, at a time when a systematic effort was being made todestroy both the _Tribune_ and _Journal_ by prosecutions for libel. Wewere literally plastered over with writs, declarations, etc. Therewere at least two judges of the Supreme Court in the State, on whomplaintiffs were at liberty to count for verdicts. Governor Sewardtendered his professional services to Mr. Greeley, and in the casereferred to, as in others, foiled the adversary. For such service thisseems a strange requital. Less fortunate than the _Tribune_, it costthe _Journal_ over $8000 to reach a point in legal proceedings thatenabled a defendant in a libel suit to give the truth in evidence. 

"It was by no fault or neglect or wish of Governor Seward that Mr. Greeley served but 'ninety days in Congress. ' Nor will we say whatothers have said, that his congressional _début_ was a failure. Therewere no other reasons, and this seems a fitting occasion to statethem. Mr. Greeley's 'isms' were in his way at conventions. The sharppoints and rough edges of the _Tribune_ rendered him unacceptable tothose who nominate candidates. This was more so formerly than atpresent, for most of the rampant reforms to which the _Tribune_ wasdevoted have subsided. We had no sympathy with, and little respectfor, a constituency that preferred 'Jim' Brooks to Horace Greeley. 

"Nearly forty years of experience leaves us in some doubt whether, with political friends, an open, frank, and truthful, or a cautious, calculating, non-committal course is not the right, but the easiestand most politic. The former, which we have chosen, has made us muchtrouble and many enemies. Few candidates are able to bear the truth, or to believe that the friend who utters it is truly one. 

"In 1854, the _Tribune_, through years of earnest effort, had educatedthe people up to the point of demanding a 'Maine law' candidate forgovernor. But its followers would not accept their chief reformer! Itwas evident that the state convention was to be largely influenced by'Maine law' and 'Choctaw' Know-Nothing delegates. It was equallyevident that Mr. Greeley could neither be nominated nor elected. Hencethe conference to which he refers. We found, as on two other occasionsduring thirty years, our state convention impracticable. We submittedthe names of Lieutenant-Governor Patterson and Judge Harris (bothtemperance men in faith and practice) as candidates for governor, coupled with that of Mr. Greeley for lieutenant-governor. But the'Maine law' men would have none of these, preferring Myron H. Clark(who used up the raw material of temperance), qualified by H. J. Raymond for lieutenant-governor. 

"What Mr. Greeley says of the relative zeal and efficiency of the_Tribune_ and _Times_, and of our own feelings in that contest, istrue. We did our duty, but with less of enthusiasm than when we weresupporting either Granger, Seward, Bradish, Hunt, Fish, King, orMorgan for governor. 

"One word in relation to the supposed 'political firm. ' Mr. Greeleybrought into it his full quota of capital. But were there nobeneficial results, no accruing advantages, to himself? Did he notattain, in the sixteen years, a high position, world-wide reputation, and an ample fortune? Admit, as we do, that he is not as wealthy as wewish he was, it is not because the _Tribune_ has not made his fortune, but because he did not keep it--because it went, as other people'smoney goes, to friends, to pay indorsements, and in bad investments. 

"We had both been liberally, nay, generously, sustained by our party. Mr. Greeley differs with us in regarding patrons of newspapers asconferring favours. In giving them the worth of their money, he holdsthat the account is balanced. We, on the other hand, have ever heldthe relation of newspaper editor and subscriber as one of fraternity. Viewed in this aspect, the editors of the _Tribune_ and _EveningJournal_ have manifold reasons for cherishing grateful recollectionsof the liberal and abiding confidence and patronage of their party andfriends. 

"In conclusion, we cannot withhold an expression of sincere regretthat this letter has been called out. After remaining six years in'blissful ignorance' of its contents, we should have preferred to haveever remained so. It jars harshly upon cherished memories. It destroysideals of disinterestedness and generosity which relieved politicallife from so much that is selfish, sordid, and rapacious. "

Henry B. Stanton once asked Seward, directly, if he did not think itwould have been better to let Greeley have office. "Mr. Seward lookedat me intently, rolled out a cloud of tobacco smoke, and then slowlyresponded: 'I don't know but it would. '"[578] It is doubtful, however, if Seward ever forgave a New Yorker who contributed to his defeat. Lincoln spoke of him as "without gall, " but Stanton declared him agood hater who lay in wait to punish his foes. Greeley, James S. Wadsworth, William Cullen Bryant, and David Dudley Field, conspicuously led the opposition, and if he failed to annihilate themall it is because some of them did not give him a chance to strikeback. Greeley caught the first knockout blow in February, 1861; and in1862, says Stanton, "he doubtless defeated James S. Wadsworth forgovernor of New York. Wadsworth, who was then military commander ofWashington, told me that Seward was 'dead against him' all through thecampaign. "[579]

[Footnote 578: H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, pp. 199, 200. ]

[Footnote 579: _Ibid. _, p. 216. ]

CHAPTER XXIV

THE FIGHT OF THE FUSIONISTS

1860

After the return of the Softs from Baltimore the condition of theDemocratic party became a subject of much anxiety. Dean Richmond'spersistent use of the unit rule had driven the Hards into openrebellion, and at a great mass-meeting, held at Cooper Institute andaddressed by Daniel S. Dickinson, it was agreed to hold a Breckenridgeand Lane state convention at Syracuse on August 8. At the appointedtime three hundred delegates appeared, representing every county, butwith the notable exception of the chairman, Henry S. Randall, thebiographer of Thomas Jefferson, who had advocated the Wilmot Provisoin 1847, written the Buffalo platform in 1848, and opposed thefugitive slave law in 1850, practically all of them had steadilyopposed the Free-soil influences of their party. To many it seemedstrange, if not absolutely ludicrous, to hoist a pro-slavery flag inthe Empire State. But Republicans welcomed the division of theiropponents, and the Hards were terribly in earnest. They organised withdue formality; spent two days in conference; adopted the pro-slaveryplatform of the seceders' convention amidst loud cheering; selectedcandidates for a state and electoral ticket with the care thatprecedes certain election; angrily denounced the leadership of DeanRichmond at Charleston and Baltimore; appointed a new state committee, and, with the usual assurance of determined men, claimed a largefollowing. 

The indomitable Dickinson, in a speech not unlike his Cooper Instituteaddress, declared that Breckenridge, the regularly nominated candidateof seventeen States and portions of other States, would secure onehundred and twenty-seven electoral votes in the South and on thePacific coast. This made the election, he argued, depend upon NewYork, and since Douglas would start without the hope of getting asingle vote, it became the duty of every national Democrat to insistthat the Illinoisan be withdrawn. People might scoff at this movementas "a cloud no bigger than a man's hand, " he said, but it would growin size and send forth a deluge that would refresh and purify the aridsoil of politics. The applause that greeted this prophecy indicatedfaith in a principle that most people knew had outlived its day in theState; and, although Dickinson was always altogether on one side, itis scarcely credible that he could sincerely believe that New Yorkwould support Breckenridge, even if Douglas withdrew. 

The Hards conjured with a few distinguished names which still gavethem prestige. Charles O'Conor, Greene C. Bronson, and John A. Dix, asconservative, moderate leaders, undoubtedly had the confidence of manypeople, and their ticket, headed by James T. Brady, the brilliantlawyer, looked formidable. Personally, Brady was perhaps the mostpopular man in New York City; and had he stood upon other than apro-slavery platform his support must have been generous. But the factthat he advocated the protection of slave property in the territories, although opposed to Buchanan's Lecompton policy, was destined tosubject him to humiliating defeat. 

The Softs met in convention on August 15. In numbers and noisyenthusiasm they did not seem to represent a larger following than theHards, but their principles expressed the real sentiment of whateverwas left of the rank and file of the Democratic party of the State. Horatio Seymour was the pivotal personage. Around him they rallied. The resolution indorsing Stephen A. Douglas and his doctrine ofnon-intervention very adroitly avoided quarrels. It accepted FernandoWood's delegation on equal terms with Tammany; refused to notice theHards' attack upon Dean Richmond and the majority of the Charlestondelegation; and nominated William Kelley of Hudson for governor byacclamation. Kelley was a large farmer of respectable character andtalents, who had served with credit in the State Senate and supportedVan Buren in 1848 with the warmth of a sincere Free-soiler. He wasevidently a man without guile, and, although modest and plain-spoken, he knew what the farmer and workingman most wanted, and addressedhimself to their best thought. It was generally conceded that he wouldpoll the full strength of his party. 

But the cleverest act of the convention was its fusion with theConstitutional Union party. In the preceding May, the old-line Whigsand Know-Nothings had met at Baltimore and nominated John Bell ofTennessee for President and Edward Everett of Massachusetts for VicePresident, on the simple platform: "The Constitution of the country, the union of the States, and the enforcement of the laws. " WashingtonHunt, the former governor of New York, had become the convention'spresident, and, in company with James Brooks and William Duer, he hadarranged with the Softs to place on the Douglas electoral ticket tenrepresentatives of the Union party, with William Kent, the popular sonof the distinguished Chancellor, at their head. 

Hunt had become a thorn in the side of his old friends, now theleading Republican managers. He had joined them as a Whig in thethirties. After sending him to Congress for three terms and making himcomptroller of state in 1848, they had elected him governor in 1850;but, in the division of the party, he joined the Silver-Grays, failedof re-election in 1852, dropped into the American party in 1854, andsupported Fillmore in 1856. Thurlow Weed thought he ought to haveaided them in the formation of the Republican party, and HoraceGreeley occasionally reminded him that a decent regard for consistencyshould impel him to act in accordance with his anti-slavery record;but when, in 1860, Hunt began the crusade that successfully fused theDouglas and Bell tickets in New York, thus seriously endangering theelection of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican editors opened theirbatteries upon him with well-directed aim. In his one attempt to facethese attacks, Hunt taunted Greeley with being "more dangerous tofriend than to foe. " To this the editor of the _Tribune_ retorted:"When I was your friend, you were six times before the people as acandidate for most desirable offices, and in five of those six weresuccessful, while you were repeatedly a candidate before and have beensince, and always defeated. Possibly some have found me a dangerousfriend, but you never did. "[580]

[Footnote 580: New York _Tribune_, July 23, 1860. ]

Hunt's coalition movement, called the "Syracuse juggle" and the"confusion ticket, " did not work as smoothly as he expected. It gaverise to a bitter controversy which at once impaired its value. TheBell negotiators declared that the ten electors, if chosen, would befree to vote for their own candidate, while the Douglas mediatorsstated with emphasis that each elector was not only pledged by theresolution of the convention to support Douglas, but was required togive his consent to do so or allow another to fill his place. "Wecannot tell which answer is right, " said the New York _Sun_, "but itlooks as if there were deception practised. " The _Tribune_ presentedthe ridiculous phase of it when it declared that the Bell electorswere put up to catch the Know-Nothings, while the others would trapthe Irish and Germans. "Is this the way, " it asked, referring toWilliam Kent and his associates, "in which honourable men who havecharacters to support, conduct political contests?"[581] To dissipatethe confusion, Hunt explained that the defeat of Lincoln wouldprobably throw the election into Congress, in which event Bell wouldbecome President. "But we declare, with the same frankness, that ifDouglas, and not Bell, shall become President, we will welcome thatresult as greatly preferable to the success of sectionalcandidates. "[582]

[Footnote 581: _Ibid. _, July 14, 1860. ]

[Footnote 582: _Ibid. _, July 24, 1860. ]

The Republican state convention which met at Syracuse on August 22, did not muffle its enthusiasm over the schism in the Democraticparty. Seward and his friends had regained their composure. Amidsummer trip to New England, chiefly for recreation, had broughtgreat crowds about the Auburn statesmen wherever he appeared, and, encouraged by their enthusiastic devotion, he returned satisfied withthe place he held in the hearts of Republicans. His followers, too, indicated their disappointment by no public word or sign. To the endof the convention its proceedings were marked by harmony andunanimity. Edwin D. Morgan was renominated for governor byacclamation; the platform of Chicago principles was adopted amidstprolonged cheers, and the selection of electors approved withoutdissent. The happy combination of the two electors-at-large, WilliamCullen Bryant and James O. Putnam, evidenced the spirit of loyalty toAbraham Lincoln that inspired all participants. Bryant had been anoracle of the radical democracy for more than twenty years, and hadstubbornly opposed Seward; Putnam, a Whig of the school of Clay andWebster, had, until recently, zealously supported Millard Fillmore andthe American party. In its eagerness to unite every phase ofanti-slavery sentiment the convention buried the past in its desire toknow, in the words of Seward, "whether this is a constitutionalgovernment under which we live. "

During the campaign, Republican demonstrations glorified Lincoln'searly occupation of rail-splitting, while the Wide-awakes, composedlargely of young men who had studied the slavery question since 1852solely as a moral issue, illuminated the night and aroused enthusiasmwith their torches and expert marching. As early as in September, theNew York _Herald_ estimated that over four hundred thousand werealready uniformed and drilled. In every town and village theseorganisations, unique then, although common enough nowadays, wereconscious appeals for sympathy and favour, and undoubtedly contributedmuch to the result by enlisting the hearty support of first voters. Indeed, on the Republican side, it was largely a campaign of youngmen. "The Republican party, " said Seward at Cleveland, "is a partychiefly of young men. Each successive year brings into its ranks anincreasing proportion of the young men of this country. "[583]

[Footnote 583: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 462. _Seward's Works_, Vol. 4, p. 384. ]

Aside from the torch-light processions of the Wide-awakes, the almostnumberless speeches were the feature of the canvass of 1860. Therehad, perhaps, been more exciting and enthusiastic campaigns, but thenumber of meetings was without precedent. The _Tribune_ estimated thatten thousand set addresses were made in New York alone, and that thenumber in the country equalled all that had been made in previouspresidential canvasses since 1789. It is likewise true that at no timein the history of the State did so many distinguished men take part ina campaign. Though the clergy were not so obtrusive as in 1856, HenryWard Beecher and Edwin H. Chapin, the eminent Universalist, did nothesitate to deliver political sermons from their pulpits, closingtheir campaign on the Sunday evening before election. 

But the New Yorker whom the Republican masses most desired to hear andsee was William H. Seward. Accordingly, in the latter part of Augusthe started on a five weeks' tour through the Western States, beginningat Detroit and closing at Cleveland. At every point where train orsteamboat stopped, if only for fifteen minutes, thousands of peopleawaited his coming. The day he spoke in Chicago, it was estimated thattwo hundred thousand visitors came to that city. Rhodes suggests that"it was then he reached the climax of his career. "[584]

[Footnote 584: "Seward filled the minds of Republicans, attractingsuch attention and honour, and arousing such enthusiasm, that theclosing months of the campaign were the most brilliant epoch of hislife. It was then he reached the climax of his career. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 493. ]

Seward's speeches contained nothing new, and in substance theyresembled one another. But in freshness of thought and kaleidoscopicphraseology, they were attractive, full of eloquence, and ofstatesmanlike comment, lifting the campaign, then just opening, upona high plane of political and moral patriotism. He avoided allpersonalities; he indicated no disappointment;[585] his praise ofLincoln was in excellent taste; and without evasion or concealment, but with a ripeness of experience that had mellowed and enlightenedhim, he talked of "higher law" and the "irrepressible conflict" interms that made men welcome rather than fear their discussion. "Letthis battle be decided in favour of freedom in the territories, " hedeclared, "and not one slave will ever be carried into the territoriesof the United States, and that will end the irrepressibleconflict. "[586]

[Footnote 585: "Seward charged his defeat chiefly to Greeley. He felttoward that influential editor as much vindictiveness as was possiblein a man of so amiable a nature. But he did not retire to histent. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 494. 

"The magnanimity of Mr. Seward, since the result of the convention wasknown, " wrote James Russell Lowell, "has been a greater ornament tohim and a greater honour to his party than his election to thePresidency would have been. "--_Atlantic Monthly_, October, 1860;_Lowell's Political Essays_, p. 34. ]

[Footnote 586: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, pp. 462-66. ]

The growth and resources of the great Northwest, whose development heattributed to the exclusion of slave labour, seemed to inspire himwith the hope and faith of youth, and he spoke of its reservation forfreedom and its settlement and upbuilding in the critical moment ofthe country's history as providential, since it must rally the freeStates of the Atlantic coast to call back the ancient principles whichhad been abandoned by the government to slavery. "We resign to you, "he said, "the banner of human rights and human liberty on thiscontinent, and we bid you be firm, bold, and onward, and then you mayhope that we will be able to follow you. " It was in one of thesemoments of exaltation when he seemed to be lifted into the higherdomain of prophecy that he made the prediction afterward realised bythe Alaska treaty. "Standing here and looking far off into theNorthwest, " he said, "I see the Russian as he busily occupies himselfin establishing seaports and towns and fortifications on the verge ofthis continent as the outposts of St. Petersburg, and I can say, 'Goon, and build up your outposts all along the coast, up even to theArctic Ocean, for they will yet become the outposts of my owncountry--monuments of the civilisation of the United States in theNorthwest. "[587]

[Footnote 587: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 464. ]

At the beginning of the canvass, Republican confidence and enthusiasmcontrasted strangely with the apathy of the Democratic party, causedby its two tickets, two organisations, and two incompatible platforms. It was recognised early in the campaign that Douglas could carry noslave State unless it be Missouri; and, although the Douglas and Bellfusion awaked some hope, it was not until the fusion electoral ticketincluded supporters of Breckenridge that the struggle became vehementand energetic. New York's thirty-five votes were essential to theelection of Lincoln, and early in September a determined effort beganto unite the three parties against him. The Hards resisted themovement, but many merchants and capitalists of New York City, apprehensive of the dissolution of the Union if Lincoln were elected, and promising large sums of money to the campaign, forced thesubstitution of seven Breckenridge electors in place of as manyDouglas supporters, giving Bell ten, Breckenridge seven, and Douglaseighteen. "It is understood, " said the _Tribune_, "that four nabobshave already subscribed twenty-five thousand dollars each, and thatone million is to be raised. "[588]

[Footnote 588: New York _Tribune_, October 19, 1860. ]

All this disturbed Lincoln. "I think there will be the mostextraordinary effort ever made to carry New York for Douglas, " hewrote Weed on August 17. "You and all others who write me from yourState think the effort cannot succeed, and I hope you are right. Still, it will require close watching and great efforts on the otherside. "[589] After fusion did succeed, the Republican managers foundencouragement in the fact that a majority of the Americans in thewestern part of the State, [590] following the lead of Putnam, belonged to the party of Lincoln, while the Germans gave comfortingevidence of their support. On his return from the West Seward assuredLincoln "that this State will redeem all the pledges we havemade. "[591] Then came the October verdict from Pennsylvania andIndiana. "Emancipation or revolution is now upon us, " said theCharleston _Mercury_. [592] Yet the hope of the New York fusionists, encouraged by a stock panic in Wall Street and by the unconcealedstatement of Howell Cobb of Georgia, then secretary of the treasury, that Lincoln's election would be followed by disunion and a seriousderangement of the financial interests of the country, kept the EmpireState violently excited. It was reported in Southern newspapers thatWilliam B. Astor had contributed one million of dollars in aid of thefusion ticket. [593] It was a formidable combination of elements. Heretofore the Republican party had defeated them separately--now itmet them as a united whole, when antagonisms, ceasing to be those ofrational debate, had become those of fierce and furious passion. Greeley pronounced it "a struggle as intense, as vehement, and asenergetic, as had ever been known, " in New York. [594] Yet ThurlowWeed's confidence never wavered. "The fusion leaders have largelyincreased their fund, " he wrote Lincoln, three days before theelection, "and they are now using money lavishly. This stimulates andto some extent inspires confidence, and all the confederates are atwork. Some of our friends are nervous. But I have no fear of theresult in this State. "[595]

[Footnote 589: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 297. ]

[Footnote 590: "The names of eighty-one thousand New York men whovoted for Fillmore in 1856 are inscribed on Republican poll-lists. "--NewYork _Tribune_, September 11, 1860. ]

[Footnote 591: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 471. ]

[Footnote 592: October 18, 1860. ]

[Footnote 593: Charleston _Mercury_, cited by _NationalIntelligencer_, November 1, 1860; Richmond _Enquirer_, November 2. ]

[Footnote 594: Horace Greeley, _American Conflict_, Vol. 1, p. 300. ]

[Footnote 595: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 300. ]

After the election, returns came in rapidly. Before midnight theyforeshadowed Lincoln's success, and the next morning's _Tribune_estimated that the Republicans had carried the electoral and statetickets by 30, 000 to 50, 000, with both branches of the Legislature andtwenty-three out of thirty-three congressmen. The official figures didnot change this prophecy, except to fix Lincoln's majority at 50, 136and Morgan's plurality at 63, 460. Lincoln received 4374 votes morethan Morgan, but Kelley ran 27, 698 behind the fusion electoral ticket, showing that the Bell and Everett men declined to vote for the Softs'candidate for governor. Brady's total vote, 19, 841, marked thepro-slavery candidate's small support, leaving Morgan a clear majorityof 43, 619. [596] "Mr. Dickinson and myself, " said James T. Brady, sixyears later, in his tribute to the former's memory, "belonged to thesmall, despairing band in this State who carried into the politicalcontest of the North, for the last time, the flag of the South, contending that the South should enjoy to the utmost, and with liberalrecognition, all the rights she could fairly claim under theConstitution of the United States. How small that band was allfamiliar with the political history of this State can tell. "[597]

[Footnote 596: Edwin D. Morgan, 358, 272; William Kelley, 294, 812;James T. Brady, 19, 841. --_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166. ]

[Footnote 597: Address at Bar meeting in New York City upon death ofDaniel S. Dickinson. ]

CHAPTER XXV

GREELEY, WEED, AND SECESSION

1860-1861

Upon the election of Lincoln in November, 1860, South Carolina almostimmediately gave evidence of its purpose to secede from the Union. Democrats generally, and many supporters of Bell and Everett, haddeemed secession probable in the event of Republican success--a beliefso fully shared by the authorities at Washington, who understood theSouthern people, that General Scott, then at the head of the army, wrote to President Buchanan before the end of October, advising thatforts in all important Southern seaports be strengthened to avoidcapture by surprise. On the other hand, the Republicans had regardedSouthern threats as largely buncombe. They had been heard in 1820, in1850, and so frequently in debate leading up to the contest in 1860, that William H. Seward, the most powerful leader of opinion in hisparty, had declared: "These hasty threats of disunion are so unnaturalthat they will find no hand to execute them. "[598]

[Footnote 598: Speech of February 29, 1860: _Seward's Works_, Vol. 4, p. 619. ]

Nevertheless, when, on November 16, the South Carolina Legislaturepassed an act calling a convention to meet on December 17, theRepublicans, still enthusiastic over their success, began seriously toconsider the question of disunion. "Do you think the South willsecede?" became as common a salutation as "Good-morning;" and, although a few New Yorkers, perhaps, gave the indifferent reply ofHenry Ward Beecher--"I don't believe they will; and I don't care ifthey do"[599]--the gloom and uncertainty which hung over businesscircles made all anxious to hear from the leaders of their party. Heretofore, Horace Greeley, Thurlow Weed, and William H. Seward, backed by Henry J. Raymond of the New York _Times_ and James WatsonWebb of the _Courier_, had been quick to meet any emergency, and theirfollowers now looked to them for direction. 

[Footnote 599: New York _Tribune_, November 30, 1860. The quotation isfrom an address delivered in Boston. ]

Horace Greeley was admittedly the most influential Republicanjournalist. He had not always agreed with the leaders, and just now anopen break existed in the relations of himself and the powerfultriumvirate headed by Thurlow Weed; but Greeley had voiced thesentiment of the rank and file of his party more often than he hadmisstated it, and the _Tribune_ readers naturally turned to theirprophet for a solution of the pending trouble. As usual, he had anopinion. The election occurred on November 6, and on the 9th hedeclared that "if the cotton States shall decide that they can dobetter out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go inpeace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it existsnevertheless. . . . Whenever a considerable section of our Union shalldeliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measuresdesigned to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic, whereofone section is pinned to the residue by bayonets. "[600] Two weekslater, on November 26, he practically repeated these views. "If thecotton States unitedly and earnestly wish to withdraw peacefully fromthe Union, we think they should and would be allowed to go. Anyattempt to compel them by force to remain would be contrary to theprinciples enunciated in the immortal Declaration of Independence, contrary to the fundamental ideas on which human liberty isbased. "[601] As late as December 17, when South Carolina and otherSouthern States were on the threshold of secession, Greeley declaredthat "if the Declaration of Independence justified the secession fromthe British Empire of three millions of colonists in 1776, we do notsee why it should not justify the secession of five millions ofSouthrons from the Union in 1861. "[602] In January, he recanted in ameasure. Yet, on February 23, he announced that "Whenever it shall beclear that the great body of the Southern people have becomeconclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, we will do our best to forward their views. "[603]

[Footnote 600: New York _Tribune_, November 9, 1860. ]

[Footnote 601: _Ibid. _, November 26. ]

[Footnote 602: New York _Tribune_, December 17. ]

[Footnote 603: _Ibid. _, February 23. ]

Henry Ward Beecher[604] and the Garrison Abolitionists[605] alsoinclined to this view; and, in November and December, a fewRepublicans, because of a general repugnance to the coercion of aState, did not despise it. Naturally, however, the Greeley policy didnot please the great bulk of Lincoln's intelligent supporters. Thebelief obtained that, the election having been fair andconstitutional, the South ought to submit to the decision as readilyas Northern Democrats acquiesced in it. Besides, a spontaneous feelingexisted that the United States was a nation, that secession wastreason, and seceders were traitors. Such people sighed for "an hourof Andrew Jackson;" and, to supply the popular demand, Jackson'sproclamation against the nullifiers, written by Edward Livingston, anative of New York, then secretary of state, was published in a cheapand convenient edition. To the readers of such literature Greeley'speaceable secession seemed like the erratic policy of an eccentricthinker, and its promulgation, especially when it began giving comfortand encouragement to the South, contributed not a little to the defeatof its author for the United States Senate in the following February. 

[Footnote 604: _Ibid. _, November 30. "In so far as the Free States areconcerned, " he said, "I hold that it will be an advantage for theSouth to go off. "]

[Footnote 605: _The Liberator_, November and December. ]

Thurlow Weed also had a plan, which quickly attracted the attention ofpeople in the South as well as in the North. He held that suggestionsof compromise which the South could accept might be proposed withoutdishonour to the victors in the last election, and, in severalcarefully written editorials in the _Evening Journal_, he argued infavour of restoring the old line of the Missouri Compromise, and ofsubstituting for the fugitive slave act, payment for rescued slaves bythe counties in which the violation of law occurred. "When we refer, as we often do, triumphantly to the example of England, " he said, "weare prone to forget that emancipation and compensation were provisionsof the same act of Parliament. "[606]

[Footnote 606: Albany _Evening Journal_, November 26, 1860. ]

Weed was now sixty-three years of age--not an old man, and of littleless energy than in 1824, when he drove about the State in his firstencounter with Martin Van Buren. The success of the views he hadfearlessly maintained, in defiance of menacing opponents, had beenachieved in full measure, and he had reason to be proud of hisconspicuous part in the result; but now, in the presence of secessionwhich threatened the country because of that success, he seemedsuddenly to revolt against the policy he himself had fostered. As hisbiographer expressed it, "he cast aside the weapons which none couldwield so well, "[607] and, betraying the influences of his earlytraining under the great Whig leaders, began to show his love for theUnion after the manner of Clay and Webster. 

[Footnote 607: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 306. ]

Weed outlined his policy with rare skill, hoping that the discussionprovoked by it might result in working out some plan to avoiddisunion. [608] Raymond, in the _Times_, and Webb in the _Courier_, gave it cordial support; the leading New York business men of allparties expressed themselves favourable to conciliation andcompromise. "I can assure you, " wrote August Belmont to GovernorSprague of Rhode Island, on December 13, "that all the leaders of theRepublican party in our State and city, with a few exceptions of theultra radicals, are in favour of concessions, and that the popularmind of the North is ripe for them. " On December 19 he wrote again:"Last evening I was present at an informal meeting of about thirtygentlemen, comprising our leading men, Republicans, Union men, andDemocrats, composed of such names as Astor, Aspinwall, Moses H. Grinnell, Hamilton Fish, R. M. Blatchford, &c. They were unanimous intheir voice for reconciliation, and that the first steps have to betaken by the North. "[609]

[Footnote 608: Albany _Evening Journal_, December 1, 1860. ]

[Footnote 609: _Letters of August Belmont_, privately printed, pp. 15, 16. ]

Belmont undoubtedly voiced the New York supporters of Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell, and many conservative Republicans, representing the business interests of the great metropolis; but thebulk of the Republicans did not like a plan that overthrew thecornerstone of their party, which had won on its opposition to theextension of slavery into free territory. To go back to the line of36° 30´, permitting slavery to the south of it, meant the loss of allthat had been gained, and a renewal of old issues and hostilities inthe near future. Republican congressmen from the State, almost withoutexception, yielded to this view, voicing the sentiment that it wasvain to temporise longer with compromises. With fluent invective, James B. McKean of Saratoga assailed the South in a speech thatrecalled the eloquence of John W. Taylor, his distinguishedpredecessor, who, in 1820, led the forces of freedom against theMissouri Compromise. "The slave-holders, " he said, "have been fairlydefeated in a presidential election. They now demand that the victorsshall concede to the vanquished all that the latter have ever claimed, and vastly more than they could secure when they themselves werevictors. They take their principles in one hand, and the sword in theother, and reaching out the former they say to us, 'Take these foryour own, or we will strike. '"[610]

[Footnote 610: _Congressional Globe_, 1860-61, _Appendix_, p. 221. "Never, with my consent, shall the Constitution ordain or protecthuman slavery in any territory. Where it exists by law I willrecognise it, but never shall it be extended over one acre of freeterritory. " Speech of James Humphrey of Brooklyn. --_Ibid. _, p. 158. "Why should we now make any concessions to them? With our experienceof the little importance attached to former compromises by the South, it is ridiculous to talk about entering into another. The restorationof the Missouri line, with the protection of slavery south of it, willnot save the Union. " Speech of John B. Haskin of Fordham. --_Ibid. _, p. 264. "The people of the North regard the election of Mr. Lincoln asthe assurance that the day of compromise has ended; that henceforthslavery shall have all the consideration which is constitutionally dueit and no more; that freedom shall have all its rights recognised andrespected. " Speech of Charles L. Beale of Kinderhook. --_Ibid. _, p. 974. "We of the North are called upon to save the Union by makingconcessions and giving new guarantees to the South. . . . But I amopposed to tinkering with the Constitution, especially in theseexciting times. I am satisfied with it as it is. " Speech of Alfred Elyof Rochester. --_Ibid. _, _Appendix_, p. 243. "I should be opposed toany alteration of the Constitution which would extend the area ofslavery. " Speech of Luther C. Carter of Flushing. --_Ibid. _, p. 278. "Iam opposed to all changes in the Constitution whatever. " Edwin R. Reynolds of Albion. --_Ibid. _, p. 1008. ]

Nevertheless, Weed kept at work. In an elaborate article, he suggesteda "Convention of the people consisting of delegates appointed by theStates, to which North and South might bring their respective griefs, claims, and reforms to a common arbitrament, to meet, discuss, anddetermine upon a future. It will be said that we have done nothingwrong, and have nothing to offer. This is precisely why we should bothpurpose and offer whatever may, by possibility, avert the evils ofcivil war and prevent the destruction of our hitherto unexampledblessings of Union. "[611]

[Footnote 611: Albany _Evening Journal_, November 30, 1860. ]

Preston King, the junior United States senator from New York, clearlyvoicing the sentiment of the majority of his party in Congress and outof it, bitterly opposed such a policy. "It cannot be done, " he wroteWeed, on December 7. "You must abandon your position. It will provedistasteful to the majority of those whom you have hitherto led. Youand Seward should be among the foremost to brandish the lance andshout for joy. "[612] To this the famous editor, giving a succinct viewof his policy, replied with his usual directness. "I have not dreamedof anything inconsistent with Republican duty. We owe our existence asa party to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. But for the everblind spirit of slavery, Buchanan would have taken away our ammunitionand spiked our guns. The continued blindness of Democracy and thecontinued madness of slavery enabled us to elect Lincoln. That successends our mission so far as Kansas and the encroachments of slaveryinto free territory are concerned. We have no territory that invitesslavery for any other than political objects, and with the power ofterritorial organisation in the hands of Lincoln, there is nopolitical temptation in all the territory belonging to us. The fightis over. Practically, the issues of the late campaign are obsolete. Ifthe Republican members of Congress stand still, we shall have adivided North and a united South. If they move promptly, there will bea divided South and a united North. "[613]

[Footnote 612: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 309. ]

[Footnote 613: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 309. ]

It is not, perhaps, surprising that Weed found so much to say infavour of his proposition, since the same compromise and the samearguments were made use of a few weeks later by no less a person thanthe venerable John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, the Nestor of the UnitedStates Senate. Crittenden was ten years older than Weed, and, likehim, was actuated by sincere patriotism. Although his compromisecontained six proposed amendments to the Constitution, it was believedthat all differences between the sections could easily be adjustedafter the acceptance of the first article, which recognised slavery asexisting south of latitude 36° 30´, and pledged it protection "asproperty by all the departments of the territorial government duringits continuance. " The article also provided that States should beadmitted from territory either north or south of that line, with orwithout slavery, as their constitutions might declare. [614] This partof the compromise was not new to Congress or to the country. It hadbeen made, on behalf of the South, in 1847, and defeated by a vote of114 to 82, only four Northern Democrats sustaining it. It was againdefeated more decisively in 1848, when proposed by Douglas. "Thus theNorth, " wrote Greeley, "under the lead of the Republicans, wasrequired, in 1860, to make, on pain of civil war, concessions toslavery which it had utterly refused when divided only between theconservative parties of a few years before. "[615]

[Footnote 614: The full text of the Crittenden compromise is given inthe _Congressional Globe_, 1861, p. 114; also in Horace Greeley's_American Conflict_, Vol. 1, p. 376. ]

[Footnote 615: Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_, Vol. 1, pp. 378, 379. ]

Nevertheless, the Crittenden proposition invoked the same influencesthat supported the Weed plan. "I would most cheerfully accept it, "wrote John A. Dix. "I feel a strong confidence that we could carrythree-fourths of the States in favour of it as an amendment to theConstitution. "[616] August Belmont said he had "yet to meet the firstconservative Union-loving man, in or out of politics, who does notapprove of your compromise propositions. . . . In our own city and Statesome of the most prominent men are ready to follow the lead of Weed. Restoration of the Missouri line finds favour with most of theconservative Republicans, and their number is increasing daily. "[617]Belmont, now more than earlier in the month, undoubtedly expressed aripening sentiment that was fostered by the gloomy state of trade, creating feverish conditions in the stock market, forcing New Yorkbanks to issue clearing-house certificates, and causing a markeddecline in the Republican vote at the municipal election inHudson. [618] Indeed, there is abundant evidence that the Crittendenproposition, if promptly carried out in December, might have resultedin peace. The Senate committee of thirteen to whom it wasreferred--consisting of two senators from the cotton States, threefrom the border States, three Northern Democrats, and fiveRepublicans--decided that no report should be adopted unless it hadthe assent of a majority of the Republicans, and also a majority ofthe eight other members. Six of the eight voted for it. All theRepublicans, and Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs, representing thecotton States, voted against it. The evidence however, is almostconvincing that Davis and Toombs would have supported it in Decemberif the Republicans had voted for it. In speeches in the open Senate, Douglas declared it, [619] Toombs admitted it, [620] and Davis impliedit. [621] Seward sounds the only note of their insincerity. "I think, "he said, in a letter to the President-elect, "that Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana could not be arrested, even if we shouldoffer all you suggest, and with it the restoration of the MissouriCompromise line. But persons acting for those States intimate thatthey might be so arrested, because they think that the Republicans arenot going to concede the restoration of that line. "[622] It is likelySeward hesitated to believe that his vote against the compromise, forwhatever reason it was given, helped to inaugurate hostilities; andyet nothing is clearer, in spite of his letter to Lincoln, than thatin December the Republicans defeated the Crittenden compromise, theadoption of which would have prevented civil war. [623]

[Footnote 616: Coleman, _Life of John J. Crittenden_, Vol. 2, p. 237. ]

[Footnote 617: _Letters of August Belmont_, privately printed, p. 24. ]

[Footnote 618: Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_, Vol. 1, p. 362. ]

[Footnote 619: "In the committee of thirteen, a few days ago, everymember from the South, including those from the cotton States, expressed their readiness to accept the proposition of my venerablefriend from Kentucky as a final settlement of the controversy, iftendered and sustained by the Republican members. " Douglas in theSenate, January 3, 1861. --_Congressional Globe_, Appendix, p. 41. ]

[Footnote 620: "I said to the committee of thirteen, and I say here, that, with other satisfactory provisions, I would accept it. " Toombsin the Senate, January 7, 1861. --_Globe_, p. 270. "I can confirm theSenator's declaration that Senator Davis himself, when on thecommittee of thirteen, was ready, at all times, to compromise on theCrittenden proposition. I will go further and say that Mr. Toombs wasalso. " Douglas in the Senate, March 2, 1861. --_Globe_, p. 1391. ]

[Footnote 621: See Davis's speech of January 10, 1861. _CongressionalGlobe_, p. 310. ]

[Footnote 622: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 263. Letter to Lincoln, December 26, 1860. ]

[Footnote 623: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 3, p. 155. ]

In deference to the wishes of Lincoln and of his friends, who weregrooming him for United States senator, Greeley, before the end ofDecember, had, in a measure, given up his damaging doctrine ofpeaceable secession, and accepted the "no compromise" policy, laiddown by Benjamin F. Wade, as "the only true, the only honest, the onlysafe doctrine. "[624] It was necessary to Greeley's position just then, and to the stage of development which his candidacy had reached, thathe should oppose Weed's compromise. On the 22d of December, therefore, he wrote the President-elect: "I fear nothing, care for nothing, butanother disgraceful backdown of the free States. That is the only realdanger. Let the Union slide--it may be reconstructed; let Presidentsbe assassinated--we can elect more; let the Republicans be defeatedand crushed--we shall rise again. But another nasty compromise, whereby everything is conceded and nothing secured, will so thoroughlydisgrace and humiliate us that we can never raise our heads, and thiscountry becomes a second edition of the Barbary States, as they weresixty years ago. 'Take any form but that. '"[625] On the same day the_Tribune_ announced that "Mr. Lincoln is utterly opposed to anyconcession or compromise that shall yield one iota of the positionoccupied by the Republican party on the subject of slavery in theterritories, and that he stands now, as he stood in May last, when heaccepted the nomination for the Presidency, square upon the Chicagoplatform. "[626] Thus Lincoln had reassured Greeley's shrinking faith, and thenceforward his powerful journal took a more healthy and hopefultone. [627]

[Footnote 624: New York _Tribune_, December 19, 1860. ]

[Footnote 625: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 258. ]

[Footnote 626: New York _Tribune_, December 22, 1860. ]

[Footnote 627: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 258. ]

Meantime, Weed laboured for the Crittenden compromise. He went toWashington, interviewed Republican members of Congress, and finallyvisited Lincoln at Springfield. Tickling the ear with a pleasingsentiment and alliteration, he wanted Republicans, he said, "to meetsecession as patriots and not as partisans. "[628] He especially urgedforbearance and concession out of consideration for Union men inSouthern States. "Apprehending that we should be called upon to testthe strength of the Government, " he wrote, on January 9, 1861, "wesaw, what is even more apparent now, that the effort would tax all itsfaculties and strain all its energies. Hence our desire before thetrial came to make up a record that would challenge the approval ofthe world. This was due not less to ourselves than to the Union men ofSouthern States, who, with equal patriotism and more of sacrifice, amidst the pitiless peltings of the disunion storm, sought, like thedove sent out from the ark, a dry spot on which to set theirfeet. "[629]

[Footnote 628: _Ibid. _, p. 261. ]

[Footnote 629: Albany _Evening Journal_, January 9, 1861. ]

Weed's sincerity remained unquestioned, and his opinion, so ardentlysupported outside his party, would probably have had weight within hisparty under other conditions; but the President-elect, with his mindinflexibly made up on the question of extending slavery into theterritories, refused to yield the cardinal principle of the Chicagoplatform. "Entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to theextension of slavery, " he wrote, December 11, to William Kellogg, amember of Congress from Illinois. "The instant you do, they have usunder again; all our labour is lost, and sooner or later must be doneover. . . . The tug has to come, and better now than later. You know Ithink the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution ought to beenforced--to put it in its mildest form, ought not to beresisted. "[630] Two days later, in a letter to E. B. Washburne, also anIllinois member of Congress, he objected to the scheme for restoringthe Missouri Compromise line. "Let that be done and immediatelyfilibustering and extending slavery recommences. On that point holdfirm as a chain of steel. "[631] To Weed himself, on December 17, herepeated the same idea in almost the identical language. [632]

[Footnote 630: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 259. ]

[Footnote 631: _Ibid. _, Vol. 3, p. 259. ]

[Footnote 632: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, pp. 310, 311. ]

Thurlow Weed was a journalist of pre-eminent ability, and, although astrenuous, hard hitter, who gave everybody as much sport as he wanted, he was a fair fighter, whom the bitterest critics of the radicalRepublican press united in praising for his consistency; but hisepigrams and incisive arguments, sending a vibrating note ofearnestness across the Alleghanies, could not move the modest and, asyet, unknown man of the West, who, unswayed by the fears of WallStreet, and the teachings of the great Whig compromisers, saw with astatesman's clearness the principle that explained the reason for hisparty's existence. 

CHAPTER XXVI

SEYMOUR AND THE PEACE DEMOCRATS

1860-1861

While the contest over secession was raising its crop of disturbanceand disorder at Washington, newspapers and politicians in the Northcontinued to discuss public questions from their party standpoints. Republicans inveighed against the madness of pro-slavery leaders, Democrats berated Republicans as the responsible authors of the perilsdarkening the national skies, and Bell men sought for a compromise. Four days after the election of Lincoln, the Albany _Argus_ clearlyand temperately expressed the view generally taken of the secessionmovement by Democratic journals of New York. "We are not at allsurprised at the manifestations of feeling at the South, " it said. "Weexpected and predicted it; and for so doing were charged by theRepublican press with favouring disunion; while, in fact, we simplycorrectly appreciated the feeling of that section of the Union. Wesympathise with and justify the South, as far as this--their rightshave been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms ofthe Constitution; and, if we deemed it certain that the real animus ofthe Republican party could become the permanent policy of the nation, we should think that all the instincts of self-preservation and ofmanhood rightfully impelled them to resort to revolution and aseparation from the Union, and we would applaud them and wish themGod-speed in the adoption of such a remedy. "[633]

[Footnote 633: Albany _Argus_, November 10, 1860. On November 12 theRochester _Union_ argued that the threatened secession of the slaveStates was but a counterpoise of the personal liberty bills and othermeasures of antagonism to slave-holding at the North. See, also, theNew York _Herald_, November 9. ]

This was published in the heat of party conflict and Democraticdefeat, when writers assumed that a compromise, if any adjustment wasneeded, would, of course, be forthcoming as in 1850. A little later, as conditions became more threatening, the talk of peaceable secessiongrowing out of a disinclination to accept civil war, commended itselfto persons who thought a peaceful dissolution of the Union, if theslave-holding South should seek it, preferable to such analternative. [634] But as the spectre of dismemberment of the nationcame nearer, concessions to the South as expressed in the Weed plan, and, later, in the Crittenden compromise, commended itself to a largepart of the people. A majority of the voters at the preceding electionundoubtedly favoured such an adjustment. The votes cast for Douglas, Bell, and Breckenridge in the free States, with one-fourth of thosecast for Lincoln, and one-fourth for Breckenridge in the slave States, making 2, 848, 792 out of a total of 4, 662, 170, said a writer in_Appleton's Cyclopædia_, "were overwhelmingly in favour ofconciliation, forbearance, and compromise. "[635] Rhodes, thehistorian, approving this estimate, expresses the belief that theCrittenden compromise, if submitted to the people, would havecommanded such a vote. [636]

[Footnote 634: Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 338. ]

[Footnote 635: _Appleton's Cyclopædia_, 1861, p. 700. ]

[Footnote 636: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 3, p. 261, _note_. ]

In the closing months of 1860, and the opening months of 1861, thisbelief dominated the Democratic party as well as a large number ofconservative Republicans; but, as the winter passed withoutsubstantial progress toward an effective compromise, the cloud oftrouble assumed larger proportions and an alarmist spirit spreadabroad. After Major Anderson, on the night of December 27, hadtransferred his command from its exposed position at Fort Moultrie tothe stronger one at Fort Sumter, it was not uncommon to hear upon thestreets disloyal sentiments blended with those of willing sacrificeto maintain the Union. This condition was accentuated by the action ofthe Legislature, which convened on January 2, 1861, with twenty-threeRepublicans and nine Democrats in the Senate, and ninety-threeRepublicans and thirty-five Democrats in the House. In his message, Governor Morgan urged moderation and conciliation. "Let New York, " hesaid, "set an example; let her oppose no barrier, but let herrepresentatives in Congress give ready support to any just andhonourable sentiment; let her stand in hostility to none, but extendthe hand of friendship to all, cordially uniting with other members ofthe Confederacy in proclaiming and enforcing a determination that theConstitution shall be honoured and the Union of the States bepreserved. "

On January 7, five days after this dignified and conservative appeal, Fernando Wood, imitating the example of South Carolina, advocated thesecession of the city from the State. "Why should not New York City, "said the Mayor, as if playing the part of a satirist, "instead ofsupporting by her contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expensesof the United States, become, also, equally independent? As a freecity, with a nominal duty on imports, her local government could besupported without taxation upon her people. . . . Thus we could live freefrom taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free. . . . When disunionhas become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York disrupt thebands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master--to a people and aparty that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin hercommerce, taken away the power of self-government, and destroyed theconfederacy of which she was the proud empire city. "[637]

[Footnote 637: Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, LXXXI: p. 25, 26. New York _Herald_, January 8. ]

By order of a sympathising common council, this absurd message, printed in pamphlet form, was distributed among the people. Few, however, took it seriously. "Fernando Wood, " said the _Tribune_, "evidently wants to be a traitor; it is lack of courage only thatmakes him content with being a blackguard. "[638] The next dayConfederate forts fired upon the _Star of the West_ while endeavouringto convey troops and supplies to Fort Sumter. 

[Footnote 638: New York _Tribune_, January 8, 1861. ]

The jar of the Mayor's message and the roar of hostile guns werequickly followed by the passage, through the Legislature, of aconcurrent resolution, tendering the President "whatever aid in menand money may be required to enable him to enforce the laws and upholdthe authority of the Federal Government; and that, in the defence ofthe Union, which has conferred prosperity and happiness upon theAmerican people, renewing the pledge given and redeemed by ourfathers, we are ready to devote our fortunes, our lives, and oursacred honour. "[639] This resolution undoubtedly expressed theoverwhelming preponderance of sentiment in the State, [640] but itsdefiant tone, blended with the foolish words of Wood and the menacingact of South Carolina, called forth greater efforts for compromise, tothe accomplishment of which a mammoth petition, signed by the leadingbusiness men of the State, was sent to Congress, praying that"measures, either of direct legislation or of amendment of theConstitution, may be speedily adopted, which, we are assured, willrestore peace to our agitated country. "[641]

[Footnote 639: _Appleton's Cyclopædia_, 1861, p. 700. ]

[Footnote 640: "The whole people in this part of the country arewaiting with impatience for your assumption of the great office towhich the suffrage of a free people has called you, and will hail youas a deliverer from treason and anarchy. In New York City all classesand parties are rapidly uniting in this sentiment, and here in Albany, where I am spending a few days in attendance upon Court, the generaltone of feeling and thinking about public affairs shows littledifference between Republicans and Democrats. "--W. M. Evarts to AbrahamLincoln, January 15, 1861. Unpublished letter on file in Department ofState at Washington. ]

[Footnote 641: _Appleton's Cyclopædia_, 1861, p. 520. ]

On January 18, a meeting of the merchants of New York City, held inthe Chamber of Commerce, unanimously adopted a memorial, addressed toCongress, urging the acceptance of the Crittenden compromise. Similaraction to maintain peace in an honourable way was taken in othercities of the State, while congressmen were daily loaded with appealsfavouring any compromise that would keep the peace. Among otherpetitions of this character, Elbridge G. Spaulding presented one fromBuffalo, signed by Millard Fillmore, Henry W. Rogers, and threethousand others. On January 24, Governor Morgan received resolutions, passed by the General Assembly of Virginia, inviting the State, through its Legislature, to send commissioners to a peace conferenceto be held at Washington on February 4. Nothing had occurred in theintervening weeks to change the sentiment of the Legislature, expressed earlier in the session; but, after much discussion and manydelays, it was resolved, in acceding to the request of Virginia, that"it is not to be understood that this Legislature approves of thepropositions submitted, or concedes the propriety of their adoption bythe proposed convention. But while adhering to the position she hasheretofore occupied, New York will not reject an invitation to aconference, which, by bringing together the men of both sections, holds out the possibility of an honourable settlement of our nationaldifficulties, and the restoration of peace and harmony to thecountry. "

The balloting for commissioners resulted in the election of DavidDudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S. Wadsworth, James C. Smith, Amaziah B. James, Erastus Corning, Francis Granger, Greene C. Bronson, William E. Dodge, John A. King, and John E. Wool, with theproviso, however, that they were to take no part in the proceedingsunless a majority of the non-slave-holding States were represented. The appearance of Francis Granger upon the commission was the act ofThurlow Weed. Granger, happy in his retirement at Canandaigua, hadbeen out of office and out of politics so many years that, as he saidin a letter to the editor of the _Evening Journal_, "it is with thegreatest repugnance that I think of again appearing before thepublic. "[642] But Weed urged him, and Granger accepted "theflattering honour. "[643] Thus, after many years of estrangement, theleader of the Woolies clasped hands again with the chief of theSilver-Grays. 

[Footnote 642: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 317. ]

[Footnote 643: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 318. ]

Though a trifling event in itself, the detention of thirty-eight boxesof muskets by the New York police kept the people conscious of thestrained relations between the States. The ownership of the guns, leftfor shipment to Savannah, would ordinarily have been promptly settledin a local court; but the detention now became an affair of nationalimportance, involving the governors of two States and leading to theseizure of half a dozen merchant vessels lying peacefully at anchor inSavannah harbour. Instead of entering the courts, the consignortelegraphed the consignees of the "seizure, " the consignees notifiedGovernor Brown of Georgia, and the Governor wired Governor Morgan ofNew York, demanding their immediate release. Receiving no reply to hismessage, Brown, in retaliation, ordered the seizure of all vessels atSavannah belonging to citizens of New York. Although Governor Morgangave the affair no attention beyond advising the vessel owners thattheir rights must be prosecuted in the United States courts, theshipment of the muskets and the release of the vessels soon closed theincident; but Brown's indecent zeal to give the episode aninternational character by forcing into notice the offensiveassumption of an independent sovereignty, had much influence inhardening the "no compromise" attitude of many Northern people. 

Nevertheless, the men of New York who desired peace on any honourableterms, seemed to grow more earnest as the alarm in the public mindbecame more intense. South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi had now seceded, and, as a last appeal tothem, a monster and notable Union meeting, held at Cooper Institute onJanuary 28 and addressed by eminent men of all parties, designatedJames T. Brady, Cornelius K. Garrison, and Appleton Oaksmith, ascommissioners to confer with delegates to the conventions of theseseceding States "in regard to measures best calculated to restore thepeace and integrity of this Union. "[644] Scarcely had the meetingadjourned, however, before John A. Dix, as secretary of the treasury, thrilled the country by his fearless and historic dispatch, "If anyone attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot. "

[Footnote 644: _Appleton's Cyclopædia_, 1861, p. 520. ]

Dix had brought to the Cabinet the training of a soldier and of awise, prudent, sagacious statesman of undaunted courage and integrity. With the exception of his connection with the Barnburners in 1848, hehad been an exponent of the old Democratic traditions, and, next toHoratio Seymour, did more, probably, than any other man to bring abouta reunion of his party in 1852. Nevertheless, the Southern politiciansnever forgave him. President Pierce offered him the position ofsecretary of state, and then withdrew it with the promise of sendinghim as minister to France; but the South again defeated him. From thattime until his appointment as postmaster of New York, following thediscovery, in May, 1860, of Isaac V. Fowler's colossal defalcation, [645]Dix had taken little part in politics. If the President, however, needed a man of his ability and honesty in the crisis precipitated byFowler's embezzlement, such characteristics were more in demand, inJanuary, 1861, at the treasury, when the government was compelled topay twelve per cent. For a loan of five millions, while New York Statesevens were taken at an average of 101-1/4. [646] Bankers refusedlonger to furnish money until the Cabinet contained men upon whom thefriends of the government and the Union could rely, and Buchanan, yielding to the inevitable, appointed the man clearly indicated by thefinanciers. [647]

[Footnote 645: Fowler, who was appointed postmaster of New York byPresident Pierce, began a system of embezzlements in 1855, whichamounted, at the time of his removal, to $155, 000. --Report ofPostmaster-General Holt, _Senate Document_, 36th Congress, 1stSession, XI. , 48. "In one year Fowler's bill at the New York Hotel, which he made the Democratic headquarters, amounted to $25, 000. Hisbrother, John Walker Fowler, clerk to Surrogate Tucker, subsequentlyabsconded with $31, 079, belonging to orphans and others. "--GustavusMyers, _History of Tammany Hall_, pp. 232, 233. ]

[Footnote 646: John Jay Knox, _United States Notes_, p. 76. ]

[Footnote 647: New York _Evening Post_, December 26, 1860. 

"On Tuesday, January 8, my father received a dispatch from thePresident to come at once to the White House. He went immediately andwas offered the War Department. This he declined, informing Mr. Buchanan, as had been agreed upon, that at that moment he could be ofno service to him in any position except that of the TreasuryDepartment, and that he would accept no other post. The Presidentasked for time. The following day he had Mr. Philip Thomas'sresignation in his hand, and sent General Dix's name to the Senate. Itwas instantly confirmed. "--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 362. ]

Although now sixty-three years old, with the energy and pluck of hissoldier days, Dix had no ambition to be in advance of his party. Hefavoured the Crittenden compromise, advocated Southern rights underthe limits of the Constitution, and wrote to leaders in the South withthe familiarity of an old friend. "I recall occasions, " wrote his son, "when my father spoke to me on the questions of the day, disclosingthe grave trouble that possessed his thoughts. On one such occasion hereferred to the possibility that New York might become a free city, entirely independent, in case of a general breakup;[648] not that headvocated the idea, but he placed it in the category of possibilities. It was his opinion that a separation, if sought by the South throughpeaceful means alone, must be conceded by the North, as an evil lessthan that of war. . . . Above all else, however, next to God, he lovedthe country and the flag. He did everything in his power to avert thefinal catastrophe. But when the question was reduced to that simple, lucid proposition presented by the leaders of secession, he had butone answer, and gave it with an emphasis and in words which were aslightning coming out of the east and shining even unto the west. "[649]

[Footnote 648: The plan advocated by Fernando Wood in his annualmessage to the Common Council, referred to on p. 348. ]

[Footnote 649: Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, pp. 336, 343. ]

From the day of his appointment to the Treasury to the end of theAdministration, Dix resided at the White House as the guest of thePresident, and under his influence, coupled with that of Black, Holt, and Stanton, Buchanan assumed a more positive tone in dealing withsecession. Heretofore, with the exception of Major Anderson'smovements at Fort Sumter, and Lieutenant Slemmer's daring act at FortPickens, the seizure of federal property had gone on withoutopposition or much noise; but now, at last, a prominent New Yorker, well known to every public man in the State, had flashed a patrioticorder into the heart of the Southern Confederacy, startling thecountry into a realising sense of the likelihood of civil war. 

In the midst of this excitement, a state convention, called by theDemocratic state committee and composed of four delegates from eachassembly district, representing the party of Douglas, of Breckenridge, and of Bell and Everett, assembled at Albany on January 31. TweddleHall was scarcely large enough to contain those who longed to bepresent at this peace conference. Of the prominent public men of theCommonwealth belonging to the three parties, the major part seemed tomake up the assemblage, which Greeley pronounced "the strongest andmost imposing ever convened within the State. "[650] On the platformsat Horatio Seymour, Amasa J. Parker, and William Kelley, the Softs'recent candidate for governor, while half a hundred men flanked themon either side, who had been chosen to seats in Congress, in theLegislature, and to other places of honour. "No convention which hadnominations to make, or patronage to dispose of, was ever soinfluentially constituted. "[651]

[Footnote 650: Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_, Vol. 1, p. 388. ]

[Footnote 651: _Ibid. _, p. 388. ]

Sanford E. Church of Albion became temporary chairman, and Amasa J. Parker, president. Parker had passed his day of running for office, but, still in the prime of life, only fifty-four years old, hisabilities ran with swiftness along many channels of industry. Instating the object of the convention, the vociferous applause whichgreeted his declaration that the people of the State, demanding apeaceful settlement of the questions leading to disunion, have a rightto insist upon conciliation and compromise, disclosed the almostunanimous sentiment of the meeting; but the after-discussion developeddifferences that anticipated the disruption that was to come to theDemocratic party three months later. One speaker justified Southernsecession by urgent considerations of necessity and safety; anotherscouted the idea of coercing a seceding State; to a third, peacefulseparation, though painful and humiliating, seemed the only safe andhonourable way. Reuben H. Walworth, the venerable ex-chancellor, declared that civil war, instead of restoring the Union, would foreverdefeat its reconstruction. "It would be as brutal, " he said, "to sendmen to butcher our own brethren of the Southern States, as it would beto massacre them in the Northern States. "

Horatio Seymour received the heartiest greeting. Whether for good orevil, according to the standards by which his critics may judge him, he swayed the minds of his party to a degree that was unequalled amonghis contemporaries. For ten years his name had been the mostintimately associated with party policies, and his influence the mostpotent. The exciting events of the past three months, with six Statesout of the Union and revolution already begun, had profoundly stirredhim. He had followed the proceedings of Congress, he had studied thedisposition of the South, he understood the sentiment in the North, and his appeal for a compromise, without committing himself to some ofthe extravagances which were poured forth in absolute good faith byWalworth, earned him enthusiastic commendation from friends andadmirers. "The question is simply this, " he said; "Shall we havecompromise _after_ war, or compromise _without_ war?" He eulogised thevalour of the South, he declared a blockade of its extended sea coastnearly impossible, he hinted that successful coercion by the Northmight not be less revolutionary than successful secession by theSouth, he predicted the ruin of Northern industries, and he scoldedCongress, urging upon it a compromise--not to pacify seceding States, but to save border States. "The cry of 'No compromise' is false inmorals, " he declared; "it is treason to the spirit of theConstitution; it is infidelity in religion; the cross itself is acompromise, and is pleaded by many who refuse all charity to theirfellow-citizens. It is the vital principle of social existence; itunites the family circle; it sustains the church, and upholdsnationalities. . . . But the Republicans complain that, having won avictory, we ask them to surrender its fruits. We do not wish them togive up any political advantage. We urge measures which are demandedby the hour and the safety of our Union. Are they making sacrifices, when they do that which is required by the common welfare?"[652]

[Footnote 652: Albany _Argus_, February 1, 1861. 

William H. Russell, correspondent of the London _Times_, who dinedwith Horatio Seymour, Samuel J. Tilden and George Bancroft, wrote that"the result left on my mind by their conversation and arguments wasthat, according to the Constitution, the government could not employforce to prevent secession, or to compel States which had seceded bythe will of the people to acknowledge the federal power. "--Entry March17, _Diary_, p. 20. ]

It remained for George W. Clinton of Buffalo, the son of theillustrious DeWitt Clinton, to lift the meeting to the higher plane ofgenuine loyalty to the Union. Clinton was a Hard in politics. He hadstood with John A. Dix and Daniel S. Dickinson, had been defeated forlieutenant-governor on their ticket, and had supported Breckenridge;but when the fateful moment arrived at which a decision had to be madefor or against the country, his genius, like the prescience of Dix, guided him rightly. "Let us conciliate our erring brethren, " he said, "who, under a strange delusion, have, as they say, seceded from us;but, for God's sake, do not let us humble the glorious governmentunder which we have been so happy and which will yet do so much forthe happiness of mankind. Gentlemen, I hate to use a word that willoffend my Southern brother, but we have reached a time when, as aman--if you please, as a Democrat--I must use plain terms. There is nosuch thing as legal secession. The Constitution of these United Stateswas intended to form a firm and perpetual Union. If secession be notlawful, then, what is it? I use the term reluctantly but truly--it isrebellion! rebellion against the noblest government man ever framedfor his own benefit and for the benefit of the world. What is it--thissecession? I am not speaking of the men. I love the men, but I hatetreason. What is it but nullification by the wholesale? I havevenerated Andrew Jackson, and my blood boiled, in old time, when thatbrave patriot and soldier of Democracy said--'the Union, it must andshall be preserved. ' (Loud applause. ) Preserve it? Why should wepreserve it, if it would be the thing these gentlemen would make it?Why should we love a government that has no dignity and no power? Lookat it for a moment. Congress, for just cause, declares war, but oneState says, 'War is not for me--I secede. ' And so another and another, and the government is rendered powerless. I am not prepared to humblethe general government at the feet of the seceding States. I amunwilling to say to the government, 'You must abandon your property, you must cease to collect the revenues, because you are threatened. 'In other words, gentlemen, it seems to me--and I know I speak thewishes of my constituents--that, while I abhor coercion, in one sense, as war, I wish to preserve the dignity of the government of theseUnited States as well. "[653]

[Footnote 653: Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_, Vol. 1, p. 394. 

"When rebellion actually began many loyal Democrats came nobly out andplanted themselves by the side of the country. But those who clung tothe party organisation, what did they do? A month before Mr. Lincolnwas inaugurated they held a state convention for the Democratic partyof the State of New York. It was said it was to save the country, --itwas whispered it was to save the party. The state committee called itand representative men gathered to attend it. . . . They applauded to theecho the very blasphemy of treason, but they attempted by points oforder to silence DeWitt Clinton's son because he dared to raise hisvoice for the Constitution of his country and to call rebellion by itsproper name. "--Speech of Roscoe Conkling, September 26, 1862, A. R. Conkling, _Life and Letters of Roscoe Conkling_, p. 180. ]

The applause that greeted these loyal sentences disclosed a patrioticsentiment, which, until then, had found no opportunity for expression;yet the convention, in adopting a series of resolutions, was of onemind on the question of submitting the Crittenden compromise to adirect vote of the people. "Their voice, " said the chairman, "will beomnipresent here, and if it be raised in time it may be effectualelsewhere. "

There is something almost pathetic in the history of these effortswhich were made during the progress of secession, to avert, ifpossible, the coming shock. The great peace conference, assembled bythe action of Virginia, belongs to these painful and wastedendeavours. On February 4, the day that delegates from six cottonStates assembled at Montgomery to form a Southern confederacy, onehundred and thirty-three commissioners, representing twenty-oneStates, of which fourteen were non-slave-holding, met at Washingtonand continued in session, sitting with closed doors, until the 27th. It was a body of great dignity--a "fossil convention, " the _Tribune_called it--whose proceedings, because of the desire in the public mindto avoid civil war, attracted wide attention. David Dudley Fieldrepresented New York on the committee on resolutions, which proposedan amendment of seven sections to the Constitution. On February 26, these were taken up in their order for passage. The first sectionprovided for the restoration of the Missouri Compromise line under thethen existing conditions, provided that whenever a new State wasformed north or south of that line it should be admitted with orwithout slavery, as its constitution might declare. This was theimportant concession; but, though it was less favourable to the Souththan the Crittenden compromise, it failed to satisfy the radicalRepublicans, who had from the first opposed the convention. Accordingly, the vote, taken by States, stood eight to eleven againstit, New York being included among the noes. The next morning, however, after agreeing to a reconsideration of the question, theconvention passed the section by a vote of nine to eight, New York, divided by the absence of David Dudley Field, being without a voice inits determination. Field never fully recovered from this apparentbreach of trust. [654] In committee, he had earnestly opposed theproposed amendment, talking almost incessantly for three weeks, but, at the supreme moment, when the report came up for passage, hewithdrew from the convention, without explanation, thus depriving hisState of a vote upon all the sections save one, because of an evenlydivided delegation. 

[Footnote 654: See New York _Tribune_, March 23, 1861, for Field'sstatement in defence of his action. Also _Tribune_, March 7, for JohnA. King's charges. ]

The convention, however, was doomed to failure before Field left it. Very early in its life the eloquent New Yorker, assisting to rob it ofany power for good, declared his opposition to any amendment to theConstitution. "The Union, " he said, "is indissoluble, and no State cansecede. I will lay down my life for it. . . . We must have thearbitration of reason, or the arbitrament of the sword. " Amaziah B. James, another New Yorker, possessed the same plainness of speech. "The North will not enter upon war until the South forces it to doso, " he said, mildly. "But when you begin it, the government willcarry it on until the Union is restored and its enemies putdown. "[655] If any stronger Union sentiment were needed, the remarksof Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, in disclosing the attitude of his party, supplied it. "The election of Lincoln, " he said, "must be regarded asthe triumph of principles cherished in the hearts of the people of thefree States. Chief among these principles is the restriction ofslavery within State limits; not war upon slavery within those limits, but fixed opposition to its extension beyond them. By a fair andunquestionable majority we have secured that triumph. Do you thinkwe, who represent this majority, will throw it away? Do you think thepeople would sustain us if we undertook to throw it away?"[656]

[Footnote 655: Lucius E. Chittenden, _Report of Proceedings of PeaceConference_, pp. 157, 170, 303, 428. ]

[Footnote 656: Lucius E. Chittenden, _Report of Proceedings of PeaceConference_, p. 304. ]

After three weeks of such talk, even Virginia, whose share in formingthe Union exceeded that of any other State, manifested itsdiscouragement by repudiating the proposed amendment as aninsufficient guarantee for bringing back the cotton States or holdingthe border States. When, finally, on March 4, the result of theconference was offered in the United States Senate, only seven voteswere cast in its favour. So faded and died the last great effort forcompromise and peace. For months it must have been apparent to everyone that the party of Lincoln would not yield the cornerstone of itsprinciples. It desired peace, was quick to co-operate, and ready toconciliate, but its purpose to preserve free territory for free labourremained fixed and unalterable. 

CHAPTER XXVII

WEED'S REVENGE UPON GREELEY

1861

In the winter of 1860-61, while the country was drifting into civilwar, a desperate struggle was going on at Albany to elect a UnitedStates senator in place of William H. Seward, whose term expired onthe fourth of March. After the defeat of the Senator at Chicago, sentiment settled upon his return to Washington; but when Lincolnoffered him the position of secretary of state, Thurlow Weed announcedWilliam M. Evarts as his candidate for the United States Senate. Evarts was now forty-three years of age. Born in Boston, a graduate ofYale, and of the Harvard law school, he had been a successful lawyerat the New York bar for twenty years. Union College had conferred uponhim, in 1857, the degree of Doctor of Laws, and the rare ability andmarvellous persistence manifested in the Lemmon slave case, in whichhe was opposed by Charles O'Conor, had given abundant evidence of thegreat intellectual powers that subsequently distinguished him. He had, also, other claims to recognition. The wit and great learning thatmade him the most charming of conversationalists increased hispopularity, while his love of books, his excellent taste, and goodmanners made him welcome in the club and the social circle. Indeed, heseems to have possessed almost every gift and grace that nature andfortune could bestow, giving him high place among his contemporaries. 

Evarts had not then held office. The places that O'Conor and Brady hadaccepted presented no attractions for him; nor did he seem to desirethe varied political careers that had distinguished other brilliantyoung members of the New York bar. But he had taken pleasure inbringing to his party a wisdom in council which was only equalled byhis power in debate. If this service were insufficient to establishhis right to the exalted preferment he now sought, his recent valuablework at the Chicago convention was enough to satisfy Thurlow Weed, atleast, that generous assistance of such surpassing value should berichly rewarded. 

Up to this time, Weed's authority in his party in the State had beensupreme. He failed to have his way in 1846 when John Young seized thenomination for governor, and some confusion existed as to hisinfluence in the convention that selected Myron Clark in 1854; but forall practical purposes Weed had controlled the Whig and Republicanparties since their formation, almost without dissent. Circumstancessometimes favoured him. The hard times of 1837 made possible Seward'selection as governor; the split in the Democratic party over thecanal, and later over the Wilmot Proviso, secured Seward a seat in theUnited States Senate; and the sudden and wholly unexpected repeal ofthe Missouri Compromise defeated the Silver-Grays and aided in rapidlyreducing the strength of the Know-Nothings; but these changes in thepolitical situation, although letting Weed's party into power, burdened his leadership with serious problems. It required a masterhand safely to guide a party between the Radical and Abolitionfactions on one side and the Conservatives on the other, and hissignal success commended him to President Lincoln, who frequentlycounselled with him, often inviting him to Washington by telegramduring the darkest days of civil war. 

But the defection of Greeley, supplemented by William Cullen Bryantand the union of radical leaders who came from the Democratic party, finally blossomed into successful rebellion at Chicago. Thisencouraged Greeley to lead one at Albany. The Legislature had onehundred and sixteen Republican members, requiring fifty-nine tonominate in caucus. Evarts could count on forty-two and Greeley uponabout as many. In his effort to secure the remaining seventeen, Weeddiscovered that Ira Harris had a considerable following, who wereindisposed to affiliate with Evarts, while several assemblymenindicated a preference for other candidates. This precipitated abattle royal. Greeley did not personally appear in Albany, but hescorned none of the ordinary crafts of party management. Charles A. Dana, then of the _Tribune_, represented him, and local leaders fromvarious parts of the State rallied to his standard and industriouslyprosecuted his canvass. Their slogan was "down with the Dictator. " Itmattered not that they had approved Weed's management in the past, their fight now proposed to end the one-man power, and everyplace-hunter who could not secure patronage under Lincoln'sadministration if Evarts went to the Senate, ranged himself againstWeed. On the side of the _Tribune's_ editor, also, stood theindependent, whose dislike of a party boss always encourages him tostrike whenever the way is open to deal an effective blow. This wasGreeley's great strength. It marshalled itself. 

Weed summoned all his hosts. Moses H. Grinnell, Simeon Draper, and A. Oakey Hall led the charge, flanked by a cloud of state and countyofficials, and an army of politicians who filled the hotels andcrowded the lobbies of the capitol. The _Tribune_ estimated Evarts'backers at not less than one thousand. [657] For two weeks the battleraged with all the characteristics of an intense personal conflict. Greeley declared it "a conflict which was to determine whether adynasty was to stand and give law to its subjects, or be overthrownand annihilated. Fully appreciating this, not Richmond at BosworthField, Charles at Naseby, nor Napoleon at Waterloo made a moredesperate fight for empire than did the one-man power at Albany toretain the sceptre it has wielded for so many years over the politicsand placemen of this State. "[658] In their desperation both sidesappealed to the President-elect, who refused to be drawn into thestruggle. "Justice to all" was his answer to Weed. "I have saidnothing more particular to any one. "[659]

[Footnote 657: New York _Tribune_, February 5, 1861. ]

[Footnote 658: _Ibid. _, February 5, 1861. ]

[Footnote 659: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 324. ]

As the canvass grew older, it became known that several of Harris'supporters would go to Greeley whenever their assistance wouldnominate him. This sacrifice, however, was not to be made so long asHarris held the balance of power; and since Weed's desire to defeatGreeley was well understood, Harris counted with some degree ofcertainty upon Evarts' supporters whenever a serious break threatened. Weed's relations with Harris were not cordial. For years they hadlived in Albany, and as early as 1846 their ways began to diverge; butHarris' character for wisdom, learning, and integrity compelledrespect. He had been an assemblyman in 1844 and 1845, a state senatorin 1846, a delegate to the constitutional convention of 1846, and ajustice of the Supreme Court from 1847 to 1859. His name was familiarthroughout the State. From the time he took up the cause of theAnti-Renters in 1846 he had possessed the confidence of the commonpeople, and his great fairness and courtesy upon the bench had addedlargely to his reputation. He was without any pretence to oratory. Thegifts that made Evarts a leader of the New York bar for three decadesdid not belong to him; but everybody knew that in the United StatesSenate he would do as much as Evarts to uphold President Lincoln. 

The caucus convened on the evening of February 4. Only one member wasabsent. Weed and Evarts sat with Governor Morgan in the executivechamber--Harris in the rooms of Lieutenant-Governor Campbell atCongress Hall. The first ballot gave Evarts 42, Greeley 40, Harris 20, with 13 scattering. Bets had been made that Evarts would get 50, andsome over-sanguine ones fixed it at 60. What Weed expected does notappear; but the second ballot, which reduced Evarts to 39 and raisedGreeley to 42, did not please Speaker Littlejohn, who carried ordersbetween the executive and assembly chambers. It seemed to doom Evartsto ultimate defeat. The chamber grew dark with the gloomy frowns ofmen who had failed to move their stubborn representatives. The nextfour ballots, quickly taken, showed little progress, but the seventhraised Greeley to 47 and dropped Harris to 19, while Evarts held on at39. An assurance that the object of their labours would be reachedwith the assistance of some of Harris' votes on the next ballot, madethe friends of Greeley jubilant. It was equally apparent to theastonished followers of the grim manager who was smoking vehemently inthe executive chamber, that Evarts would be unable to weather anotherballot. A crisis, therefore, was inevitable, but it was the crisis forwhich Weed had been waiting and watching, and without hesitation hesent word to elect Harris. [660] This settled it. Greeley received 49, Harris 60, with 6 scattering. Weed did not get all he wanted, but hegot revenge. 

[Footnote 660: "Pale as ashes, Weed sat smoking a cigar within earshotof the bustle in the crowded assembly room where the caucus sat. Littlejohn stalked over the heads of the spectators and reported toWeed. Unmindful of the fact that he had a cigar in his mouth, Weedlighted another and put it in, then rose in great excitement and saidto Littlejohn, 'Tell the Evarts men to go right over to Harris--to_Harris_--to HARRIS!' The order was given in the caucus. They wheeledinto line like Napoleon's Old Guard, and Harris was nominated. "--H. B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 218. ]

There were reasons other than revenge, however, that induced menvigorously opposed to secession to resent the candidacy of HoraceGreeley. [661] The editor of the _Tribune_ certainly did not want theSouthern States to secede, nor did he favour secession, as has oftenbeen charged, but his peculiar treatment of the question immediatelyafter the November election gave the would-be secessionists comfort, if it did not absolutely invite and encourage the South to believe inthe possibility of peaceable secession. 

[Footnote 661: "It is quite possible that the _Tribune's_ articles ofNovember, 1860, cost Greeley the senatorship. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 3, p. 142. ]

Greeley seems to have taken failure with apparent serenity. Heprofessed to regard it as the downfall of Weed rather than the defeatof himself. His friends who knew of the antagonistic relations longexisting between Harris and Weed, said the _Tribune_, exultingly, werewilling to see Harris nominated, since "he would become an agent forthe accomplishment of their main purpose--the overthrow of thedictatorship, and the establishment upon its ruins of the principle ofpolitical independence in thought and action. "[662] But whatever itsinfluence upon Weed, the nomination of Harris was a bitterdisappointment to Greeley. He was extraordinarily ambitious for publicpreferment. The character or duties of the office seemed to makelittle difference to him. Congressman, senator, governor, lieutenant-governor, comptroller of state, and President of the UnitedStates, at one time or another greatly attracted him, and to gain anyone of them he willingly lent his name or gave up his time; but neverdid he come so near reaching the goal of his ambition as in February, 1861. The promise of Harris' supporters to transfer their votesencouraged a confidence that was not misplaced. The Greeley men wereelated, the more ardent entertaining no doubt that the eighth ballotwould bring victory; and, had Weed delayed a moment longer, Greeleymust have been a United States senator. But Weed did not delay, andGreeley closed his life with an office-holding record of ninety daysin Congress. Like George Borrow, he seemed never to realise that hissimple, clear, vigorous English was to be the crown of an undyingfame. [663]

[Footnote 662: New York _Tribune_, February 5, 1861. ]

[Footnote 663: "It is one of the curiosities of human nature thatGreeley, who exceeded in influence many of our Presidents, should havehankered so constantly for office. It is strange enough that the manwho wrote as a dictator of public opinion in the _Tribune_ on the 9thof November could write two days later the letter to Seward, dissolving the political firm of Seward, Weed, and Greeley. In thatletter the petulance of the office-seeker is shown, and the grievousdisappointment that he did not get the nomination for lieutenant-governor, which went to Raymond, stands out plainly. "--James F. Rhodes, _Historyof the United States_, Vol. 2, p. 72. ]

CHAPTER XXVIII

LINCOLN, SEWARD, AND THE UNION

1860-1861

As the day approached for the opening of Congress on Monday, December3, 1860, William H. Seward left Auburn for Washington. At this time hepossessed the most powerful influence of any one in the Republicanparty. While other leaders, his rivals in eloquence and his peers inability, exercised great authority, the wisdom of no one was morewidely appreciated, or more frequently drawn upon. "Sumner, Trumbull, and Wade, " says McClure, speaking from personal acquaintance, "hadintellectual force, but Trumbull was a judge rather than a politician, Wade was oppressively blunt, and Sumner cultivated an idealstatesmanship that placed him outside the line of practical politics. Fessenden was more nearly a copy of Seward in temperament anddiscretion, but readily conceded the masterly ability of hiscolleague. Seward was not magnetic like Clay or Blaine, but he knewhow to make all welcome who came within range of his presence. "[664]

[Footnote 664: Alex. K. McClure, _Recollections of Half a Century_, pp. 213, 214. ]

Thus far, since the election, Seward had remained silent upon theissues that now began to disturb the nation. Writing to Thurlow Weedon November 18, 1860, he declared he was "without schemes or plans, hopes, desires, or fears for the future, that need trouble anybody sofar as I am concerned. "[665] Nevertheless, he had scarcely reached thecapital before he discovered that he was charged with being the authorof Weed's compromise policy. "Here's a muss, " he wrote, on December3. "Republican members stopped at the _Tribune_ office on their way, and when they all lamented your articles, Dana told them they were notyours but mine; that I 'wanted to make a great compromise like Clayand Webster. '"[666]

[Footnote 665: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 478. ]

[Footnote 666: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 308. ]

To Republicans it did not seem possible that Weed's plan ofconciliation, so carefully and ably presented, could be publishedwithout the assistance, or, at least, the approval of his warmpersonal and political friend, --an impression that gained readiercredence because of the prompt acquiescence of the New York _Times_and the _Courier_. Seward, however, quickly punctured Charles A. Dana's misinformation, and continued to keep his own counsels. "I talkvery little, and nothing in detail, " he wrote his wife, on December 2;"but I am engaged busily in studying and gathering my thoughts for theUnion. "[667] To Weed, on the same day, he gave the politicalsituation. "South Carolina is committed. Georgia will debate, but sheprobably follows South Carolina. Mississippi and Alabama likely tofollow. . . . Members are coming in, all in confusion. Nothing can beagreed on in advance, but silence for the present, which I haveinsisted must not be _sullen_, as last year, but respectful andfraternal. "[668]

[Footnote 667: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 479. ]

[Footnote 668: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, pp. 307, 308. ]

Seward, who had now been in Washington several days, had not brokensilence even to his Republican colleagues in the Senate, and "to smokehim out, " as one of them expressed it, a caucus was called. But itfailed of its purpose. "Its real object, " he wrote Weed, "was to findout whether I authorised the _Evening Journal_, _Times_, and _Courier_articles. I told them they would know what I think and what I proposewhen I do myself. The Republican party to-day is as uncompromising asthe secessionists in South Carolina. A month hence each may come tothink that moderation is wiser. "[669]

[Footnote 669: _Ibid. _, Vol. 2, p. 308. ]

It is not easy to determine from his correspondence just what was inSeward's mind from the first to the thirteenth of December, but it isplain that he was greatly disturbed. Nothing seemed to please him. Weed's articles perplexed[670] him; his colleagues distrusted[671]him; the debates in the Senate were hasty and feeble;[672] few had anycourage or confidence in the Union;[673] and the action of the Sumnerradicals annoyed him. [674] Rhodes, the historian, says he waswavering. [675] He was certainly waiting, --probably to hear fromLincoln; but while he waited his epigrammatic criticism of Buchanan'smessage, which he wrote his wife on December 5, got into thenewspapers and struck a popular note. "The message showsconclusively, " he said, "that it is the duty of the President toexecute the laws--unless somebody opposes him; and that no State has aright to go out of the Union--unless it wants to. "[676]

[Footnote 670: "Weed's articles have brought perplexities about mewhich he, with all his astuteness, did not foresee. "--F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 480. ]

[Footnote 671: "Our senators agree with me to practise reticence andkindness. But others fear that I will figure, and so interfere andderange all. "--_Ibid. _, p. 480. ]

[Footnote 672: "The debates in the Senate are hasty, feeble, inconclusive and unsatisfactory; presumptuous on the part of theill-tempered South; feeble and frivolous on the part of theNorth. "--_Ibid. _, p. 481. ]

[Footnote 673: "All is apprehension about the Southern demonstrations. No one has any system, few any courage, or confidence in the Union, inthis emergency. "--_Ibid. _, p. 478. ]

[Footnote 674: "Charles Sumner's lecture in New York brought a'Barnburner' or Buffalo party around him. They gave nine cheers forthe passage in which he describes Lafayette as rejecting all and everycompromise, and the knowing ones told him those cheers laid outThurlow Weed, and then he came and told me, of course. "--Thurlow WeedBarnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 308. ]

[Footnote 675: "While the evidence is not positive that Sewardcontemplated heading a movement of Republicans that would haveresulted in the acceptance by them of a plan similar in essence to theCrittenden compromise, yet his private correspondence shows that hewas wavering, and gives rise to the belief that the pressure of Weed, Raymond, and Webb would have outweighed that of his radical Republicancolleagues if he had not been restrained by the unequivocaldeclarations of Lincoln. "--James F. Rhodes, _History of the UnitedStates_, Vol. 3, p. 157. ]

[Footnote 676: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 480. ]

On December 13 Seward received the desired letter from thePresident-elect, formally tendering him the office of secretary ofstate. The proffer was not unexpected. Press and politicians hadpredicted it and conceded its propriety. "From the day of mynomination at Chicago, " Lincoln said, in an informal and confidentialletter of the same day, "it has been my purpose to assign you, by yourleave, this place in the Administration. I have delayed so long tocommunicate that purpose, in deference to what appeared to me a propercaution in the case. Nothing has been developed to change my view inthe premises; and I now offer you the place in the hope that you willaccept it, and with the belief that your position in the public eye, your integrity, ability, learning, and great experience all combine torender it an appointment pre-eminently fit to be made. "[677]

[Footnote 677: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 349. ]

In the recent campaign Seward had attracted such attention and arousedsuch enthusiasm, that James Russell Lowell thought his magnanimity, since the result of the convention was known, "a greater ornament tohim and a greater honour to his party than his election to thePresidency would have been. "[678] Seward's friends had followed hisexample. "We all feel that New York and the friends of Seward haveacted nobly, " wrote Leonard Swett to Weed. [679] A month after theoffer of the portfolio had been made, Lincoln wrote Seward that "yourselection for the state department having become public, I am happy tofind scarcely any objection to it. I shall have trouble with everyother cabinet appointment--so much so, that I shall have to defer themas long as possible, to avoid being teased into insanity, to makechanges. "[680]

[Footnote 678: _Atlantic Monthly_, October, 1860; _Lowell's PoliticalEssays_, p. 34. ]

[Footnote 679: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 301. ]

[Footnote 680: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 493. ]

In 1849, Seward had thought the post of minister, or even secretary ofstate, without temptations for him, but, in 1860, amidst the gatheringclouds of a grave crisis, the championship of the Union in a greatpolitical arena seemed to appeal, in an exceptional degree, to hisdesire to help guide the destinies of his country; and, aftercounselling with Weed at Albany, and with his wife at Auburn, he wrotethe President-elect that he thought it his duty to accept theappointment. [681] Between the time of its tender and of its acceptanceSeward had gained a clear understanding of Lincoln's views; for, afterhis conference with Weed, the latter visited Springfield and obtaineda written statement from the President-elect. This statement has neverappeared in print, but it practically embodied the sentiment writtenKellogg and Washburn, and which was received by them after Seward leftWashington for Auburn. 

[Footnote 681: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, pp. 481, 487. ]

With this information the Senator returned to the capital, stoppingover night at the Astor House in New York, where he unexpectedly foundthe New England Society celebrating Forefathers' Day. The knowledge ofhis arrival quickly reached the banqueters. They knew that Weed hadseen Lincoln, and that, to hear the tidings from Springfield, Sewardhad travelled with his friend from Syracuse to Albany. Eagerly, therefore, they pressed him for a speech, for words spoken by the manwho would occupy the first place in Lincoln's Cabinet, meant to thebusiness men of the great metropolis, distracted by the disturbedconditions growing out of the disunion movement, words of nationalsalvation. Seward never spoke from impulse. He understood the value ofsilence and the necessity of thought before utterance. All of his manygreat speeches were prepared in a most painstaking manner. But, asmany members of the society were personal or political friends, heconsented to address them, talking briefly and with characteristicoptimism, though without disclosing Lincoln's position or his own onthe question of compromise. "I know that the necessities which createdthis Union, " he said, in closing, "are stronger to-day than they werewhen the Union was cemented; and that these necessities are asenduring as the passions of men are short-lived and effervescent. Ibelieve that the cause of secession was as strong, on the night ofNovember 6, when the President and Vice President were elected, as ithas been at any time. Some fifty days have now passed; and I believethat every day the sun has set since that time, it has set uponmollified passions and prejudices; and if you will only await thetime, sixty more suns will shed a light and illuminate a more cheerfulatmosphere. "[682]

[Footnote 682: New York _Times_, December 24, 1860. ]

This speech has been severely criticised for its unseemly jest, itsexuberant optimism, and its lack of directness. It probably discloses, in the copy published the next morning, more levity than it seemed topossess when spoken, with its inflections and intonations, while itsoptimism, made up of hopeful generalities which were not true, and ofrhetorical phrases that could easily be misapprehended, appeared tosustain the suggestion that he did not realise the critical junctureof affairs. But the assertion that he predicted the "war will be overin sixty days" was a ridiculous perversion of his words. No warexisted at that time, and his "sixty suns" plainly referred to thesixty days that must elapse before Lincoln's inauguration. Nevertheless, the "sixty days prediction, " as it was called, wasrepeated and believed for many years. 

The feature of the speech that makes it peculiarly interesting, however, is its strength in the advocacy of the Union. Seward believedthat he had a difficult role to play. Had he so desired he could notsupport the restoration of the Missouri Compromise line, for thePresident-elect had ruled inflexibly against it; neither could heopenly oppose it, lest it hurry the South into some overt act oftreason before Lincoln's inauguration. So he began exalting the Union, skilfully creating the impression, at least by inference, that hewould not support the compromise, although his hearers and readersheld to the belief that he would have favoured it had he not submittedto Lincoln's leadership by accepting the state department. 

During Seward's absence from Washington he was placed upon the Senatecommittee of thirteen to consider the Crittenden compromise. It wasadmitted that the restoration of the Missouri line was the nub of thecontroversy; that, unless it could be accepted, compromise would fail;and that failure meant certain secession. "War of a most bitter andsanguinary character will be sure to follow, " wrote Senator Grimes ofIowa. [683] "The heavens are, indeed, black, " said Dawes ofMassachusetts, "and an awful storm is gathering. I am well-nighappalled at its awful and inevitable consequences. "[684] Seward didnot use words of such alarming significance, but he appreciated thelikelihood of secession. On December 26 he wrote Lincoln that"sedition will be growing weaker and loyalty stronger every day fromthe acts of secession as they occur;" but, in the same letter, headded: "South Carolina has already taken the attitude of defiance. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have pushed on to thesame attitude. I think that they could not be arrested, even if weshould offer all you suggest, and with it the restoration of theMissouri Compromise line. "[685] To his wife, also, to whom alone heconfided his secret thoughts, he wrote, on the same day: "The Southwill force on the country the issue that the free States shall admitthat slaves are property, and treat them as such, or else there willbe a secession. "[686]

[Footnote 683: William Salter, _Life of James W. Grimes_, p. 132. Letter of December 16, 1860. ]

[Footnote 684: New York _Tribune_, December 24, 1860. ]

[Footnote 685: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 485. ]

[Footnote 686: _Ibid. _, p. 486. ]

Nevertheless, the Republican senators of the committee of thirteen, inspired by the firm attitude of Lincoln, voted against the firstresolution of the Crittenden compromise. They consented that Congressshould have no power either to abolish slavery in the District ofColumbia without compensation and the consent of its inhabitants, orto prohibit the transportation of slaves between slave-holding Statesand territories; but they refused to protect slavery south of theMissouri line, especially since such an amendment, by including futureacquisitions of territory, would, as Lincoln declared, popularisefilibustering for all south of us. "A year will not pass till we shallhave to take Cuba as a condition upon which they will stay in theUnion. "[687]

[Footnote 687: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 288. ]

Upon the failure of the Crittenden compromise, Seward, on the part ofthe Republicans, offered five propositions, declaring (1) that theConstitution should never be altered so as to authorise Congress toabolish or interfere with slavery in the States; (2) that the fugitiveslave law should be amended by granting a jury trial to the fugitive;(3) that Congress recommend the repeal by the States of personalliberty acts which contravene the Constitution or the laws; (4) thatCongress pass an efficient law for the punishment of all personsengaged in the armed invasion of any State from another; and (5) toadmit into the Union the remaining territory belonging to the UnitedStates as two States, one north and one south of the parallel of 36°30´, with the provision that these States might be subdivided and newones erected therefrom whenever there should be sufficient populationfor one representative in Congress upon sixty thousand squaremiles. [688] Only the first of these articles was adopted. SouthernDemocrats objected to the second on principle, and to the third on theground that it would affect their laws imprisoning coloured seamen, while they defeated the fourth by amending it into Douglas' suggestionfor the revival of the sedition law of John Adams' administration. [689]This made it unacceptable to the Republicans. The fifth failed becauseit gave the South no opportunity of acquiring additional slave lands. On December 28, therefore, the committee, after adopting a resolutionthat it could not agree, closed its labours. 

[Footnote 688: Journal of the Committee of Thirteen, pp. 10, 13. ]

[Footnote 689: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 484. ]

This seemed to Jefferson Davis, who, in 1860, had assumed theleadership laid down by John C. Calhoun in 1850, to end all effort atcompromise, and, on January 10, 1861, in a carefully prepared speech, he argued the right of secession. Finally, turning to the Republicans, he said: "Your platform on which you elected your candidate denies usequality. Your votes refuse to recognise our domestic institutionswhich pre-existed the formation of the Union, our property which wasguarded by the Constitution. You refuse us that equality without whichwe should be degraded if we remained in the Union. You elect acandidate upon the basis of sectional hostility; one who, in hisspeeches, now thrown broadcast over the country, made a distinctdeclaration of war upon our institutions. . . . What boots it to tell methat no direct act of aggression will be made? I prefer direct toindirect hostile measures which will produce the same result. I preferit, as I prefer an open to a secret foe. Is there a senator upon theother side who to-day will agree that we shall have equal enjoyment ofthe territories of the United States? Is there one who will deny thatwe have equally paid in their purchases, and equally bled in theiracquisition in war? Then, is this the observance of your contract?Whose is the fault if the Union be dissolved?"[690]

[Footnote 690: _Congressional Globe_, pp. 308, 309. ]

The country looked to Seward to make answer to these direct questions. Southern States were hurrying out of the Union. South Carolina hadseceded on December 20, Mississippi on January 9, Florida on the 10th, and Alabama on the 11th. Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas were preparingto follow. The people felt that if a settlement was to come it must bemade quickly. "Your propositions would have been most welcome if theyhad been made before any question of coercion, and before any vainboastings of powers, " Davis had said. "But you did not make them whenthey would have been effective. I presume you will not make themnow. "[691]

[Footnote 691: _Ibid. _, p. 307. ]

If the position of the New York senator had been an embarrassing oneat the Astor House on December 22, it was much more difficult onJanuary 12. He had refused to vote for the Crittenden compromise. Moreover, the only proposition he had to make stood rejected by theSouth. What could he say, therefore, that would settle anything? Yetthe desire to hear him was intense. An eye-witness described the sceneas almost unparalleled in the Senate. "By ten o'clock, " wrote thisobserver, "every seat in the gallery was filled, and by eleven thecloak-rooms and all the passages were choked up, and a thousand menand women stood outside the doors, although the speech was not tobegin until one o'clock. Several hundred visitors came on fromBaltimore. It was the fullest house of the session, and by far themost respectful one. "[692] Such was the faith of the South in Seward'sunbounded influence with Northern senators and Northern people thatthe Richmond _Whig_ asserted that his vote for the Crittendencompromise "would give peace at once to the country. "[693]

[Footnote 692: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 493. ]

[Footnote 693: The Richmond _Whig_, January 17, 1861. ]

Seward was not unmindful of this influence. "My own party trusts me, "he wrote, "but not without reservation. All the other parties, Northand South, cast themselves upon me. "[694] Judged by his letters atthis period, it is suggested that he had an overweening sense of hisown importance; he thought that he held in his hands the destinies ofhis country. [695] However this may be, it is certain that he wanted toembarrass Lincoln by no obstacles of his making. "I must gain time, "he said, "for the new Administration to organise and for the frenzy ofpassion to subside. I am doing this, without making any compromisewhatever, by forbearance, conciliation, magnanimity. What I say and dois said and done, not in view of personal objects, and I am leaving toposterity to decide upon my action and conduct. "[696]

[Footnote 694: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 494. ]

[Footnote 695: "I will try to save freedom and my country, " Sewardwrote his wife. --F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 487. "I have assumed a sort of dictatorship for defence, and am labouringnight and day with the cities and States. "--_Ibid. _, 491. "I am theonly hopeful, calm, conciliatory person. "--_Ibid. _, 497. "It seems tome that if I am absent only three days, this Administration, theCongress, and the district would fall into consternation anddespair. "--_Ibid. _, 497. "The present Administration and the incomingone unite in devolving upon me the responsibility of averting civilwar. "--_Ibid. _, 497. ]

[Footnote 696: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 497. ]

In this spirit Seward made his speech of January 12. He discussed thefallacies of secession, showing that it had no grounds, or evenexcuse, and declaring that disunion must lead to civil war. Then heavowed his adherence to the Union in its integrity and in every event, "whether of peace or of war, with every consequence of honour ordishonour, of life or death. " Referring to the disorder, he said: "Iknow not to what extent it may go. Still my faith in the Constitutionand in the Union abides. Whatever dangers there shall be, there willbe the determination to meet them. Whatever sacrifices, private orpublic, shall be needful for the Union, they will be made. I feel surethat the hour has not come for this great nation to fall. "

In blazing the new line of thought which characterised his speech atthe Astor House, Seward rose to the plane of higher patriotism, and henow broadened and enlarged the idea. During the presidential campaign, he said, the struggle had been for and against slavery. That contesthaving ended by the success of the Republicans in the election, thestruggle was now for and against the Union. "Union is not more thebody than liberty is the soul of the nation. Freedom can be saved withthe Union, and cannot be saved without it. " He deprecated mutualcriminations and recriminations, a continuance of the debate overslavery in the territories, the effort to prove secession illegal, andthe right of the federal government to coerce seceding States. Hewanted the Union glorified, its blessings exploited, the necessity ofits existence made manifest, and the love of country substituted forthe prejudice of faction and the pride of party. When this millennialday had come, when secession movements had ended and the public mindhad resumed its wonted calm, then a national convention might becalled--say, in one, two, or three years hence, to consider the matterof amending the Constitution. [697]

[Footnote 697: New York _Tribune_, January 14, 1861. _Seward's Works_, Vol. 4, p. 651. ]

This speech was listened to with deep attention. "During the deliveryof portions of it, " said one correspondent, "senators were in tears. When the sad picture of the country, divided into confederacies, wasgiven, Mr. Crittenden, who sat immediately before the orator, wascompletely overcome by his emotions, and bowed his white head toweep. "[698] The _Tribune_ considered it "rhetorically and as aliterary performance unsurpassed by any words of Seward's earlierproductions, "[699] and Whittier, charmed with its conciliatory tone, paid its author a noble tribute in one of his choicest poems. [700]But the country was disappointed. The Richmond _Enquirer_, representing the Virginia secessionists, maintained that it destroyedthe last hope of compromise, because he gave up nothing, not evenprejudices, to save peace in the Union. For the same reason, Union menof Kentucky and other border States turned from it with profoundgrief. On the other hand, the radical Republicans, disappointed thatit did not contain more powder and shot, charged him with surrenderinghis principles and those of his party, to avert civil war anddissolution of the Union. But the later-day historian, however, readily admits that the rhetorical words of this admirable speech hadan effectual influence in making fidelity to the Union, irrespectiveof previous party affiliations, a rallying point for Northern men. 

[Footnote 698: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 494. ]

[Footnote 699: New York _Tribune_ (editorial), January 14, 1861. ]

[Footnote 700: TO WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

 "Statesman, I thank thee!--and if yet dissent Mingles, reluctant, with my large content, I can not censure what was nobly meant. But while constrained to hold even Union less Than Liberty, and Truth, and Righteousness, I thank thee, in the sweet and holy name Of Peace, for wise, calm words, that put to shame Passion and party. Courage may be shown Not in defiance of the wrong alone; He may be bravest, who, unweaponed, bears The olive branch, and strong in justice spares The rash wrong-doer, giving widest scope To Christian charity, and generous hope. If without damage to the sacred cause Of Freedom, and the safeguard of its laws-- If, without yielding that for which alone We prize the Union, thou canst save it now, From a baptism of blood, upon thy brow A wreath whose flowers no earthly soil has known Woven of the beatitudes, shall rest; And the peacemaker be forever blest!"]

As the recognised representative of the President-elect, Seward nowcame into frequent conference with loyal men of both sections and ofall parties, including General Scott and the new members of Buchanan'sCabinet. John A. Dix had become secretary of the treasury, EdwinStanton attorney-general, and Jeremiah S. Black secretary of state. Seward knew them intimately, and with Black he conferred publicly. With Stanton, however, it seemed advisable to select midnight as thehour and a basement as the place of conference. "At length, " he wroteLincoln, "I have gotten a position in which I can see what is going onin the councils of the President. "[701] To his wife, he adds: "Therevolution gathers apace. It has its abettors in the White House, thetreasury, the interior. I have assumed a sort of dictatorship fordefence. "[702] He advised the President-elect to reach Washingtonsomewhat earlier than usual, and suggested having his secretaries ofwar and navy designated that they might co-operate in measures for thepublic safety. Under his advice, on the theory that the nationalemblem would strengthen wavering minds and develop Union sentiment, flags began to appear on stores and private residences. Seward wasablaze with zeal. "Before I spoke, " he wrote Weed, "not one utterancemade for the Union elicited a response. Since I spoke, every word forthe Union brings forth a cheering response. "[703]

[Footnote 701: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 488. ]

[Footnote 702: _Ibid. _, p. 490. ]

[Footnote 703: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 497. 

"In regard to February, 1861, I need only say that I desired to avoidgiving the secession leaders the excuse and opportunity to open thecivil war before the new Administration and new Congress could be inauthority to subdue it. I conferred throughout with General Scott, andMr. Stanton, then in Mr. Buchanan's Cabinet. I presume I conversedwith others in a way that seemed to me best calculated to leave theinauguration of a war to the secessionists, and to delay it, in anycase, until the new Administration should be in possession of theGovernment. On the 22d of February, in concert with Mr. Stanton, Icaused the United States flag to be displayed throughout all thenorthern and western portions of the United States. " Letters of W. H. Seward, June 13, 1867. --William Schouler, _Massachusetts in the CivilWar_, Vol. 1, pp. 41, 42. ]

But, amidst it all, Seward's enemies persistently charged him withinclining to the support of the Crittenden compromise. "We havepositive information from Washington, " declared the _Tribune_, "that acompromise on the basis of Mr. Crittenden's is sure to be carriedthrough Congress either this week or the next, provided a very fewmore Republicans can be got to enlist in the enterprise. . . . Weed goeswith the Breckenridge Democrats. . . . The same is true, though lessdecidedly, of Seward. "[704] It is probable that in the good-fellowshipof after-dinner conversations Seward's optimistic words and"mysterious allusions, "[705] implied more than he intended them toconvey, but there is not a private letter or public utterance on whichto base the _Tribune's_ statements. Greeley's attacks, however, becamefrequent now. Having at last swung round to the "no compromise"policy of the radical wing of his party, he found it easy to condemnthe attitude of Weed and the Unionism of Seward, against whom hislieutenants at Albany were waging a fierce battle for his election asUnited States senator. 

[Footnote 704: New York _Tribune_, January 29 and February 6, 1861. ]

[Footnote 705: A writer in the _North American Review_ (August, 1879, p. 135) speaks of the singular confidence of Siddon of Virginia(afterwards secretary of war of the Southern Confederacy) in Mr. Seward, and the mysterious allusions to the skilful plans maturing foran adjustment of sectional difficulties. ]

On January 31, Seward had occasion to present a petition, withthirty-eight thousand signatures, which William E. Dodge and otherbusiness men of New York had brought to Washington, praying for "theexercise of the best wisdom of Congress in finding some plan for theadjustment of the troubles which endanger the safety of the nation, "and in laying it before the Senate he took occasion to make anotherplea for the Union. "I have asked them, " he said, "that at home theyact in the same spirit, and manifest their devotion to the Union, above all other interests, by speaking for the Union, by voting forthe Union, by lending and giving their money for the Union, and, inthe last resort, fighting for the Union--taking care, always, thatspeaking goes before voting, voting goes before giving money, and allgo before a battle. This is the spirit in which I have determined formyself to come up to this great question, and to pass through it. "

Senator Mason of Virginia, declaring that "a maze of generalitiesmasked the speech, " pressed Seward as to what he meant by"contributing money for the Union. " Seward replied: "I haverecommended to them in this crisis, that they sustain the governmentof this country with the credit to which it is entitled at theirhands. " To this Mason said: "I took it for granted that the money wasto sustain the army which was to conduct the fight that he recommendsto his people. " Seward responded: "If, then, this Union is to stand orfall by the force of arms, I have advised my people to do, as I shallbe ready to do myself--stand with it or perish with it. " To which theVirginia Senator retorted: "The honourable senator proposes but oneremedy to restore this Union, and that is the _ultima ratio regna_. "Seward answered quickly, "Not to restore--preserve!"

Mason then referred to Seward's position as one of battle andbloodshed, to be fought on Southern soil, for the purpose of reducingthe South to colonies. To Seward, who was still cultivating theattitude of "forbearance, conciliation, and magnanimity, " this soundedlike a harsh conclusion of the position he had sought to sugar-coatwith much rhetoric, and, in reply, he pushed bloodshed into thefar-off future by restating what he had already declared in finephrases, closing as follows: "Does not the honourable senator knowthat when all these [suggestions for compromise] have failed, then theStates of this Union, according to the forms of the Constitution, shall take up this controversy about twenty-four negro slavesscattered over a territory of one million and fifty thousand squaremiles, and say whether they are willing to sacrifice all this liberty, all this greatness, and all this hope, because they have notintelligence, wisdom, and virtue enough to adjust a controversy sofrivolous and contemptible. "[706]

[Footnote 706: W. H. Seward, _Works of_, Vol. 4, p. 670. _CongressionalGlobe_, 1861, p. 657. ]

Seward's speech plainly indicated a purpose to fight for thepreservation of the Union, and his talk of first exhaustingconciliatory methods was accepted in the South simply as a "resort tothe gentle powers of seduction, "[707] but his argument of the fewslaves in the great expanse of territory sounded so much like Weed, who was advocating with renewed strength the Crittenden plan alongsimilar lines of devotion to the Union, that it kept alive in theNorth the impression that the Senator would yet favour compromise, andgave Greeley further opportunity to assail him. "Seward, in his speechon Thursday last, " says the _Tribune_, "declares his readiness torenounce Republican principles for the sake of the Union. "[708] Thenext day his strictures were more pronounced. "The Republican party. . . Is to be divided and sacrificed if the thing can be done. We areboldly told it must be suppressed, and a Union party rise upon itsruins. "[709] Yet, in spite of such criticism, Seward bore himself withindomitable courage and with unfailing skill. Never during his wholecareer did he prove more brilliant and resourceful as a leader in whatmight be called an utterly hopeless parliamentary struggle for thepreservation of the Union, and the highest tributes[710] paid to hisnever-failing tact and temper during some of the most vivid andfascinating passages of congressional history, attest his success. Itwas easy to say, with Senator Chandler of Michigan, that "without alittle blood-letting this Union will not be worth a rush, "[711] but itrequired great skill to speak for the preservation of the Union andthe retention of the cornerstone of the Republican party, withoutgrieving the Unionists of the border States, or painfully affectingthe radical Republicans of the Northern States. Seward knew that thelatter censured him, and in a letter to the _Independent_ he explainsthe cause of it. "Twelve years ago, " he wrote, "freedom was in dangerand the Union was not. I spoke then so singly for freedom thatshort-sighted men inferred that I was disloyal to the Union. To-day, practically, freedom is not in danger, and Union is. With the attemptto maintain Union by civil war, _wantonly_ brought on, there would bedanger of reaction against the Administration charged with thepreservation of both freedom and Union. Now, therefore, I speak singlyfor Union, striving, if possible, to save it peaceably; if notpossible, then to cast the responsibility upon the party of slavery. For this singleness of speech I am now suspected of infidelity tofreedom. "[712]

[Footnote 707: "Oily Gammon Seward, aware that intimidation will notdo, is going to resort to the gentle powers of seduction. "--Washingtoncorrespondent of Charleston _Mercury_, February 19, 1861. ]

[Footnote 708: New York _Tribune_, February 4, 1861. ]

[Footnote 709: New York _Tribune_, February 5, 1861. ]

[Footnote 710: "I have rejoiced, as you of New York must certainlyhave done, in the spirit of conciliation which has repeatedly beenmanifested, during the present session of Congress, by yourdistinguished senator, Governor Seward. " Robert C. Winthrop to theConstitutional Union Committee of Troy, February 17. --_Winthrop'sAddresses and Speeches_, Vol. 2, p. 701. "If Mr. Seward moves infavour of compromise, the whole Republican party sways like a field ofgrain before his breath. " Letter of Oliver Wendell Holmes, February16, 1861. --_Motley's Correspondence_, Vol. 1, p. 360. ]

[Footnote 711: Detroit _Post and Tribune_; _Life of ZachariahChandler_, p. 189. ]

[Footnote 712: Letter to Dr. Thompson of the New York _Independent_. F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 507. ]

Lincoln, after his arrival in Washington, asked Seward to suggest suchchanges in his inaugural address as he thought advisable, and in theperformance of this delicate duty the New York Senator continued hispolicy of conciliation. "I have suggested, " he wrote, in returning themanuscript, "many changes of little importance, severally, but intheir general effect, tending to soothe the public mind. Of course theconcessions are, as they ought to be, if they are to be of avail, atthe cost of the winning, the triumphant party. I do not fear theirdispleasure. They will be loyal whatever is said. Not so the defeated, irritated, angered, frenzied party. . . . Your case is quite like that ofJefferson. He brought the first Republican party into power againstand over a party ready to resist and dismember the government. Partisan as he was, he sank the partisan in the patriot, in hisinaugural address; and propitiated his adversaries by declaring, 'Weare all Federalists; all Republicans. ' I could wish that you wouldthink it wise to follow this example, in this crisis. Be sure thatwhile all your administrative conduct will be in harmony withRepublican principles and policy, you cannot lose the Republican partyby practising, in your advent to office, the magnanimity of avictor. "[713]

[Footnote 713: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 512. ]

Of thirty-four changes suggested by Seward, the President-electadopted twenty-three outright, and based modifications on eightothers. Three were ignored. Upon only one change did the Senatorreally insist. He thought the two paragraphs relating to theRepublican platform adopted at Chicago should be omitted, and, inobedience to his judgment, Lincoln left them out. Seward declared theargument of the address strong and conclusive, and ought not in anyway be changed or modified, "but something besides, or in addition toargument, is needful, " he wrote in a postscript, "to meet and remove_prejudice_ and _passion_ in the South, and _despondency_ and _fear_in the East. Some words of affection. Some of calm and cheerfulconfidence. "[714] In line with this suggestion, he submitted the draftof two concluding paragraphs. The first, "made up of phrases which hadbecome extremely commonplace by iteration in the six years' slaverydiscussion, " was clearly inadmissible. [715] The second was as follows:"I close. We are not, we must not be, aliens or enemies, but fellowcountrymen and brethren. Although passion has strained our bonds ofaffection too hardly, they must not, I am sure they will not, bebroken. The mystic chords which, proceeding from so many battlefieldsand so many patriot graves, pass through all the hearts and all thehearths in this broad continent of ours, will yet again harmonise intheir ancient music when breathed upon by the guardian angel of thenation. "

[Footnote 714: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 3, p. 513. ]

[Footnote 715: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 343, _note_. ]

This was the germ of a fine poetic thought, says John Hay, that "Mr. Lincoln took, and, in a new development and perfect form, gave to itthe life and spirit and beauty which have made it celebrated. " As itappears in the President-elect's clear, firm handwriting, it reads asfollows: "I am loth to close. We are not enemies but friends. We mustnot be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not breakour bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching fromevery battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart andhearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus ofthe Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the betterangels of our nature. "[716]

[Footnote 716: _Ibid. _, pp. 343, 344, and _note_. 

For fac-simile of the paragraph as written by Seward and rewritten byLincoln, see _Ibid. _, Vol. 3, p. 336. For the entire address, with allsuggested and adopted changes, see _Ibid. _, Vol. 3, pp. 327 to 344. 

At Seward's dinner table on the evening of March 4, the peroration ofthe inaugural address was especially commended by A. Oakey Hall, afterward mayor of New York, who quickly put it into rhyme:

 "The mystic chords of Memory That stretch from patriot graves; From battlefields to living hearts, Or hearth-stones freed from slaves, An Union chorus shall prolong, And grandly, proudly swell, When by those better angels touched Who in all natures dwell. "]

The spirit that softened Lincoln's inaugural into an appeal thattouched every heart, had breathed into the debates of Congress theconciliation and forbearance that marked the divide between theconservative and radical Republican. This difference, at the lastmoment, occasioned Lincoln much solicitude. He had come to Washingtonwith his Cabinet completed except as to a secretary of the treasuryand a secretary of war. For the latter place Seward preferred SimonCameron, and, in forcing the appointment by his powerful advocacy, hedealt a retributive blow to Governor Curtin of Pennsylvania, who hadvigorously opposed him at Chicago and was now the most conspicuous ofCameron's foes. [717] But Senator Chase of Ohio, to whom Sewardstrenuously objected because of his uncompromising attitude, was giventhe treasury. The shock of this defeat led the New York Senator todecline entering the Cabinet. "Circumstances which have occurred sinceI expressed my willingness to accept the office of secretary ofstate, " he wrote, on March 2, "seem to me to render it my duty to askleave to withdraw that consent. "[718]

[Footnote 717: "Seward and his friends were greatly offended at theaction of Curtin at Chicago. I was chairman of the Lincoln statecommittee and fighting the pivotal struggle of the national battle, but not one dollar of assistance came from New York, and my letters toThurlow Weed and to Governor Morgan, chairman of the nationalcommittee, were unanswered. Seward largely aided the appointment of aCabinet officer in Pennsylvania, who was the most conspicuous ofCurtin's foes, and on Curtin's visit to Seward as secretary of state, he gave him such a frigid reception that he never thereafter called atthat department. "--Alex. K. McClure, _Recollections of Half aCentury_, p. 220. ]

[Footnote 718: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 370. ]

The reception of the unexpected note sent a shiver through Lincoln'sstalwart form. This was the man of men with whom for weeks he hadconfidentially conferred, and upon whose judgment and information hehad absolutely relied and acted, "I cannot afford to let Seward takethe first trick, " he said to his secretary, [719] after pondering thematter during Sunday, and on Monday morning, while the inaugurationprocession was forming, he penned a reply. "Your note, " he said, "isthe subject of the most painful solicitude with me; and I feelconstrained to beg that you will countermand the withdrawal. Thepublic interest, I think, demands that you should; and my personalfeelings are deeply enlisted in the same direction. Please considerand answer by nine o'clock a. M. To-morrow. " That night, after theday's pageant and the evening's reception had ended, the President andSeward talked long and confidentially, resulting in the latter'swithdrawal of his letter and his nomination and confirmation assecretary of state. "The President is determined that he will have acompound Cabinet, " Seward wrote his wife, a few days after the unhappyincident; "and that it shall be peaceful, and even permanent. I was atone time on the point of refusing--nay, I did refuse, for a time, tohazard myself in the experiment. But a distracted country appearedbefore me, and I withdrew from that position. I believe I can endureas much as any one; and may be that I can endure enough to make theexperiment successful. "[720]

[Footnote 719: _Ibid. _, Vol. 3, p. 371. ]

[Footnote 720: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 518. ]

CHAPTER XXIX

THE WEED MACHINE CRIPPLED

1861

The story of the first forty days of Lincoln's administration is oneof indecent zeal to obtain office. A new party had come into power, and, in the absence of any suggestion of civil service, patronage wasconceded to the political victors. Office-seekers in large numbers hadvisited Washington in 1841 after the election of President Harrison, and, in the change that followed the triumph of Taylor in 1848, Seward, then a new senator, complained of their pernicious activity. Marcy as secretary of state found them no less numerous and insistentin 1853 when the Whigs again gave way to the Democrats. But never inthe history of the country had such a cloud of applicants settled downupon the capital of the nation as appeared in 1861. McClure, aneye-witness of the scene, speaks of the "mobs of office-seekers, "[721]and Edwin M. Stanton, who still remained in Washington, wrote Buchananthat "the scramble for office is terrific. Every department isoverrun, and by the time all the patronage is distributed theRepublican party will be dissolved. "[722] Schuyler Colfax declared tohis mother that "it makes me heart-sick. All over the country ourparty is by the ears, fighting for offices. "[723] Seward, writing tohis wife on March 16, speaks of the affliction. "My duties call me tothe White House one, two, or three times a day. The grounds, halls, stairways, closets, are filled with applicants, who render ingressand egress difficult. "[724] Lincoln himself said: "I seem like onesitting in a palace, assigning apartments to importunate applicants, while the structure is on fire and likely soon to perish inashes. "[725] Stanton is authority for the statement "that Lincolntakes the precaution of seeing no stranger alone. "[726]

[Footnote 721: Alex. K. McClure, _Recollections of Half a Century_, p. 204. ]

[Footnote 722: George T. Curtis, _Life of James Buchanan_, Vol. 2, p. 530. ]

[Footnote 723: O. B. Hallister, _Life of Colfax_, p. 173. ]

[Footnote 724: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 530. ]

[Footnote 725: Alex. K. McClure, _Life of Lincoln_, p. 56. ]

[Footnote 726: George T. Curtis, _Life of James Buchanan_, Vol. 2, p. 530. 

A writer in the _North American Review_ says, "the clamour for officesis already quite extraordinary, and these poor people undoubtedlybelong to the horde which has pressed in here seeking places under thenew Administration, which neither has nor can hope to have placesenough to satisfy one-twentieth the number. " November, 1879, p. 488. ]

In this bewildering mass of humanity New York had its share. Sewardsought protection behind his son, Frederick W. Seward, whom thePresident had appointed assistant secretary of state. "I have placedhim where he must meet the whole army of friends seeking office, " hewrote his wife on March 8--"an hundred taking tickets when only onecan draw a prize. "[727] Roscoe Conkling, then beginning his secondterm in Congress, needed no barrier of this kind. "Early in the year1861, " says his biographer, "a triumvirate of Republicans assumed todesignate candidates for the offices which President Lincoln was aboutto fill in the Oneida district. To accomplish this end they went toWashington and called upon their representative, handing him a list ofcandidates to endorse for appointment. Mr. Conkling read it carefully, and, seeing that it contained undesirable names, he replied:'Gentlemen, when I need your assistance in making the appointments inour district, I shall let you know. ' This retort, regarded by some ofhis friends as indiscreet, was the seed that years afterward ripenedinto an unfortunate division of the Republican party. "[728]

[Footnote 727: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 518. ]

[Footnote 728: A. R. Conkling, _Life and Letters of Roscoe Conkling_, pp. 119, 120. ]

If Seward was more tactful than Conkling in the dispensation ofpatronage, he was not less vigilant and tenacious. Almost immediatelyafter inauguration it became apparent that differences relative tolocal appointments existed between him and Ira Harris, the newlyelected New York senator. Harris' tall and powerful form, distinguished by a broad and benevolent face, was not more marked thanthe reputation that preceded him as a profound and fearless judge. Atthe Albany bar he had been the associate of Marcus T. Reynolds, SamuelStevens, Nicholas Hill, and the venerable Daniel Cady, and if he didnot possess the wit of Reynolds or the eloquence of Cady, theindomitable energy of Stevens and the mental vigour of Nicholas Hillwere his, making conspicuous his achievements in the pursuit of truthand justice. His transfer to the Senate at the age of fifty-eight andhis appointment upon the judiciary and foreign relations committees, presented a new opportunity to exhibit his deep and fruitful interestin public affairs, and, as the friend of Senators Collamer of Vermontand Sumner of Massachusetts, he was destined to have an influentialshare in the vital legislation of the war period. 

Harris took little interest in the distribution of patronage, or inquestions of party politics that quicken local strife, but he insistedupon a fair recognition of his friends, and to adjust theirdifferences Seward arranged an evening conference to which thePresident was invited. At this meeting the discussion took a broadrange. The secretary of state had prepared a list covering theimportant offices in New York, but before he could present it, Lincoln, with the ready intuitions of a shrewd politician, remarkedthat he reserved to himself the privilege of appointing Hiram Barneycollector of the port of New York. This announcement did not surpriseSeward, for, at the conclusion of Weed's visit to Springfield in thepreceding December, Lincoln reminded the journalist that he had saidnothing about appointments. "Some gentlemen who have been quitenervous about the object of your visit here, " said the President-elect, "would be surprised, if not incredulous, were I to tell them thatduring the two days we have passed together you have made noapplication, suggestion, or allusion to political appointments. "

To this the shrewd manager, willing to wait until Seward's appointmentand confirmation as secretary of state had placed him in a position todirect rather than to beg patronage, replied that nothing of thatnature had been upon his mind, since he was much more concerned aboutthe welfare of the country. "This, " said Lincoln, "is undoubtedly aproper view of the question, and yet so much were you misunderstoodthat I have received telegrams from prominent Republicans warning meagainst your efforts to forestall important appointments in yourState. Other gentlemen who have visited me since the election haveexpressed similar apprehensions. " The President, thus cunninglyleading up to what was on his mind, said further that it wasparticularly pleasant to him to reflect that he was coming into officeunembarrassed by promises. "I have not, " said he, "promised an officeto any man, nor have I, but in a single instance, mentally committedmyself to an appointment; and as that relates to an important officein your State, I have concluded to mention it to you--under strictinjunctions of secrecy, however. If I am not induced by publicconsiderations to change my purpose, Hiram Barney will be collector ofthe port of New York. "[729]

[Footnote 729: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 612. ]

To Weed, Barney's name aroused no agreeable memories. At the formationof the Republican party he had found it easier to affiliate withLucius Robinson and David Dudley Field than to act in accord with theWhig leader, and the result at Chicago had emphasised thisindependence. Too politic, however, to antagonise the appointment, andtoo wary to indorse it, Weed replied that prior to the Chicagoconvention he had known Barney very slightly, but that, if what he hadlearned of him since was true, Barney was entitled to any office heasked for. "He has not asked for this or any other office, " saidLincoln, quickly; "nor does he know of my intention. "[730]

[Footnote 730: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, pp. 612, 613. ]

If the President-elect failed to draw out the adroit New Yorker, hehad tactfully given notice of his intention not to be controlled byhim. A political boss, outside his own State, usually bears thereputation that home opponents give him, and, although Weed was neverso bad as painted by his adversaries, he had long been a chief with anodious notoriety. Apparently disinterested, and always refusing toseek or to accept office himself, he loved power, and for years, whenever Whig or Republican party was ascendant in New York, hisambition to prescribe its policy, direct its movements, and dictatethe men who might hold office, had been discreetly but imperiouslyexercised, until his influence was viewed with abhorrence by many andwith distrust by the country. [731] It is doubtful if Lincoln's opinioncorresponded with the accepted one, [732] but his desire to have someavenue of information respecting New York affairs opened to him otherthan through the Weed machine, made the President bold to declare hisindependence at the outset. 

[Footnote 731: Gideon Welles, _Lincoln and Seward_, p. 22. 

"In pecuniary matters Weed was generous to a fault while poor; he issaid to be less so since he became rich. . . . I cannot doubt, however, that if he had never seen Wall Street or Washington, had never heardof the Stock Board, and had lived in some yet undiscovered country, where legislation is never bought nor sold, his life would have beenmore blameless, useful, and happy. I was sitting beside him in hiseditorial room soon after Governor Seward's election, when he opened aletter from a brother Whig, which ran substantially thus: 'Dear Weed:I want to be a bank examiner. You know how to fix it. Do so, and drawon me for whatever sum you may see fit. Yours truly. ' In an instanthis face became prematurely black with mingled rage and mortification. 'My God, ' said he, 'I knew that my political adversaries thought me ascoundrel, but I never till now supposed that my friendsdid. '"--Horace Greeley, _Recollections of a Busy Life_, pp. 312, 313. ]

[Footnote 732: "President Lincoln looked to Mr. Weed for counsel, when, as often during the war, he met with difficulties hard to surmount. Itwas Mr. Lincoln's habit at such times to telegraph Mr. Weed to come toWashington from Albany or New York, perhaps at an hour's notice. Heoften spent the day with the President, coming and returning by night, regardless of his age and infirmities. His services in theseexigencies were often invaluable. "--Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life ofThurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 288. ]

The immediate influence that led to the announcement of Barney'sselection, however, is not entirely clear. At the Cooper Institutemeeting in February, 1860, at which Lincoln spoke, Barney occupied aseat on the stage, and was among the few gentlemen having opportunityto pay the distinguished Illinoisan those courtesies which especiallyplease one who felt, as Lincoln did "by reason of his own modestestimate of himself, "[733] that he was under obligation to any personshowing him marked attention. But neither this fact nor Barney'ssubsequent support at Chicago sufficiently accounts for the strongpreference indicated by such an important and far-reachingappointment. Among the few indorsements on file in the treasurydepartment at Washington, one letter, dated March 8, 1861, andaddressed to Salmon P. Chase, speaks of Barney as "a personal friendof yours. " Six days later a New York newspaper announced that "theappointment of Barney has been a fixed fact ever since Chase went intothe Cabinet. It was this influence that persuaded Chase to accept theposition. "[734] The biographer of Thurlow Weed, probably basing thestatement upon the belief of Weed himself, states, withoutqualification, that "Barney was appointed through the influence ofSecretary Chase. "[735] This may, in part, account for Weed's andSeward's bitter hostility to the Ohioan's becoming a member of theCabinet; for, if Chase, before his appointment as secretary of thetreasury, had sufficient influence to control the principal federaloffice in New York, what, might they not have asked, would be themeasure of this influence after the development of his great abilityas a financier has made him necessary to the President as well as tothe country?

[Footnote 733: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 2, p. 217. ]

[Footnote 734: New York _Herald_, March 14, 1861. ]

[Footnote 735: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 613. ]

Inquiry, however, as to the one first suggesting Barney's name toLincoln does not lead to the open. Chase's entrance into the Cabinetbeing settled, his influence firmly sustained Barney, but, beforethat, very early after the election, between November 7 and Weed'svisit to Springfield on December 17, some one spoke the word inBarney's behalf which left such a deep and lasting impression upon thePresident's mind that he determined to advise Weed, before Sewardcould accept the state portfolio, of his intention to appoint Barneycollector of the port of New York. The name of the person exertingsuch an influence, however, is now unknown. During this period Chaseneither saw the President-elect, nor, so far as the records show, wrote him more than a formal note of congratulations. Another possibleavenue of communication may have been Bryant or Greeley, but thelatter distinctly denied that he asked, or wanted, or manipulated theappointment of any one. [736] Bryant, who had great influence withLincoln, [737] and who strongly opposed Seward's going into theCabinet, [738] had presided at the Cooper Institute meeting and satbeside Hiram Barney. He knew that such a man, placed at the head ofthe custom-house and wielding its vast patronage, could be a potentfactor in breaking Weed's control, but the editor's only publishedletter to Lincoln during this period was confined to reasons formaking Chase secretary of state. In it he did not deprecate thestrengthening of the Weed machine which would probably ignore theoriginal New York supporters of Lincoln, or in any wise refer to localmatters. Bryant had been partial to Chase for President until afterLincoln's Cooper Institute speech, and now, after election, he thoughtChase, as secretary of state, would be best for the country. Lincoln's reply of "a few lines, " convincing his correspondent "thatwhatever selection you make it will be made conscientiously, "contained no word about Barney. Other letters, or parties personallyinterested in Barney, may have passed between the President-elect andBryant, or Chase. Indeed, Lincoln confessed to Weed that he hadreceived telegrams and visits from prominent Republicans, warning himagainst the Albany editor's efforts to forestall important stateappointments, but no clue is left to identify them. The mysterydeepens, too, since, whatever was done, came without Barney'ssuggestion or knowledge. [739]

[Footnote 736: New York _Tribune_, editorial, April 2, 1861. ]

[Footnote 737: "'It was worth the journey to the East, ' said Mr. Lincoln, 'to see such a man as Bryant. '"--John Bigelow, _Life ofWilliam Cullen Bryant_, p. 218. ]

[Footnote 738: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 257. ]

[Footnote 739: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 613. ]

Hiram Barney, a native of Jefferson County, a graduate of UnionCollege in 1834, and the head of a well-known law firm, was a lawyerof high character and a Republican of Democratic antecedents, who hadstood with Greeley and Bryant in opposing Seward at Chicago, and whoseappointment to the most important federal office in the State meantmischief for Weed. [740] In its effect it was not unlike PresidentGarfield's selection of William H. Robertson for the same place; and, although it did not at once result so disastrously to Weed asRobertson's appointment did to Conkling twenty years later, it gavethe editor's adversaries vantage ground, which so seriously crippledthe Weed machine, that, in the succeeding November, George Opdyke, apersonal enemy of Thurlow Weed, [741] was nominated and elected mayorof New York City. 

[Footnote 740: "Hiram Barney belongs to the Van Buren DemocraticBuffalo Free-soil wing of the Republican party. He studied law withC. C. Cambreling and practised it with Benjamin F. Butler. ForPresident he voted for Jackson, for Van Buren in 1840 and 1848, forHale in 1852, and for Fremont and Lincoln. He was also a delegate tothe Buffalo convention of 1848; so that as an out-and-out Van BurenDemocratic Free-soil Republican, Barney is a better specimen than VanBuren himself. "--New York _Herald_, March 28, 1861. 

"Mr. Barney's quiet, unostentatious bearing has deprived him of thenotoriety which attaches to most of our politicians of equalexperience and influence. Nevertheless, he is well known to theRepublican party and universally respected as one of its foremost andmost intelligent supporters. "--New York _Evening Post_, March 27, 1861. ]

[Footnote 741: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p. 528; _Ibid. _, Vol. 2, p. 322. ]

At the conference of the President and New York senators, Seward, accepting the inevitable, received Lincoln's announcement of Barney'sappointment in chilling silence. Without openly disclosing itself, theproposed step had been the cause of much friction, and was yet to beopposed with coolness and candour, [742] but Lincoln's firmness indeclaring that Barney was a man of integrity who had his confidence, and that he had made the appointment on his own responsibility andfrom personal knowledge, [743] impressed his hearers with the beliefthat, with whatever disfavour Seward listened, he had practicallysurrendered to the will of his superior. Another scene occurred, asthe interview proceeded, which also indicated the master spirit. Afterreviewing the extended list of names presented for collectors andother officers, Seward expressed the wish that the nominations mightbe sent forthwith to the Senate. The embarrassed senators, unpreparedfor such haste, found in the secretary of the navy, who hadaccompanied the President on the latter's invitation, a ready opponentto such a plan because other members of the Cabinet had been whollyignored. Welles inquired if the secretary of the treasury andattorney-general had been consulted, insisting that a properadministration of the departments made their concurrence in theselection of competent subordinates upon whom they must rely, not onlyproper but absolutely necessary. Seward objected to this asunnecessary, for these were New York appointments, he said, and heknew better than Chase and Bates what was best in that State for theparty and the Administration. The President, however, agreed with thesecretary of the navy, declaring that nothing conclusive would be doneuntil he had advised with interested heads of departments. "Withthis, " says Welles, "the meeting soon and somewhat abruptlyterminated. "[744] So far as it related to the distribution ofpatronage, this conference, held early in March, settled nothingbeyond Barney's appointment; as to the question whether Seward wasPresident or Premier, however, the New Yorker soon learned that he wasto have influence with his chief only by reason of his assiduousattention to the public business and his dexterity and tact inpromoting the views of the President. [745]

[Footnote 742: "Strong protests against Barney have been receivedwithin the last twenty-four hours. "--New York _Herald_, March 14, 1861. ]

[Footnote 743: Gideon Welles, _Lincoln and Seward_, p. 72. ]

[Footnote 744: Gideon Welles, _Lincoln and Seward_, p. 73. ]

[Footnote 745: "Executive skill and vigour are rare qualities. ThePresident is the best of us. " Seward's letter to his wife. --F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 590. ]

To the outsider, the appointment of Barney looked, for the moment, like a substantial defeat for Seward. "The mighty struggle, " said the_Herald_, "is for the possession of the New York appointments, and thestrife is deadly and bitter. "[746] The anti-Weed forces, reinforced bythe arrival of Greeley, [747] the coming of Barney, [748] and thepersistence of Harris, [749] were elated over reported changes in theWeed slate, believing the fruit of their long labours was about tocome at last, but from the sum-total of the nominations, made day byday, it appeared that while several attachés of the _Tribune's_ staffhad been recognised, [750] Seward had secured all the importantoffices save collector of the port. [751] During this turmoil theSecretary's unfailing calmness was not disturbed, nor his uniformcourtesy ruffled. 

[Footnote 746: New York _Herald_, March 30, 1861. ]

[Footnote 747: "Thurlow Weed patched up the New York appointments andleft this morning. Greeley arrived about the same time and has beensponging Weed's slate at an awful rate. "--_Ibid. _, March 26. ]

[Footnote 748: "Barney arrived this morning in response to a summonsfrom the President and the secretary of the treasury. "--_Ibid. _, April1. ]

[Footnote 749: "Senator Harris has proved himself more than a matchfor Weed. "--_Ibid. _, April 4. ]

[Footnote 750: "Thus far four attachés of the _Tribune_ have beenappointed. . . . These appointments except the last were Mr. Lincoln'sregardless of Mr. Seward, who bears the _Tribune_ no love. "--_Ibid. _, March 29. ]

[Footnote 751: "Seward secures all the important offices save thecollectorship, which was given to Greeley. "--New York _Herald_, March30, 1861. ]

Seward never forgot a real friend. Out of thirty-five diplomatic postscarrying a salary of five thousand dollars and upward, the EmpireState was credited with nine; and, of these, one, a ministerplenipotentiary, received twelve thousand dollars, and seven ministersresident, seventy-five hundred each. Seward, with the advice ofThurlow Weed, filled them all with tried and true supporters. Greeley, who, for some time, had been murmuring about the Secretary'sappointments, let fly, at last, a sarcastic paragraph or two about theappointment of Andrew B. Dickinson, the farmer statesman of Steuben, which betrayed something of the bitterness existing between theSecretary of State and the editor of the _Tribune_. For more than ayear no such thing had existed as personal relations. Before thespring of 1860 they met frequently with a show of cordiality, and, although the former understood that the latter boasted an independenceof control whenever they differed in opinion, the _Tribune_co-operated and its editor freely conferred with the New York senatorduring the long struggle in Congress for Kansas and free labour; butafter Seward's defeat at Chicago they never met, [752] dislikedisplaced regard, and the _Tribune_, with eye and ear open to catchwhatever would make its adversary wince, indulged in bitter sarcasm. William B. Taylor's reappointment as postmaster at New York City gaveit opportunity to praise Taylor and criticise Seward, claiming thatthe former, who had held office under Buchanan, though an excellentofficial, was not a Republican. This proved so deep a thrust, arrayingoffice-seekers and their friends against the Secretary and ThurlowWeed, that Greeley kept it up, finding some appointees inefficient, and the Republicanism of others insufficient. 

[Footnote 752: "In the spring of 1859, Governor Seward crossed theAtlantic, visiting Egypt, traversing Syria, and other portions of AsiaMinor as well as much of Europe. Soon after his return he came oneevening to my seat in Dr. Chapin's church, --as he had repeatedly doneduring former visits to our city, --and I now recall this as the lastoccasion on which we ever met. "--Horace Greeley, _Recollections of aBusy Life_, p. 321. ]

To the former class belonged the minister resident to Nicaragua. Dickinson had wearied of a farmer's life, [753] and Seward, who oftenbenefited by his ardent and influential friendship, bade him make hisown selection from the good things he had to offer. More than ordinaryreasons existed why the Secretary desired to assist the Steubenfarmer. Dickinson served in the State Senate throughout Seward's twoterms as governor, and during these four years he had fearlessly andfaithfully explained and defended Seward's recommendation of adivision of the school fund, which proved so offensive to manythousand voters in New York. Indeed, it may be said with truth, thatSeward's record on that one question did more to defeat him at Chicagothan all his "irrepressible conflict" and "higher-law" declarations. It became the fulcrum of Curtin's and Lane's aggressive resistance, who claimed that, in the event of his nomination, the American orKnow-Nothing element in Pennsylvania and Indiana would not onlymaintain its organisation, but largely increase its strength, becauseof its strong prejudices against a division of the school fund. 

[Footnote 753: "'Bray Dickinson, ' as he was generally and familiarlycalled, whose early education was entirely neglected but whoseperceptions and intuitions were clear and ready, was an enterprisingfarmer, --too enterprising, indeed, for he undertook more than he couldaccomplish. His ambition was to be the largest cattle and producegrower in his county (Steuben). If his whole time and thoughts hadbeen given to farming, his anticipations might have been realised, but, as it was, he experienced the fate of those who keep too manyirons in the fire. In 1839 he was elected to the State Senate, wherefor four years he was able, fearless, and inflexibly honest. On oneoccasion a senator from Westchester County criticised and ridiculedDickinson's language. Dickinson immediately rejoined, saying thatwhile his difficulty consisted in a want of suitable language withwhich to express his ideas, his colleague was troubled with a flood ofwords without any ideas to express. "--Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life ofThurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, pp. 441, 442. ]

Dickinson met this issue squarely. He followed the powerfulPennsylvanian and Indianian from delegation to delegation, explainingthat Seward had sought simply to turn the children of poor foreignersinto the path of moral and intellectual cultivation pursued by theAmerican born, --a policy, he declared, in which all Republicans andChristian citizens should concur. He pictured school conditions in NewYork City in 1840, the date of Seward's historic message; he showedhow prejudices arising from differences of language and religion keptschoolhouses empty and slum children ignorant, while reform schoolsand prisons were full. Under these circumstances, thundered theSteuben farmer, Seward did right in recommending the establishment ofschools in which such children might be instructed by teachersspeaking the same language with themselves, and professing the samefaith. 

This was the sort of defence Seward appreciated. His recommendationhad not been the result of carelessness or inadvertence, and, althoughwell-meaning friends sought to excuse it as such, he resented theinsinuation. "I am only determined the more, " he wrote, "to do whatmay be in my power to render our system of education as comprehensiveas the interests involved, and to provide for the support of theglorious superstructure of universal suffrage, --the basis of universaleducation. "[754] In his defence, Dickinson maintained the excellenceof Seward's suggestion, and it deeply angered the Steuben farmer thatthe _Tribune's_ editor, who knew the facts as well as he, did not alsoattempt to silence the arguments of the two most influential Lincolndelegates, who boldly based their opposition, not upon personalhostility or his advanced position in Republican faith, but upon whatGreeley had known for twenty years to be a perversion of Seward'slanguage and Seward's motives. 

[Footnote 754: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 503. ]

In the Secretary's opinion Dickinson's bold defiance of the rules ofgrammar and spelling did not weaken his natural intellectual strength;but Greeley, whom the would-be diplomat, with profane vituperation, had charged at Chicago with the basest ingratitude, [755] protestedagainst such an appointment to such an important post. "We have longknown him, " said the _Tribune_, "as a skilful farmer, a cunningpolitician, and a hearty admirer of Mr. Seward, but never suspectedhim of that intimate knowledge of the Spanish language which is almostindispensable to that country, which, just at this moment, from thepeculiar designs of the Southern rebels, is one of the most importantthat the secretary of state has to fill. "[756] Dickinson recognisedthe odium that would attach to Seward because of the appointment, andin a characteristic letter he assured the Secretary of State that, whatever Greeley might say, he need have no fear of his ability torepresent the government efficiently at the court of Nicaragua. [757]

[Footnote 755: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 273. ]

[Footnote 756: New York _Tribune_, March 29, 1861. ]

[Footnote 757: "Hornby, April 3, 1861. Dear Seward: I shall have totake a Gentleman with me that can speak the Spanish language andcorrect bad English. That being well done I can take care of theballance [Transcriber's Note: so in original] Greeley to the contrarynotwithstanding. . . . You have much at stake in my appointment as it ischarged (and I know how justly) to your account. "--Unpublished letterin files of State Department. ]

James S. Pike's selection for minister resident to The Hague seemed tocontradict Greeley's declaration that he neither asked nor desired theappointment of any one. For years Pike, "a skilful maligner of Mr. Seward, "[758] had been the Washington representative of the _Tribune_, and the belief generally obtained that, although Pike belonged toMaine and was supported by its delegation in Congress, the real powerbehind the throne lived in New York. Nevertheless, the _Tribune's_editor, drifting in thought and speech in the inevitable direction ofhis genius, soon indicated that he had had no personal favours to ask. 

[Footnote 758: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 326. ]

Seward's appointment as secretary of state chilled Greeley's love forthe new Administration. [759] The _Tribune's_ editor seems never tohave shown an exalted appreciation of Abraham Lincoln. Although theyserved together in Congress, and, for twenty years, had held to thesame political faith, Greeley, apparently indifferent to hiscolleague's success, advocated, in 1858, the return of Stephen A. Douglas to the United States Senate, because of his hostility to theLecompton policy of the Buchanan administration, and it was intimatedthat this support, backed by his powerful journal, may have resultedin Douglas' carrying the Legislature against Lincoln. In 1860, Greeleyfavoured Bates for President. He was not displeased to have Lincolnnominated, but his battle had been to defeat Seward, and when Lincolnturned to Seward for secretary of state, which meant, as Greeleybelieved, the domination of the Weed machine to punish his revoltagainst Seward, Greeley became irretrievably embittered against thePresident. 

[Footnote 759: "I am charged with having opposed the selection ofGovernor Seward for a place in President Lincoln's Cabinet. That isutterly, absolutely false, the President himself being my witness. Imight call many others, but one such is sufficient. "--New York_Tribune_, signed editorial, July 25, 1861. ]

It is doubtful if Lincoln and Greeley, under any circumstances, couldhave had close personal relations. Lack of sympathy because they didnot see things alike must have kept them apart; but Seward's presencein the Cabinet undoubtedly limited Greeley's intercourse with thePresident at a time when frequent conferences might have avoided graveembarrassments. His virile and brilliant talents, which turned himinto an independent and acute thinker on a wide range of subjects, always interested his readers, giving expression to the thoughts ofmany earnest men who aided in forming public opinion in theirneighbourhoods, so that it may be said with truth, that, in 1860 and1861, everything he wrote was eagerly read and discussed in the North. "Notwithstanding the loyal support given Lincoln throughout thecountry, " says McClure, "Greeley was in closer touch with the active, loyal sentiment of the people than even the President himself. "[760]His art of saying things on paper seemed to thrill people as much asthe nervous, spirited rhetoric of an intense talker. With the air oflofty detachment from sordid interests, his sentences, clear andrapid, read like the clarion notes of a peroration, and impressed hisgreat audiences with an earnestness that often carried conviction evento unwilling listeners. 

[Footnote 760: Alex. K. McClure, _Lincoln and Men of War Times_, p. 295. ]

Nevertheless, the _Tribune's_ columns did not manifest toward theAdministration a fine exhibition of the love of fair play. In thehottest moment of excitement growing out of hostilities, itpatriotically supported the most vigorous prosecution of the war, andmercilessly criticised its opponents; but Greeley would neitherconform to nor silently endure Lincoln's judgment, and, as every stepin the war created new issues, his constant criticism, made throughthe columns of a great newspaper, kept the party more or lessseriously divided, until, by untimely forcing emancipation, heinspired, despite the patient and conciliatory methods of Lincoln, afactious hostility to the President which embarrassed his efforts tomarshal a solid North in support of his war policy. Greeley was a manof clean hands and pure heart, and, at the outset, it is probable thathis attempted direction of Lincoln's policy existed withoutill-feeling; yet he was a good hater, and, as the contest went on, hedrifted into an opposition which gradually increased in bitterness, and, finally, led to a temporary and foolish rebellion against thePresident's renomination. Meantime, the great-hearted Lincoln, conningthe lesson taught by the voice of history, continued to practise theprecept, "Saying, What is excellent, As God lives, is permanent. "

A POLITICAL HISTORY

OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

BY

DeALVA STANWOOD ALEXANDER, A. M. , LL. D. 

_Member of Congress, Formerly United States Attorney for the NorthernDistrict of New York_

VOL. III

1861-1882

[Illustration]

NEW YORKHENRY HOLT AND COMPANY1909

COPYRIGHT, 1909, BYHENRY HOLT AND COMPANY

Published, September, 1909

THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESSRAHWAY, N. J. 

CONTENTS

VOL. III

CHAPTER PAGE

I. THE UPRISING OF THE NORTH. 1861 1

II. NEW PARTY ALIGNMENTS. 1861 13

III. "THE MAD DESPERATION OF REACTION. " 1862 31

IV. THURLOW WEED TRIMS HIS SAILS. 1863 53

V. GOVERNOR SEYMOUR AND PRESIDENT LINCOLN. 1863 61

VI. SEYMOUR REBUKED. 1863 73

VII. STRIFE OF RADICAL AND CONSERVATIVE. 1864 84

VIII. SEYMOUR'S PRESIDENTIAL FEVER. 1864 98

IX. FENTON DEFEATS SEYMOUR. 1864 115

X. A COMPLETE CHANGE OF POLICY. 1865 127

XI. RAYMOND CHAMPIONS THE PRESIDENT. 1866 136

XII. HOFFMAN DEFEATED, CONKLING PROMOTED. 1866 150

XIII. THE RISE OF TWEEDISM. 1867 172

XIV. SEYMOUR AND HOFFMAN. 1868 189

XV. THE STATE CARRIED BY FRAUD. 1868 208

XVI. INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN SENATORIAL ELECTIONS. 1869 219

XVII. TWEED CONTROLS THE STATE. 1869-70 223

XVIII. CONKLING DEFEATS FENTON. 1870 232

XIX. TWEED WINS AND FALLS. 1870 240

XX. CONKLING PUNISHES GREELEY. 1871 250

XXI. TILDEN CRUSHES TAMMANY. 1871 265

XXII. GREELEY NOMINATED FOR PRESIDENT. 1872 276

XXIII. DEFEAT AND DEATH OF GREELEY. 1872 291

XXIV. TILDEN DESTROYS HIS OPPONENTS. 1873-4 305

XXV. RIVALRY OF TILDEN AND CONKLING. 1875 321

XXVI. DEFEAT OF THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE. 1876 332

XXVII. TILDEN ONE VOTE SHORT. 1876 340

XXVIII. CONKLING AND CURTIS AT ROCHESTER. 1877 358

XXIX. THE TILDEN RÉGIME ROUTED. 1877 378

XXX. GREENBACKERS SERVE REPUBLICANS. 1878 389

XXXI. REMOVAL OF ARTHUR AND CORNELL. 1878-9 399

XXXII. JOHN KELLY ELECTS CORNELL. 1879 411

XXXIII. STALWART AND HALF-BREED. 1880 428

XXXIV. TILDEN, KELLY, AND DEFEAT. 1880 447

XXXV. CONKLING DOWN AND OUT. 1881 464

XXXVI. CLEVELAND'S ENORMOUS MAJORITY. 1881-2 483

A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

CHAPTER I

THE UPRISING OF THE NORTH

1861

While politicians indecently clamoured for office, as indicated in theconcluding chapter of the preceding volume, President Lincoln, whenever escape from the patronage hunters permitted, was consideringthe wisdom of provisioning Fort Sumter. Grave doubt obtained as to thegovernment's physical ability to succour the fort, but, assuming itpossible, was it wise as a political measure? The majority of theCabinet, including Seward, voted in the negative, giving rise to thereport that Sumter would be abandoned. Union people generally, wishingto support the brave and loyal action of Major Anderson and his littleband, vigorously protested against such an exhibition of weakness, andthe longer the Government hesitated the more vigorously the popularwill resented such a policy. Finally, on March 29, in spite of GeneralScott's advice and Secretary Seward's opinion, the President, guidedby public sentiment, directed a relief expedition to be ready to sailas early as April 6. 

Meanwhile a Confederate constitution had been adopted, a Confederateflag raised over the capitol at Montgomery, and a Confederate Congressassembled, which had authorised the enlistment of 100, 000 volunteers, the issue of $1, 000, 000 in treasury notes, and the organisation of anavy. To take charge of military operations at Charleston, theConfederate government commissioned Pierre T. Beauregard abrigadier-general and placed him in command of South Carolina. 

Beauregard quickly learned of Lincoln's decision to relieve Sumter, and upon the Confederate authorities devolved the grave responsibilityof reducing the fort before the relief expedition arrived. Indiscussing this serious question Robert Toombs, the Confederatesecretary of state, did not hesitate to declare that "the firing uponit at this time is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend atthe North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends frommountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting usto death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal. "[761]

[Footnote 761: Pleasant A. Stovall, _Life of Robert Toombs_, p. 226. ]

Nevertheless, Jefferson Davis, already overborne by pressure fromSouth Carolina, ordered Beauregard to demand its evacuation, and, ifrefused, "to reduce it. "[762] Answering Beauregard's aides, whosubmitted the demand on the afternoon of April 11, Anderson refused towithdraw, adding, "if you do not batter the fort to pieces about us, we shall be starved out in a few days. "[763] To this message theConfederate Secretary of War replied: "Do not desire needlessly tobombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time at which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree in the meantime hewill not use his guns against us unless ours should be employedagainst Sumter, you are authorised thus to avoid the effusion ofblood. If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort as yourjudgment decides to be the most practicable. "[764] Four aides submittedthis proposition at a quarter before one o'clock on the morning ofApril 12, to which Anderson, after conferring two hours and a halfwith his officers, replied, "I will evacuate by noon on the 15thinstant, and I will not in the meantime open fire upon your forcesunless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort or theflag of my Government, should I not receive, prior to that time, controlling instructions from my Government or additionalsupplies. "[765]

[Footnote 762: Official Records, Vol. 1, p. 297. ]

[Footnote 763: _Ibid. _, pp. 13, 59. ]

[Footnote 764: _Ibid. _, p. 301. Davis's message to the ConfederateCongress, April 29; Moore's Rebellion Record, Vol. 1, Docs. P. 171. ]

[Footnote 765: Official Records, Vol. 1, pp. 14, 60. ]

The aides refused these terms, and without further consultation withBeauregard notified Anderson that in one hour their batteries wouldopen fire on the fort. Prompt to the minute, at 4. 30 o'clock in themorning, a shell from Fort Johnson, signalling the bombardment tobegin, burst directly over Sumter. At seven o'clock Anderson's force, numbering one hundred and twenty-eight officers, men, andnon-combatant labourers, who had breakfasted upon half rations of porkand damaged rice, began returning the fire, which continued briskly atfirst and afterwards intermittently until the evacuation on Sundayafternoon, the 14th inst. [766]

[Footnote 766: _Ibid. _, Vol. 1, p. 12. ]

Within twenty-four hours the prophecy of Robert Toombs was practicallyfulfilled, for when, on Monday, April 15, President Lincoln called for75, 000 State militia to execute the laws, the people of the North rosealmost as one man to support the government. "At the darkest moment inthe history of the Republic, " Emerson wrote, "when it looked as if thenation would be dismembered, pulverised into its original elements, the attack on Fort Sumter crystalised the North into a unit, and thehope of mankind was saved. "[767]

[Footnote 767: J. E. Cabot, _Life of Ralph Waldo Emerson_, p. 605. ]

Much speculation had been indulged respecting the attitude of New YorkCity. It was the heart of the Union and the home of Southern sympathy. Men had argued coolly and philosophically about the right ofsecession, and journals of wide influence daily exhibited strongSouthern leanings. Owing to business connections and socialintercourse with the South, merchants had petitioned for concessionsso offensive to Lincoln that Southern statesmen confidently reliedupon their friendship as an important factor in dividing the North. Onmany platforms Daniel S. Dickinson, James T. Brady, John Cochrane, andothers equally well known and influential, had held the Northresponsible for conditions that, it was claimed, were driving theSouth into secession. So recently as December 20, in a meeting of morethan ordinary importance, held on Pine Street, at which CharlesO'Conor presided, and John A. Dix, John J. Cisco, William B. Astor, and others of similar character were present, Dickinson declared that"our Southern brothers will reason with us when we will reason withthem. . . . The South have not offended us. . . . But their slaves have beenrun off in numbers by an underground railroad, and insult and injuryreturned for a constitutional duty. . . . If we would remain a unitedpeople we must treat the Southern States as we treated them on theinauguration of the government--as political equals. "[768]

[Footnote 768: _Life and Speeches of Daniel S. Dickinson_, Vol. 1, pp. 700-702. ]

In a speech at Richmond on March 14 Cochrane promised that New Yorkwould sustain Virginia in any policy it adopted, [769] and on April 4 aConfederate commissioner, writing from Manhattan, reported toJefferson Davis that two hundred of the most influential and wealthycitizens were then arranging the details to declare New York a freecity. Several army officers as well as leading ship-builders, said theletter, had been found responsive, through whose assistance recruitsfrom the ranks of the conspirators were to seize the navy yard, forts, and vessels of war, and to hold the harbor and city. [770] While nothingwas known to the friends of the Union of the existence of such aconspiracy, deep anxiety prevailed as to how far the spirit ofrebellion which had manifested itself in high places, extended amongthe population of the great metropolis. 

[Footnote 769: New York _Tribune_, March 15, 1861. ]

[Footnote 770: Letter of John W. Forsyth, MSS. Confederate DiplomaticCorrespondence, April 4, 1861. ]

The guns aimed at Sumter, however, quickly removed the impression thatthe greed of commerce was stronger than the love of country. The StockExchange resounded with enthusiastic cheers for Major Anderson, andgenerous loans showed that the weight of the financial and tradecentre of the country was on the side of the national government. Butmore convincing proof of a solid North found expression in the spiritof the great meeting held at Union Square on Saturday, April 20. Nothing like it had ever been seen in America. Men of all ranks, professions, and creeds united in the demonstration. Around sixplatforms, each occupied with a corps of patriotic orators, anillustrious audience, numbering some of the most famous Democrats ofthe State, who had quickly discarded political prejudices, stood forhours listening to loyal utterances that were nobly illustrated by thevalour of Major Anderson, whose presence increased the enthusiasm intoa deafening roar of repeated cheers. If any doubt heretofore existedas to the right of coercing a State, or upon whom rested theresponsibility for beginning the war, or who were the real enemies ofthe Union, or where prominent members of the Democratic party wouldstand, it had now disappeared. The partisan was lost in the patriot. 

Daniel S. Dickinson travelled two hundred miles to be present at thismeeting, and his attitude, assumed without qualification orreservation, especially pleased the lovers of the Union. Of all men hehad retained and proclaimed his predilections for the South with thezeal and stubbornness of an unconverted Saul. Throughout the longdiscussion of twenty years his sympathy remained with the South, hisambitions centred in the South, and his words, whether so intended ornot, encouraged the South to believe in a divided North. But the gunsat Sumter changed him as quickly as a voice converted St. Paul. "Itwere profitless, " he said, his eyes resting upon the torn flag thathad waved over Sumter--"it were profitless to inquire for original orremote causes; it is no time for indecision or inaction. . . . I wouldassert the power of the government over those who owe it allegianceand attempt its overthrow, as Brutus put his signet to thedeath-warrant of his son, that I might exclaim with him, 'Justice issatisfied, and Rome is free. ' For myself, in our federal relations, Iknow but one section, one Union, one flag, one government. Thatsection embraces every State; that Union is the Union sealed with theblood and consecrated by the tears of the revolutionary struggle; thatflag is the flag known and honoured in every sea under heaven; thatgovernment is the government of Washington, and Adams, and Jefferson, and Jackson; a government which has shielded and protected not onlyus, but God's oppressed children, who have gathered under its wingsfrom every portion of the globe. "[771]

[Footnote 771: _Life, Letters, and Speeches of Daniel S. Dickinson_. Vol. 2, pp. 4-7. ]

Fernando Wood, until recently planning to make New York an independentcity, now declared the past buried, with its political associationsand sympathies, and pledged the municipality, its money and its men, to the support of the Union. "I am with you in this contest. We knowno party, now. "[772] Of the fifty or more speeches delivered from theseveral platforms, perhaps the address of John Cochrane, whoseridiculous Richmond oration was scarcely a month old, proved the mostimpressive. Cochrane had a good presence, a clear, penetrating voice, and spoke in round, rhetorical periods. If he sometimes illustratedthe passionate and often the extravagant declaimer, his style wasfinished, and his fervid appeals deeply stirred the emotions if theydid not always guide the reason. It was evident that he now spoke withthe sincere emotion of one whose mind and heart were filled with thecause for which he pleaded. In his peroration, pointing to the tornflag of Sumter, he raised the vast audience to such a pitch ofexcitement that when he dramatically proclaimed his motto to be, "Ourcountry, our whole country--in any event, a united country, " thecontinued cheering was with great difficulty sufficiently suppressedto allow the introduction of another speaker. [773]

[Footnote 772: New York _Tribune_, April 22, 1861. New York _Times_, New York _Herald_, April 21. ]

[Footnote 773: New York _Herald_, April 21, 1861. ]

Of the regiments called for New York's quota was seventeen. GovernorMorgan immediately communicated it to the Legislature, whichauthorised in a few hours the enlistment of 30, 000 volunteers for twoyears. Instantly every drill room and armory in the State became ascene of great activity, and by April 19, four days after the call, the Seventh New York, each man carrying forty-eight rounds of ballcartridge, received an enthusiastic ovation as it marched downBroadway on its way to Washington. Thereafter, each day presented, somewhere in the State, a similar pageant. Men offered their servicesso much faster than the Government could take them that bitternessfollowed the fierce competition. [774] By July 1 New York had despatchedto the seat of war 46, 700 men--an aggregate that was swelled byDecember 30 to 120, 361. Loans to the government, offered with anequally lavish hand, approximated $33, 000, 000 in three months. 

[Footnote 774: New York _Tribune_, July 21, 24. ]

To aid in the purchase and arming of steamships and in the movement oftroops and forwarding of supplies, President Lincoln, during theexcitement incident to the isolation of Washington, conferredextraordinary powers upon Governor Morgan, William M. Evarts, andMoses H. Grinnell, to whom army officers were instructed to report fororders. Similar powers to act for the Treasury Department in thedisbursement of public money were conferred upon John A. Dix, GeorgeOpdyke, and Richard M. Blatchford. These gentlemen gave no securityand received no compensation, but "I am not aware, " wrote Lincoln, ata later day, "that a dollar of the public funds, thus confided, without authority of law, to unofficial persons, was either lost orwasted. "[775]

[Footnote 775: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 552. ]

The Union Square meeting appointed a Union Defence Committee to raisemoney, provide supplies, and equip regiments. For the time thiscommittee became the executive arm of the national government in NewYork, giving method to effort and concentrating the people's energiesfor the highest efficiency. John A. Dix, who had seen sixteen years ofpeace service in the regular army, equipped regiments and despatchedthem to Washington, while James S. Wadsworth, a man without militaryexperience but of great public spirit, whose courage and energyespecially fitted him for the work, loaded steamboats with provisionsand accompanied them to Annapolis. Soon afterwards Dix became amajor-general of volunteers, while Wadsworth, eager for activeservice, accepted an appointment on General McDowell's staff with therank of major. This took him to Manassas, and within a month gave hima "baptism of fire" which distinguished him for coolness, highcourage, and great capacity. On August 9 he was made a brigadier-generalof volunteers, thus preceding in date of commission all other NewYorkers of similar rank not graduates of West Point. 

A few weeks later Daniel E. Sickles, no less famous in the politicalarena, who was to win the highest renown as a fighter, receivedsimilar rank. Sickles, at the age of twenty-two, began public life asa member of the Assembly, and in the succeeding fourteen years servedas corporation attorney, secretary of legation at London, Statesenator, and congressman. A Hunker in politics, an adept with therevolver, and fearless in defence, he had the habit of doing his ownthinking. Tammany never had a stronger personality. He was not alwaysa successful leader and he cared little for party discipline, but asan antagonist bent on having his own way his name had become ahousehold word in the metropolis and in conventions. In theanti-slavery crusade his sympathies were Southern. He opposed Lincoln, he favoured compromise, and he encouraged the cotton States to believein a divided North. Nevertheless, when the Union was assaulted, thesoldier spirit that made him major of the Twelfth National Guards in1852 took him to Washington at the head of the Excelsior Brigade, consisting of five regiments, fully armed and equipped, and ready toserve during the war. He reached the capital at the time when moreregiments were offered than General Scott would accept, but with theenergy that afterward characterised his action at Gettysburg he soughtthe President, who promptly gave him the order that mustered his menand put him in command. [776] Other leaders who had voiced Southernsentiments, notably John Cochrane, soon found places at the front. Indeed, those who had professed the warmest friendship for the Southwere among the first to speak or take up arms against it. 

[Footnote 776: "He went direct to the President, and asked him, inproper language, if he approved of the petty intrigues that sought todefeat his patriotic purpose. 'I know nothing of them, General, ' saidthe President, 'and have only this to say, that, whatever are theobstacles thrown in your way, come to me, and I will remove thempromptly. Should you stand in need of my assistance to hasten theorganisation of your brigade, come to me again, and I will give or dowhatever is required. I want your men, General, and you are the man tolead them. Go to the Secretary of War and get your instructionsimmediately. '"--New York _Herald_, May 17, 1861. ]

The Confederates, entering upon the path of revolution with the hopeof a divided North, exhibited much feeling over this unanimity ofsentiment. "Will the city of New York 'kiss the rod that smites her, '"asked the leading paper in Virginia, "and at the bidding of her BlackRepublican tyrants war upon her Southern friends and best customers?Will she sacrifice her commerce, her wealth, her population, hercharacter, in order to strengthen the arm of her oppressors?"[777] Tendays later another influential representative of Southern sentiment, watching the proceedings of the great Union Square meeting, answeredthe inquiry. "The statesmen of the North, " said the Richmond_Enquirer_, "heretofore most honoured and confided in by the South, have come out unequivocally in favor of the Lincoln policy of coercingand subjugating the South. "[778] The Charleston _Mercury_ called theroll of these statesmen in the several States. "Where, " it asked, "areFillmore, Van Buren, Cochrane, McKeon, Weed, Dix, Dickinson, andBarnard, of New York, in the bloody crusade proposed by PresidentLincoln against the South? Unheard of in their dignified retirement, or hounding on the fanatic warfare, or themselves joining 'the noblearmy of martyrs for liberty' marching on the South. "[779] Other paperswere no less indignant. "We are told, " said the Richmond _Examiner_, "that the whole North is rallying as one man--Douglas, veering as everwith the popular breeze; Buchanan lifting a treacherous andtime-serving voice of encouragement from the icy atmosphere ofWheatland; and well-fed and well-paid Fillmore, eating up all his pastwords of indignation for Southern injuries, and joining in the popularhue-and-cry against his special benefactors. "[780] The _Enquirer_, speaking of Daniel S. Dickinson as "the former crack champion ofSouthern Rights, " sneered at his having given his "adhesion to Lincolnand all his abolition works. "[781] To the South which believed in theconstitutional right of secession, the contest for the Union was a warof subjugation, and whoever took part in it was stigmatised. "Theproposition to _subjugate_, " said the _Examiner_, "comes from themetropolis of the North's boasted conservatism, even from the largestbeneficiary of Southern wealth--New York City. "[782]

[Footnote 777: Richmond _Examiner_, April 15, 1861. ]

[Footnote 778: April 26, 1861. ]

[Footnote 779: April 23, 1861. ]

[Footnote 780: April 24, 1861. ]

[Footnote 781: April 22, 1861. ]

[Footnote 782: April 30, 1861. ]

In the midst of the patriotic uprising of the North, so disappointingand surprising to the South, an event occurred that cast a deep shadowover New York in common with the rest of the country. The press, presumably voicing public opinion, demanded that the army begin thework for which it was organised. Many reasons were given--somequixotic, some born of suspicion, and others wholly unworthy theirsource. The New York _Tribune_, in daily articles, became alarminglyimpatient, expressing the fear that influences were keeping the armiesapart until peace could be obtained on humiliating terms to theNorth. [783] Finally, on June 27, appeared a four-line, triple-leadedleader, printed in small capitals, entitled "The Nation's War-Cry. " Itwas as mandatory as it was conspicuous. "Forward to Richmond! Forwardto Richmond! The Rebel Congress must not be allowed to meet there onthe 20th of July! By that date the place must be held by the NationalArmy!"[784] This war-cry appeared from day to day with editorialsindicating a fear of Democratic intrigue, and hinting at GeneralScott's insincerity. [785]

[Footnote 783: June 24, 1861. ]

[Footnote 784: _Ibid. _, June 27. ]

[Footnote 785: "Do you pretend to know more about military affairs thanGeneral Scott? ask a few knaves, whom a great many simpletons know nobetter than to echo. No, Sirs! we know very little of the art of war, and General Scott a great deal. The real question--which the above isasked only to shuffle out of sight--is this: Does General Scottcontemplate the same ends, and is he animated by like impulses andpurposes, with the great body of the loyal, liberty-loving people ofthis country? Does he want the Rebels routed, or would he prefer tohave them conciliated?"--_Ibid. _, July 1, 1861. ]

General Scott did not approve a battle at that time. He thought thetroops insufficiently drilled and disciplined. On the other hand, thePresident argued that a successful battle would encourage the country, maintain the unanimity of the war sentiment, and gain the respect offoreign governments. General McDowell had 30, 000 men in the vicinityof Bull Run, Virginia, of whom 1, 600 were regulars--the rest, for themost part, three months' volunteers whose term of enlistment soonexpired. At Martinsburg, General Patterson, a veteran of two wars, commanded 20, 000 Federal troops. Opposed to the Union forces, GeneralBeauregard had an effective army of 22, 000, with 9, 000 in theShenandoah Valley under command of Joseph E. Johnston. In obedience tothe popular demand McDowell moved his troops slowly towardBeauregard's lines, and on Sunday, July 21, attacked with his wholeforce, gaining a complete victory by three o'clock in the afternoon. Meantime, however, Johnston, having eluded Patterson, brought to thefield at the supreme moment two or three thousand fresh troops andturned a Confederate defeat into a Union rout and panic. [786]

[Footnote 786: Of 49 regiments engaged, 19 were from New York, and ofthe 3, 343 killed, wounded, and missing, 1, 230 were New Yorkers. --OfficialRecords, Series 1, Vol. 2, pp. 314, 315, 351, 387, 405, 426. ]

After coolness and confidence had displaced the confusion of this wildstampede, it became clear that the battle of Bull Run had been wellplanned, and that for inexperienced and undisciplined troopsMcDowell's army had fought bravely. It appeared plain that hadPatterson arrived with 2, 300 fresh troops instead of Johnston, theConfederates must have been the routed and panic-stricken party. Tothe North, however, defeat was the source of much shame. It seemed averification of the Southern boast that one Confederate could whip twoYankees, and deepened the conviction that the war was to be long andsevere. Moreover, fear was expressed that it would minimise the muchdesired sympathy of England and other foreign governments. But itbrought no abatement of energy. With one voice the press of the Northdemanded renewed activity, and before a week had elapsed everydepartment of government girded itself anew for the conflict. [787] Thevigour and enthusiasm of this period have been called a seconduprising of the North, and the work of a few weeks exhibited thewonderful resources of a patriotic people. 

[Footnote 787: See the New York _Tribune_, _Herald_, _Times_, _World_, _Evening Post_, July 22, 23, 25, and later dates. ]

CHAPTER II

NEW PARTY ALIGNMENTS

1861

The battle of Bull Run fomented mutterings, freighted with antagonismto the war. Certain journals violently resented the suspension of thewrit of _habeas corpus_, while the Act of Congress, approved August 3, providing for the freedom of slaves employed in any military or navalservice, called forth such extreme denunciations that the UnitedStates grand jury for the Southern District of New York asked theCourt if the authors were subject to indictment. "Thesenewspapers, "[788] said the foreman, "are in the frequent practice ofencouraging the rebels now in arms against the Federal Government byexpressing sympathy and agreement with them, the duty of acceding totheir demands, and dissatisfaction with the employment of force toovercome them. Their conduct is, of course, condemned and abhorred byall loyal men, but the grand jury will be glad to learn from the Courtthat they are also subject to indictment and condign punishment. " ThePostmaster-General's order excluding such journals from the mailsintensified the bitterness. The arrests of persons charged with givingaid and comfort to the enemy also furnished partisans an opportunityto make people distrustful of such summary methods by magnifying thedanger to personal liberty. In a word, the Bull Run disaster hadbecome a peg upon which to hang sympathy for the South. [789]

[Footnote 788: New York _Journal of Commerce_, _News_, _Day-Book_, _Freeman's Journal_, Brooklyn _Eagle_. --Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1861, p. 329. ]

[Footnote 789: "I have had a conversation this morning with a prominentDemocrat, who is entirely devoted to sustaining the government in thepresent struggle. He informs me that the leaders of that party areopposed to the war and sympathise with the South; that they keep quietbecause it will not advance their views to move just now. " Letter ofWilliam Gray, dated September 4, to Secretary Chase. --Chase Papers, MS. ]

Differences likewise appeared among Republicans. The Weed andanti-Weed factions still existed, but these divisions now grew out ofdifferences far deeper than patronage. After the bombardment of FortSumter, Thurlow Weed desired the conflict conducted on lines thatwould unite the North into one party responding to the cry of "Union, now and forever. " He believed this might be done and that rebellioncould thus be confined to the extreme cotton region, if the loyalelement in the Border States was cherished and representatives of allparties were permitted to participate in civil as well as militaryaffairs. To this end he sought to avoid the question of emancipation, cordially approving the President's course in modifying Fremont'sproclamation of the preceding August, which liberated the slaves oftraitorous owners in Missouri. Weed pushed his contention to theextreme. Following the spirit of his rejected compromise he insistedthat every act of the Government should strengthen and encourage theUnion men of the Border States, among which he included North Carolinaand Tennessee, and he bitterly resented the policy of urging the army, hastily and without due preparation, to fight "political battles" likethat of Bull Run. On the other hand, the radical anti-slavery elementof the country, led by Secretary Chase in the Cabinet, by SenatorSumner in Congress, and backed by Horace Greeley in the _Tribune_, disliked the President's policy of trying to conciliate Kentucky andother Border States by listening to the demands of slavery. Thisfactional difference became doubly pronounced after Lincoln'smodification of the Fremont proclamation. 

Notwithstanding Democratic criticisms and Republican differences, however, the supporters of Lincoln, anxious to teach the secedingStates an object lesson in patriotism, desired to unite both partiesinto one Union organisation, pledged to the vigorous prosecution ofthe war and the execution of the laws in all parts of the country. ToRepublicans this plan looked easy. Most people professed to favour thepreservation of the Union, and thousands of young men irrespective ofparty had enlisted for the suppression of armed rebellion. Moreover, aunion of parties at such a critical moment, it was argued, would bemore helpful in discouraging the South than victory on thebattlefield. Accordingly the Republican State Committee proposed tothe Democrats early in August that in the election to occur onNovember 4 a single ticket be nominated, fairly representative of allparties upon a simple war platform. 

About Dean Richmond, chairman of the Democratic State Committee, stillclustered Peter Cagger, William B. Ludlow, Sanford E. Church, andother Soft leaders, with Horatio Seymour substantially in control. These men had not participated in the Union Square meeting on April20, nor had their sentiments been voiced since the fall of FortSumter; but it was well known that their views did not coincide withthose of Daniel S. Dickinson, John A. Dix, James T. Brady, Greene C. Bronson, and other leaders of the Hards. Richmond's reply, therefore, was not disappointing. He admitted the wisdom of filling publicoffices with pure and able men who commanded the confidence of thepeople, and suggested, with a play of sarcasm, that if such an examplewere set in filling Federal offices, it would probably be followed inthe selection of State officers. But the politics of men in office, hecontinued, was of little importance compared to sound principles. Democrats would unite with all citizens opposed to any war and equallyto any peace which is based upon the idea of the separation of theseStates, and who regard it the duty of the Federal government at alltimes to hold out terms of peace and accommodation to the disseveredStates. 

"Our political system, " he continued, "was founded in compromise, andit can never be dishonourable in any Administration to seek to restoreit by the same means. Above all, they repel the idea that there existsbetween the two sections of the Union such an incompatibility ofinstitutions as to give rise to an irrepressible conflict betweenthem, which can only terminate in the subjugation of one or the other. Repelling the doctrine that any State can rightfully secede from theUnion, they hold next in abhorrence that aggressive and fanaticalsectional policy which has so largely contributed to the presentdanger of the country. They propose, therefore, to invite to unionwith them all citizens of whatever party, who, believing in theseviews, will act with them to secure honest administration in Federaland State affairs, a rigid maintenance of the Constitution, economy inpublic expenditures, honesty in the award of contracts, justice to thesoldier in the field and the taxpayer at home, and the expulsion ofcorrupt men from office. "[790]

[Footnote 790: New York _Herald_, August 9, 1861. ]

It was hardly to be expected, perhaps, that Dean Richmond and otherrepresentatives of a great party would be willing, even if moved by noother motive than a love of country, to abandon a politicalorganisation that had existed for years, and that had already shownits patriotism by the generous enlistment of its members; but it isdoubtful if they would have proclaimed, without the guidance of aState convention, such an elaborate and positive platform ofprinciples, had not the serious defeat at Bull Run and the action ofthe President in suspending the writ of _habeas corpus_, subjected thenational Administration to severe criticism. This, at least, was theview taken by the radical Republican press, which viciously attackedthe patriotism of Richmond and his associates, charging them withusing the livery of Democracy to serve the cause of treason. [791]

[Footnote 791: New York _Tribune_, August 10. ]

In the midst of these developments the Democratic State convention, made up of a larger number of old men than usual, assembled atSyracuse on September 4. It was not an enthusiastic body. The divisionupon national affairs plainly had a depressing influence. FrancisKernan became temporary chairman. At the Oneida bar, Kernan, thenforty-five years old, had been for nearly two decades the peer ofHiram Denio, Samuel Beardsley, Ward Hunt, and Joshua Spencer. He was aforceful speaker, cool and self-possessed, with a pleasing voice andgood manner. He could not be called an orator, but he was a master ofthe art of making a perfectly clear statement, and in defending hisposition, point by point, with never failing readiness and skill, hehad few if any superiors. He belonged, also, to that class of ablelawyers who are never too busy to take an active interest in publicaffairs. 

In his brief address Kernan clearly outlined the position which theDemocracy of the whole country was to occupy. "It is our duty, " hesaid, "to oppose abolitionism at the North and secession at the South, which are equally making war upon our Government. Let us consign themboth to a common grave. Never will our country see peace unless wedo. . . . We care not what men are in charge of the Government, it is ourduty as patriots and as Democrats to protect and preserve thatGovernment, and resist with arms, and, if need be, with our lives, themen who seek to overthrow it; but this must be no war for theemancipation of slaves. "[792]

[Footnote 792: New York _Tribune_, September 5, 1861. ]

The vigor of Kernan as a speaker and presiding officer exaggerated bycontrast the feebleness of Herman J. Redfield, the permanent presidentof the convention. Redfield was an old man, a mere reminiscence of thedays of DeWitt Clinton, whose speech, read in a low, weak voice, wasdirected mainly to a defence of the sub-treasury plan of 1840 and thetariff act of 1846. [793] He professed to favour a vigorous prosecutionof the war, but there were no words of reprobation for its authors, while he expressed the belief that "civil war will never preserve, butforever destroy the union of States. " This was the prophecy of ReubenH. Walworth, the ex-chancellor, made at the Albany peace convention inthe preceding January, and the applause that greeted the statementthen, as it did at Syracuse, indicated a disposition on the part ofmany to favour concessions that would excuse if it did not absolutelyjustify secession. 

[Footnote 793: "From what lodge in some vast wilderness, from what lonemountain in the desert, the convention obtained its Rip Van Winklepresident, we are at a loss to conceive. He evidently has never heardof the Wilmot Proviso struggle of 1848, the compromise contest of1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Lecompton constitution of1858, nor the presidential election of 1860. It is plain that he hasnever even dreamed of the secession ordinances and of the fall ofSumter. "--New York _Tribune_, September 6, 1861. 

"The speech of Mr. Redfield is universally laughed at. He hascompletely proven that he does not belong to the present century, or, at least, that he has been asleep for the last twenty years. Barnumshould deposit it among the curiosities of his shop. "--New York_Herald_, September 5, 1861. ]

The party platform, however, took little notice of the Redfield speechand the Redfield cheers. It declared that the right of secession didnot anywhere or at any time exist; that the seizure of United Statesproperty and the sending out of privateers to prey on Americancommerce had precipitated the war; and that it was the duty of thegovernment to put down rebellion with all the means in its power, andthe duty of the people to rally about the government; but it alsodemanded that Congress call a convention of all the States to revisethe Constitution, and that the Administration abandon the narrowplatform of the Chicago convention, expel corrupt men from office, andexclude advocates of abolition from the Cabinet, declaring that itwould "regard any attempt to pervert the conflict into a war for theemancipation of slaves as fatal to the hope of restoring the Union. "

The debate upon the platform was destined to bring into prominence abroader loyalty than even Francis Kernan had exhibited. ArphaxedLoomis moved to restore the resolution, expunged in the committee'sreport, protesting against the passport system, the State policesystem, the suppression of free discussion in the press, and thesuspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_. It is doubtful if thefreedom of the press had been materially abridged, since restrictionsupon a few newspapers, charged with giving aid and comfort to theenemy, scarcely exceeded the proscription of anti-slavery papersbefore the war. The suspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_, however, furnished better grounds for complaint. Men were apprehended, often on the telegram of Secretary Seward, and committed to prison, without any offence being charged or an examination being made. Amongothers arrested were two men at Malone, besides an editor of the NewYork _News_, and a crippled newsboy who sold the _News_. Publicsentiment generally sustained the Administration in such action, butmany persons, including conservative Republicans, frequentlyquestioned the right or justice of such procedure. "What are we comingto, " asked Senator Trumbull of Illinois, "if arrests may be made atthe whim or the caprice of a cabinet minister?"[794] Loomis, ininsisting upon his resolution, had these arbitrary arrests in mind, maintaining that it embodied the true principles of Democracy, whichhe was unwilling to see violated without recording a protest. 

[Footnote 794: "Lieber says that _habeas corpus_, free meetings likethis, and a free press, are the three elements which distinguishliberty from despotism. All that Saxon blood has gained in the battlesand toils of two hundred years are these three things. But to-day, Mr. Chairman, every one of them is annihilated in every square mile of therepublic. We live to-day, every one of us, under martial law. TheSecretary of State puts into his bastille, with a warrant asirresponsible as that of Louis, any man whom he pleases. And you knowthat neither press nor lips may venture to arraign the governmentwithout being silenced. At this moment at least one thousand men are'bastilled' by an authority as despotic as that of Louis, three timesas many as Eldon and George III seized when they trembled for histhrone. For the first time on this continent we have passports, whicheven Louis Napoleon pronounces useless and odious. For the first timein our history government spies frequent our cities. "--Lecture ofWendell Phillips, delivered in New York, December, 1861. ]

This brought to his feet Albert P. Laning of Buffalo. He was youngerby a score of years than Loomis, and although never as prominent, perhaps, as the great advocate of legal reformative measures, hisremarkable memory and thorough grasp of legal principles had listedhim among the strong lawyers of Western New York. To the convention hewas well known as a clear, forceful speaker, who had been a student ofpolitical history as well as of law, and who, in spite of his ardentdevotion to his profession, had revealed, when shaping the policy ofhis party, the personal gifts and remarkable power of sustainedargument that win admiration. 

At Syracuse, in 1861, Laning, just then in his early forties, was inthe fulness of his intellectual power. He had followed Douglas andfavored the Crittenden Compromise, but the fall of Sumter crippled hissympathy for the South and stiffened his support of the Federaladministration. Moreover, he understood the difficulty, during aperiod of war, of conducting an impartial, constitutional oppositionto the policy of the Administration, without its degeneration into afaction, which at any moment might be shaken by interest, prejudice, or passion. The motion of Loomis, therefore, seemed to him too narrow, and he opposed it with eloquence, maintaining that it was the duty ofall good men not to embarrass the Government in such a crisis. Ratherthan that bold rebellion should destroy the government, he said, hepreferred to allow the President to take his own course. Theresponsibility was upon him, and the people, irrespective of party, should strengthen his hands until danger had disappeared and thegovernment was re-established in all its strength. 

Kernan did not take kindly to these sentiments. Like Loomis heresented arbitrary arrests in States removed from actual hostilities, where the courts were open for the regular administration of justice, and with a few ringing sentences he threw the delegates into wildcheering. Though brief, this speech resulted in restoring the Loomisresolution to its place in the platform, and in increasing theclamour that Kernan lead the party as a candidate for attorney-general. Kernan was not averse to taking office. For three years, from 1856 to1859, he had been official reporter for the Court of Appeals, and in1860 served in the Assembly. Later, he entered Congress, finallyreaching the United States Senate. But in 1861 prudence prompted himto decline the tempting offer of a nomination for attorney-general, and although entreated to reconsider his determination, he stubbornlyresisted, and at last forced the nomination of Lyman Tremaine ofAlbany, who had previously held the office. [795]

[Footnote 795: The State ticket was made up as follows: Secretary ofState, David R. Floyd Jones of Queens; Judge of the Court of Appeals, George F. Comstock of Onondaga; Comptroller, George F. Scott ofSaratoga; Attorney-General, Lyman Tremaine of Albany; Treasurer ofState, Francis C. Brouck of Erie; Canal Commissioners, Jarvis B. Lordof Monroe, William W. Wright of Ontario; State Prison Director, William C. Rhodes of New York. ]

The work of the convention did not please all members of the party. Tosome the drift of the speeches and resolutions seemed an encouragementto armed rebellion; to others, although jealous of individual rights, it appeared to confuse the liberty of the press with license. Onepaper, an able representative of the party, disclaiming any desire "torekindle animosities by discussing its various objectionable points, "felt "bound to express its heartfelt repugnance of the malignant andtraitorous spirit which animates the Loomis resolution. "[796] Thesewere severe words, showing that others than Laning opposed suchcriticism of the President. 

[Footnote 796: New York _Leader_, September 9, 1861. ]

Dean Richmond's refusal to unite in a Union convention did not stiflethe hope that many Democrats might participate in such a meeting, andto afford them an opportunity a People's convention met at WietingHall in Syracuse, on September 11, contemporaneously with theRepublican State convention. It became evident that the purpose wasattained when the Democrats present declared that the banner of theirformer party no longer marked a place for them to muster. In characterthe members resembled determined Abolitionists in the forties. Itspresident, Thomas G. Alvord of Onondaga, had been speaker of theAssembly, a competitor of Gordon Granger for Congress, and apronounced Hard Shell until the repeal of the Missouri Compromisedrove him into the camp of the Softs. One of the delegates, James B. McKean, was soon to lead the Sixty-seventh Regiment to the field;another, Alexander S. Diven of Chemung was to enter Congress, andsubsequently to distinguish himself at Antietam and Chancellorsvilleat the head of the One Hundred and Seventh; other participants, conspicuous in their respective localities, were to suffer bitterlyand struggle bravely to maintain the Union. One delegate sung the"Star Spangled Banner, " while the others, with radiant faces, brokeinto cheers. This was followed by several brief and vigorous speechesapproving the war and the methods by which it was conducted. "There isno medium, no half way now, " said one delegate, "between patriots andtraitors. "[797] This was the sentiment of the platform, which waivedall political divisions and party traditions, declaring that theconvention sought only, in this hour of national peril, to proclaimdevotion to the Constitution and Union, and to defend and sustain thechosen authorities of the government at whatever cost of blood andtreasure. 

[Footnote 797: New York _Tribune_, September 10, 1861. ]

Rumours of Daniel S. Dickinson's nomination had been in the air fromthe outset. He had been much in the public eye since the 20th ofApril. In his zeal for the Union, said the _Tribune_, "his pointedutterances have everywhere fired the hearts of patriots. " Freedom fromthe blighting influence of slavery seemed to give him easier flight, and his criticism of the Democratic convention was so felicitous, sofull of story and wit and ridicule and the fire of genuine patriotism, that his name was quickly upon every lip, and his happy, homely hitsthe common property of half the people of the State. [798] The mentionof his name for attorney-general, therefore, evoked the mostenthusiastic applause. Since the constitutional convention of 1846 ithad been the custom, in the absence of a candidate for governor, towrite the name of the nominee for secretary of state at the head ofthe ticket; but in this instance the committee deemed it wise tonominate for attorney-general first and give it to the man of firstimportance. The nomination proved a popular hit. Instantly Syracuseand the State were ablaze, and Republican as well as many Democraticpapers prophesied that it settled the result in November. Theconvention professed to discard party lines and traditions, and itssincerity, thus put early to the test, did much to magnify its work, since with marked impartiality it placed upon its ticket two Hards, two Softs, one American, and four Republicans. [799]

[Footnote 798: Dickinson's Ithaca speech, delivered the day after theDemocratic convention adjourned, is printed in full in the New York_Tribune_ of September 10, 1861. ]

[Footnote 799: The ticket was as follows: Attorney-general, Daniel S. Dickinson of Broome; Secretary of State, Horatio Ballard of Cortland;Comptroller, Lucius Robinson of Chemung; Treasurer, William B. Lewisof Kings; Court of Appeals, William B. Wright, Sullivan; CanalCommissioners, Franklin A. Alberger of Erie and Benjamin F. Bruce ofNew York; State Engineer, William B. Taylor of Oneida; State PrisonInspector, Abram B. Tappan of Westchester. ]

Whenever the People's convention recessed delegates to the Republicanconvention immediately took control. Indeed, so closely related werethe two assemblies that spectators at one became delegates to theother. Weed did not attend the convention, but it adopted hisconciliatory policy. "The popular fiat has gone forth in opposition, on the one hand, to secession and disunion, whether in the shape ofactive rebellion, or its more insidious ally, advocacy of aninglorious and dishonourable peace; and, on the other, to everythingthat savors of abolition, or tends towards a violation of theguarantees of slave property provided by the Constitution. "[800]

[Footnote 800: New York _Herald_ (editorial), September 13, 1861. ]

It cannot be said that the Democratic campaign opened under flatteringconditions. Loomis' resolution, known as the ninth or "secession"plank, had led to serious difficulty. Men recognised that in time ofwar more reserve was necessary in dealing with an Administration thanduring a period of peace, for if the government's arm was paralysed itcould not stay the arm of the public enemy. This had been the positionof Laning, and it appealed strongly to Lyman Tremaine, who believedthe machinations of treason had forced the Government to suspend thewrit of _habeas corpus_, and to organise systems of passports andState police. He boldly declined, therefore, to accept a nomination asattorney-general on a platform that emphatically condemned suchmeasures, when deemed essential to the government's safety. 

Tremaine, tall, portly, and commanding, belonged to the moreindependent members of the party. He was not a stranger to publiclife. Although but forty-two years old he had been an active partyworker for a quarter of a century and an office-holder since hismajority. Greene County made him supervisor, district attorney, andcounty judge, and soon after his removal to Albany in 1854 he becameattorney-general. But these honours did not break his independence. Heinherited a genius for the forum, and although his gifts did not puthim into the first class, his name was familiar throughout the State. 

Francis C. Brouck's withdrawal soon followed Tremaine's. [801] ThenTammany repudiated the Loomis resolutions, [802] and the Albany _Argus_shouted lustily for war. [803] But the blow that staggered Richmond camefrom the candidates who caught the drift of public sentiment, and in aproclamation of few words declared "in favour of vigorously sustainingthe Government in its present struggle to maintain the Constitutionand the Union, at all hazards, and at any cost of blood andtreasure. "[804] This was the act of despair. For days they had waited, and now, alarmed by the evident change, they jumped from the plankthat was sinking under them. "It is the first instance on record, "said the _Herald_, "where the nominees of a convention openly anddefiantly spit upon the platform, and repudiated party leaders andtheir secession heresies. "[805]

[Footnote 801: Marshal M. Champlain of Allegany and William Williams ofErie were substituted for Tremaine and Brouck. ]

[Footnote 802: New York _Tribune_, October 4, 1861. ]

[Footnote 803: November 6, 1861. ]

[Footnote 804: New York _Herald_, October 23, 1861. ]

[Footnote 805: _Ibid. _, October 23, 1861. ]

Nevertheless, the difference between the great mass of Democrats andthe supporters of the People's party was more apparent than real. [806]Each professed undying devotion to the Union. Each, also, favoured avigorous prosecution of the war. As the campaign advanced the activityof the army strengthened this loyalty and minimised the criticism ofharsh methods. Moreover, the impression obtained that the war wouldsoon be over. [807] McClellan was in command, and the people had not yetlearned that "our chicken was no eagle, after all, " as Lowellexpressed it. [808] Controversy over the interference with slavery alsobecame less acute. John Cochrane, now commanding a regiment at thefront, declared, in a speech to his soldiers, that slaves of theenemy, being elements of strength, ought to be captured as much asmuskets or cannon, and that whenever he could seize a slave, and evenarm him to fight for the government, he would do so. 

[Footnote 806: "There are sympathisers with the secessionists stillremaining in the Democratic ranks, but they compose a small portion ofthe party. Nine-tenths of it is probably strenuous in thedetermination that the constitutional authority of the governmentshall be maintained and enforced without compromise. This sentiment isfar more prevalent and decided than it was two months ago. "--New York_Tribune_, November 19, 1861. ]

[Footnote 807: "I have now no doubt this causeless and most flagitiousrebellion is to be put down much sooner than many, myself included, thought practicable. "--Edwin Croswell, letter in New York _Tribune_, November 25, 1861. ]

[Footnote 808: Political Essays, p. 94. --_North American Review_, April, 1864. ]

In conducting the campaign the People's leaders discountenanced anycriticism of the Government's efforts to restore the Union. "It is notLincoln and the Republicans we are sustaining, " wrote Daniel S. Dickinson. "They have nothing to do with it. It is the government ofour fathers, worth just as much as if it was administered by AndrewJackson. There is but one side to it. "[809] As a rule the Hardsaccepted this view, and at the ratification of the ticket in New York, on September 20, Lyman Tremaine swelled the long list of speakers. Aletter was also read from Greene C. Bronson. To those who heard JamesT. Brady at Cooper Institute on the evening of October 28 he seemedinspired. His piercing eyes burned in their sockets, and his animatedface, now pale with emotion, expressed more than his emphatic wordsthe loathing felt for men who had plunged their country into bloodystrife. 

[Footnote 809: Daniel S. Dickinson's _Life, Letters, and Speeches_, Vol. 2, pp. 550-551. ]

Nevertheless, it remained for Daniel S. Dickinson to stigmatise theDemocratic party. At the Union Square meeting he had burned hisbridges. It was said he had nowhere else to go; that the Hards wentout of business when the South went out of the Union; and that to theSofts he was _non persona grata_. There was much truth in thisstatement. But having once become a Radical his past affiliations gavehim some advantages. For more than twenty years he had been knownthroughout the State as a Southern sympathiser. In the United StatesSenate he stood with the South for slavery, and in the election of1860 he voted for Breckinridge. He was the most conspicuous doughfacein New York. Now, he was an advocate of vigorous war and a pronouncedsupporter of President Lincoln. This gave him the importance of a newconvert at a camp meeting. The people believed he knew what he wastalking about, and while his stories and apt illustrations, enrichedby a quick change in voice and manner, convulsed his audiences, imbedded in his wit and rollicking fun were most convincing argumentswhich appealed to the best sentiments of his hearers. [810] Indeed, itis not too much to say that Daniel S. Dickinson, as an entertainingand forceful platform speaker, filled the place in 1861 which John VanBuren occupied in the Free-soil campaign in 1848. 

[Footnote 810: "I have just finished a second reading of your speech inWyoming County, and with so much pleasure and admiration that I cannotrefrain from thanking you. It is a speech worthy of an Americanstatesman, and will command the attention of the country by its highand generous patriotism, no less than by its eloquence andpower. "--Letter of John K. Porter of Albany to D. S. Dickinson, August23, 1861. _Dickinson's Life, Letters, and Speeches_, Vol. 2, p. 553. Similar letters were written by Henry W. Rogers of Buffalo, William H. Seward, Dr. N. Niles, and others. --_Ibid. _, pp. 555, 559, 561. ]

A single address by Horatio Seymour, delivered at Utica on October 28, proved his right to speak for the Democratic party. He had a difficulttask to perform. Men had changed front in a day, and to one of hisviews, holding rebellion as a thing to be crushed without impairingexisting conditions, it seemed imperative to divorce "revolutionaryemancipators" from the conservative patriots who loved their countryas it was. He manifested a desire to appear scrupulously loyal to theGovernment, counseling obedience to constituted authorities, respectfor constitutional obligations, and a just and liberal support of thePresident, in whose favour every presumption should be given. Thesuspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_ and the long list ofarbitrary arrests had provoked Seymour as it did many conservativeRepublicans, but however much individual rights may be violated, hesaid, so long as the country is engaged in a struggle for itsexistence, confidence, based upon the assumption that imperativereasons exist for these unusual measures, must be reposed in theAdministration. This was the incarnation of loyalty. 

But Seymour closed his address with an ugly crack of the whip. Dropping his well-selected words with the skill of a practiseddebater, he blended the history of past wrongs with those of thepresent, thus harrowing his auditors into a frame of mind asresentful and passionate as his own. When the public safety permits, he said threateningly, there will be abundant time to condemn andpunish the authors of injustice and wrong, whether they occupy thepresidential chair or seats in the cabinet. "Let them remember theteachings of history. Despotic governments do not love the agitatorsthat call them into existence. When Cromwell drove from Parliament thelatter-day saints and higher-law men of his day, and 'bade them ceasetheir babblings;' and when Napoleon scattered at the point of thebayonet the Council of Five Hundred and crushed revolution beneath hisiron heel, they taught a lesson which should be heeded this day by menwho are animated by a vindictive piety or a malignant philanthropy. . . . It is the boast of the Briton that his house is his castle. Howeverhumble it may be, the King cannot enter. Let it not be said that theliberties of American citizens are less perfectly protected, or heldless sacred than are those of the subjects of a Crown. "

The slavery question was less easily and logically handled. He deniedthat it caused the war, but admitted that the agitators did, puttinginto the same class "the ambitious man at the South, who desired aseparate confederacy, " and "the ambitious men of the North, who reapeda political profit from agitation. " In deprecating emancipation hecarefully avoided the argument of military necessity, so forcibly putby John Cochrane, and strangely overlooked the fact that the South, bythe act of rebellion, put itself outside the protection guaranteedunder the Constitution to loyal and law-abiding citizens. "If it betrue, " he said, "that slavery must be abolished to save this Union, then the people of the South should be allowed to withdraw themselvesfrom the Government which cannot give them the protection guaranteedby its terms. " Immediate emancipation, he continued, would not end thecontest. "It would be only the commencement of a lasting, destructive, terrible domestic conflict. The North would not consent that fourmillions of free negroes should live in their midst. . . . With whatjustice do we demand that the South should be subjected to the evils, the insecurity, and the loss of constitutional rights, involved inimmediate abolition?" Then, dropping into prophecy, the broad, optimistic statesmanship of the forties passed into eclipse as hedeclared that "we are either to be restored to our former position, with the Constitution unweakened, the powers of the State unimpaired, and the fireside rights of our citizens duly protected, or our wholesystem of government is to fall!"

Seymour, in closing, very clearly outlined his future platform. "Weare willing to support this war as a means of restoring our Union, butwe will not carry it on in a spirit of hatred, malice, or revenge. Wecannot, therefore, make it a war for the abolition of slavery. We willnot permit it to be made a war upon the rights of the States. We shallsee that it does not crush out the liberties of the citizen, or thereserved powers of the States. We shall hold that man to be as much atraitor who urges our government to overstep its constitutionalpowers, as he who resists the exercise of its rightful authority. Weshall contend that the rights of the States and the General Governmentare equally sacred. "[811]

[Footnote 811: _Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, pp. 32-43. ]

If the campaign contributed to the South a certain degree of comfort, reviving the hope that it would yet have a divided North to contendagainst, the election, giving Dickinson over 100, 000 majority, furnished little encouragement. The People's party also carried bothbranches of the Legislature, securing twenty out of thirty-twosenators, and seventy out of the one hundred and twenty-eightassemblymen. Among the latter, Henry J. Raymond and Thomas G. Alvord, former speakers, represented the undaunted mettle needed at Albany. 

To add to the result so gratifying to the fusionists, George Opdykedefeated Fernando Wood by a small plurality for mayor of New York. Wood had long been known as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He talkedreform and grew degenerate; he proclaimed patriotic views and helddisloyal sentiments; he listened respectfully to public opinion, anddefied it openly in his acts. He did not become a boss. It was tenyears later before William M. Tweed centralised Tammany's power in oneman. But Wood developed the system that made a boss possible. Hedominated the police, he organised the lawless, he allied himself withthe saloon, and he used the judiciary. In 1858, being forced out ofTammany, he retreated like a wounded tiger to Mozart Hall, organisedan opposition society that took its name from the assembly room inwhich it met, and declared with emphasis and expletives that he wouldfight Tammany as long as he lived. From that moment his shadow hadkept sachems alarmed, and his presence had thrown conventions intoturmoil. 

The arts of the card-sharper and thimble-rigger had been prodigallyemployed to save the candidate of Mozart Hall. Even the sachems ofTammany, to avert disaster, nominated James T. Brady, whose greatpopularity it was believed would draw strength from both Opdyke andWood; but Brady refused to be used. Opdyke had been a liberal, progressive Democrat of the Free-Soil type and a pioneer Republican. He associated with Chase in the Buffalo convention of 1848 andcoöperated with Greeley in defeating Seward in 1860. He had alsoenjoyed the career of a busy and successful merchant, and, althoughfifty years old, was destined to take a prominent part in municipalpolitics for the next two decades. One term in the Assembly summed uphis office-holding experience; yet in that brief and uneventful periodjobbers learned to shun him and rogues to fear him. This was onereason why the brilliant and audacious leader of Mozart Hall, in hisdeath struggle with an honest man, suddenly assumed to be the championof public purity. 

CHAPTER III

"THE MAD DESPERATION OF REACTION"

1862

Notwithstanding its confidence in General McClellan, whose success inWest Virginia had made him the successor of General Scott, giving himcommand of all the United States forces, the North, by midsummer, became profoundly discouraged. Many events contributed to it. Thedefeat at Ball's Bluff on the Potomac, which Roscoe Conkling likenedto the battle of Cannæ, because "the very pride and flower of ouryoung men were among its victims, "[812] had been followed byconspicuous incompetence at Manassas and humiliating failure on thePeninsula. Moreover, financial difficulties increased the despondency. At the outbreak of hostilities practical repudiation of Southern debtshad brought widespread disaster. "The fabric of New York's mercantileprosperity, " said the _Tribune_, "lies in ruins, beneath which tenthousand fortunes are buried. Last fall the merchant was a capitalist;to-day he is a bankrupt. "[813] In September, 1861, these lossesaggregated $200, 000, 000. [814] Besides, the strain of raising sufficientfunds to meet government expenses had forced a suspension of speciepayment and driven people to refuse United States notes payable ondemand without interest. Meantime, the nation's expenses aggregated$2, 000, 000 a day and the Treasury was empty. "I have been obliged, "wrote the Secretary of the Treasury, "to draw for the last installmentof the November loan. "[815]

[Footnote 812: _Congressional Globe_, January 6, 1862. ]

[Footnote 813: New York _Tribune_, May 27, 1861. ]

[Footnote 814: _Ibid. _, September 18. ]

[Footnote 815: Letter of Secretary Chase, dated February 3, 1862. --E. G. Spaulding, _History of the Legal Tender_, p. 59. ]

To meet this serious financial condition, Elbridge G. Spaulding ofBuffalo, then a member of Congress, had been designated to prepare anemergency measure to avoid national bankruptcy. "We must have at least$100, 000, 000 during the next three months, " he wrote, on January 8, 1862, "or the government must stop payment. "[816] Spaulding, thenfifty-two years of age, was president of a bank, a trained financier, and already the possessor of a large fortune. Having served in theThirty-first Congress, he had returned in 1859, after an absence ofeight years, to remain four years longer. Strong, alert, andsufficiently positive to be stubborn, he possessed the confidence ofThaddeus Stevens, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, whoapproved his plan of issuing $100, 000, 000 legal-tender, non-interestbearing treasury notes, exchangeable at par for six-twenty bonds. Spaulding fully appreciated the objections to his policy, but the onlyother course, he argued, was to sell bonds as in the war of 1812, which, if placed at six percent interest, would not, in his opinion, bring more than sixty cents--a ruinous method of conductinghostilities. However, his plea of necessity found a divided committeeand in Roscoe Conkling a most formidable opponent, who attacked themeasure as unnecessary, extravagant, unsound, without precedent, ofdoubtful constitutionality, and morally imperfect. [817]

[Footnote 816: Spaulding, _History of the Legal Tender_, p. 18. ]

[Footnote 817: The bill escaped from the committee by one majority. ]

It was in this debate that Conkling, adroitly choosing the right timeand the proper subject, impressed the country with his power as anorator and his ability as a brilliant, resourceful debater, although, perhaps, a destructive rather than constructive legislator. Nature hadlavished upon him superb gifts of mind and person. He was ofcommanding, even magnificent presence, six feet three inches tall, with regular features, lofty forehead, and piercing eyes, --blond andgigantic as a viking. It was difficult, indeed, for a man sosuperlatively handsome not to be vain, and the endeavour upon his partto conceal the defect was not in evidence. Although an unpopular andunruly schoolboy, who refused to go to college, he had received a goodeducation, learning much from a scholarly father, a college-bred man, and an ornament to the United States District Court for more than aquarter of a century. Moreover, from early youth Conkling had studiedelocution, training a strong, slightly musical voice, and learning theuse of secondary accents, the choice of words, the value of deliberatespeech, and the assumption of an impressive earnestness. In thisdebate, too, he discovered the talent for ridicule and sarcasm thatdistinguished him in later life, when he had grown less considerate ofthe feelings of opponents, and indicated something of theimperiousness and vanity which clouded an otherwise attractive manner. 

As he stubbornly and eloquently contested the progress of thelegal-tender measure with forceful argument and a wealth ofinformation, Conkling seemed likely to deprive Spaulding of the titleof "father of the greenback" until the Secretary of the Treasury, driven to desperation for want of money, reluctantly came to theCongressman's rescue and forced the bill through Congress. [818] Bymidsummer, however, gold had jumped to seventeen per cent. , while thecost of the war, augmented by a call for 300, 000 three years' men andby a draft of 300, 000 nine months' militia, rested more heavily thanever upon the country. Moreover, by September 1 McClellan had beendeprived of his command, the Army of the Potomac had suffered defeatat the second battle of Bull Run, and Lee and Longstreet, with avictorious army, were on their way to Maryland. The North stoodaghast!

[Footnote 818: On Spaulding's motion to close debate, Conkling demandedtellers, and the motion was lost, --yeas, 52; nays, 62. --_CongressionalGlobe_, February 5, 1862; _Ibid. _, p. 618. ]

Much more ominous than military disaster and financial embarrassment, however, was the divisive sentiment over emancipation. Northernarmies, moving about in slave communities, necessarily acted as aconstant disintegrating force. Slaves gave soldiers aid andinformation, and soldiers, stimulated by their natural hostility toslave-owners, gave slaves protection and sympathy. Thus, very early inthe war, many men believed that rebellion and slavery were sointertwined that both must be simultaneously overthrown. Thissentiment found expression in the Fremont proclamation, issued onAugust 30, 1861, setting free all slaves owned by persons who aidedsecession in the military department of Missouri. On the other hand, the Government, seeking to avoid the slavery question, encouragedmilitary commanders to refuse refuge to the negroes within theirlines, and in modifying Fremont's order to conform to the ConfiscationAct of August 6, the President aroused a discussion characterised byincreasing acerbity, which divided the Republican party into Radicalsand Conservatives. The former, led by the _Tribune_, resented theattitude of army officers, who, it charged, being notoriously in moreor less thorough sympathy with the inciting cause of rebellion, failedto seize opportunities to strike at slavery. Among Radicals the beliefobtained that one half of the commanding generals desired to prosecutethe war so delicately that slavery should receive the least possibleharm, and in their comments in Congress and in the press they made noconcealment of their opinion, that such officers were much moreanxious to restore fugitive slaves to rebel owners than to make theirowners prisoners of war. [819] They were correspondingly flattering tothose generals who proclaimed abolition as an adjunct of the war. Greeley's taunts had barbed points. "He is no extemporised soldier, looking for a presidential nomination or seat in Congress, " he said ofGeneral Hunter, whose order had freed the slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. "He is neither a political or civil engineer, but simply a patriot whose profession is war, and who does notunderstand making war so as not to hurt your enemy. "[820]

[Footnote 819: New York _Tribune_, July 30, 1862. ]

[Footnote 820: _Ibid. _, August 4. ]

When the _Times_, an exponent of the Conservatives, defended theAdministration's policy with the declaration that slaves were used asfast as obtained, [821] the _Tribune_ minimized the intelligence of itseditor. "Consider, " it said, "the still unmodified order of McDowell, issued a full year ago, forbidding the harbouring of negroes withinour lines. Consider Halleck's order, now nine months old and stilloperative, forbidding negroes to come within our lines at all. McClellan has issued a goodly number of orders and proclamations, butnot one of them offers protection and freedom to such slaves of rebelsas might see fit to claim them at his hands. His only order bearingupon their condition and prospects is that which expelled theHutchinsons from his camp for the crime of singing anti-slaverysongs. "[822]

[Footnote 821: New York _Times_, July 17, 1862. ]

[Footnote 822: New York _Tribune_, July 19, 1862. ]

The dominant sentiment in Congress reflected the feeling of theRadicals, and under the pressure of McClellan's reverses beforeRichmond, the House, on July 11, and the Senate on the following day, passed the Confiscation Act, freeing forever the slaves of rebelowners whenever within control of the Government. The Administration'sfailure to enforce this act in the spirit and to the extent thatCongress intended, finally brought out the now historic "Prayer ofTwenty Millions"--an editorial signed by Horace Greeley and addressedto Abraham Lincoln. It charged the President with being disastrouslyremiss in the discharge of his official duty and unduly influenced bythe menaces of border slave State politicians. It declared that theUnion was suffering from timid counsels and mistaken deference torebel slavery; that all attempts to put down rebellion and saveslavery are preposterous and futile; and that every hour of obeisanceto slavery is an added hour of deepened peril to the Union. Inconclusion, he entreated the Chief Executive to render hearty andunequivocal obedience to the law of the land. [823]

[Footnote 823: _Ibid. _, August 20. 

Lincoln's reply appeared in the _National Intelligencer_ ofWashington. He said in part: "I would save the Union. If there bethose who would not save the Union unless they could at the same timesave slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who wouldnot save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is tosave the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If Icould save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and ifI could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if Icould save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would dothat. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because Ibelieve it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbearbecause I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall doless whenever I believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shalldo more when I shall believe doing more will help the cause. "--_Lincoln'sWorks_, Vol. 2, p. 227. ]

Thus did Greeley devote his great powers to force Lincoln intoemancipation. It is impossible, even at this distance of time, to turnthe pages of his ponderous volumes without feeling the matchless forceof his energy, the strength of his masterly array of facts, his bitingsarcasm, his bold assumptions, and his clear, unadorned style. Thereis about it all an impassioned conviction, as if he spoke because hecould not keep silent, making it impossible to avoid the belief thatthe whole soul and conscience of the writer were in his work. Dayafter day, with kaleidoscopic change, he marshalled arguments, facts, and historical parallels, bearing down the reader's judgment as heswept away like a great torrent the criticisms of himself and thearguments of his opponents. Nothing apparently could withstand hisonslaught on slavery. With one dash of his pen he forged sentencesthat, lance-like, found their way into every joint of the monster'sarmour. 

Greeley's criticism of the President and the army, however, gave hisenemies vantage ground for renewed attacks. Ever since he suggested, at the beginning of hostilities, that the _Herald_ did not care whichflag floated over its office, James Gordon Bennett, possessing thegenuine newspaper genius, had daily evinced a deep, personal dislikeof the _Tribune's_ editor, and throughout the discussion ofemancipation, the _Herald_, in bitter editorials, kept its columns ina glow, tantalising the _Tribune_ with a persistency that recallsCheetham's attacks upon Aaron Burr. The strategical advantage lay withthe _Herald_, since the initiative belonged to the _Tribune_, but thelatter had with it the preponderating sentiment of its party and thegrowing influence of a war necessity. Greeley fought with abroad-sword, swinging it with a vigorous and well-aimed effect, whileBennett, with lighter weapon, pricked, stabbed, and cut. Neverinactive, the latter sought to aggravate and embitter. Greeley, on thecontrary, intent upon forcing the Administration to change its policy, ignored his tormentor, until exasperation, like the gathering steam ina geyser, drove him into further action. In this prolonged controversythe _Tribune_ invariably referred to its adversary as "the _Herald_, "but in the _Herald_, "Greeley, " "old Greeley, " "poor Greeley, " "MarsGreeley, " "poor crazy Greeley, " became synonyms for the editor of the_Tribune_. 

The fight of these able and conspicuous journals represented thefierceness with which emancipation was pushed and opposed throughoutthe State. Conservative men, therefore, realising the danger to whicha bitter campaign along strict party lines would subject the Unioncause, demanded that all parties rally to the support of theGovernment with a candidate for governor devoted to conservativeprinciples and a vigorous prosecution of the war. Sentiment seemed topoint to John A. Dix as such a man. Though not distinguished as astrategist or effective field officer, he possessed courage, caution, and a desire to crush the rebellion. The policy of this movement, embracing conservative Republicans and war Democrats, was urged byThurlow Weed, sanctioned by Seward, and heartily approved by John VanBuren, who, since the beginning of hostilities, had avoided partycouncils. The Constitutional Union party, composed of old line Whigswho opposed emancipation, [824] proposed to lead this movement at itsconvention, to be held at Troy on September 9, but at the appointedtime James Brooks, by prearrangement, appeared with a file ofinstructed followers, captured the meeting, and gave Horatio Seymour32 votes to 20 for Dix and 6 for Millard Fillmore. This unexpectedresult made Seymour the candidate of the Democratic State conventionwhich met at Albany on the following day. 

[Footnote 824: New York _Herald_, October 15, 1862. ]

Seymour sincerely preferred another. Early in August he travelled fromUtica to Buffalo to resist the friendship and the arguments of DeanRichmond. It cannot be said that he had outlived ambition. Hepossessed wealth, he was advancing in his political career, and heaspired to higher honours, but he did not desire to become governoragain, even though the party indicated a willingness to follow hisleadership and give him free rein to inaugurate such a policy as hiswisdom and conservatism might dictate. He clearly recognised thedifficulties in the way. He had taken ultra ground against the FederalAdministration, opposing emancipation, denouncing arbitrary arrests, and expressing the belief that the North could not subjugate theSouth; yet he would be powerless to give life to his own views, or tomodify Lincoln's proposed conduct of the war. The President, havingbeen elected to serve until March, 1865, would not tolerateinterference with his plans and purposes, so that an oppositionGovernor, regardless of grievances or their cause, would be compelledto furnish troops and to keep the peace. Hatred of conscription wouldbe no excuse for non-action in case of a draft riot, and indignationover summary arrests could in nowise limit the exercise of sucharbitrary methods. To be governor under such conditions, therefore, meant constant embarrassment, if not unceasing humiliation. Thesereasons were carefully presented to Richmond. Moreover, Seymour wasconscious of inherent defects of temperament. He did not belong to theclass of politicians, described by Victor Hugo, who mistake aweather-cock for a flag. He was a gentleman of culture, of publicexperience, and of moral purpose, representing the best quality of hisparty; but possessed of a sensitive and eager temper, he was too ofteninfluenced by the men immediately about him, and too often inclinedto have about him men whose influence did not strengthen his ownbetter judgment. 

Richmond knew of this weakness and regretted it, but the man of iron, grasping the political situation with the shrewdness of a phenomenallysuccessful business man, wanted a candidate who could win. It wasplain to him that the Republican party, divided on the question ofemancipation and weakened by arbitrary arrests, a policy that manypeople bitterly resented, could be beaten by a candidate who addedexceptional popularity to a promised support of the war and a vigorousprotest against government methods. Dix, he knew, would stand with thePresident; Seymour would criticise, and with sureness of aim arouseopposition. While Richmond, therefore, listened respectfully toSeymour's reasons for declining the nomination, he was deaf to allentreaty, insisting that as the party had honoured him when he wantedoffice, he must now honour the party when it needed him. Besides, hedeclared that Sanford E. Church, whom Seymour favoured, could not beelected. [825] Having gained the Oneidan's consent, Richmond exercisedhis adroit methods of packing conventions, and thus opened the way forSeymour's unanimous nomination by making the Constitutional Unionconvention the voice of one crying in the wilderness. 

[Footnote 825: The author is indebted to Henry A. Richmond, son of DeanRichmond, for this outline of Seymour's interview. ]

To a majority of the Democratic party Seymour's selection appealedwith something of historic pride. It recalled other days in thebeginning of his career, and inspired the hope that the peace whichreigned in the fifties, and the power that the Democracy then wielded, might, under his leadership, again return to bless their party bychecking a policy that was rapidly introducing a new order of things. After his nomination, therefore, voices became hoarse with longcontinued cheering. For a few minutes the assembly surrendered to thenoise and confusion which characterise a more modern convention, andonly the presence of the nominee and the announcement that he wouldspeak brought men to order. 

Seymour, as was his custom, came carefully prepared. In his party henow had no rival. Not since DeWitt Clinton crushed the Livingstons in1807, and Martin Van Buren swept the State in 1828, did one man socompletely dominate a political organisation, and in his arraignmentof the Radicals he emulated the partisan rather than the patriot. Hespoke respectfully of the President, insisting that he should "betreated with the respect due to his position as the representative ofthe dignity and honor of the American people, " and declaring that"with all our powers of mind and person, we mean to support theConstitution and uphold the Union;" but in his bitter denunciation ofthe Administration he confused the general policy of conducting a warwith mistakes in awarding government contracts. To him an honestdifference of opinion upon constitutional questions was as corrupt andreprehensible as dishonest practices in the departments at Washington. He condemned emancipation as "a proposal for the butchery of women andchildren, for scenes of lust and rapine, and of arson and murder, which would invoke the interference of civilised Europe. "[826]

[Footnote 826: Cook and Knox, _Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, pp. 45-58. ]

The convention thought seriously of making this speech the partyplatform. But A. P. Laning, declining to surrender the prerogative ofthe resolutions committee, presented a brief statement of principles, "pledging the Democracy to continue united in its support of theGovernment, and to use all legitimate means to suppress rebellion, restore the Union as it was, and maintain the Constitution as it is. "It also denounced "the illegal, unconstitutional, and arbitraryarrests of citizens of the State as unjustifiable, " declaring sucharrests a usurpation and a crime, and insisting upon the liberty ofspeech and the freedom of the press. [827]

[Footnote 827: The ticket nominated was as follows: Governor, HoratioSeymour of Oneida; Lieutenant-Governor, David E. Floyd Jones ofQueens; Canal Commissioner, William I. Skinner of Herkimer; PrisonInspector, Gaylord J. Clark of Niagara; Clerk of Appeals, Fred A. Tallmadge of New York. ]

The speech of Seymour, as displeasing to many War Democrats as it wassatisfactory to the Peace faction, at once aroused conservativeRepublicans, and Weed and Raymond, backed by Seward, favored thepolicy of nominating John A. Dix. Seward had distinguished himself asone of the more conservative members of the Cabinet. After settlinginto the belief that Lincoln "is the best of us"[828] his ambitioncentered in the support of the President, and whatever aid he couldrender in helping the country to a better understanding of theAdministration's aims and wishes was generously if not always adroitlyperformed. He did not oppose the abolition of slavery. On thecontrary, his clear discernment exhibited its certain destruction ifthe rebellion continued; but he opposed blending emancipation with aprosecution of the war, preferring to meet the former as the necessityfor it arose rather than precipitate an academic discussion whichwould divide Republicans and give the Democrats an issue. 

[Footnote 828: Seward to his wife. --F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 590. ]

When Lincoln, on July 22, 1862, announced to his Cabinet adetermination to issue an emancipation proclamation, the Secretaryquestioned its expediency only as to the time of its publication. "Thedepression of the public mind consequent upon our repeated reverses, "he said, "is so great that I fear the effect of so important astep. . . . I suggest, sir, that you postpone its issue until you cangive it to the country supported by military success, instead ofissuing it, as would be the case now, upon the greatest disasters ofthe war. "[829] Seward's view was adopted, and in place of theproclamation appeared the Executive Order of July 22, theunenforcement of which Greeley had so fiercely criticised in his"Prayer of Twenty Millions. " Thurlow Weed, who, in June, had returnedfrom London heavily freighted with good results for the Unionaccomplished by his influence with leading Englishmen, held theopinion of Seward. Raymond had also made the _Times_ an able defenderof the President's policy, and although not violent in its oppositionto the attitude of the Radicals, it never ceased its efforts tosuppress agitation of the slavery question. 

[Footnote 829: Frank B. Carpenter, _Six Months at the White House_, pp. 22, 23. ]

In its purpose to nominate Dix the New York _Herald_ likewise bore aconspicuous part. It had urged his selection upon the Democrats, declaring him stronger than Seymour. It now urged him upon theRepublicans, insisting that he was stronger than Wadsworth. [830] Thiswas also the belief of Weed, whose sagacity as to the strength ofpolitical leaders was rarely at fault. [831] On the contrary, GovernorMorgan expressed the opinion that "Wadsworth will be far moreavailable than any one yet mentioned as my successor. "[832] Wadsworth'sservice at the battle of Bull Run had been distinguished. "Gen. McDowell told us on Monday, " wrote Thurlow Weed, "that Major Wadsworthrendered him the most important service before, during, and afterbattle. From others we have learned that after resisting the stampede, earnestly but ineffectually, he remained to the last moment aiding thewounded and encouraging surgeons to remain on the field as many ofthem did. "[833] Wadsworth's subsequent insistence that the Army of thePotomac, then commanded by McClellan, could easily crush theConfederates, who, in his opinion, did not number over 50, 000[834], hadagain brought his name conspicuously before the country. Moreover, since the 8th of March he had commanded the forces in and aboutWashington, and had acted as Stanton's adviser in the conduct of thewar. 

[Footnote 830: New York _Herald_, September 19 and October 15, 1862. ]

[Footnote 831: Albany _Evening Journal_, November 6, 1862. ]

[Footnote 832: T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 413. ]

[Footnote 833: Albany _Evening Journal_, July 31, 1861. ]

[Footnote 834: "This estimate was afterward verified as correct. "--NewYork _Tribune_, September 22, 1862. ]

For twenty years Wadsworth had not been a stranger to the people ofNew York. His vigorous defence of Silas Wright gave him a warm placein the hearts of Barnburners, and his name, after the formation of theRepublican party, became a household word among members of that youngorganisation. Besides, his neighbours had exploited his character forgenerosity. The story of the tenant who got a receipt for rent and onehundred dollars in money because the accidental killing of his oxen inthe midst of harvest had diminished his earning capacity, seemed to beonly one of many similar acts. In 1847 his farm had furnished athousand bushels of corn to starving Ireland. Moreover, he had endowedinstitutions of learning, founded school libraries, and turned thehouses of tenants into homes of college students. But the Radicals'real reason for making him their candidate was his "recognition of thetruth that slavery is the implacable enemy of our National life, andthat the Union can only be saved by grappling directly and boldly withits deadly foe. "[835]

[Footnote 835: New York _Tribune_, September 22, 1862. ]

Prompted by this motive his supporters used all the methods known tomanaging politicians to secure a majority of the delegates. Lincoln'semancipation proclamation, published on September 23, five days afterthe battle of Antietam, greatly strengthened them. They hailed theevent as their victory. It gave substance, too, to the Wadsworthplatform that "the Union must crush out slavery, or slavery willdestroy the Union. " Reinforced by such an unexpected ally, it was wellunderstood before the day of the convention that in spite of theappeals of Weed and Raymond, and of the wishes of Seward and thePresident, the choice of the Radicals would be nominated. Wadsworthwas not averse. He had an itching for public life. In 1856 hisstubborn play for governor and his later contest for a seat in theUnited States Senate had characterised him as an office-seeker. Butwhether running for office himself, or helping some one else, he wasa fighter whom an opponent had reason to fear. 

The Republican Union convention, as it was called, assembled atSyracuse on September 25. Henry J. Raymond became its president, andwith characteristic directness made a vigorous reply to Seymour, declaring that "Jefferson Davis himself could not have planned aspeech better calculated, under all the circumstances of the case, topromote his end to embarrass the Government of the United States andstrengthen the hands of those who are striving for its overthrow. "[836]Then William Curtis Noyes read a letter from Governor Morgan decliningrenomination. [837] The Governor had made a creditable executive, winning the respect of conservatives in both parties, and although therule against a third term had become firmly established in a Statethat had tolerated it but once since the days of Tompkins and DeWittClinton, the propriety of making a further exception appealed to thepublic with manifest approval. "But this, " Weed said, "did not suitthe _Tribune_ and a class of politicians with whom it sympathised. They demanded a candidate with whom abolition is the paramountconsideration. "[838] Morgan's letter created a ripple of applause, after which the presentation of Wadsworth's name aroused an enthusiasmof longer duration than had existed at Albany. Nevertheless, CharlesG. Myers of St. Lawrence did not hesitate to speak for "a moreavailable candidate at the present time. " Then, raising his voiceabove the whisperings of dissent, he named John A. Dix, "who, whileSeymour was howling for peace and compromise, " said the speaker, "ordered the first man shot that hauled down the American flag. "Raymond, in his speech earlier in the afternoon, had quoted thehistoric despatch in a well-balanced sentence, with the accent andinflection of a trained orator; but in giving it an idiomatic, thrilling ring in contrast with Seymour's record, Myers suddenly threwthe convention into wild, continued cheering, until it seemed as ifthe noise of a moment before would be exceeded by the genuine andinvoluntary outburst of patriotic emotion. A single ballot, however, giving Wadsworth an overwhelming majority, showed that the Radicalsowned the convention. [839]

[Footnote 836: New York _Times_, September 25, 1862. ]

[Footnote 837: "Though we met Governor Morgan repeatedly during thesummer, he never hinted that he expected or desired to be again acandidate. "--New York _Tribune_, December 12, 1862. ]

[Footnote 838: Albany _Evening Journal_, December 10, 1862. ]

[Footnote 839: The vote resulted as follows: Wadsworth, 234; Dix, 110;Lyman Tremaine, 33; Dickinson, 2. 

The ticket was as follows: Governor, James S. Wadsworth of Genesee;Lieutenant-Governor, Lyman Tremaine of Albany; Canal Commissioner, Oliver Ladue of Herkimer; Prison Inspector, Andreas Willman of NewYork; Clerk of Appeals, Charles Hughes of Washington. ]

Parke Godwin of Queens, from the committee on resolutions, presentedthe platform. Among other issues it urged the most vigorousprosecution of the war; hailed, with the profoundest satisfaction, theemancipation proclamation; and expressed pride in the knowledge thatthe Republic's only enemies "are the savages of the West, the rebelsof the South, their sympathisers and supporters of the North, and thedespots of Europe. "

The campaign opened with unexampled bitterness. Seymour's conventionspeech inflamed the Republican party, and its press, recalling hisaddress at the Peace convention in January, 1861, seemed to uncork itspent-up indignation. The _Tribune_ pronounced him a "consummatedemagogue, " "radically dishonest, " and the author of sentiments that"will be read throughout the rebel States with unalloyed delight, "since "their whole drift tends to encourage treason and paralyse thearm of those who strike for the Union. "[840] It disclosed Seymour'sintimate relations with "Vallandigham and the school of Democrats whodo not disguise their sympathy with traitors nor their hostility towar, " and predicted "that, if elected, Jeff Davis will regard hissuccess as a triumph. "[841] Odious comparisons also became frequent. Wadsworth at Bull Run was contrasted with Seymour's prediction thatthe Union's foes could not be subdued. [842] Seymour's supporters, itwas said, believed in recognising the independence of the South, or ina restored Union with slavery conserved, while Wadsworth's championsthought rebellion a wicked and wanton conspiracy against humanliberty, to be crushed by the most effective measures. [843] Raymonddeclared that "every vote given for Wadsworth is a vote for loyalty, and every vote given for Seymour is a vote for treason. "[844]

[Footnote 840: New York _Tribune_, September 17, 1862. ]

[Footnote 841: New York _Tribune_, Oct. 8, 1862. ]

[Footnote 842: _Ibid. _, Oct. 9. ]

[Footnote 843: _Ibid. _, Oct. 24. ]

[Footnote 844: New York _Herald_, Oct. 9, 1862. ]

To these thrusts the Democratic press replied with no less acrimony, speaking of Wadsworth as "a malignant, abolition disorganiser, " whoseservice in the field was "very brief, " whose command in Washington was"behind fortifications, " and whose capacity was "limited to attacksupon his superior officers. "[845] The _Herald_ declared him "as arrantan aristocrat as any Southern rebel. The slave-holder, " it said, "livesupon his plantation, which his ancestors begged, cheated, or stolefrom the Indians. Wadsworth lives upon his immense Genesee farms, which his ancestors obtained from the Indians in precisely the sameway. The slave-holder has a number of negroes who raise crops for him, and whom he clothes, feeds, and lodges. Wadsworth has a number oflabourers on his farms, who support him by raising his crops or payinghim rent. The slave-holder, having an independent fortune and nothingto do, joins the army, or runs for office. Wadsworth, in exactly thesame circumstances, does exactly the same thing. Wadsworth, therefore, is quite as much an aristocrat as the slave-holder, and cares quite asmuch for himself and quite as little for the people. "[846] Democratseverywhere endeavoured to limit the issue to the two opposingcandidates, claiming that Seymour, in conjunction with allconservative men, stood for a vigorous prosecution of the war to savethe Union, while Wadsworth, desiring its prosecution for thedestruction of slavery, believed the Union of secondary consideration. 

[Footnote 845: _Ibid. _, Sept. 26. ]

[Footnote 846: _Ibid. _, Oct. 1. ]

Campaign oratory, no longer softened by the absence of strict partylines, throbbed feverishly with passion and ugly epithet. Thestrategical advantage lay with Seymour, who made two speeches. DeanRichmond, alarmed at the growing strength of the war spirit, urged himto put more "powder" into his Brooklyn address than he used at theratification meeting, held in New York City on October 13; but hedeclined to cater "to war Democrats, " contenting himself with anamplification of his convention speech. "God knows I love my country, "he said; "I would count my life as nothing, if I could but save thenation's life. " He resented with much feeling Raymond's electioneeringstatement that a vote for him was one for treason. [847] "Recognising atthis moment as we do, " he continued, "that the destinies, the honour, and the glory of our country hang poised upon the conflict in thebattlefield, we tender to the Government no conditional support" toput down "this wicked and mighty rebellion. " Once, briefly, andwithout bitterness, he referred to the emancipation proclamation, buthe again bitterly arraigned the Administration for its infractions ofthe Constitution, its deception as to the strength of the South, andthe corruption in its departments. 

[Footnote 847: New York _Herald_, October 8 and 9, 1862. ]

Seymour's admirers manifested his tendencies more emphatically than hedid himself, until denunciation of treason and insistence upon avigorous prosecution of the war yielded to an indictment of theRadicals. The shibboleth of these declaimers was arbitrary arrests. Two days after the edict of emancipation (September 24) the Presidentissued a proclamation ordering the arrest, without benefit of _habeascorpus_, of all who "discouraged enlistments, " or were guilty of "anydisloyal practice" which afforded "aid and comfort to the rebels. "[848]This gave rise to an opinion that he intended to "suppress freediscussion of political subjects, "[849] and every orator warned thepeople that Wadsworth's election meant the arrest and imprisonment ofhis political opponents. "If chosen governor, " said the _Herald_, "hewill have his adversaries consigned to dungeons and their propertyseized and confiscated under the act of Congress. "[850] In accepting aninvitation to speak at Rome, John Van Buren, quick to see the humourof the situation as well as the vulnerable point of the Radicals, telegraphed that he would "arrive at two o'clock--if not in FortLafayette. "[851]

[Footnote 848: _Lincoln's Works_, Vol. 2, p. 239. ]

[Footnote 849: Benjamin E. Curtis, _Pamphlet on Executive Power_. ]

[Footnote 850: New York _Herald_, October 4, 1862. ]

[Footnote 851: _Ibid. _, October 24. ]

To the delight of audiences John Van Buren, after two years ofpolitical inactivity, broke his silence. He had earnestly and perhapssincerely advocated the nomination of John A. Dix, but after Seymour'sselection he again joined the ranks of the Softs and took the stump. Among other appointments he spoke with Seymour at the New Yorkratification meeting, and again at the Brooklyn rally on October 22. Something remained of the old-time vigour of the professionalgladiator, but compared with his Barnburner work he seemed what Byroncalled "an extinct volcano. " He ran too heedlessly into a bittercriticism of Wadsworth, based upon an alleged conversation he couldnot substantiate, and into an acrimonious attack upon Lincoln'sconduct of the war, predicated upon a private letter of General Scott, the possession of which he did not satisfactorily account for. The_Tribune_, referring to his campaign as "a rhetorical spree, " calledhim a "buffoon, " a "political harlequin, " a "repeater of mouldyjokes, "[852] and in bitter terms denounced his "low comedy performanceat Tammany, " his "double-shuffle dancing at Mozart Hall, " hispossession of a letter "by dishonourable means for a dishonourablepurpose, " and his wide-sweeping statements "which gentlemen over theirown signatures pronounced lies. "[853] It was not a performance to beproud of, and although Van Buren succeeded in stirring up theadvertising sensations which he craved, he did not escape withoutwounds that left deep scars. "Prince John makes a statement, " says the_Herald_, "accusing Charles King of slandering the wife of AndrewJackson; King retorts by calling the Prince a liar; the poets of the_Post_ take up the case and broadly hint that the Prince's privatehistory shows that he has not lived the life of a saint; the Princereplies that he has half a mind to walk into the private antecedentsof Wadsworth, which, it is said, would disclose some scenesexceedingly rich; while certain other Democrats, indignant atRaymond's accusations of treason against Seymour, threaten to revealhis individual history, hinting, by the way, that it would show him tohave been heretofore a follower of that fussy philosopher of thetwelfth century, Abelard--not in philosophy, however, but insentiment, romance, and some other things. "[854]

[Footnote 852: New York _Tribune_, October 28, 1862. ]

[Footnote 853: _Ibid. _, October 30. ]

[Footnote 854: New York _Herald_, October 29, 1862. ]

Wherever Van Buren spoke Daniel S. Dickinson followed. His admirers, the most extreme Radicals, cheered his speeches wildly, their funrelieving the prosaic rigour of an issue that to one side seemedforced by Northern treachery, to the other to threaten the gravestperil to the country. It is difficult to exaggerate the tension. Partyviolence ran high and the result seemed in doubt. Finally, conservatives appealed to both candidates to retire in favour of JohnA. Dix, [855] and on October 20 an organisation, styling itself theFederal Union, notified the General that its central committee hadnominated him for governor, and that a State Convention, called tomeet at Cooper Institute on the 28th, would ratify the nomination. Tothis summons, Dix, without declining a nomination, replied fromMaryland that he could not leave his duties "to be drawn into anyparty strife. "[856] This settled the question of a compromisecandidate. 

[Footnote 855: _Ibid. _, October 15 and 17. ]

[Footnote 856: Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 2, pp. 51-52. ]

Elections in the October States did not encourage the Radicals. Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana voiced the sentiments of theopposition, defeating Galusha A. Grow, speaker of the House, andseriously threatening the Radical majority in Congress. Thisretrogression, accounted for by the absence of soldiers who could notvote, [857] suggested trouble in New York, and to offset the influenceof the Seymour rally in Brooklyn a great audience at Cooper Institutelistened to a brief letter from the Secretary of State, and to aspeech from Wadsworth. Seward did not encourage the soldier candidate. The rankling recollection of Wadsworth's opposition at Chicago in 1860stifled party pride as well as patriotism, and although the _Herald_thought it "brilliant and sarcastic, " it emphasised Wadsworth'ssubsequent statement that "Seward was dead against me throughout thecampaign. "[858]

[Footnote 857: New York _Tribune_, October 17, 1862. See other views:New York _Herald_, October 17, 18, 19. ]

[Footnote 858: Henry B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 216. ]

Wadsworth's canvass was confined to a single speech. He had beenabsent from the State fifteen months, and although not continuously atthe front there was something inexcusably ungenerous in the taunts ofhis opponents that he had served "behind fortifications. " His superbconduct at Bull Run entitled him to better treatment. But his partywas wholly devoted to him, and "amid a hurricane of approbation"[859]he mingled censure of Seymour with praise of Lincoln, and theexperience of a brave soldier with bitter criticism of an unpatrioticpress. It was not the work of a trained public speaker. It lackedpoise, phrase, and deliberation. But what it wanted in manner it madeup in fire and directness, giving an emotional and loyal audienceabundant opportunity to explode into long-continued cheering. Thoughtful men who were not in any sense political partisans gavecareful heed to his words. He stood for achievement. He brought thegreat struggle nearer home, and men listened as to one with a messagefrom the field of patriotic sacrifices. The radical newspapers brokeinto a chorus of applause. The Radicals themselves were delighted. Theair rung with praises of the courage and spirit of their candidate, and if here and there the faint voice of a Conservative suggested thatemancipation was premature and arbitrary arrests were unnecessary, ashout of offended patriotism drowned the ignoble utterance. 

[Footnote 859: New York _Tribune_, October 31, 1862. ]

Wadsworth and his party were too much absorbed in the zeal of theircause not to run counter to the prejudices of men less earnest andless self-forgetting. In a contest of such bitterness they werecertain to make enemies, whose hostilities would be subtle andenduring, and the October elections showed that the inevitablereaction was setting in. Military failure and increasing debt made theavowed policy of emancipation more offensive. People were gettingtired of bold action without achievement in the field, and everyopponent of the Administration became a threnodist. However, independent papers which strongly favoured Seymour believed inWadsworth's success. "Seymour's antecedents are against him, " said the_Herald_. "Wadsworth, radical as he is, will be preferred by thepeople to a Democrat who is believed to be in favour of stopping thewar; because, whatever Wadsworth's ideas about the negro may be, theyare only as dust in the balance compared with his hearty and earnestsupport of the war and the Administration. "[860] This was the beliefof the Radicals, [861] and upon them the news of Seymour's election byover 10, 000 majority fell with a sickening thud. [862] Raymond declaredit "a vote of want of confidence in the President;"[863] Wadsworththought Seward did it;[864] Weed suggested that Wadsworth held "tooextreme party views;"[865] and Greeley insisted that it was "a gang ofcorrupt Republican politicians, who, failing to rule the nominatingconvention, took revenge on its patriotic candidate by secretlysupporting the Democratic nominee. "[866] But the dominant reason waswhat George William Curtis called "the mad desperation ofreaction, "[867] which showed its influence in other States as well asin New York. That Wadsworth's personality had little, if anything, todo with his overthrow was further evidenced by results incongressional districts, the Democrats carrying seventeen out ofthirty-one. Even Francis Kernan carried the Oneida district againstConkling. The latter was undoubtedly embarrassed by personal enemieswho controlled the Welsh vote, but the real cause of his defeat wasmilitary disasters, financial embarrassments, and the emancipationproclamation. "All our reverses, our despondence, our despairs, " saidCurtis, "bring us to the inevitable issue, shall not the blacks strikefor their freedom?"[868]

[Footnote 860: New York _Herald_, October 17, 1862. ]

[Footnote 861: New York _Tribune_, Nov. 6. ]

[Footnote 862: "Seymour, 307, 063; Wadsworth, 296, 492. "--_Ibid. _, November 24. ]

[Footnote 863: New York _Times_, November 7. ]

[Footnote 864: Henry B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 216. ]

[Footnote 865: Albany _Evening Journal_, Nov. 6. ]

[Footnote 866: New York _Tribune_, Nov. 5. ]

[Footnote 867: Cary, _Life of Curtis_, p. 161. ]

[Footnote 868: _Ibid. _, p. 161. ]

CHAPTER IV

THURLOW WEED TRIMS HIS SAILS

1863

The political reaction in 1862 tied the two parties in theLegislature. In the Senate, elected in 1861, the Republicans hadtwelve majority, but in the Assembly each party controlled sixty-fourmembers. This deadlocked the election of a speaker, and seriouslyjeopardized the selection of a United States senator in place ofPreston King, since a joint-convention of the two houses, under thelaw as it then existed, could not convene until some candidatecontrolled a majority in each branch. [869] It increased theembarrassment that either a Republican or Democrat must betray hisparty to break the deadlock. 

[Footnote 869: Laws of 1842. Ch. 130, title 6, article 4, sec. 32. ]

Chauncey M. Depew was the choice of the Republicans for speaker. Butthe caucus, upon the threat of a single Republican to bolt, [870]selected Henry Sherwood of Steuben. After seventy-seven ballots Depewwas substituted for Sherwood. By this time Timothy C. Callicot, aBrooklyn Democrat, refused longer to vote for Gilbert Dean, theDemocratic nominee. Deeply angered by such apostasy John D. Van Burenand Saxton Smith, the Democratic leaders, offered Depew eight votes. Later in the evening Depew was visited by Callicot, who promised, ifthe Republicans would support him for speaker, to vote for John A. Dixfor senator and thus break the senatorial deadlock. It was a tryingposition for Depew. The speakership was regarded as even a greaterhonor then than it is now, and to a gifted young man of twenty-nineits power and prestige appealed with tremendous force. Van Buren'sproposition would elect him; Callicot's would put him in eclipse. Nevertheless, Depew unselfishly submitted the two proposals to hisRepublican associates, who decided to lose the speakership and elect aUnited States senator. [871]

[Footnote 870: Horace Bemis of Steuben. ]

[Footnote 871: The writer is indebted to Mr. Depew for the interviewsbetween himself, Van Buren, and Callicot. ]

The Democrats, alarmed at this sudden and successful flank movement, determined to defeat by disorderly proceedings what their leaderscould not prevent by strategy, and with the help of thugs who filledthe floor and galleries of the Assembly Chamber, they instigated ariot scarcely equalled in the legislative history of modern times. Boisterous threats, display of pistols, savage abuse of Callicot, andrefusals to allow the balloting to proceed continued for six days, subsiding at last after the Governor, called upon to protect alaw-making body, promised to use force. Finally, on January 26, nineteen days after the session opened, Callicot, on the ninety-thirdballot, received two majority. This opened the way for the election ofa Republican United States senator. 

Horace Greeley had hoped, in the event of Wadsworth's success, to rideinto the Senate upon "an abolition whirlwind. "[872] He now wished toelect Preston King or Daniel S. Dickinson. King had made a creditablerecord in the Senate. Although taking little part in debate, hisjudgment upon questions of governmental policy, indicating an accurateknowledge of men and remarkable familiarity with details, commendedhim as a safe adviser, especially in political emergencies. But Weed, abandoning his old St. Lawrence friend, joined Seward in the supportof Edwin D. Morgan. 

[Footnote 872: Albany _Evening Journal_, December 10, 1862. ]

Morgan had a decided taste for political life. When a grocer, livingin Connecticut, he had served in the city council of Hartford, andsoon after gaining a residence in New York, he entered its Board ofAldermen. Then he became State senator, commissioner of immigration, chairman of the National Republican Committee, and finally governor. Besides wielding an influence acquired in two gubernatorial terms, hecombined the qualities of a shrewd politician with those of a merchantprince willing to spend money. 

The stoutest opposition to Morgan came from extreme Radicals whodistrusted him, and in trying to compass his defeat half a dozencandidates played prominent parts. Charles B. Sedgwick of Syracuse, anall-around lawyer of rare ability, whose prominence as a persuasivespeaker began in the Free-Soil campaign of 1848, and who had servedwith distinction for four years in Congress, proved acceptable to afew Radicals and several Conservatives. [873] Henry J. Raymond, alsopressed by the opponents of Morgan, attracted a substantial following, while David Dudley Field, Ward Hunt, and Henry R. Selden controlledtwo or three votes each. Nevertheless, a successful combination couldnot be established, and on the second formal ballot Morgan received alarge majority. The remark of Assemblyman Truman, on a motion to makethe nomination unanimous, evidenced the bitterness of the contest. "Ibelieve we are rewarding a man, " he said, "who placed the knife at thethroat of the Union ticket last fall and slaughtered it. "[874]

[Footnote 873: Sedgwick, assailed by damaging charges growing out ofhis chairmanship of the Naval Committee, failed to be renominated forCongress in 1864 after a most bitter contest in which 130 ballots weretaken. ]

[Footnote 874: New York _Journal of Commerce_, February 3, 1863. 

"Informal ballot: Morgan, 25; King, 16; Dickinson, 15; Sedgwick, 11;Field, 7; Raymond, 6; Hunt, 4; Selden, 1; blank, 1. Whole number, 86. Necessary to a choice, 44. 

"First formal ballot: Morgan, 39; King, 16; Dickinson, 11; Raymond, 8;Sedgwick, 7; Field, 5. 

"Second formal ballot: Morgan, 50; Dickinson, 13; King, 11; Raymond, 9; Field, 2; Sedgwick, 1. "--_Ibid. _, February 3. ]

The Democrats presented Erastus Corning of Albany, then a member ofCongress. Like Morgan, Corning was wealthy. Like Morgan, too, he had apredilection for politics, having served as alderman, state senator, mayor, and congressman. He belonged to a class of business men whoseexperience and ability, when turned to public affairs, prove ofdecided value to their State and country. "We should be glad, " saidthe _Tribune_, "to see more men of Mr. Corning's social and businessposition brought forward for Congress and the Legislature. "[875] Thefirst ballot, in joint convention, gave Morgan 86 to 70 for Corning, Speaker Callicot voting for John A. Dix, and one fiery Radical forDaniel S. Dickinson. Thus did Thurlow Weed score another victory. Greeley was willing to make any combination. Raymond, Sedgwick, WardHunt, and even David Dudley Field would quickly have appealed to him. The deft hand of Weed, however, if not the money of Morgan, preventedcombinations until the Governor, as a second choice, controlled theelection. [876] This success resulted in a combination of Democrats andconservative Republicans, giving Weed the vast patronage of the NewYork canals. 

[Footnote 875: New York _Tribune_, October 7, 1863. 

The Democratic caucus stood 28 for Erastus Corning, 25 for FernandoWood, and scattering 18. 

The vote of the Senate stood: Morgan, 23; Erastus Corning, 7; 2 absentor silent. On the first ballot the Assembly gave Morgan 64, Corning62, Fernando Wood 1, John A. Dix 1 (cast by Speaker Callicot). On asecond ballot all the Unionists voted with Callicot for Dix, givinghim 65 to 63 for Corning and placing him in nomination. In jointconvention Morgan was elected by 86 votes to 70 for Corning, one(Callicot's) for Dix, and 1 for Dickinson. --_Ibid. _, February 4. ]

[Footnote 876: "My dear Weed: It is difficult for me to express mypersonal obligations to you for this renewed evidence of yourfriendship, as manifested by the result of yesterday's proceedings atAlbany. "--Letter of Edwin D. Morgan, February 3, 1863. Thurlow WeedBarnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 430. ]

Perhaps it was only coincidental that Weed's withdrawal from the_Evening Journal_ concurred with Morgan's election, but his farewelleditorial, written while gloom and despondency filled the land, indicated that he unerringly read the signs of the times. "I differwidely with my party about the best means of crushing the rebellion, "he said. "I can neither impress others with my views nor surrender myown solemn convictions. The alternative of living in strife with thosewhom I have esteemed, or withdrawing, is presented. I have nothesitated in choosing the path of peace as the path of duty. If thosewho differ with me are right, and the country is carried safelythrough its present struggle, all will be well and 'nobodyhurt. '"[877] This did not mean that Weed "has ceased to be aRepublican, " as Greeley put it, [878] but that, while refusing tobecome an Abolitionist of the Chase and Sumner and Greeley type, hedeclined longer to urge his conservative views upon readers whopossessed the spirit of Radicals. Years afterward he wrote that "fromthe outbreak of the rebellion, I knew no party, nor did I care for anyexcept the party of the Union. "[879]

[Footnote 877: Albany _Evening Journal_, January 28, 1863. ]

[Footnote 878: New York _Tribune_, January 30, 1863. ]

[Footnote 879: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 485. ]

At the time of his retirement from the _Journal_, Weed was sixty-sixyears of age, able-bodied, rich, independent, and satisfied if notsurfeited. "So far as all things personal are concerned, " he said, "mywork is done. "[880] Yet a trace of unhappiness revealed itself. Perfect peace did not come with the possession of wealth. [881]Moreover, his political course had grieved and separated friends. Forthirty years he looked forward with pleasurable emotions to the timewhen, released from the cares of journalism, he might return toRochester, spending his remaining days on a farm, in the suburbs ofthat city, near the banks of the Genesee River; but in 1863 he foundhis old friends so hostile, charging him with the defeat of Wadsworth, that he abandoned the project and sought a home in New York. [882]

[Footnote 880: Albany _Evening Journal_, January 28, 1863. ]

[Footnote 881: "Let it pass whether or not the editor of the _Tribune_has been intensely ambitious for office. It would have been a blessedthing for the country if the editor of the _Journal_ had been impelledby the same passion. For avarice is more ignoble than ambition, andthe craving for jobs has a more corrupting influence, alike on theindividual and the public, than aspiration to office. "--New York_Tribune_, December 12, 1862. ]

[Footnote 882: Thurlow Weed, _Autobiography_, pp. 360-361. ]

For several years Weed had made his political headquarters in thatcity. Indeed, No. 12 Astor House was as famous in its day as 49Broadway became during the subsequent leadership of Thomas C. Platt. It was the cradle of the "Amens" forty years before the Fifth AvenueHotel became the abode of that remarkable organization. From 1861 to1865, owing to the enormous political patronage growing out of thewar, the lobbies of the Astor House were crowded with politicians fromall parts of New York, making ingress and egress almost impossible. Inthe midst of this throng sat Thurlow Weed, cool and patient, possessing the keen judgment of men so essential to leadership. "WhenI was organizing the Internal Revenue Office in 1862-3, " wrote GeorgeS. Boutwell, "Mr. Weed gave me information in regard to candidates foroffice in the State of New York, including their relations to thefactions that existed, with as much fairness as he could havecommanded if he had had no relation to either one. "[883]

[Footnote 883: George S. Boutwell, _Sixty Years in Public Affairs_, Vol. 2, p. 207. ]

Although opposed to the course of the Radicals, Weed sternly rebukedthose, now called Copperheads, [884] who endeavored to force peace byparalysing the arm of the government. Their denunciation of arrestsand of the suspension of _habeas corpus_ gradually included thediscouragement of enlistments, the encouragement of desertion, andresistance to the draft, until, at last, the spirit of oppositioninvaded halls of legislation as well as public meetings and the press. 

[Footnote 884: This opprobrious epithet first appeared in the New York_Tribune_ of January 12, 1863, and in the _Times_ of February 13. ]

To check this display of disloyalty the Union people, regardless ofparty, formed loyal or Union League clubs in the larger cities, whosedensely packed meetings commanded the ablest speakers of the country. John Van Buren, fully aroused to the seditious trend of peaceadvocates, evidenced again the power that made him famous in 1848. Inhis inimitable style, with admirable temper and freshness, he pouredhis scathing sarcasm upon the authors of disloyal sentiments, untillisteners shouted with delight. The _Tribune_, forgetful of hisflippant work in the preceding year, accorded him the highest praise, while strong men, with faces wet with tears, thanked God that thisAchilles of the Democrats spoke for the Republic with the trumpettones and torrent-like fluency that had formerly made the name ofBarnburner a terror to the South. Van Buren was not inconsistent. While favouring a vigorous prosecution of the war he had severelycriticised arbitrary arrests and other undemocratic methods, but when"little men of little souls, " as he called them, attempted to controlthe great party for illegal purposes, his patriotism flashed out inthe darkness like a revolving light on a rocky coast. 

The call of the Loyal League also brought James T. Brady from his lawoffice. Unlike Dickinson, Brady did not approve the teachings or themethods of the Radicals, neither had he like Van Buren supportedSeymour. Moreover, he had refused to take office from Tammany, or toaccept nomination from a Democratic State convention. However, whenthe enemies of the Government seemed likely to carry all before them, he spoke for the Union like one divinely inspired. Indeed, it may besaid with truth that the only ray of hope piercing the gloom andsuspense in the early months of 1863 came from the brilliant outburstsof patriotism heard at the meetings of the Union League clubs. [885] "Ipray that my name may be enrolled in that league, " wrote Seward. "Iwould prefer that distinction to any honour my fellow-citizens couldbestow upon me. If the country lives, as I trust it will, let me beremembered among those who laboured to save it. The diploma will growin value as years roll away. "[886]

[Footnote 885: The Union League Club of New York was organizedFebruary 6, 1863; its club house, No. 26 E. 17th St. , was opened May12. ]

[Footnote 886: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 3, p. 159. ]

CHAPTER V

GOVERNOR SEYMOUR AND PRESIDENT LINCOLN

1863

Horatio Seymour did not become a member of the Union League, and hisinaugural message of January 7 gave no indication of a change ofheart. He spoke of his predecessor as having "shown high capacity" inthe performance of his duties; he insisted that "we must emulate theconduct of our fathers, and show obedience to constituted authorities, and respect for legal and constitutional obligations;" he demandedeconomy and integrity; and he affirmed that "under no circumstancescan the division of the Union be conceded. We will put forth everyexertion of power; we will use every policy of conciliation; we willhold out every inducement to the people of the South, consistent withhonour, to return to their allegiance; we will guarantee them everyright, every consideration demanded by the Constitution, and by thatfraternal regard which must prevail in a common country; but we cannever voluntarily consent to the breaking up of the Union of theseStates, or the destruction of the Constitution. " With his usualseverity he opposed arbitrary arrests, deemed martial law destructiveof the rights of States, and declared that the abolition of slaveryfor the purpose of restoring the Union would convert the governmentinto a military despotism. 

"It has been assumed, " he said, "that this war will end in theascendency of the views of one or the other of the extremes in ourcountry. Neither will prevail. This is the significance of the lateelections. The determination of the great Central and Western Statesis to defend the rights of the States, the rights of individuals, andto restore our Union as it was. We must not wear out the lives of oursoldiers by a war to carry out vague theories. The policy ofsubjugation and extermination means not only the destruction of thelives and property of the South, but also the waste of the blood andtreasure of the North. There is but one way to save us fromdemoralisation, discord, and repudiation. No section must bedisorganised. All must be made to feel that the mighty efforts we aremaking to save our Union are stimulated by a purpose to restore peaceand prosperity in every section. If it is true that slavery must beabolished by force; that the South must be held in militarysubjection; that four millions of negroes must be under the managementof authorities at Washington at the public expense; then, indeed, wemust endure the waste of our armies, further drains upon ourpopulation, and still greater burdens of debt. We must convert ourgovernment into a military despotism. The mischievous opinion that inthis contest the North must subjugate and destroy the South to saveour Union has weakened the hopes of our citizens at home, anddestroyed confidence in our success abroad. "[887]

[Footnote 887: Horatio Seymour, _Public Record_, pp. 85-105. ]

Although this message failed to recognise the difference between apeaceable South in the Union and a rebellious South attempting todestroy the Union, it is not easy, perhaps, to comprehend how theacknowledged leader of the opposition, holding such views and relyingfor support upon the peace sentiment of the country, could have saidmuch less. Yet the feeling must possess the student of history that aconsummate politician, possessing Seymour's ability and popularity, might easily have divided with Lincoln the honor of crushing therebellion and thus have become his successor. The President recognizedthis opportunity, saying to Weed that the "Governor has greater powerjust now for good than any other man in the country. He can wheel theDemocratic party into line, put down rebellion, and preserve thegovernment. Tell him for me that if he will render this service forhis country, I shall cheerfully make way for him as my successor. "[888]Seymour's reply, if he made one, is not of record, but Lincoln'smessage would scarcely appeal to one who disbelieved in the North'sability to subjugate the South. Later in the spring the President, unwilling to give the Governor up, wrote him a characteristic note. "You and I, " said he, "are, substantially, strangers, and I write thischiefly that we may become better acquainted. As to maintaining thenation's life and integrity, I assume and believe there cannot be adifference of purpose between you and me. If we should differ as tothe means it is important that such difference should be as small aspossible; that it should not be enhanced by unjust suspicions on oneside or the other. In the performance of my duty the coöperation ofyour State, as that of others, is needed, --in fact, is indispensable. This alone is a sufficient reason why I should wish to be at a goodunderstanding with you. Please write me at least as long a letter asthis, of course saying in it just what you think fit. "[889]

[Footnote 888: T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 428. ]

[Footnote 889: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 7, pp. 10, 11. ]

It is difficult to fathom the impression made upon Seymour by thisletter. The more cultivated Democrats about him entertained the beliefthat Lincoln, somewhat uncouth and grotesque, was a weak thoughwell-meaning man, and the Governor doubtless held a similar opinion. Moreover, he believed that the President, alarmed by the existence ofa conspiracy of prominent Republicans to force him from the WhiteHouse, sought to establish friendly relations that he might have ananchor to windward. [890] One can imagine the Governor, as the letterlingered in his hand, smiling superciliously and wondering what mannerof man this Illinoisan is, who could say to a stranger what a littleboy frequently puts in his missive, "Please write me at least as longa letter as this. " At all events, he treated the President verycavalierly. [891] On April 14, after delaying three weeks, he wrote acold and guarded reply, promising to address him again after theLegislature adjourned. "In the meanwhile, " he concluded, "I assure youthat no political resentments, or no personal objects, will turn measide from the pathway I have marked out for myself. I intend to showto those charged with the administration of public affairs a duedeference and respect, and to yield to them a just and generoussupport in all measures they may adopt within the scope of theirconstitutional powers. For the preservation of this Union I am readyto make any sacrifice of interest, passion, or prejudice. "[892]

[Footnote 890: New York _Times_, August 18, 1879. ]

[Footnote 891: "Governor Seymour was a patriotic man, after hisfashion, but his hatred of the Lincoln Administration was evidentlydeep; and it was also clear that he did not believe that the war forthe Union could be brought to a successful termination. "--Andrew D. White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 105. ]

[Footnote 892: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 7, p. 11. ]

Seymour never wrote the promised letter. His inaugural expressed hishonest convictions. He wanted no relations with a President who seemedto prefer the abolition of slavery and the use of arbitrary methods. Afew days later, in vetoing a measure authorising soldiers to votewhile absent in the army, he again showed his personal antipathy, charging the President with rewarding officers of high rank forimproperly interfering in State elections, while subordinate officerswere degraded "for the fair exercise of their political rights attheir own homes. "[893] John Hay did not err in saying "there could beno intimate understanding between two such men. "[894]

[Footnote 893: Horatio Seymour, _Public Record_, p. 109. ]

[Footnote 894: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 7, p. 12. ]

General Burnside's arrest of Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio (May, 1863) increased Seymour's aversion to the President. Burnside's actlacked authority of law as well as the excuse of good judgment, andalthough the President's change of sentence from imprisonment in FortWarren to banishment to the Southern Confederacy gave the proceeding ahumorous turn, the ugly fact remained that a citizen, in the dead ofnight, with haste, and upon the evidence of disguised and partisaninformers, had been rudely deprived of liberty without due process oflaw. Thoughtful men who reverenced the safeguard known to civiljudicial proceedings were appalled. The Republican press of New Yorkthought it indefensible, while the opposition, with unprecedentedbitterness, again assailed the Administration. In a moment the wholeNorth was in a turmoil. Everywhere mass meetings, intemperatespeeches, and threats of violence inflamed the people. The basestelements in New York City, controlling a public meeting called tocondemn the "outrage, " indicated how easily a reign of riot andbloodshed might be provoked. To an assembly held in Albany on May 16, at which Erastus Corning presided, Seymour addressed a letterdeploring the unfortunate event as a dishonour brought upon thecountry by an utter disregard of the principles of civil liberty. "Itis a fearful thing, " he said, "to increase the danger which nowoverhangs us, by treating the law, the judiciary, and the authoritiesof States with contempt. If this proceeding is approved by thegovernment and sanctioned by the people, it is not merely a steptoward revolution, it is revolution; it will not only lead to militarydespotism, it establishes military despotism. In this respect it mustbe accepted, or in this respect it must be rejected. If it is upheldour liberties are overthrown. " Then he grew bolder. "The people ofthis country now wait with the deepest anxiety the decision of theAdministration upon these acts. Having given it a generous support inthe conduct of the war, we now pause to see what kind of government itis for which we are asked to pour out our blood and our treasure. Theaction of the Administration will determine, in the minds of more thanone-half the people of the loyal States, whether this war is waged toput down rebellion in the South or to destroy free institutions at theNorth. "[895]

[Footnote 895: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1863, p. 689. ]

At great length Lincoln replied to the resolutions forwarded byCorning. "In my own discretion, " wrote the President, "I do not knowwhether I would have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. . . . I wasslow to adopt the strong measures which by degrees I have been forcedto regard as being within the exceptions of the Constitution and asindispensable to the public safety. . . . I think the time not unlikelyto come when I shall be blamed for having made too few arrests ratherthan too many. . . . Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy whodeserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induceshim to desert? This is none the less injurious when effected bygetting a father, a brother, or friend into a public meeting and thenworking upon his feelings till he is persuaded to write the soldierboy that he is fighting in a bad cause for a wicked administration andcontemptible government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shalldesert. "[896] This argument, undoubtedly the strongest that could bemade in justification, found great favour with his party, but thedanger Seymour apprehended lay in the precedent. "Wicked men ambitiousof power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, " said JusticeDavis of the United States Supreme Court, in deciding a case ofsimilar character, "may fill the place once occupied by Washington andLincoln, and if this right [of military arrest] is conceded, and thecalamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty arefrightful to contemplate. "[897]

[Footnote 896: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1863, pp. 800-802. Lincoln, _Complete Works_, Vol. 2, p. 347. ]

[Footnote 897: 4 Wallace, p. 125. ]

Much as Seymour resented the arrest of Vallandigham, he did not allowthe incident to interfere with his official action, and to theSecretary of War's call for aid when General Lee began his midsummerinvasion of Pennsylvania, he responded promptly: "I will spare noeffort to send you troops at once, " and true to his message heforwarded nineteen regiments, armed and equipped for field service, whose arrival brought confidence. [898] But governed by the sinisterreason that influenced him earlier in the year, he refused toacknowledge the President's letter of thanks, preferring to expresshis opinion of Administration methods unhindered by the exchange ofcourtesies. This he did in a Fourth of July address, delivered at theAcademy of Music in New York City, in which he pleaded, notpassionately, not with the acrimony that ordinarily characterised hisspeeches, but humbly, as if asking a despotic conqueror to return therights and liberty of which the people had been robbed. "We only askfreedom of speech, --the right to exercise all the franchises conferredby the Constitution upon an American. Can you safely deny us thesethings?" Mingled also with pathetic appeals were joyless pictures ofthe ravages of war, and cheerless glimpses into the future of aRepublic with its bulwarks of liberty torn away. "We stand to-day, " hecontinued, "amid new made graves; we stand to-day in a land filledwith mourning, and our soil is saturated with the blood of thefiercest conflict of which history gives us an account. We can, if wewill, avert all these disasters and evoke a blessing. If we will dowhat? Hold that Constitution, and liberties, and laws are suspended?Will that restore them? Or shall we do as our fathers did undercircumstances of like trial, when they battled against the powers of acrown? Did they say that liberty was suspended? Did they say that menmight be deprived of the right of trial by jury? Did they say that menmight be torn from their homes by midnight intruders?. . . If you wouldsave your country and your liberties, begin at the hearthstone; beginin your family circle; declare that their rights shall be held sacred;and having once proclaimed your own rights, claim for your own Statethat jurisdiction and that government which we, better than allothers, can exercise for ourselves, for we best know our owninterests. "[899]

[Footnote 898: Couch's report, _Official Records_, Vol. 27, Part 2, 214. ]

[Footnote 899: Horatio Seymour, _Public Record_, pp. 118-124. 

Ten days later, in the midst of riot and bloodshed, the _World_ said:"Will the insensate men at Washington now give ear to our warnings?Will they now believe that defiance of law in the rulers breedsdefiance of law in the people? Does the doctrine that in war laws aresilent, please them when put in practice in the streets of NewYork?"--New York _World_, July 14, 1863. ]

One week later, on Saturday, July 11, the draft began in the NinthCongressional District of New York, a portion of the city settled bylabourers, largely of foreign birth. These people, repeating theinformation gained in neighbourhood discussions, violently denouncedthe Conscription Act as illegal, claiming that the privilege of buyingan exemption on payment of $300 put "the rich man's money against thepoor man's blood. " City authorities apprehended trouble and Stateofficials were notified of the threatened danger, but only the policeheld themselves in readiness. The Federal Government, in the absenceof a request from the Governor, very properly declined to make anexception in the application of the law in New York on the mereassumption that violence would occur. Besides, all available troops, including most of the militia regiments, had been sent toPennsylvania, and to withdraw them would weaken the Federal linesabout Gettysburg. 

The disturbance began at the corner of Forty-sixth Street and ThirdAvenue, the rioters destroying the building in which theprovost-marshal was conducting the draft. By this time the mob, havinggrown into an army, began to sack and murder. Prejudice againstnegroes sent the rioters into hotels and restaurants after thewaiters, some of whom were beaten to death, while others, hanged ontrees and lamp-posts, were burned while dying. The coloured orphanasylum, fortunately after its inmates had escaped, likewise becamefuel for the flames. The police were practically powerless. Streetcars and omnibuses ceased to run, shopkeepers barred their doors, workmen dropped their tools, teamsters put up their horses, and forthree days all business was stopped. In the meantime Federal and Stateauthorities coöperated to restore order. Governor Seymour, havinghastened from Long Branch, addressed a throng of men and boys from thesteps of the City Hall, calling them "friends, " and pleading withthem to desist. He also issued two proclamations, declaring the cityin a state of insurrection, and commanding all people to obey the lawsand the legal authorities. Finally, the militia regiments fromPennsylvania began to arrive, and cannon and howitzers raked thestreets. These quieting influences, coupled with the publication of anofficial notice that the draft had been suspended, put an end to themost exciting experience of any Northern community during the war. 

After the excitement the _Tribune_ asserted that the riot resultedfrom a widespread treasonable conspiracy, [900] and a letter, addressedto the President, related the alleged confession of a well-knownpolitician, who, overcome with remorse, had revealed to the editors ofthe _Tribune_ the complicity of Seymour. Lincoln placed no reliance inthe story, "for which, " says Hay, "there was no foundation infact;"[901] but Seymour's speech "intimated, " says the Lincolnhistorian, "that the draft justified the riot, and that if the rioterswould cease their violence the draft should be stopped. "[902] James B. Fry, provost-marshal general, substantially endorsed this view. "Whilethe riot was going on, " he says, "Governor Seymour insisted on ColonelNugent announcing a suspension of the draft. The draft had alreadybeen stopped by violence. The announcement was urged by the Governor, no doubt, because he thought it would allay the excitement; but itwas, under the circumstances, making a concession to the mob, andendangering the successful enforcement of the law of the land. "[903]

[Footnote 900: New York _Tribune_, July 15, 1863. ]

[Footnote 901: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 7, p. 26. ]

[Footnote 902: _Ibid. _, p. 23. ]

[Footnote 903: James B. Fry, _New York and the Conscription_, p. 33. ]

Of the four reports of Seymour's speech, published the morning afterits delivery, no two are alike. [904] Three, however, concur in his useof the word "friends, "[905] and all agree that he spoke of trying tosecure a postponement of the draft that justice might be done. It wasa delicate position in which he placed himself, and one that everafter gave him and his supporters much embarrassment and cause formany apologies. Nevertheless, his action in nowise impugned hispatriotism. Assuming the riot had its inception in the belief which hehimself entertained, that the draft was illegal and unjust, he soughtby personal appeal to stay the destruction of life and property, andif anyone in authority at that time had influence with the rioters andtheir sympathisers it was Horatio Seymour, who probably accomplishedless than he hoped to. 

[Footnote 904: New York _Tribune_, _Herald_, _Times_, and _World_, July 15; also, _Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, pp. 127-128. ]

[Footnote 905: New York _Tribune_, _Herald_, and _Times_. ]

Seymour's views in relation to the draft first appeared in August. While the Federal authorities prepared the enrolment in June, theGovernor, although his coöperation was sought, "gave no assistance, "says Fry. "In fact, so far as the government officers engaged in theenrolment could learn, he gave the subject no attention. "[906] On theday the drawing began, however, he became apprehensive of trouble andsent his adjutant to Washington to secure a suspension of the draft, but the records do not reveal the reasons presented by that officer. Certainly no complaint was made as to the correctness of the enrolmentor the assignment of quotas. [907] Nevertheless, his delay taught him alesson, and when the Federal authorities notified him later that thedrawing would be resumed in August, he lost no time in beginning thenow historic correspondence with the President. His letter of August 3asked that the suspension of the draft be continued to enable theState officials to correct the enrolment, and to give the UnitedStates Supreme Court opportunity to pass upon the constitutionality ofthe Conscription Act, suggesting the hope that in the meantime NewYork's quota might be filled by volunteers. "It is believed by atleast one-half of the people of the loyal States, " he wrote, "that theConscription Act, which they are called upon to obey, is in itself aviolation of the supreme constitutional law. . . . In the minds of theAmerican people the duty of obedience and the rights to protection areinseparable. If it is, therefore, proposed on the one hand to exactobedience at the point of the bayonet, and, upon the other hand, toshut off, by military power, all approach to our judicial tribunals, we have reason to fear the most ruinous results. "[908]

[Footnote 906: James B. Fry, _New York and the Conscription_, p. 14. "Seymour showed his lack of executive ability by not filling up thequota of New York by volunteers in less than a month after theConscription Act was passed. This a clever executive could easily havedone and so avoided all trouble. "--New York _Herald_, September 11, 1863. ]

[Footnote 907: James B. Fry, _New York and the Conscription_, p. 32. ]

[Footnote 908: _The Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, p. 153. ]

This letter was neither gracious nor candid. While dealing in columnsof figures to prove the inaccuracy of the enrolment, it concealed thefact that, although urged to coöperate with the enrolling officers, hehad ignored their invitation to verify the enrolment. In menacingtones, too, he intimated "the consequences of a violent, harsh policy, before the constitutionality of the Act is tested. " It was evident hehad given much thought to the question, but his prolixity betrayed thefeeling of an official who, conscious of having erred in doing nothingin anticipation of riot and bloodshed, wished now to make a bigshowing of duty performed. 

Lincoln's reply not only emphasised the difference between thepolitical aptitude of himself and Seymour, but marked him as the moremagnanimous and far the greater man. The President raised no issue asto enrolments, wasted no arguments over columns of figures, andreferred in nowise to the past. He briefly outlined a method ofverification which quickly established, --what might have been shown inJune had the Governor given the matter attention, --an excess of 13, 000men enrolled in the Brooklyn and New York districts. Although he wouldbe glad, said Lincoln, to facilitate a decision of the Court andabide by it, [909] he declined longer to delay the draft "because timeis too important. . . . We are contending with an enemy who, as Iunderstand, drives every able-bodied man he can reach into his ranks, very much as a butcher drives bullocks into a slaughter-pen. No timeis wasted, no argument is used. This produces an army which will soonturn upon our now victorious soldiers already in the field, if theyare not sustained by recruits as they should be. "[910]

[Footnote 909: The constitutionality of the Conscription Act of March3, 1863, was affirmed by the United States Circuit Courts ofPennsylvania and Illinois. ]

[Footnote 910: _The Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, p. 156. ]

When the drawing was resumed on August 19, 10, 000 infantry and threebatteries of artillery, picked troops from the Army of the Potomac, beside a division of the State National Guard, backed the Governor'sproclamation counselling submission to the execution of the law. Inthis presence the draft proceeded peacefully. 

Meanwhile, the loyal millions of the North, longing for victory in thefield, found their prayers answered. Gettysburg and Vicksburg hadpierced the spirit of the South, Cumberland Gap had liberated EastTennessee, Fort Smith and Little Rock supplied a firm footing for thearmy beyond the Mississippi, and the surrender of Port Hudsonpermitted Federal gunboats to pass unvexed to the sea. The rift in thewar cloud had, indeed, let in a flood of sunlight, and, while itlasted, gave fresh courage and larger faith. 

CHAPTER VI

SEYMOUR REBUKED

1863

The victories of Vicksburg and Gettysburg turned the Republican Unionconvention, held at Syracuse on September 2, into a meeting ofrejoicing. Weed did not attend, but the Conservatives, led by Henry J. Raymond and Edwin D. Morgan, boldly talked of its control. Ward Huntbecame temporary chairman. Hunt was a lawyer whom politics did notattract. Since his unsuccessful effort to become a United Statessenator in 1857 he had turned aside from his profession only whennecessary to strengthen the cause of the Union. At such times he shoneas the representative of a wise patriotism. He did not belong in theclass of attractive platform speakers, nor possess the weaknesses ofblind followers of party chieftains. His power rested upon thestrength of his character as a well-poised student of affairs. What hebelieved came forcefully from a mind that formed its own judgments, and whether his words gave discomfort to the little souls thatgoverned caucuses, or to the great journalists that sought to forcetheir own policies, he was in no wise disturbed. 

Upon taking the chair Hunt began his remarks in the tone of one whofelt more than he desired to express, but as the mention of Gettysburgand Vicksburg revealed the unbounded enthusiasm of the men before him, the optimism that characterised the people's belief in the summer of1863 quickly took possession of him, and he coupled with thedeclaration that the rebel armies were nearly destroyed, the opinionthat peace was near at hand. For the moment the party seemed solidlyunited. But when the echoes of long continued cheering had subsidedthe bitterness of faction flashed out with increased intensity. To theRadicals, Raymond's suggestion of Edwin D. Morgan for permanentchairman was as gall and wormwood, and his talk of an entire newticket most alarming. However, George Opdyke and Horace Greeley, theRadical leaders, chastened by the defeat of Wadsworth and the electionof Morgan to the Senate, did not now forget the value of discretion. Hunt's selection as temporary chairman had been a concession, and inthe choice of a permanent presiding officer, although absolutelyunyielding in their hostility to Morgan, they graciously acceptedAbraham Wakeman, an apostle of the conservative school. [911] Theirattitude toward Morgan, however, cost Opdyke a place on the StateCommittee, and for a time threatened to exclude the Radicals fromrecognition upon the ticket. 

[Footnote 911: Wakeman was postmaster at New York City. ]

The refusal of men to accept nominations greatly embarrassedConservatives in harvesting their victory. Thomas W. Olcott of Albanywas nominated for comptroller in place of Lucius Robinson. Of all thedistinguished men who had filled that office none exhibited a moreinflexible firmness than Robinson in holding the public purse strings. He was honest by nature and by practice. Neither threats nor ingeniousdevices disturbed him, but with a fidelity as remarkable as it wasrare he pushed aside the emissaries of extravagance and corruption asreadily as a plow turns under the sod. After two years of suchmethods, however, the representatives of a wide-open treasury noisilydemanded a change. But Olcott, a financier of wide repute, wiselydeclined to be used for such a purpose, and Robinson was accepted. 

Daniel S. Dickinson, after the inconsequential treatment accorded himin the recent contest for United States senator, suddenly discoveredthat domestic reasons disabled him from serving longer asattorney-general. Then James T. Brady declined, although tendered thenomination without a dissenting voice. This reduced the convention, in its search for a conspicuous War Democrat, to the choice of JohnCochrane, the well-known orator who had left the army in the precedingFebruary. In choosing a Secretary of State the embarrassmentcontinued. Greeley encouraged the candidacy of Chauncey M. Depew, butconcluded, at the last moment, that Peter A. Porter, the colonel of aregiment and a son of the gallant general of the war of 1812, musthead the ticket. [912] Porter, however, refused to exchange a militaryfor a civil office, and Depew was substituted. 

[Footnote 912: "Porter received 213 votes to 140 for Depew, who made aremarkable run under the circumstances. "--New York _Herald_, September3, 1863. 

"Greeley sent for me some weeks before the convention and pressed mewith such vigour to take a position upon the State ticket that Ifinally consented. He then secured from practically the whole State anendorsement of the suggestion on my behalf. On the morning of theconvention he suddenly decided that some one connected with the armymust be chosen and sent around an order for a change of programme justbefore the roll was called. It was the most fortunate thing that couldhave happened to me, but created widespread distrust of his qualitiesas a leader. "--Speech of Chauncey M. Depew, April 4, 1902. _Addressesof_, November, 1896, to April, 1902, pp. 238-239. ]

Depew, then a young man of twenty-nine, gave promise of his subsequentbrilliant career. He lived a neighbour to Horace Greeley, whom hegreatly admired, and to whom he tactfully spoke the honeyed words, always so agreeable to the _Tribune's_ editor. [913] Perhaps no one inthe State possessed a more pleasing personality. He made other peopleas happy as he was himself. To this charm of manner were added asingularly attractive presence, a pleasing voice, and the oratoricalgifts that won him recognition even before he left Yale College. Fromthe first he exhibited a marked capacity for public life. He had anunfailing readiness, a wide knowledge of affairs, a keen sense of theridiculous, and a flow of clear and easy language which never failedto give full and precise expression to all that was in his mind. Herarely provoked enmities, preferring light banter to severe invectiveor unsparing ridicule. Among his associates he was the prince ofraconteurs. In conventions few men were heard with keener interest, and every Republican recognised the fact that a new force had comeinto the councils of the party. There never was a time when peopleregarded him as "a coming man, " for he took a leading place at once. In 1861, three years after his admission to the bar, the Peekskillvoters sent him to the Assembly, and the next year his colleaguesselected him for speaker, an honour which he generously relinquishedthat his party might elect a United States senator. Now, within thesame year, he found a place at the head of the ticket, which he ledduring the campaign with marked ability. [914]

[Footnote 913: "So far as politics were concerned, Greeley'saffections seemed to be lavished on politicians who flattered andcoddled him. Of this the rise of Governor Fenton was a strikingexample. "--Andrew D. White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 160. ]

[Footnote 914: The State ticket was as follows: Secretary of state, Chauncey M. Depew of Westchester; Comptroller, Lucius Robinson ofChemung; Canal Commissioner, Benjamin F. Bruce of Madison; Treasurer, George W. Schuyler of Tompkins; State Engineer, William B. Taylor ofOneida; Prison Inspector, James K. Bates of Jefferson; Judge ofAppeals, Henry S. Selden of Monroe; Attorney-General, John Cochrane ofNew York. ]

The platform endorsed the Administration, praised the soldiers, opposed a peace that changed the Constitution except in the formprescribed by it, deplored the creation of a spirit of partisanhostility against the Government, and promised that New York would doits full share in maintaining the Union; but it skilfully avoidedmentioning the conscription act and the emancipation proclamation, which Seymour charged had changed the war for the Union into a war forabolition. When a delegate, resenting the omission, moved a resolutioncommending emancipation, Raymond reminded him that he was in a Union, not a Republican convention, and that many loyal men doubted thepropriety of such an endorsement. This position proved tooconservative for the ordinary up-State delegate, and a motion to tablethe resolution quickly failed. Thereupon Charles A. Folger of Genevamoved to amend by adding the words, "and as a war measure isthoroughly legal and justifiable. " Probably no man in the convention, by reason of his learning and solidity of character, had greaterinfluence. In 1854 he left the Democratic party with Ward Hunt, whomhe resembled as a lawyer, and whom he was to follow to the Court ofAppeals and like him attain the highest eminence. Just then he wasforty-five years old, a State senator of gentle bearing and stoutheart, who dared to express his positive convictions, and whosesuggested amendment, offered with the firmness of a man conscious ofbeing in the right, encountered slight opposition. 

The President's letter, addressed to the Union convention of New York, gave the Radicals great comfort. With direct and forceful languageLincoln took the people into his confidence. There are but three ways, he said, to stop the war; first, by suppressing rebellion, which hewas trying to do; second, by giving up the Union, which he was tryingto prevent; and third, by some imaginable compromise, which wasimpossible if it embraced the maintenance of the Union. The strengthof the rebellion is in its army, which dominates all the country andall the people within its range. Any offer of terms made by men withinthat range, in opposition to that army, is simply nothing for thepresent, because such men have no power whatever to enforce their sideof a compromise if one were made with them. Suppose refugees from theSouth and peace men from the North hold a convention of the States, how can their action keep Lee out of Pennsylvania? To be effective acompromise must come from those in control of the rebel army, or fromthe people after our army has suppressed that army. As no suggestionof peace has yet come from that source, all thought of peace for thepresent was out of the question. If any proposition shall hereaftercome, it shall not be rejected and kept a secret from you. 

To be plain, he continued, you are dissatisfied about the negro. Youopposed compensated emancipation and you dislike proclaimedemancipation. If slaves are property, is there any question that bythe law of war such property, both of enemies and friends, may betaken when needed? And is it not needed when its taking helps us andhurts our enemy? But you say the proclamation is unconstitutional. Ifit is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it cannot beretracted any more than the dead can be brought to life. You professto think its retraction would help the Union. Why better _after_ theretraction than _before_ the issue? Those in revolt had one hundreddays to consider it, and the war, since its issuance, has progressedas favourably for us as before. Some of the commanders who have wonour most important victories believe the emancipation policy theheaviest blow yet dealt to the rebels, and that in one instance, atleast, victory came with the aid of black soldiers. You say you willnot fight to free negroes. Whenever you are urged, after resistance tothe Union is conquered, to continue to fight, it will be time enoughto refuse. Do you not think, in the struggle for the Union, that thewithdrawal of negro help from the enemy weakens his resistance to you?That what negroes can do as soldiers leaves so much less for whitesoldiers to do? But why should negroes do anything for us, if we willdo nothing for them? and if they, on the promise of freedom, staketheir lives to save the Union, shall the promise not be kept?

The signs look better, he concluded. Peace does not appear so distantas it did. When it comes, it will prove that no appeal lies from theballot to the bullet, and that those who take it are sure to losetheir case and pay the costs. "And then there will be some black menwho can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, andsteady eye, and well poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on tothis great consummation; while I fear there will be some white onesunable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful speech theyhave striven to hinder it. "[915]

[Footnote 915: New York _Herald_, September 3, 1863. ]

The influence of this letter, increased by the dignity and power ofthe President's office, proved a sharp thorn to the Democrats. Recentmilitary successes had made it appear for the time, at least, thatrebellion was about to collapse, and the Democratic State Unionconvention, which convened at Albany on September 9, shifted itspolicy from a protest against war measures to an appeal forconciliation. In other words, it was against subjugation, which wouldnot leave "the Union as it was, and the Constitution as it is. " In itseffort to emphasise this plea it refused to recognise or affiliatewith the Constitutional Union party, controlled by James Brooks andother extreme peace advocates, [916] and although its platform stillcondemned emancipation, conscription, and arbitrary arrests, thepivotal declaration, based on "manifestations of a returningallegiance on the part of North Carolina and other seceded States, "favoured a wise statesmanship "which shall encourage the Unionsentiment of the South and unite more thoroughly the people of theNorth. " Amasa J. Parker, chairman of the convention, who still talkedof a "yawning gulf of ruin, " admitted that such a policy brought agleam of hope to the country, and Governor Seymour, at the end of adreary speech explanatory of his part in the draft-riot, [917]expressed a willingness to "bury violations of law and the rights ofStates and individuals if such a magnanimous course shall bepursued. "[918] Lincoln's letter, however, unexpectedly spoiled such anappeal, compelling the convention to "regret" that the Presidentcontemplates no measure for the restoration of the Union, "but lookingto an indefinite protraction of the war for abolition purposes pointsto no future save national bankruptcy and the subversion of ourinstitutions. "[919]

[Footnote 916: The Constitutional Union convention, meeting at Albanyon September 8, named candidates for attorney-general and prisoninspector, with the request that the Democratic convention endorsethem; otherwise it would put a full ticket into the field. Among itsState Committee appeared the names of former governor Washington Huntand Lorenzo Burrows. It resolved to resist all departures from thestrict letter of the Constitution, whether based upon militarynecessity or a usurpation of doubtful powers. 

"We tender the Democratic State convention our hearty thanks for theircontemptuous treatment of Jim Brooks & Co. 's one-horse concern, consisting of fifteen or twenty officers and three or four privates. That concern is thoroughly bogus--a barefaced imposture which shouldbe squelched and its annual nuisance abated. "--New York _Tribune_, September 11, 1863. ]

[Footnote 917: "Governor Seymour can talk more without sayinganything, and write more without meaning anything, than any other manwe know. . . . We consider Seymour not much of a man, and no Governor atall. "--New York _Herald_ (editorial), September 11, 1863. ]

[Footnote 918: _Ibid. _, September 10. ]

[Footnote 919: The ticket was made up as follows: Secretary of state, David B. St. John of Otsego; Comptroller, Sanford E. Church ofOrleans; Attorney-General, Marshall B. Champlain of Allegany; StateEngineer, Van R. Richmond of Wayne; Treasurer, William B. Lewis ofKings; Canal Commissioner, William W. Wright, of Ontario; Inspector ofPrisons, David B. McNeil of Clinton; Judge of Appeals, William F. Allen, of Oswego. --_Ibid. _]

The Republicans, backed by success in the field, started with anadvantage which the cheering news from Maine strengthened. It soonbecome manifest, too, that the Gibraltar of Democracy resented thedestructive work of mobs and rioters. Criticism of Seymour also becamedrastic. "He hobnobbed with the copperhead party in Connecticut, " saidthe _Herald_, "and lost that election; he endorsed Vallandigham, anddid nothing during the riot but talk. He has let every opportunitypass and rejected all offers that would prove him the man for theplace. The sooner he is dropped as incompetent, the better it will befor the ticket. "[920] The _Tribune_ imputed nepotism. "His brother, "it said, "gets $200 per month as agent, a nephew $150 as an officer, and two nephews and a cousin $1, 000 a year each as clerks in theexecutive departments. "[921] But Martin I. Townsend, at a great massmeeting in New York City, presented the crushing indictment againsthim. Although the clock had tolled the midnight hour, the largeaudience remained to hear Townsend for the same reason, suggestedEdwin D. Morgan, the chairman, that the disciples sat up all nightwhenever the great apostle was with them. Townsend was thenfifty-three years old. For more than a decade his rare ability as aspeaker had kept him a favorite, and for a quarter of a century longerhe was destined to delight the people. On this occasion, however, hisarraignment left a deeper and more lasting impression than his wordsordinarily did. "Seymour, " he said, "undertook to increase enlistmentsby refusing the soldier his political franchise. On the suppositionthat Meade would be defeated, he delivered a Fourth of July addressthat indicted the free people of the North and placed him in the frontrank of men whom rebels delight to honour. If there was a traitor inNew York City on that day he was in the company of Horatio Seymour. Finally, he pronounced as 'friends' the men, who, stirred to action byhis incendiary words, applied the torch and the bludgeon in the draftriot of July 13, 14, and 15. "[922]

[Footnote 920: _Ibid. _, September 26. ]

[Footnote 921: New York _Tribune_, October 9. ]

[Footnote 922: New York _Tribune_, October 1, 1863. ]

In the four speeches delivered in the campaign, Seymour was nevercleverer or more defiant. [923] He exhibited great skill in criticisingthe Administration, charging that disasters had brought bankruptcy, that ill-advised acts of subordinates had sapped the liberties of thepeople, and that base motives inspired the policy of the Government. He denounced the Radicals as craven Americans, devoid of patrioticfeeling, who were trying to make the humiliation and degradation oftheir country a stepping-stone to continued power. "They say we mustfight until slavery is extinguished. We are to upturn the foundationsof our Constitution. At this very moment, when the fate of the nationand of individuals trembles in the balance, these madmen ask us toplunge into a bottomless pit of controversy upon indefinite purposes. Does not every man know that we must have a united North to triumph?Can we get a united North upon a theory that the Constitution can beset aside at the will of one man, because, forsooth, he judges it tobe a military necessity? I never yet heard that Abraham Lincoln was amilitary necessity. . . . The Vice-President says, 'There are men in yourmidst who want the Union as it was and the Constitution as it is, ' andhe adds, sneeringly, 'They can't have it. ' We will tell him there aremany such men, and we say to him we will have it. There has never beena sentiment in the North or South put forth more treasonable, cowardly, and base than this. " Referring to the President's call, onOctober 17, for 300, 000 volunteers, to be followed by a draft if notpromptly filled, he exclaimed: "Again, 600, 000 men are calledfor--600, 000 homes to be entered. The young man will be compelled togive up the cornerstone of his fortune, which he has laid away withtoil and care, to begin the race of life. The old man will pay thatwhich he has saved, as the support of his declining years, to rescuehis son. In God's name, let these operations be fair if they must becruel. " In conclusion he professed undying loyalty. "We love that flag[pointing to the Stars and Stripes] with the whole love of our life, and every star that glitters on its blue field is sacred. And we willpreserve the Constitution, we will preserve the Union, we willpreserve our flag with every star upon it, and we will see to it thatthere is a State for every star. "[924]

[Footnote 923: Seymour spoke at Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, and New YorkCity, on October 26, 28, 29, and 31 respectively. ]

[Footnote 924: _Record of Horatio Seymour_, pp. 168-176. ]

In their extremity Dean Richmond and Peter Cagger, taking advantage ofthe President's call for more troops, issued a circular on the eve ofelection, alleging that the State would receive no credit for draftedmen commuted; that towns which had furnished their quotas would besubject to a new conscription; and that men having commuted wereliable to be immediately drafted again. [925] This was the prototype ofBurchard's "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" in 1884, and might havebecome no less disastrous had not the Provost-marshal General quicklycontradicted it. As a parting shot, Seward, speaking at Auburn on thenight before election, declared that if the ballot box could be passedthrough the camps of the Confederate soldiers, every man would votefor the administration of our government by Horatio Seymour andagainst the administration of Abraham Lincoln. [926]

[Footnote 925: New York _Tribune_, November 2, 1863. ]

[Footnote 926: New York _Herald_, November 6, 1863. ]

The October elections foreshadowed the result in November. Althoughthe Democrats had derived great advantage in 1862 because of theirbold stand for civil liberty and freedom of speech, a year later sucharguments proved of little avail. Gettysburg and Vicksburg had turnedthe tide, and Seymour and the draft riot carried it to the flood. Depew's majority, mounting higher and higher as the returns cameslowly from the interior, turned the Governor's surprise into shame. In his career of a quarter of a century Seymour had learned to acceptdisappointment as well as success, but his failure in 1863 to forecastthe trend of changing public sentiment cost him the opportunity ofever again leading his party to victory. [927]

[Footnote 927: "Depew received 29, 405 votes more than St. John forsecretary of state. " _Ibid. _, December 5, 1863. ]

CHAPTER VII

STRIFE OF RADICAL AND CONSERVATIVE

1864

In his Auburn speech Seward had declared for Lincoln'srenomination. [928] Proof of the intimate personal relations existingbetween the President and his Secretary came into national notice in1862 when a committee of nine Radical senators, charging to Seward'sconservatism the failure of a vigorous and successful prosecution ofthe war, formally demanded his dismissal from the Cabinet. On learningof their action the Secretary had immediately resigned. "Do you stillthink Seward ought to be excused?" asked Lincoln at the end of a longand stormy interview. Four answered "Yes, " three declined to vote, andHarris of New York said "No. "[929] The result of this conference ledSecretary Chase, the chief of the Radicals, to tender his resignationalso. But the President, "after most anxious consideration, " requestedeach to resume the duties of his department. Speaking of the matterafterward to Senator Harris, Lincoln declared with his usualmirth-provoking illustration: "If I had yielded to that storm anddismissed Seward, the thing would all have slumped one way. Now I canride; I have got a pumpkin in each end of my bag. "[930]

[Footnote 928: Delivered November 3, 1863. New York _Herald_, November6. ]

[Footnote 929: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 6, p. 266. Senators Sumner of Massachusetts, Trumbull of Illinois, Grimes ofIowa, and Pomeroy of Kansas, voted Yes; Collamer of Vermont, Fessendenof Maine, and Howard of Michigan declined to vote. Wade of Ohio wasabsent. ]

[Footnote 930: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 6, p. 268. ]

Other causes than loyalty contributed to the President's regard forSeward. In their daily companionship the latter took a genial, philosophical view of the national struggle, not shared by all hisCabinet associates, while Lincoln dissipated the gloom with quaintillustrations of Western life. [931] At one of these familiar firesidetalks the President expressed the hope that Seward might be hissuccessor, adding that the friends so grievously disappointed atChicago would thus find all made right at last. To this Seward, in hisclear-headed and kind-hearted way, replied: "No, that is all past andended. The logic of events requires you to be your own successor. Youwere elected in 1860, but the Southern States refused to submit. Theythought the decision made at the polls could be reversed in the field. They are still in arms, and their hope now is that you and your partywill be voted down at the next election. When that election is heldand they find the people reaffirming their decision to have youPresident, I think the rebellion will collapse. "[932]

[Footnote 931: Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 3, p. 197. ]

[Footnote 932: _Ibid. _, p. 196. ]

Unlike Seward, Thurlow Weed wabbled in his loyalty to the President. Chafing under the retention of Hiram C. Barney as collector ofcustoms, Weed thought Lincoln too tolerant of Radicals whoseopposition was ill concealed. "They will all be against him in '64, "he wrote David Davis, then an associate justice of the United StatesSupreme Court. "Why does he persist in giving them weapons with whichthey may defeat his renomination?"[933] Barney had become a burden toLincoln, who really desired to be rid of him. Many complaints ofirregularity disclosed corrupt practices which warranted a change forthe public good. Besides, said the President, "the establishment wasbeing run almost exclusively in the interest of the Radicals. I feltgreat delicacy in doing anything that might be offensive to my friend. And yet something had to be done. I told Seward he must find him adiplomatic position. Just then Chase became aware of my littleconspiracy. He was very angry and told me the day Barney left thecustom house, with or without his own consent, he would withdraw fromthe Treasury. So I backed down. "[934]

[Footnote 933: T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 434. ]

[Footnote 934: Maunsell B. Field, _Memories of Many Men_, p. 304. ]

Lincoln's tolerance did not please Weed, whose infrequent calls at theWhite House had not escaped notice. "I have been brought to fearrecently, " the President wrote with characteristic tenderness, "thatsomehow, by commission or omission, I have caused you some degree ofpain. I have never entertained an unkind feeling or a disparagingthought towards you; and if I have said or done anything which hasbeen construed into such unkindness or disparagement it has beenmisconstrued. I am sure if we could meet we would not part with anyunpleasant impression on either side. "[935] Such a letter from such aman stirred the heart of the iron-willed boss, who hastened toWashington. He had much to say. Among other things he unfolded a planfor peace. It proposed full amnesty to all persons engaged in the warand an armistice for ninety days, during which time such citizens ofthe Confederate States as embrace the offered pardon "shall, as aState or States, or as citizens thereof, be restored in all respectsto the rights, privileges, and prerogatives which they enjoyed beforetheir secession from the Union. " If, however, such offer is rejected, the authority of the United States denied, and the war against theUnion continued, the President should partition all territory, whetherfarms, villages, or cities, among the officers and soldiers conqueringthe same. [936]

[Footnote 935: Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 440. ]

[Footnote 936: _Ibid. _, p. 437. ]

In presenting this plan Weed argued that if the offer was rejected itwould secure "a united North in favour of war to the knife. " Besides, the armistice, occurring when the season interrupts active armymovements, would cause little delay and give ample time for widespreadcirculation of the proclamation. Respecting the division of landsamong soldiers, he said it would stop desertion, avoid the payment ofbounties, and quickly fill the army with enterprising yeomen who wouldwant homes after the termination of hostilities. It had long beenpractised in maritime wars by all civilized nations, he said, andbeing a part of international law it could not in reason be objectedto, especially as the sufferers would have rejected most liberaloffers of peace and prosperity. Weed frankly admitted that Seward didnot like the scheme, and that Senator Wilson of Massachusetts eyed itaskance; but Stanton approved it, he said, and Dean Richmondauthorised him to say that if fairly carried out the North would be aunit in support of the war and the rebellion would be crushed withinsix months after the expiration of the armistice. [937]

[Footnote 937: T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, pp. 437-439. ]

In conversation Weed was the most persuasive of men. To a quiet, gentle, deferential manner, he added a giant's grasp of the subject, presenting its strong points and marshalling with extraordinary skillall the details. Nevertheless, the proposition now laid before thePresident, leaving slavery as it was, could not be accepted. "Theemancipation proclamation could not be retracted, " he had said in hisfamous letter to the New York convention, "any more than the deadcould be brought to life. " However, Lincoln did not let the famouseditor depart empty-handed. Barney should be removed, and Weed, satisfied with such a scalp, returned home to enter the campaign forthe President's renomination. [938]

[Footnote 938: New York _Herald_, May 24, 1864. ]

Something seemed to be wrong in New York. Other States throughconventions and legislatures had early favored the President'srenomination, while the Empire State moved slowly. Party machineryworked well. The Union Central Committee, holding a special meeting onJanuary 4, 1864 at the residence of Edwin D. Morgan, recommendedLincoln's nomination. "It is going to be difficult to restrain theboys, " said Morgan in a letter to the President, "and there is notmuch use in trying to do so. "[939] On February 23 the Republican StateCommittee also endorsed him, and several Union League clubs spokeearnestly of his "prudence, sagacity, comprehension, andperseverance. " But the absence of an early State convention, the tardyselection of delegates to Baltimore, and the failure of theLegislature to act, did not reveal the enthusiasm evinced in otherCommonwealths. Following the rule adopted elsewhere, resolutionsfavourable to the President's renomination were duly presented to theAssembly, where they remained unacted upon. Suddenly on January 25 acircular, signed by Simeon Draper and issued by the ConferenceCommittee of the Union Lincoln Association of New York, proposed thatall citizens of every town and county who favoured Lincoln'snomination meet in some appropriate place on February 22 and makepublic expression to that fact. Among the twenty-five names attachedappeared those of Moses Taylor and Moses H. Grinnell. This was a newsystem of tactics. But the legislative resolutions did not advancebecause of it. 

[Footnote 939: _Ibid. _, February 7. ]

A month later a letter addressed by several New Yorkers to theNational Republican Executive Committee requested the postponement ofthe Baltimore convention. [940] "The country is not now in a positionto enter into a presidential contest, " it said. "All parties friendlyto the Government should be united in support of a single candidate. Such unanimity cannot at present be obtained. Upon the result ofmeasures adopted to finish the war during the present spring andsummer will depend the wish of the people to continue their presentleaders, or to exchange them for others. Besides, whatever will tendto lessen the duration of an acrimonious Presidential campaign will bean advantage to the country. "[941] If the sentiment of this letter wasnot new, the number and character of its signers produced a profoundsensation. William Cullen Bryant headed the list, and of thetwenty-three names, seventeen were leading State senators, among themCharles J. Folger and James M. Cook. "This list, " said the _Tribune_, "contains the names of two-thirds of the Unionists chosen to ourpresent State Senate, the absence of others preventing their signing. We understand that but two senators declined to affix theirname. "[942] Greeley did not sign this letter, but in an earliercommunication to the _Independent_ he had urged a postponement of theconvention. [943] Moreover, he had indicated in the _Tribune_ thatChase, Fremont, Butler, or Grant would make as good a President asLincoln, while the nomination of either would preserve "the salutaryone-term principle. "[944]

[Footnote 940: It was called to meet on June 7. ]

[Footnote 941: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1864, p. 785. ]

[Footnote 942: New York _Tribune_, April 25, 1864. ]

[Footnote 943: New York _Independent_, February 25, 1864. ]

[Footnote 944: New York _Tribune_, February 23, 1864. ]

It is not easy to determine the cause or the full extent of thedissatisfaction with Lincoln among New York Republicans. Seward'sinfluence and Weed's relations seriously weakened him. After theelection of 1862 Radicals openly charged them with Wadsworth's defeat. For the same reason the feeling against Edwin D. Morgan had becomeintensely bitter. Seeing a newspaper paragraph that these men had beenin consultation with the President about his message, Senator Chandlerof Michigan, the prince of Radicals, wrote a vehement letter toLincoln, telling him of a "patriotic organisation in all the free andborder States, containing to-day over one million of voters, every manof whom is your friend upon radical measures of your administration;but there is not a Seward or a Weed man among them all. These men area millstone about your neck. You drop them and they are politicallyended forever. . . . Conservatives and traitors are buried together. ForGod's sake don't exhume their remains in your message. They will smellworse than Lazarus did after he had been buried three days. "[945]

[Footnote 945: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 7, p. 389. ]

Although Weed had left the President with the promise of aiding him, he could accomplish nothing. The Legislature refused to act, demandsfor the postponement of the national convention continued to appear, and men everywhere resented conservative leadership. This wasespecially true of Greeley and the _Tribune_, Bryant and the _EveningPost_, and Beecher and the _Independent_, not to mention otherRadicals and radical papers throughout the State, whose oppositionrepresented a formidable combination. Except for this discontent theCleveland convention would scarcely have been summoned into existence. Of the three calls issued for its assembling two had their birth inNew York, one headed by George B. Cheever, the eminent divine, who hadrecently toured England in behalf of the Union, --the other by LuciusRobinson, State comptroller, and John Cochrane, attorney-general. Cheever's call denounced "the imbecile and vacillating policy of thepresent Administration in the conduct of the war, "[946] while Robinsonand Cochrane emphasised the need of a President who "can suppressrebellion without infringing the rights of individual or State. "[947]

[Footnote 946: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 20. ]

[Footnote 947: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1864, p. 786. ]

That Weed no longer possessed the wand of a Warwick was clearlydemonstrated at the Republican State convention, held at Syracuse onMay 26, to select delegates to Baltimore. Each faction, led in personby Greeley and Weed, professed to favour the President's renomination, but the fierce and bitter contest over the admission of delegates fromNew York City widened the breach. The Weed machine, following thecustom of previous years, selected an equal number of delegates fromeach ward. The Radicals, who denounced this system as an arbitraryexpression of bossism, chose a delegation representing each ward inproportion to the number of its Republican voters. The delegationaccepted would control the convention, and although the Radicalsconsented to the admission of both on equal terms, the Weed forces, confident of their strength, refused the compromise. This set theRadicals to work, and at the morning session, amidst the wildestconfusion and disorder, they elected Lyman Tremaine temporary chairmanby a majority of six over Chauncey M. Depew, the young secretary ofstate, whose popularity had given the Conservatives an abnormalstrength. 

In his speech the Chairman commented upon the death of James S. Wadsworth, killed in the battle of the Wilderness on May 6, from whoseobsequies, held at Geneseo on the 21st, many delegates had justreturned. Tremaine believed that the soldier's blood would "lie heavyon the souls of those pretended supporters of the government in itshour of trial, whose cowardice and treachery contributed to his defeatfor governor. "[948] In such a spirit he eulogised Wadsworth'scharacter and patriotism, declaring that if justice had been done himby the Conservatives, he would now, instead of sleeping in his grave, be governor of New York. Although spoken gently and with emotions ofsadness, these intolerably aggressive sentences, loudly applauded bythe Radicals, stirred the Weed delegates into whispered threats. [949]But Tremaine did not rely upon words alone. He packed the committee oncontested seats, whose report, admitting both city delegations onequal terms, was accepted by the enormous majority of 192 to 98, revealing the fact that the great body of up-State Republicansdistrusted Thurlow Weed, whose proposition for peace did not includethe abolition of slavery. Other reasons, however, accounted for thelarge majority. Tremaine, no longer trusting to the leadership ofGreeley, [950] marshalled the Radical forces with a skill learned inthe school of Seymour and Dean Richmond, and when his drilled cohortswent into action the tumultuous and belligerent character of thescene resembled the uproar familiar to one who had trained withTammany and fought with Mozart Hall. In concluding its work theconvention endorsed the President and selected sixty-six delegates, headed by Raymond, Dickinson, Tremaine, and Preston King asdelegates-at-large. 

[Footnote 948: New York _Tribune_, May 10, 1864. ]

[Footnote 949: New York _Herald_, May 29. ]

[Footnote 950: "Greeley received an almost unanimous call to lead theparty in the State and the first convention which he attended (1862)bowed absolutely to his will. He thought he was a great politicalleader, and he might have been if he had ever been sure of himself;but he was one of the poorest judges of men, and in that way was oftendeceived, often misled, and often led to change his opinions. . . . Inless than two years his power was gone. "--From speech of Chauncey M. Depew, April 4, 1902. _Addresses of_, November, 1896, to April, 1902, pp. 238-239. ]

The echo of the Syracuse contest reached the Cleveland convention, which assembled on May 31. Of all the distinguished New Yorkers whosenames had advertised and given character to this movement JohnCochrane alone attended. Indeed, the picturesque speech of Cochrane, as chairman, and the vehement letter of Lucius Robinson, advocatingthe nomination of Grant, constituted the only attractive feature ofthe proceedings. Cochrane and Robinson wanted a party in which theycould feel at home. To Cochrane the Republican party was "a medley oftrading, scurvy politicians, which never represented WarDemocrats, "[951] while Robinson thought the country "had survived, through three years of war, many bad mistakes of a weak Executive andCabinet, simply because the popular mind had been intensely fixed uponthe single purpose of suppressing rebellion. "[952] Both resented theAdministration's infringement of individual rights. "Whoever attacksthem, " said Cochrane, "wounds the vital parts of the Republic. Noteven the plea of necessity allows any one to trample upon them. "[953]The Cleveland convention, however, did not help these statesmen anymore than the nomination of John C. Fremont and John Cochrane, "thetwo Johns from New York" as they were called, injured thePresident. [954] When Lincoln heard that instead of the many thousandsexpected only three or four hundred attended, he opened his Bible andread: "And every one that was in distress, and every one that was indebt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves untohim; and he became a captain over them; and there were with him aboutfour hundred. "[955]

[Footnote 951: Cochrane's speech at Cleveland. McPherson's _History ofthe Rebellion_, p. 411. ]

[Footnote 952: _Ibid. _, p. 413. ]

[Footnote 953: _Ibid. _, p. 412. ]

[Footnote 954: A singular mistake of the convention was itsnomination, contrary to the requirement of the Constitution, of bothcandidates from the same State. ]

[Footnote 955: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 40. ]

Lucius Robinson's suggestion that Grant be nominated for Presidentrepresented the thought of many New Yorkers prominent in politicalcircles. "All eyes and hopes now centre on Grant, " wrote Thurlow Weedon April 17. "If he wins in Virginia it will brighten the horizon andmake him President. "[956] The _Herald_ sounded the praises of theLieutenant-General in nearly every issue. The _Tribune_ and _Times_were equally flattering. Even the _World_ admitted that a skilfulgeneral handled the army. [957] Other papers throughout the Stateexpressed similar confidence in his victorious leadership, and withthe hope of changing the sentiment from Lincoln to Grant a great massmeeting, called ostensibly to express the country's gratitude to thelatter, was held in New York City two days before the meeting of theNational Republican convention. Neither at this time, however, nor atany other did the movement receive the slightest encouragement fromthe hero of Vicksburg, or shake the loyalty of the delegates whoassembled at Baltimore on June 7. 

[Footnote 956: T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 443. ]

[Footnote 957: See New York _Herald_, April 25, 27, May 7, 9, 14, 16, 18, 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, June 1, 4; New York _Tribune_, May 10, 12, 13, 14; New York _Times_, May 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19; New York _World_, May 2, 11, 12, 13, 14. ]

Henry J. Raymond, evidencing the same wise spirit of compromiseexhibited at Syracuse in 1863, reported the platform. It declared themaintenance of the Union and the suppression of rebellion by force ofarms to be the highest duty of every citizen; it approved thedetermination of the government to enter into no compromise withrebels; favoured the abolition of slavery by constitutional amendment;applauded the wisdom, patriotism, and fidelity of the President;thanked the soldiers, and claimed the full protection of the laws ofwar for coloured troops; encouraged immigration and the earlyconstruction of a railroad to the Pacific coast; pledged the nationalfaith to keep inviolate the redemption of the public debt; and opposedthe establishment, by foreign military forces, of monarchicalgovernments in the near vicinity of the United States. [958] On thesecond day every State voted for Lincoln for President. [959]

[Footnote 958: Edward McPherson, _History of the Rebellion_, pp. 406-407. ]

[Footnote 959: _Ibid. _, p. 407. ]

The contest for Vice-President renewed the fight of the New Yorkfactions. An impression had early taken root in the country that a WarDemocrat should be selected, and the Radicals of New York, under theleadership of Lyman Tremaine, quickly designated Daniel S. Dickinsonas the man. Dickinson's acceptability in New England and New Jerseystrengthened his candidacy, while its approval by three or four borderand western States seriously weakened Hamlin. Nevertheless, the NewYork Conservatives vigorously opposed him. Their antagonism did not atfirst concentrate upon any one candidate. Weed talked of Hamlin andlater of Joseph Holt of Kentucky; Raymond thought Andrew Johnson ofTennessee the stronger; and Preston King, to the great surprise of theRadicals, agreed with him. This brought from George William Curtis thesarcastic remark that a Vice-President from the Empire State wouldprevent its having a Cabinet officer. Tremaine declared that a changein the Cabinet would not be a serious calamity to the country, andPreston King, who attributed his displacement from the United StatesSenate to the Seward influence, did not object to the Secretary'sremoval. Thus Raymond's influence gave the doughty War Governor 32 ofNew York's 66 votes to 28 for Dickinson and 6 for Hamlin. Thismaterially aided Johnson's nomination on the first ballot. [960]

[Footnote 960: Johnson received 200 votes to 108 for Dickinson. Afterrecording all changes, the ballot stood: Johnson, 494; Dickinson, 17;Hamlin, 9. McPherson, _Hist. Of the Rebellion_, p. 407. ]

Raymond's power and influence may be said to have climaxed in 1864 atthe Baltimore convention. He became chairman of the New Yorkdelegation, chairman of the committee on resolutions, chairman of theNational Executive Committee, and the principal debater upon thefloor, manifesting a tact in the performance of his manifold dutiesthat surprised as much as it charmed. But the reason for his ardentsupport of Johnson will probably never be certainly known. McCluredeclared that he acted in accord with the wishes of Lincoln, whodiscreetly favoured and earnestly desired Johnson's nomination. Thisview was approved by George Jones, the proprietor of the _Times_ andRaymond's most intimate friend. [961] On the other hand, Nicolaydeclared that "it was with minds absolutely untrammelled by even anyknowledge of the President's wishes that the convention went about itswork of selecting his associate on the ticket. "[962] In his long andbitter controversy with Nicolay, however, McClure furnished testimonyindicating that Lincoln whispered his choice and that Raymondunderstood it. [963]

[Footnote 961: Alex. K. McClure, _Lincoln and Men of War Times_, p. 444. ]

[Footnote 962: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, pp. 72-73. ]

[Footnote 963: Alex. K. McClure, _Lincoln and Men of War Times_, pp. 425-449. ]

While Raymond antagonised the radical supporters of Dickinson, patronage questions were again threatening trouble for the President. Serious friction had followed the appointment of a General Appraiserat New York, and when John J. Cisco, the assistant United Statestreasurer, tendered his resignation to take effect June 30 (1864), thePresident desired to appoint one unobjectionable to Senator Morgan;but Secretary Chase, regardless of the preferences of others, insistedupon Maunsell B. Field, then an assistant secretary of the treasury. Morgan vigorously protested, regarding him incompetent to fill such aplace. Besides, the designation of Field, who had no political backingin New York, would, he said, offend the conservative wing of theparty, which had been entirely ignored in the past. As a compromisethe Senator begged the President to select Richard M. Blatchford, Dudley S. Gregory, or Thomas Hillhouse, whom he regarded as three ofthe most eminent citizens of New York. 

Lincoln, in a note to the Secretary, submitted these names. "It willreally oblige me, " he wrote, "if you will make choice among thesethree, or any other men that Senators Morgan and Harris will besatisfied with. "[964] This brief letter was followed on the same dayby one presenting the annoyance to which patronage subjects aPresident. Happily civil service reform has removed much of this evil, but enough remains to keep an Executive, if not members of Congress, in hot water. "As the proverb goes, " wrote Lincoln, "no man knows sowell where the shoe pinches as he who wears it. I do not think Mr. Field a very proper man for the place, but I would trust your judgmentand forego this were the greater difficulty out of the way. Much as Ipersonally like Mr. Barney it has been a great burden to me to retainhim in his place when nearly all our friends in New York were directlyor indirectly urging his removal. Then the appointment of JudgeHogeboom to be general appraiser brought me to the verge of openrevolt. Now the appointment of Mr. Field would precipitate me in it, unless Senator Morgan and those feeling as he does could be brought toconcur in it. Strained as I already am at this point, I do not think Ican make this appointment in the direction of still greaterstrain. "[965]

[Footnote 964: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 93. ]

[Footnote 965: _Ibid. _, pp. 93-94. ]

Chase had relieved the tension temporarily by inducing Cisco towithdraw his resignation, but after getting the President's secondletter, cleverly intimating that Field's appointment might necessitatethe removal of Barney, the Secretary promptly tendered hisresignation. If the President was surprised, the Secretary, afterreading Lincoln's reply, was not less so. "Your resignation of theoffice of secretary of the treasury, sent me yesterday, is accepted, "said the brief note. "Of all I have said in commendation of yourability and fidelity I have nothing to unsay, and yet you and I havereached a point of mutual embarrassment in our official relation whichit seems cannot be overcome or longer sustained consistently with thepublic service. "[966] Secretary Blaine's hasty resignation in 1892, and President Harrison's quick acceptance of it, were not moredramatic, except that Blaine's was tendered on the eve of a nationalnominating convention. It is more than doubtful if Chase intended toresign. He meant it to be as in previous years the beginning of acorrespondence, expecting to receive from the President a soothingletter with concessions. But Lincoln's stock of patience, if not ofsedatives, was exhausted. 

[Footnote 966: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 95. ]

A few weeks later, after William Pitt Fessenden's appointment tosucceed Chase, Simeon Draper became collector of customs. He was oneof Weed's oldest friends and in 1858 had been his first choice forgovernor. [967] But just now Abraham Wakeman was his first choice forcollector. Possibly in selecting Draper instead of Wakeman, Lincolnremembered Weed's failure to secure a legislative endorsement of hisrenomination, a work specially assigned to him. At all events theanti-Weed faction accepted Draper as a decided triumph. 

[Footnote 967: "Simeon Draper was impulsive and demonstrative. Withthe advantages of a fine person, good conversational powers, and readywit, his genial presence and cheerful voice imparted life and spiritto the numerous social circles in which he was ever a welcome guest. "_Weed's Reminiscences_, T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 483. ]

CHAPTER VIII

SEYMOUR'S PRESIDENTIAL FEVER

1864

"I shall not attempt to retract or modify the EmancipationProclamation, " said the President at the opening of Congress inDecember, 1863; "nor shall I return to slavery any person who is freeby the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress. "But in submitting a plan for the restoration of the Confederate Stateshe offered amnesty, with rights of property except as to slaves, toall persons[968] who agreed to obey the Constitution, the laws, andthe Executive proclamations, and proposed that whenever such personsnumbered one-tenth of the qualified voters of a State they "shall berecognized as the true government of such State. "[969] A week laterthe Thirteenth Amendment, forever abolishing slavery, was introducedinto Congress. Thus the purpose of the radical Republicans becameplain. 

[Footnote 968: Except certain ones specifically exempted. ]

[Footnote 969: Lincoln, _Complete Works_, Vol. 2, p. 443. ]

In January, 1864, Governor Seymour, then the acknowledged head of hisparty, made his message to the Legislature a manifesto to theDemocrats of the country. With measured rhetoric he traced theusurpations of the President and the acknowledged policy that was infuture to guide the Administration. He courageously admitted that amajority of the people and both branches of Congress sustained thepolicy of the President, but such a policy, he declared, subordinatingthe laws, the courts, and the people themselves to military power, destroyed the rights of States and abrogated cherished principles ofgovernment. The past, however, with its enormous debt, itsdepreciated currency, its suspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_, and its abolition of free speech and a free press, did not mean suchirretrievable ruin as the national bankruptcy which now threatened tooverwhelm the nation. "The problem with which we have to grapple is, "he said, "how can we bring this war to a conclusion before suchdisasters overwhelm us. " Two antagonistic theories, he continued, arenow before us--one, consecrating the energies of war and the policy ofgovernment to the restoration of the Union as it was and theConstitution as it is; the other, preventing by the creation of a newpolitical system the return of the revolted States, though willing tolay down their arms. This alternative will enable an administration toperpetuate its power. It is a doctrine of national bankruptcy andnational ruin; it is a measure for continued military despotism overone-third of our country, which will be the basis for militarydespotism over the whole land. 

Every measure to convert the war against armed rebellion into oneagainst private property and personal rights at the South, hecontinued, has been accompanied by claims to exercise military powerin the North. The proclamation of emancipation at the South, and thesuspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_ at the North; theconfiscation of private property in the seceding States, and thearbitrary arrests, imprisonment, and banishment of the citizens ofloyal States; the claim to destroy political organization at theSouth, and the armed interference by Government in local elections atthe North, have been contemporaneous events. We now find that as thestrength of rebellion is broken, new claims to arbitrary power are putforth. More prerogatives are asserted in the hour of triumph than wereclaimed in days of disaster. The war is not to be brought to an end bythe submission of States to the Constitution and their return to theUnion, but to be prolonged until the South is subjugated and acceptssuch terms as may be dictated. This theory designs a sweepingrevolution and the creation of a new political system. There is butone course, he concluded, which will now save us from such nationalruin--we must use every influence of wise statesmanship to bring backthe States which now reject their constitutional obligations. Thetriumphs won by the soldiers in the field should be followed up by thepeacemaking policy of the statesmen in the Cabinet. In no other waycan we save our Union. [970]

[Footnote 970: _Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, pp. 198-212. ]

Seymour's claims and portents were in amazing contrast to his proposedmeasures of safety. Nevertheless he did his work well. It was hisintention clearly to develop the ultimate tendencies of the war, and, in a paper of great power and interest, without invective or acerbity, he did not hesitate to alarm the people respecting the jeopardy oftheir own liberties. Indeed, his message had the twofold purpose ofdrawing the line distinctly between Administration and anti-Administrationforces, and of concentrating public attention upon himself as asuitable candidate for President. [971] Seymour was never withoutambition, for he loved politics and public affairs, and the Presidencycaptivated him. With deepest interest he watched the play atCharleston and at Baltimore in 1860, and had the nomination come tohim, Lincoln's election, depending as it did upon New York, must havegiven Republicans increased solicitude. Developments during the warhad stimulated this ambition. The cost of blood and treasure, blendedwith arbitrary measures deemed necessary by the Government, pained andfinally exasperated him until he longed to possess the power of anExecutive to make peace. He believed that a compromise, presented in aspirit of patriotic clemency, with slavery undisturbed, would quicklyterminate hostilities, and although he made the mistake of surroundinghimself with men whose influence sometimes betrayed him into weak andextreme positions, his ability to present his views in a scholarly andpatriotic manner, backed by a graceful and gracious bearing, kept himin close touch with a party that resented methods which made peacedependent upon the abolition of slavery. He never provoked thecriticism of those whom he led, nor indulged in levity and flippancy. But he was unsparing in his lectures to the Administration, admonishing it to adopt the principles of government which prevailedwhen happiness and peace characterised the country's condition, andprophesying the ruin of the Union unless it took his advice. While, therefore, his eulogy of the flag, the soldiers, the Union, and thesacrifices of the people won him reputation for patrioticconservatism, his condemnation of the Government brought him creditfor supporting and promoting all manner of disturbing factions andrevolutionary movements. 

[Footnote 971: Horace Greeley, _History of the Rebellion_, Vol. 2, p. 667. ]

The Regency understood the Governor's ambition, and the DemocraticState convention, assembling at Albany on February 24 to designatedelegates to Chicago, opened the way for him as widely as possible. Itpromulgated no issues; it mentioned no candidate; it refused to acceptFernando Wood and his brother as delegates because of their pronouncedadvocacy of a dishonourable peace; and it placed Seymour at the headof a strong delegation, backed by Dean Richmond and August Belmont, and controlled by the unit rule. It was a remarkable coincidence, too, that the New York _Herald_, which had pursued the Governor for morethan a year with bitter criticism, suddenly lapsed into silence. Indeed, the only shadow falling upon his pathway in the Empire Statereflected the temporary anger of Tammany, which seceded from theconvention because the McKeon delegation, an insignificant coterie ofadvocates of peace-on-any-conditions, had been admitted on terms ofequality. 

As the summer advanced political conditions seemed to favour Seymour. During the gloomy days of July and August the people prayed for acessation of hostilities. "The mercantile classes are longing forpeace, " wrote James Russell Lowell, [972] and Horace Greeley, in aletter of perfervid vehemence, pictured to the President the unhappycondition. "Our bleeding, bankrupt, almost dying country, " he said, "longs for peace, shudders at the prospect of fresh conscriptions, orfurther wholesale devastations, and of new rivers of humanblood. "[973] The President, also yearning for peace and willing toaccept almost any proposition if it included the abolition of slavery, waited for a communication from some agent of the Confederacyauthorised to treat with him; but such an one had not appeared, although several persons, safely sheltered in Canada, claimedauthority. One of these, calling himself William C. Jewett ofColorado, finally convinced Horace Greeley that Clement C. Clay ofAlabama and Jacob Thompson of Mississippi, two ambassadors ofJefferson Davis, were ready at Niagara Falls to meet the Presidentwhenever protection was afforded them. Upon being informed by Greeleyof their presence, Lincoln replied (July 9): "If you can find anyperson, anywhere, professing to have any proposition of JeffersonDavis in writing for peace, embracing the restoration of the Union andabandonment of slavery, whatever else it embraces, say to him he maycome to me with you. "[974]

[Footnote 972: Motley's _Letters_, Vol. 2, p. 168. ]

[Footnote 973: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 186. ]

[Footnote 974: _Ibid. _, pp. 187-188. ]

While Greeley, hesitating to undertake the mission himself, indulgedin further correspondence with the President, James P. Jaquess, aMethodist clergyman and colonel of an Illinois regiment, with theknowledge of Lincoln, but without official authority except to passthe Union lines, obtained (July 17) an audience with Jefferson Davis, to whom he made overtures of peace. In the interview Davis declaredthat "we are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting forindependence, and that or extermination we will have. We will be free. We will govern ourselves. We will do it if we have to see everySouthern plantation sacked and every Southern city in flames. . . . Sayto Mr. Lincoln from me that I shall at any time be pleased to receiveproposals for peace on the basis of our independence. It will beuseless to approach me with any other. "[975] It is known now thatJaquess' report was substantially correct, but at the time the peaceadvocate defiantly challenged its truth and the conservative wasincredulous. 

[Footnote 975: J. R. Gilmore (Kirke), _Down in Tennessee_, pp. 272-280. ]

Meantime Greeley (July 16) proceeded to Niagara Falls. Thompson wasnot there and Clay had no authority to act. When the famous editorasked fresh instructions Lincoln sent John Hay, his private secretary, with the historic paper of July 18, which stopped furthernegotiations. [976] In this well-meant effort the President desired toconvince his own party of the hopelessness of any satisfactory peaceuntil the surrender of Lee's and Johnston's armies; but to the people, grieved by the death of loved ones, or oppressed by constant anxiety, his brief ultimatum seemed maladroit, while the men who favoured peacesimply on condition of the restoration of the Union, without theabolition of slavery, resented his course as arbitrary and needlesslycruel. 

[Footnote 976: "To whom it may concern: Any proposition which embracesthe restoration of peace, the integrity of the whole Union, and theabandonment of slavery, and which comes by and with an authority thatcan control the armies now at war against the United States will bereceived and considered by the executive government of the UnitedStates and will be met by liberal terms on other substantial andcollateral points, and the bearer or bearers thereof shall have safeconduct both ways. Abraham Lincoln. "--Horace Greeley, _The AmericanConflict_, Vol. 2, p. 665; Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1864, p. 780;Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 192. ]

Lincoln's unpopularity touched bottom at this moment. Thedissatisfaction found expression in a secret call for a secondnational convention, to be held at Cincinnati on September 28, tonominate, if necessary, a new candidate for President. [977] Thismovement, vigorously promoted in Ohio by Salmon P. Chase, receivedcordial support in New York City. George Opdyke directed it, HoraceGreeley heartily endorsed it, Daniel S. Dickinson favoured it, andLucius Robinson and David Dudley Field sympathised with it. [978] ParkeGodwin and William Curtis Noyes, if unwilling to go as far as Opdykeand Greeley, would have welcomed Lincoln's withdrawal. [979] RoscoeConkling, being advised of the scheme, promptly rejected it. "I do notapprove of the call or of the movement, " he wrote, "and cannot signit. For that reason it would not be proper or agreeable that I shouldbe present at the conference you speak of. "[980]

[Footnote 977: "The undersigned, citizens of the State of New York andunconditional supporters of the national government, convinced that aunion of all loyal citizens of the United States upon the basis of acommon patriotism is essential to the safety and honour of the countryin this crisis of its affairs; that the present distraction and apathywhich depress the friends of the Union threaten to throw theGovernment into the hands of its enemies; and that a convention of thepeople should be assembled to consider the state of the nation and toconcentrate the union strength on some one candidate, who commands theconfidence of the country, even by a new nomination if necessary; dotherefore invite their fellow citizens . . . To send delegates . . . To aconvention at Cincinnati on Wednesday, September 28, for friendlyconsultation, with the purpose above stated. "--New York _Sun_, June30, 1889. ]

[Footnote 978: Under date of Aug. 18, 1864, Greeley wrote Opdyke: "Imust go out of town to-morrow and cannot attend the meeting at yourhouse. Allow me to say a word. Mr. Lincoln is already beaten. Hecannot be elected. We must have another ticket to save us from utteroverthrow. And such a ticket we ought to have anyhow, with or withouta convention. "--_Ibid. _

On August 26, Dickinson declared that "the cry for a change, whetherwise or ill founded, should be both heard and heeded. "--_Ibid. _

On August 29, Lucius Robinson regretted "that it will be impossiblefor me to be present at the meeting at Mr. Field's to-morrowevening. . . . McClellan will be the next President unless Lincoln is atonce withdrawn. "--_Ibid. _]

[Footnote 979: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 366. ]

[Footnote 980: New York _Sun_, June 30, 1889. ]

It is doubtful if Lincoln knew of this conspiracy, but his friendsinformed him of the critical condition of affairs. "When, ten daysago, I told Mr. Lincoln that his re-election was an impossibility, "Weed wrote Seward on August 22, "I told him the information wouldalso come through other channels. It has doubtless reached him erethis. At any rate nobody here doubts it, nor do I see anybody fromother States who authorises the slightest hope of success. The peopleare wild for peace. They are told the President will only listen toterms of peace on condition that slavery be abandoned. "[981] Weed's"other channels" meant a report from the Republican National ExecutiveCommittee, which Raymond, then its chairman, submitted to Lincoln onAugust 22. "The tide is setting strongly against us, " he wrote. "Hon. E. B. Washburn writes that 'were an election to be held now in Illinoiswe should be beaten. ' Mr. Cameron says that Pennsylvania is againstus. Governor Morton writes that nothing but the most strenuous effortscan carry Indiana. This State, according to the best information I canget, would go 50, 000 against us to-morrow. And so of the rest. Twospecial causes are assigned for this great reaction in publicsentiment--the want of military successes, and the impression in someminds, the fear and suspicion in others, that we are not to have peacein any event under this Administration until slavery is abandoned. Insome way or other the suspicion is widely diffused that we can havepeace with Union if we would. It is idle to reason with thisbelief--still more idle to denounce it. It can only be expelled bysome authoritative act at once bold enough to fix attention, anddistinct enough to defy incredulity and challenge respect. "[982]

[Footnote 981: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 250. ]

[Footnote 982: _Ibid. _, p. 218. ]

In December, 1860, in the presence of threatened war Lincoln refusedto yield to a compromise that would extend slavery into freeterritory; now, in the presence of failure at the polls, he insistedupon a peace that would abolish slavery. In 1860 he was flushed withvictory; in 1864 he was depressed by the absence of militaryachievement. But he did not weaken. He telegraphed Grant to "hold onwith a bulldog grip, _and chew and choke as much as possible_, "[983]and then, in the silence of early morning, with Raymond's starlessletter on the table before him, he showed how coolly and magnanimouslya determined patriot could face political overthrow. "This morning, asfor some days past, " he wrote, "it seems exceedingly probable thatthis Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty toso coöperate with the President-elect as to save the Union between theelection and the inauguration, as he will have secured his election onsuch ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards. "[984]

[Footnote 983: _Lincoln's Complete Works_, Vol. 2, p. 563. ]

[Footnote 984: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 251. ]

The influence of this popular discouragement exhibited itself in amass peace convention, called by Fernando Wood and held at Syracuse onAugust 18. Its great attraction was Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, its platform favoured an armistice and a convention of States, and itspurpose was the selection of a delegation to Chicago, which shouldadequately represent the peace faction of the State. The absence ofmilitary achievement and the loud cries for peace, it was claimed, hadchanged the conditions since the adjournment of the Democratic Stateconvention in February, and the necessity for a third party wasconceded should the existing peace sentiment be ignored in theformulation of a platform and the selection of candidates at Chicago. Although the assembly indicated no preference for President, its knownpartiality for Seymour added to its strength. Through the manipulationof Richmond and the Regency, Wood failed to secure the appointment ofdelegates, but he claimed, with much show of truth, that the meetingrepresented the sentiment of a great majority of the party. Wood hadbecome intolerable to Dean Richmond and the conservative Democracy, whose withering opposition to his candidacy for the United StatesSenate in the preceding February had made him ridiculous; but he couldnot be muzzled, and although his influence rarely disturbed the partyin the up-State counties, he was destined to continue in Congress therest of his life, which ended in 1881. 

The Democratic national convention had been called for July 4, but thepopular depression, promising greater advantage later in the summer, led to its postponement until August 29. Thus it convened when gloomand despondency filled the land, making Horatio Seymour's journey toChicago an ovation. At every stop, especially at Detroit, crowds, cheers, speeches, and salvos of firearms greeted him. The conventioncity recognised him as its most distinguished visitor, and theopponents of a war policy, voicing the party's sentiment for peace, publicly proclaimed him their favourite. 

Before Seymour left Albany the _Argus_ announced that he would not bea candidate;[985] but now, flattered by attention, and encouraged bythe peace-faction's strategic movement, he declined to indicate hisposition. Political conditions had made a profound impression uponhim. Moreover, deep in his heart Seymour did not fancy McClellan. Hispublic life had been brief, and his accomplishment little either as asoldier or civilian. Besides, his arrest of the Maryland Legislature, and his indifference to the sacredness of the writ of _habeas corpus_, classing him among those whom the Governor had bitterly denounced, tended to destroy the latter's strongest argument against the Lincolnadministration. 

[Footnote 985: "The announcement in the Albany _Argus_ that GovernorSeymour was not a candidate was written by Seymour himself, and takento the _Argus_ by his private secretary. It is now announced that itwas intended as a feeler. The whole force of the opposition toMcClellan is centred in this move for Seymour. "--New York _Herald_(Chicago despatch), August 28, 1864. ]

Dean Richmond, now a vigorous supporter of McClellan, could not beconfused as to the General's strength or the Governor's weakness, andhe attempted at an early hour to silence the appeal for Seymour bysolidifying the New York delegation for McClellan; but in theseefforts he found it difficult to subdue the personal independence andoutspoken ways of the Governor, whose opposition to McClellan was morethan a passing cloud-shadow. [986] This delayed matters. So long as aray of hope existed for the favourite son, the New York delegationdeclined to be forced into an attitude of opposition. Indeed, the daybefore the convention opened, it refused, by a vote of 38 to 23, toascertain its choice for President. When, at last, it becamedefinitely known that McClellan had a majority of each Statedelegation, practically assuring his nomination under the two-thirdsrule on the first ballot, Seymour put an end to the talk of hiscandidacy. Nevertheless, his vote, dividing the New York delegation, was cast for Samuel Nelson, the distinguished jurist who had succeededSmith Thompson as an associate justice of the United States SupremeCourt. Other anti-McClellan New York delegates preferred CharlesO'Conor and James Guthrie of Kentucky. Subsequently, in explaining hisaction, Seymour disclaimed any doubt of the ability or patriotism ofthe late commander of the Army of the Potomac. [987]

[Footnote 986: "Dean Richmond remains firm for McClellan, and has cutloose from the Regency. He is at the present moment closeted withSeymour, trying to convince him of the fallacy of the move. "--New York_Herald_ (Chicago despatch), August 28, 1864. ]

[Footnote 987: _Ibid. _, September 1, 1864. ]

The New York delegation had as usual a strong if not a controllinginfluence in the convention. Dean Richmond who led it at Charlestonand Baltimore again guided its counsels, while the presence of JohnGanson and Albert P. Laning of Buffalo, and Francis Kernan of Utica, added to its forcefulness upon the floor. Next to Seymour, however, its most potent member for intellectual combat was Samuel J. Tilden, who served upon the committee on resolutions. Tilden, then fifty yearsold, was without any special charm of person or grace of manner. Helooked like an invalid. His voice was feeble, his speech neitherfluent nor eloquent, and sometimes he gave the impression ofindecision. But his logic was irresistible, his statementsexhaustive, and his ability as a negotiator marvellous and unequalled. He was the strong man of the committee, and his presence came verynear making New York the dominant factor in the convention. 

Tilden's sympathies leaned toward the South. He resented the formationof the Republican party, [988] maintained that a State could repelcoercion as a nation might repel invasion, [989] declared at theTweddle Hall meeting in January, 1861, that he "would resist the useof force to coerce the South into the Union, "[990] and declined tosign the call for the patriotic uprising of the people in Union Squareon April 20. [991] On the other hand, he addressed departing regiments, gave money, and in 1862 wrote: "Within the Union we will give you [theSouth] the Constitution you profess to revere, renewed with freshguarantees of equal rights and equal safety. We will give youeverything that local self-government demands; everything that acommon ancestory of glory--everything that national fraternity orChristian fellowship requires; but to dissolve the federal bondbetween these States, to dismember our country, whoever else consents, we will not. No; never, never never!"[992] Yet in February, 1863, inopposition to the Loyal Publication Society, he assisted in organisinga local society which published and distributed "Copperhead"literature. [993] He had not, however, been active in politics sincehis defeat for attorney-general in 1855. It was during these yearsthat he began the accumulation of his large fortune. He acquiredeasily. He seemed to know intuitively when to buy and when to sell, and he profited by the rare opportunities offered during the greatdepreciation in government bonds. Later, he dealt in railroads, hisprivate gains being so enormous that men thought his ambition forwealth unscrupulously selfish. 

[Footnote 988: Statement to Preston King in 1854. _Harper's Weekly_, September 16, 1876. ]

[Footnote 989: Letter to William Kent in October, 1860. ]

[Footnote 990: Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_, Vol. 1, pp. 388-394. William H. Russell's _Diary_, entry March 17, 1861, p. 20. ]

[Footnote 991: _Harper's Weekly_, September 9, 1876. ]

[Footnote 992: John Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, pp. 173-174. ]

[Footnote 993: _Harper's Weekly_, September 9 and 27, 1876. ]

But whatever may have been his sentiments respecting the war, Tildenhad little liking for Vallandigham in 1864, and after a bitter contestfinally defeated him for chairman of the committee on resolutions by avote of thirteen to eleven in favour of James Guthrie of Kentucky. Healso defeated a measure introduced by Washington Hunt suggesting anarmistice and a convention of States, and supported a positivedeclaration that he thought sufficient to hold the war vote. However, the dread of a split, such as had occurred at Charleston and Baltimorein 1860, possessed the committee, and in the confusion of the lastmoment, by a slight majority, the pivotal declaration pronouncing thewar a failure was accepted. [994]

[Footnote 994: "Never did men work harder than Messrs. Guthrie ofKentucky and Tilden of New York. All they asked finally was that theplatform should not be so strong for peace that it would drive the warvote from them. "--New York _Herald_, September 5, 1864. 

"Vallandigham wrote the second, the material resolution, of theChicago platform, and carried it through the sub-committee and thegeneral committee, in spite of the most desperate and persistentopposition on the part of Tilden and his friends, Mr. Cassidy himselfin an adjoining room labouring to defeat it. "--New York _News_, October 22, 1864. 

"The platform which declared the war a failure was jointly concoctedby Seymour and Vallandigham. "--New York _Tribune_, November 5, 1868. ]

Seymour's election as permanent chairman of the convention gave himabundant opportunity to proclaim his abhorrence of the Administration. His speech, prepared with unusual care, showed the measured dignityand restraint of a trained orator, who knew how to please a popularaudience with a glowing denunciation of principles it detested. Everyappeal was vivid and dramatic; every allusion told. Throughout thewhole ran the thread of one distinct proposition, --that the Republicanparty had sinned away its day of grace, and that the patriotic workof the Democratic party must begin at once if the Union was to besaved. To Seymour it was not a new proposition. He had stated it inthe last campaign and reiterated it in his latest message; but neverbefore did he impress it by such striking sentences as now fell uponthe ears of a delighted convention. "Even now, when war has desolatedour land, " he said, "has laid its heavy burdens upon labor, whenbankruptcy and ruin overhang us, this Administration will not haveUnion except upon conditions unknown to our Constitution; it will notallow the shedding of blood to cease, even for a little time, to seeif Christian charity or the wisdom of statesmanship may not work out amethod to save our country. Nay, more than this, it will not listen toa proposal for peace which does not offer that which this governmenthas no right to ask. This Administration cannot now save this Union, if it would. It has, by its proclamations, by vindictive legislation, by displays of hate and passion, placed obstacles in its own pathwaywhich it cannot overcome, and has hampered its own freedom of actionby unconstitutional acts. The bigotry of fanatics and the intrigues ofplacemen have made the bloody pages of the history of the past threeyears. "

It was impossible not to be impressed by such an impassioned lament. There was also much in Seymour himself as well as in his words toattract the attention of the convention. [995] Added years gave him amore stately, almost a picturesque bearing, while a strikinglyintelligent face changed its expression with the ease and swiftness ofan actor's. This was never more apparent than now, when he turned, abruptly, from the alleged sins of Republicans to the alleged virtuesof Democrats. Relaxing its severity, his countenance wore atriumphant smile as he declared in a higher and more resonant key, that "if this Administration cannot save the Union, _we can_! Mr. Lincoln values many things above the Union; we put it first of all. Hethinks a proclamation worth more than peace; we think the blood of ourpeople more precious than the edicts of the President. There are nohindrances in our pathway to Union and to peace. We demand noconditions for the restoration of our Union; we are shackled with nohates, no prejudices, no passions. We wish for fraternal relationshipswith the people of the South. We demand for them what we demand forourselves--the full recognition of the rights of States. We mean thatevery star on our Nation's banner shall shine with an equallustre. "[996] As the speaker concluded, the audience, with deafeningapplause, testified its approval of these sentiments. Yet one wondersthat he could end without saying a word, at least, in condemnation ofthe Secessionists, whose appeal from the ballot to the bullet hadinaugurated "the bloody pages of the history of the past three years. "

[Footnote 995: "Governor Seymour was an elegant and accomplishedgentleman with a high-bred manner which never unbent, and he wasalways faultlessly dressed. He looked the ideal of an aristocrat, andyet he was and continued to be until his death the idol of theDemocracy. "--_Speeches of Chauncey M. Depew_, November, 1896, toApril, 1902, p. 105. ]

[Footnote 996: Horatio Seymour's _Public Record_, pp. 230-232. ]

The platform, adopted without debate, reaffirmed devotion to theUnion, expressed sympathy with soldiers and prisoners of war, denounced interference in military elections, and stigmatised allegedillegal and arbitrary acts of the government. The second resolution, prepared by Vallandigham, declared that "this convention doesexplicitly resolve as the sense of the American people, that afterfour years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand thatimmediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a viewto an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, tothe end that the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored onthe basis of the Federal Union of the States. "[997]

[Footnote 997: Edward McPherson, _History of the Rebellion_, p. 419;Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1864, p. 793. ]

It is difficult to excuse Tilden's silence when this fatal resolutionwas adopted. In the final haste to report the platform, the deepsignificance of Vallandigham's words may not have been fullyappreciated by the Committee;[998] but Tilden understood theirmeaning, and vigorous opposition might have avoided them. [999] Heseems, however, to have shared the fear of McClellan's friends thatthe defeat of the resolution would endanger the integrity of theconvention, and to have indulged the hope that McClellan's letter ofacceptance would prove an antidote to the Ohioan's peace-poison. Buthis inaction did little credit either to his discernment or judgment, for the first ballot for President disclosed the groundlessness of histimidity, [1000] and the first work of the campaign revealed theinefficiency of the candidate's statements. [1001] Indeed, so grievouswas Tilden's mistake that his distinguished biographer (Bigelow)avoided his responsibility for declaring the war a failure byignoring his presence at Chicago. 

[Footnote 998: "McClellan's supporters are not scared by any paperpellets of the brain, wise or otherwise, which ever came from themidnight sessions of a resolution committee in the hurly-burly of anational convention. "--Speech of Robert C. Winthrop in New York City, September 17, 1864. --_Addresses and Speeches_, Vol. 2, p. 598. ]

[Footnote 999: "When the resolution, as reported, had been debated inthe committee, Mr. Tilden, far from protesting, stated in theconvention that there was no dissent among the members. His remarkswere confirmed by Mr. Brown of Delaware, who said there was not theslightest dissension, and by Mr. Weller of California, who said thatall were in favour of peace. "--_Harper's Weekly_, September 9, 1876. ]

[Footnote 1000: The first ballot resulted as follows: Seymour of NewYork, 12; Seymour of Connecticut, 38; McClellan, 181. In theadjustment, after the conclusion of the roll-call, McClellan had202-1/2 and Seymour of Connecticut, 28-1/2. Vallandigham moved to makethe nomination unanimous. George H. Pendleton of Ohio was named forVice-President. ]

[Footnote 1001: "McClellan's name, associated with a noble struggle forthe national cause, has elicited and will elicit the wildestenthusiasm; but leagued with propositions for national humiliation, itis not a name the people will honor. McClellan is not large enough tocover out of sight the bad points in the Chicago platform. "--New York_Herald_, September 6, 1864. ]

Meanwhile the cheers for McClellan that greeted the returningdelegates were mingled with those of the country over Sherman'scapture of Atlanta and Farragut's destruction of the Mobile forts. 

CHAPTER IX

FENTON DEFEATS SEYMOUR

1864

The brilliant victories of Sherman and Farragut had an appreciableeffect upon Republicans. It brought strong hope of political success, and made delegates to the Syracuse convention (September 7) veryplucky. Weed sought to control, but the Radicals, in the words ofBurke's famous sentence, were lords of the ascendant. They proposed tonominate Reuben E. Fenton, and although the Chautauquan's popularityand freedom from the prejudices of Albany politics commended him tothe better judgment of all Republicans, the followers of Greeleyrefused to consult the Conservatives respecting him or any part of theticket. Resenting such treatment Weed indicated an inclination tosecede, and except that his regard for Fenton steadied him thehistoric bolt of the Silver Grays might have been repeated. [1002]

[Footnote 1002: New York _Herald_, September 8. ]

Fenton was a well-to-do business man, without oratorical gifts orstatesmanlike qualities, but with a surpassing genius for public life. He quickly discerned the drift of public sentiment and had seldom madea glaring mistake. He knew, also, how to enlist other men in hisservice and attach them to his fortunes. During his ten years inCongress he developed a faculty for organisation, being able tocoördinate all his resources and to bring them into their place in theaccomplishment of his purposes. This was conspicuously illustrated inthe Thirty-seventh Congress when he formed a combination that madeGalusha A. Grow speaker of the House. Besides, by careful attention tothe wants of constituents and to the work of the House, backed by theshrewdness of a typical politician who rarely makes an enemy, he wasrecognised as a sagacious counsellor and safe leader. He hadpreviously been mentioned for governor, and in the preceding winterTheodore M. Pomeroy, then representing the Auburn district inCongress, presented him for speaker. [1003] Schuyler Colfax controlledthe caucus, but the compliment expressed the esteem of Fenton'scolleagues. 

[Footnote 1003: New York _Tribune_, December 7, 1863. ]

He was singularly striking and attractive in person, tall, erect, andgraceful in figure, with regular features and wavy hair slightlytinged with gray. His sloping forehead, full at the eyebrows, indicated keen perceptive powers. He was suave in address, so suave, indeed, that his enemies often charged him with insincerity and evenduplicity, but his gracious manner, exhibited to the plainest womanand most trifling man, won the hearts of the people as quickly as hispolitical favours recruited the large and devoted following thatremained steadfast to the end. Perhaps no one in his party presented astronger running record. He belonged to the Barnburners, he presidedat the birth of the Republican party, he stood for a vigorousprosecution of the war regardless of the fate of slavery, and he hadavoided the Weed-Greeley quarrels. If he was not a statesman, he atleast possessed the needed qualities to head the State ticket. 

As usual John A. Dix's name came before the convention. It was wellknown that party nomenclature did not represent his views, but hisadmirers, profoundly impressed with his sterling integrity and weightof character, insisted, amidst the loudest cheering of the day, thathis name be presented. Nevertheless, an informal ballot quicklydisclosed that Fenton was the choice, and on motion of Elbridge G. Lapham the nomination became unanimous. [1004] Other nominations fellto the Radicals. [1005] Not until Greeley was about to capture firstplace as a presidential elector-at-large, however, did theConservatives fully realise how badly they were being punished. Thenevery expedient known to diplomacy was exhausted. Afternoon shadedinto evening and evening into night. Still the contest continued. Itseems never to have occurred to the Weed faction that Horace Greeley, whom it had so often defeated, could be given an office, even thoughits duties covered but a single day, and in its desperation itdiscovered a willingness to compromise on any other name. ButGreeley's friends forced the fight, and to their great joy won a mostdecisive victory. [1006]

[Footnote 1004: "The informal vote was as follows: Fenton, 247-1/2;Tremaine, 69; Dix, 35-1/2. "--New York _Herald_, September 8, 1864. ]

[Footnote 1005: "The ticket is as follows: Governor, Reuben E. Fentonof Chautauqua; Lieutenant-Governor, Thomas G. Alvord of Onondaga;Canal Commissioner, Franklin A. Alberger of Erie; Inspector ofPrisons, David P. Forrest of Schenectady. "--New York _Tribune_, September 14, 1864. ]

[Footnote 1006: "The following is the vote for presidentialelector-at-large: Horace Greeley, 215; Preston King, 191-1/2; DanielS. Dickinson, 143; Richard M. Blatchford, 86; John A. King, 10; LymanTremaine, 13; J. S. T. Stranahan, 27; Thurlow Weed, 1. "--_Ibid. _, September 8. ]

While the Weed men were nursing their resentment because of the honourthus suddenly thrust upon the most famous American editor, [1007] agreat surprise convulsed the Democratic State convention. [1008] Thereport that Horatio Seymour sought release from official laboursbecause of ill health and the demands of private business, created thebelief that he would decline a renomination even if tendered byacclamation. Indeed, the Governor himself, in conversation with DeanRichmond, reiterated his oft-expressed determination not to accept. The Regency, believing him sincere, agreed upon William F. Allen ofOswego, although other candidates, notably William Kelly of Dutchess, the nominee of the Softs in 1860, and Amasa J. Parker of Albany, werementioned. Lucius Robinson, declining to be considered for secondplace, urged the nomination of Dix for governor. Of these candidatesSeymour was quoted as favourable to Parker. Still a feeling of unrestdisturbed the hotel lobbies. "There is some talk, " said the _Herald_, "of giving Seymour a complimentary vote, with the understanding thathe will then decline, but this is opposed as a trick to place him inthe field again, although those who pretend to speak for himpositively declare that he will not accept the nomination upon anycontingency. "[1009] When told on convention morning that Seymour wouldaccept if nominated by acclamation, Richmond ridiculed the idea. Hisincredulity was strengthened by the statement of two Oneida delegates, whom the Governor, only a few moments before, had instructed towithdraw his name if presented. Thus matters stood until theconvention, having enthusiastically applauded an indorsement ofSeymour's administration, quickly and by acclamation carried a motionfor his renomination, the delegates jumping to their feet and givingcheer after cheer. Immediately a delegate, rising to a question ofprivilege, stated that the Governor, in the hearing of gentlemen fromhis own county, had positively declined to accept a nomination becausehis health and the state of his private affairs forbade it. As thisdid not satisfy the delegates, a committee, appointed to notifySeymour of his selection, reported that the Governor whose temporaryillness prevented his attendance upon the convention, had had much tosay about private affairs, ill health, and excessive labour, but thatsince the delegates insisted upon his renomination, he acquiesced intheir choice. [1010]

[Footnote 1007: "The nomination of Horace Greeley for elector-at-largeis a bitter pill. The Weed men make no secret that Fenton's name isthe only thing that will save the ticket. "--New York _Herald_, September 8. ]

[Footnote 1008: Held at Albany on September 14. ]

[Footnote 1009: New York _Herald_, September 14, 1864. ]

[Footnote 1010: _Ibid. _, September 16. ]

Seymour's action was variously interpreted. Some pronounced it tricky;others, that he declined because he feared defeat. [1011] But there wasno evidence of insincerity. He wanted the office less in 1864 than hedid in 1862. It had brought labour and anxiety, and no relief fromincreasing solicitude was in sight if re-elected. But his friends, resenting the New York delegation's action in withholding from him itssupport for President, determined to be avenged by renominating himfor governor. They knew that Dean Richmond, whose admiration for theGovernor had not been increased by the latter's performance atChicago, wanted a candidate of more pronounced views respecting avigorous prosecution of the war, and that in his support of Allen hehad the convention well in hand. Wisely distrusting the Regency, therefore, they worked in secret, talking of the honour and prestigeof a complimentary vote, but always declaring, what Seymour himselfemphasised, that the Governor would not again accept the office. Not amisstep left its print in the proceedings. Before the chairman put themotion for his renomination, a delegate from Oneida, rising towithdraw the name, was quieted by the assurance that it was onlycomplimentary. An Albany lieutenant of Dean Richmond, obtaining thefloor with the help of a stentorian voice, began to block themovement, but quickly subsided after hearing the explanation from adelegate at his side that it was only complimentary. When the motionhad carried, however, and the Oneida gentleman began fulfilling theGovernor's directions, came the cry, "Too late, too late. We havenominated the candidate!" So perfectly was the _coup d'état_ arrangedthat the prime mover of the scheme was appointed chairman of thecommittee to wait upon the Governor. Afterwards people recalled, witha disposition to connect Seymour with this master-stroke in politics, that he had never declined by letter, and that the reasons given, like the illness that kept him from facing the convention, werelargely imaginary. "That crowd saw how beautifully they were done, "said Depew, then secretary of state at Albany, "while Dean Richmond'slanguage was never printed. "[1012]

[Footnote 1011: "Seymour tried to get the nomination at Chicago by thesame tricky means he has secured it at Albany, --by declaringbeforehand that he would not be a candidate. He failed at Chicagobecause of the overwhelming popularity of McClellan; he succeeded atAlbany by his friends seizing a moment to nominate him when theconvention was in a delirium of enthusiasm at his apparentself-sacrifice in persisting to decline. "--New York _Herald_(editorial), September 17, 1864. ]

[Footnote 1012: From Chauncey M. Depew's speech, March 23, 1901. --_Addresses of_, p. 105. 

"The ticket nominated is as follows: Governor, Horatio Seymour ofOneida; Lieutenant-Governor, David R. Floyd Jones of Queens; CanalCommissioner, Jarvis Lord of Monroe; Prison Inspector, David B. McNeilof Clinton; electors-at-large, William E. Kelley of Dutchess andWashington Hunt of Niagara. "--New York _Herald_, September 16, 1864. ]

Scarcely had the convention adjourned before the brilliantachievements in the Shenandoah valley thrilled the North from Maine toCalifornia. On September 19, at the battle of Winchester, GeneralSheridan defeated General Early, and on the 22d, at Fisher's Hill, puthim to flight. "Only darkness, " Sheridan telegraphed Grant, "has savedthe whole of Early's army from total destruction. I do not think thereever was an army so badly routed. "[1013] These victories, recallingthose of Stonewall Jackson in 1862, appealed to the popularimagination and quickly reassured the country. Besides, on September21, the withdrawal of Fremont and Cochrane, the Cleveland candidates, united Radical and Conservative in a vigorous campaign for Lincoln. Aprivate letter from Grant, who participated in the glory accordedSherman and Sheridan, told the true condition of the Confederacy. "Therebels, " he said, "have now in their ranks their last man. They haverobbed the cradle and the grave equally to get their present force. Besides what they lose in frequent skirmishes and battles, they arenow losing, from desertions and other causes, at least one regimentper day. With this drain upon them the end is not far distant, if weonly be true to ourselves. "[1014]

[Footnote 1013: Official Records, Vol. 43, Part 1, p. 26. ]

[Footnote 1014: New York _Times_, September 9, 1864; Appleton's_Cyclopædia_, 1864, p. 134. ]

This story, coupled with recent victories, turned the Democraticplatform into a lie. Instead of being a failure, the war was nowrecognised as a grand success, and radical speakers, replying to theclamour for a cessation of hostilities, maintained that the abolitionof slavery was the only condition that promised a permanent peace. Brilliant descriptions of Grant's work, aided by his distinguishedlieutenants, were supplemented later in the campaign by the recital of"Sheridan's Ride, " which produced the wildest enthusiasm. Indeed, theinfluence of the army's achievements, dissipating the despondency ofthe summer months, lifted the campaign into an atmosphere ofpatriotism not before experienced since the spring of 1861, andestablished the belief that Lincoln's re-election meant the end ofsecession and slavery. "There will be peace, " said John Cochrane, "butit will be the peace which the musket gives to a conquered host. "[1015]

[Footnote 1015: New York _Tribune_, October 11, 1864. ]

Referring to the farewell speech of Alexander H. Stephens upon hisretirement from public life in 1859, George William Curtis, with theeloquence that adorned his addresses at that period, thrilled hisaudience with an exciting war picture: "Listen to Mr. Stephens in thesummer sunshine six years ago. 'There is not now a spot of the publicterritory of the United States over which the national flag floatswhere slavery is excluded by the law of Congress, and the highesttribunal of the land has decided that Congress has no power to makesuch a law. At this time there is not a ripple upon the surface. Thecountry was never in a profounder quiet. ' Do you comprehend theterrible significance of those words? He stops; he sits down. Thesummer sun sets over the fields of Georgia. Good-night, Mr. Stephens--a long good-night. Look out from your window--how calm itis! Upon Missionary Ridge, upon Lookout Mountain, upon the heights ofDalton, upon the spires of Atlanta, silence and solitude; the peace ofthe Southern policy of slavery and death. But look! Hark! Through thegreat five years before you a light is shining--a sound is ringing. It is the gleam of Sherman's bayonets, it is the roar of Grant's guns, it is the red daybreak and wild morning music of peace indeed, thepeace of national life and liberty. "[1016]

[Footnote 1016: Edward Cary, _Life of G. W. Curtis_, pp. 186-187. ]

The sulkers now came out of their tents. Daniel S. Dickinson, nolonger peddling his griefs in private ears, declared "there was nodoubt of the President's triumphant election;"[1017] the tone of Bryantand the _Evening Post_ changed; Beecher renewed hope through the_Independent_ and preached a political sermon every Sunday evening;Weed and Raymond discontinued their starless letters to Lincoln;George Opdyke cancelled the call for a second national convention andanother candidate for President; and Horace Greeley, silent as to hispart in the recent conspiracy, joined the army of Union orators. Catching again the spirit of the great moral impulse and that loftyenthusiasm which had aroused the people of the North to the decisivestruggle against slavery, these leaders sprang to the work ofadvancing the cause of liberty and human rights. 

[Footnote 1017: New York _Sun_, June 30, 1889. ]

The Democrats sought to evade Vallandigham's words of despair, writteninto the Chicago platform, by eulogising McClellan, but as the gloryof Antietam paled in the presence of Sherman's and Sheridan'svictories, they declared that success in the field did not mean peace. "Armed opposition is driven from the fields of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and parts of Louisiana, " said Horatio Seymour, "and yet thisportion of country, already conquered, requires more troops to hold itunder military rule than are demanded for our armies to fight theembattled forces of the Confederacy. You will find that more men willbe needed to keep the South in subjection to the arbitrary projects ofthe Administration than are required to drive the armies of rebellionfrom the field. The peace you are promised is no peace, but is acondition which will perpetuate and make enduring all the worstfeatures of this war. "[1018]

[Footnote 1018: _Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, p. 254. ]

In their eagerness Democratic speakers, encouraged by the New York_World_, then the ablest and most influential journal of its party, turned with bitterness, first upon Lincoln's administration, andfinally upon Lincoln himself. "Is Mr. Lincoln honest?" asked the_World_. "That he has succumbed to the opportunities and temptationsof his present place is capable of the easiest proof. "[1019] This wassufficient for the stump orator and less influential journal to baseangry and extravagant charges of wrong-doing, which became frequentand noisy. [1020] John Van Buren called Lincoln a "twenty-second-rateman, " and declared the country "irretrievably gone" if McClellan wasdefeated. [1021] Seymour did not charge Lincoln with personaldishonesty, but he thought his administration had rendered itself apartner in fraud and corruption. "I do not mean to say, " he declared, "that the Administration is to be condemned because, undercircumstances so unusual as those which have existed during this war, bad men have taken advantage of the confusion in affairs to do wrong. But I do complain that when these wrongs are done, the Governmentdeliberately passes laws that protect the doer, and thus makewrong-doing its own act. Moreover, in an election like this, when theGovernment is spending such an enormous amount of money, and theliability to peculation is so great, the Administration that will sayto contractors, as has been openly said in circulars, 'You have had agood contract, out of which you have made money, and we expect you touse a part of that money to assist to replace us in power, ' rendersitself a partner in fraud and corruption. "[1022]

[Footnote 1019: New York _World_, September 22, 23, 1864. ]

[Footnote 1020: "The _Journal of Commerce_ of yesterday indulges in ageneral fling against the personal habits of the President and othermembers of his family. "--New York _Herald_, October 11, 1864. ]

[Footnote 1021: _Ibid. _, November 5. ]

[Footnote 1022: _Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, p. 257. ]

After Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana swung into line on October 10 nodoubt remained as to the general result. But Republican confidence inNew York was greatly shaken by the disclosure of a conspiracy to usethe soldier vote for fraudulent purposes. Under an amendment to theConstitution, ratified in March, 1864, soldiers in the field wereallowed to vote, provided properly executed proxies were delivered toelection inspectors in their home districts within sixty days nextprevious to the election, and to facilitate the transmission of suchproxies agents for the State were appointed at Baltimore, Washington, and other points. Several of these agents, charged with forgery, werearrested by the military authorities, one of whom confessed thatenough forged proxies had been forwarded from Washington "to fill adry-goods box. " Of these spurious ballots several hundred were seized, and two of the forgers committed to the penitentiary. [1023] "We areinformed, " said the _Tribune_, "that Oswego county is flooded withspurious McClellan votes of every description. There are forged votesfrom living as well as from dead soldiers; fictitious votes fromsoldiers whose genuine votes and powers of attorney are in the handsof their friends. These packages correspond with the work described inthe recent Baltimore investigation. "[1024] Meantime Governor Seymour, uneasy lest the liberties of his agents be limited, directed Amasa J. Parker, William F. Allen, and William Kelly to proceed to Washingtonand "vindicate the laws of the State" and "expose all attempts toprevent soldiers from voting, or to detain or alter the votes alreadycast. " These commissioners, after a hurried investigation, reportedthat "although there may have been irregularities, they have found noevidence that any frauds have been committed by any person connectedwith the New York agency. "[1025] Nevertheless, the sequel showed thatthis plot, if not discovered, would probably have changed the resultin the State. 

[Footnote 1023: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1864, pp. 584-8; New York_Herald_, November 4 and 5; New York _Tribune_, October 27, 28, 29, November 2, 4. 5. ]

[Footnote 1024: _Ibid. _, November 5, 1864. ]

[Footnote 1025: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1864, pp. 584-588. ]

During the last month of the campaign the interest of the wholecountry centred in New York. Next to the election of Lincoln, Republicans everywhere desired the defeat of Seymour. To them hisspeech at Chicago had been a malignant indictment of the Government, and his one address in the campaign, while it did not impute personaldishonesty to the President, had branded his administration as a partyto fraud. Lincoln regarded the contest in New York as somewhatpersonal to himself, and from day to day sought information with theanxious persistency that characterised his inquiries during thecanvass in 1860. Fenton fully appreciated the importance ofvindicating the President, and for the admirable thoroughness of thecampaign he received great credit. 

After the polls had closed on November 8 it soon became known thatalthough the President had 179 electoral votes to 21 for McClellan, New York was in grave doubt. On Wednesday approximated returns putRepublicans 1, 400 ahead. Finally it developed that in a total vote of730, 821, Lincoln had 6, 749 more than McClellan, and Fenton 8, 293 morethan Seymour. Fenton's vote exceeded Lincoln's by 1, 544. "We believethis the only instance, " said the _Tribune_, "in which a Republicancandidate for governor polled a heavier vote than that cast for ourcandidate for President at the same election. "[1026] The Legislaturewas largely Republican, and the twenty congressmen, a gain of five, included Roscoe Conkling and John A. Griswold, an intrepid, energeticspirit--the very incarnation of keen good sense. Like Erastus Corning, whom he succeeded in Congress, Griswold was a business man, whoseintelligent interest in public affairs made him mayor of Troy at theage of twenty-eight. In 1862 he carried his district as a Democrat byover 2, 000 majority, but developing more political independence thanfriend or foe had anticipated, he refused to follow his party in warlegislation, and with Moses F. Odell, a Democratic colleague fromBrooklyn, boldly supported the Thirteenth Amendment. This made him aRepublican. 

[Footnote 1026: New York _Tribune_, January 18, 1869. ]

To this galaxy also belonged Henry J. Raymond. He had come intopossession of great fame. His graceful and vigorous work on the_Times_, supplemented by his incisive speeches and rare intelligencein conventions, had won many evidences of his party's esteem, but witha desire for office not less pronounced than Greeley's[1027] he coveteda seat in Congress from a district which gave a Tammany majority of2, 000 in 1862. To the surprise of his friends he won by a plurality of386. It was the greatest victory of the year, and, in the end, led tothe saddest event of his life. 

[Footnote 1027: Apropos of Greeley's desire for office, Waldo M. Hutchins when in Congress in 1879 told Joseph G. Cannon, now thedistinguished speaker of the House of Representatives, that inSeptember, 1864, during a call upon Greeley, the latter exhibited aletter from Lincoln two days old, inviting him to the White House. Greeley, mindful of his efforts to substitute another candidate forLincoln, said he would not reply and should not go, but Hutchinsfinally gained consent to represent him. Hutchins reached Washingtonvery early the next morning, and the President, although clad only inundershirt and trousers, received him and began enlarging upon theimportance of a re-election, suggesting that in such event Sewardwould enjoy being minister to England, and that Greeley would make anadmirable successor to Benjamin Franklin, the first postmaster-general. Hutchins reported this to Greeley, who immediately turned the_Tribune_ into a Lincoln organ. In the following April Greeleyrecalled Lincoln's statement to Hutchins, who at once left for thecapital. He reached Washington the morning after the President'sassassination. ]

CHAPTER X

A COMPLETE CHANGE OF POLICY

1865

For the moment the surrender of Lee and the collapse of theConfederacy left the Democrats without an issue. The war had not beena failure, peace had come without the intervention of a convention ofthe States, the South was "subjugated, " the abolition of slaveryaccomplished, arbitrary arrests were forgotten, the professed fear ofnational bankruptcy had disappeared, and Seymour's prophetic gift wasin eclipse. Nothing had happened which he predicted--everything hadtranspired which he opposed. Meanwhile, under the administration ofAndrew Johnson, the country was gradually recovering from the awfulshock of Abraham Lincoln's assassination. 

Substantially following Lincoln's policy, the President had issued, onMay 29, 1865, a proclamation of amnesty pardoning such as hadparticipated in rebellion, [1028] with restoration of all rights ofproperty except as to slaves, on condition that each take an oath tosupport the Constitution and to obey the laws respecting emancipation. He also prescribed a mode for the reconstruction of States lately inrebellion. This included the appointment of provisional governorsauthorised to devise the proper machinery for choosing legislatures, which should determine the qualification of electors andoffice-holders. In this preliminary scheme Johnson limited the votersto white men. Personally he declared himself in favour of a qualifiedsuffrage for negroes, but he thought this a matter to be determined bythe States themselves. 

[Footnote 1028: Except certain specified classes, the most important ofwhich were civil or diplomatic officers of the Confederacy, militaryofficers above the rank of colonel, governors of States, formermembers of Congress who had left their seats to aid the rebellion, andall who owned property to exceed $20, 000 in value. But these exceptedpersons might make special application to the President for pardon andto them clemency would be "liberally extended. "]

A policy that excluded the negro from all participation in publicaffairs did not commend itself to the leaders of the Radicals. It wasbelieved that Mississippi's denial of even a limited suffrage to thenegro, such as obtained in New York, indicated the feeling of theSouthern people, and the Union conventions of Pennsylvania, dominatedby Thaddeus Stevens, and of Massachusetts, controlled by CharlesSumner, refused to endorse the President's scheme. During the summerHorace Greeley, in several earnest and able editorials, advocatednegro suffrage as a just and politic measure, but he carefully avoidedany reflection upon the President, and disclaimed the purpose ofmaking such suffrage an inexorable condition in reconstruction. [1029]Nevertheless, the Radicals of the State hesitated to leave the civilstatus of coloured men to their former masters. 

[Footnote 1029: New York _Tribune_, June 14, 15, 20, 26, 28, July 8, 10, 31, August 26, September 20, October 7, 19, 1864. ]

Johnson's policy especially appealed to the Democrats, and at theirState convention, held at Albany on September 9 (1865), they promisedthe President their cordial support, commended his reconstructionpolicy, pledged the payment of the war debt, thanked the army andnavy, and denounced the denial "of representation to States in orderto compel them to adopt negro equality or negro suffrage as an elementof their Constitutions. "[1030] Indeed, with one stroke of the pen theconvention erased all issues of the war, and with one stroke of theaxe rid itself of the men whom it held responsible for defeat. Itavoided Seymour for president of the convention; it nominated forsecretary of state Henry W. Slocum of Onondaga, formerly a Republicanoffice-holder, whose superb leadership as a corps commander placedhim among New York's most famous soldiers; it preferred John VanBuren to Samuel J. Tilden for attorney-general; and it refused MantonMarble's platform, although the able editor of the _World_ enjoyed thehospitality of the committee room. Further to popularise its action, it welcomed back to its fold Lucius Robinson, whom it nominated forcomptroller, an office he was then holding by Republican suffrage. 

[Footnote 1030: New York _Herald_, September 9. ]

Robinson's political somersault caused no surprise. His dislike of theLincoln administration, expressed in his letter to the Clevelandconvention, influenced him to support McClellan, while the Radicals'tendency to accept negro suffrage weakened his liking for theRepublican party. However, no unkind words followed his action. "Robinson is to-day, " said the _Tribune_, "what he has always been, agenuine Democrat, a true Republican, a hearty Unionist, and aninflexibly honest and faithful guardian of the treasury. He has proveda most valuable officer, whom every would-be plunderer of the Stateregards with unfeigned detestation, and, if his old associates likehim well enough to support his re-election, it is a proof that some ofthe false gods they have for years been following have fallen fromtheir pedestals and been crumbled into dust. "[1031]

[Footnote 1031: New York _Tribune_, September 9, 1864. 

"The ticket nominated was as follows: Secretary of State, Henry W. Slocum, Onondaga; Comptroller, Lucius Robinson, Chemung;Attorney-General, John Van Buren, New York; Treasurer, Marsena R. Patrick, Ontario; State Engineer, Sylvanus H. Sweet, Oneida; CanalCommissioner, Cornelius W. Armstrong, Albany; Prison Inspector, AndrewJ. McNutt, Allegany; Judges of Appeals, John W. Brown, Orange; MartinGrover, Allegany; Clerk of Appeals, Edward O. Perkins, Kings. "--NewYork _Herald_, September 9, 1864. ]

The Union Republican convention, held at Syracuse on September 20, followed the policy of the Democrats in the nomination of Slocum. Officers of distinguished service abounded. Daniel E. Sickles, a heroof Gettysburg; Francis G. Barlow, the intrepid general of Hancock'sfamous corps; Henry W. Barnum, a soldier of decided valour andenergy; Charles H. Van Wyck, who left Congress to lead a regiment tothe field; John H. Martindale, a West Point graduate of conspicuousservice in the Peninsular campaign, and Joseph Howland, whose largemeans had benefited the soldiers, were especially mentioned. Of thisgalaxy all received recognition save Sickles and Van Wyck, Chauncey M. Depew being dropped for Barlow, Cochrane for Martindale, Bates forBarnum, and Schuyler for Howland. In other words, the officialselected in 1863, entitled by custom to a second term, yielded to thesentiment that soldiers deserved recognition in preference tocivilians. [1032]

[Footnote 1032: The ticket nominated was as follows: Secretary ofState, Francis G. Barlow of New York; Comptroller, Thomas Hillhouse ofOntario; Attorney-General, John H. Martindale of Monroe; Treasurer, Joseph Howland of Dutchess; State Engineer, J. Platt Goodsell ofOneida; Canal Commissioner, Robert C. Dorn of Schenectady; Inspectorof Prisons, Henry W. Barnum of Onondaga; Judges of Court of Appeals, Ward Hunt of Oneida; John K. Porter of Albany; Clerk of Appeals, HenryJones of Cattaraugus. ]

The question of negro suffrage troubled the convention. The Radicalshad a decided majority--"not less than fifty, " Greeley said; but Weedand Raymond, now the acknowledged friends of the President, had thepower. Shortly after Johnson took the oath of office, Preston Kingpresented Weed to the new Executive and the three breakfastedtogether. King's relations with the President bore the stamp ofintimacy. They had served together in Congress, and on March 4, 1865, that ill-fated inauguration day when Johnson's intoxication humiliatedthe Republic, King concealed him in the home of Francis P. Blair atSilver Springs, near Washington. [1033] After Lincoln's death Kingbecame for a time the President's constant adviser, and through hisinfluence, it was believed, Johnson foreshadowed in one of his earlyspeeches a purpose to pursue a more unfriendly policy towards theSouth than his predecessor had intended. For a time it was thoughtKing would displace Seward in the Cabinet if for no other reason thanbecause of the latter's part in defeating the former's re-election tothe Senate in 1863. However, differences between them were finallyadjusted by King's acceptance of the collectorship of the port of NewYork in place of Draper. This, it was understood, meant a completereconciliation of all the factions in the State. Within sixty daysthereafter, King, in a moment of mental aberration, took his life byjumping from a Jersey City ferry-boat. 

[Footnote 1033: Edward L. Pierce, _Life of Sumner_, Vol. 4, pp. 230, 250. ]

There was something peculiarly pathetic in the passing of King. Inaccepting the collectorship he yielded to the solicitation of friendswho urged him to retain it after his health, due to worry andoverwork, was seriously impaired. "He thought it incumbent upon him, "says Weed, "to sign nothing he did not personally examine, becomingnervously apprehensive that his bondsmen might suffer. "[1034] It wassurmised, also, that the President's change of policy occasioned himextreme solicitude as well as much embarrassment, since the threatenedbreach between President and Radicals made him sensitive as to hisfuture course. He was a Radical, and, deeply as he regarded thePresident, he hesitated to hold an office, which, by associating himwith the Administration, would discredit his sincerity and deprive himof the right to aid in overthrowing an obnoxious policy. Premeditatedsuicide was shown by the purchase, while on his way to the ferry, of abag of shot which sank the body quickly and beyond immediate recovery. 

[Footnote 1034: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 475. ]

Every delegate in the Syracuse convention knew that Weed's cordialrelations with Johnson, established through Preston King, made him theundisputed dispenser of patronage. Nevertheless, the failure ofPennsylvania and Massachusetts to endorse the President's policy, supplemented by Mississippi's action, made a deep impression uponradical delegates. Besides, it had already been noised abroad thatJohnson could not be influenced. Senator Wade of Ohio discovered itearly in July, and in August, after two attempts, Stevens gave him upas inexorable. [1035] "If something is not done, " wrote thePennsylvanian, "the President will be crowned King before Congressmeets. "[1036] Under these circumstances the leading Radicals desired tovote for a resolution affirming the right of all loyal people of theSouth to a voice in reorganising and controlling their respectiveState governments, and Greeley believed it would have secured a largemajority on a yea and nay vote. [1037] But Raymond resisted. Hisfriendship for Johnson exhibited at the Baltimore convention hadsuddenly made him an acknowledged power with the new Administrationwhich he was soon to represent in Congress, and he did not proposeallowing the _Tribune's_ editor to force New York into the list ofStates that refused to endorse the President. 

[Footnote 1035: _Sumner's Works_, Vol. 9, p. 480. ]

[Footnote 1036: Edward L. Pierce, _Life of Sumner_, Vol. 4, p. 480. ]

[Footnote 1037: New York _Tribune_, September 21, 1865. ]

Such a course, he believed, would give the State to the Democrats, whose prompt and intrepid confidence in the President had plainlydisconcerted the Republicans. Besides, Raymond disbelieved in theviews of the extreme Radicals, who held that States lately inrebellion must be treated as conquered provinces and brought back intothe Union as new States, subject to conditions prescribed by theirconquerors. As chairman of the committee on resolutions, therefore, the editor of the _Times_ bore down heavily on the Radical dissenters, and in the absence of a decided leader they allowed their devotion tomen to overbear attachment to principles. As finally adopted theplatform recognised Johnson's ability, patriotism, and integrity, declared the war debt sacred, thanked the soldiers and sailors, commended the President's policy of reconstruction, and expressed thehope that when the States lately in rebellion are restored to theexercise of their constitutional rights, "it will be done in the faithand on the basis that they will be exercised in the spirit of equaland impartial justice, and with a view to the elevation andperpetuation of the full rights of citizenship of all their people, inasmuch as these are principles which constitute the basis of ourrepublican institutions. "[1038] Greeley pronounced this language "timidand windy. "[1039]

[Footnote 1038: New York _Herald_, September 21, 1865. ]

[Footnote 1039: New York _Tribune_, September 21, 1865. ]

In the campaign that followed the Democrats flattered the President, very cleverly insisting that the Radicals' devotion to negro suffragemade them his only real opponents. On the other hand, conservativeRepublicans, maintaining that the convention did not commit itself toan enfranchisement of the negro, insisted that it was a unit in itssupport of the President's policy, and that the Democrats, actinginsincerely, sought to destroy the Union party and secure exclusivecontrol of the Executive. "They propose, " said the _Times_, "to repeatupon him precisely the trick which they practised with such brilliantsuccess upon John Tyler and Millard Fillmore, both of whom were takenup by the Democracy, their policy endorsed, and their supportersdenounced. Both were flattered with the promise of a Democraticnomination and both were weak enough to listen and yield to thetemptation. Both were used unscrupulously to betray their principlesand their friends, and when the time came both were remorselesslythrown, like squeezed oranges, into the gutter. The game they areplaying upon President Johnson is precisely the same. They want theoffices he has in his gift, and when his friends are scattered andoverthrown they will have him at their mercy. Then, the power he givesthem will be used for his destruction. "[1040]

[Footnote 1040: New York _Times_, October 17, 1865. ]

Horatio Seymour made two speeches. With charming candor he admittedthat "signal victories have been won by generals who have made thehistory of our country glorious. " But to him the great debt, theuntaxed bonds, the inflation of the currency, the increased prices, and the absence of congressmen from the States lately in rebellion, seemed as full of peril as war itself. In his address at Seneca Fallshis field of view, confined to war-burdens and rights withheld from"subjugated" States, did not include the vision that thrilled others, who saw the flag floating over every inch of American territory, nowforever freed from slavery. "When we were free from debt, " he said, "aman could support himself with six hours of daily toil. To-day he mustwork two hours longer to pay his share of the national debt. . . . Thisquestion of debt means less to give your families. . . . It reaches everyboy and girl, every wife and mother. . . . It affects the character ofour people. " Prosperity also troubled him. "We see upon every hand itsembarrassing effect. The merchant does not know whether he will be aloser or gainer. We see men who have been ruined without fault, andmen who have made great fortunes without industry. Inquire of theperson engaged in mechanical operations and he will say that labourhas lost its former certain reward. " He disapproved the nationalbanking act because the new banks "have converted the debt of thecountry into currency and inflated prices;" he disputed thecorrectness of the Treasury debt statement because "it is theexperience of all wars that long after their close new claims springup, which render the expense at least fifty per cent. More thanappeared by the figures;" and he condemned the national system oftaxation because it "disables us to produce as cheaply at home as wecan buy in the markets of the world. "[1041]

[Footnote 1041: New York _World_, November 2, 1865. ]

The brief campaign promised to be spiritless and without incidentuntil John Van Buren, in his extended canvass for attorney-general, freely expressed his opinion of Horatio Seymour. Van Buren was not anadmirer of that statesman. He had supported him with warmth in 1862, but after the development of the Governor's "passion for peace" he hadlittle sympathy with and less respect for his administration. In thecampaign of 1864 he practically ignored him, and the subsequentannouncement of his defeat liberated Van Buren's tongue. "Seymour is adamned fool, " he said. "He spoiled everything at Chicago, and hasbeen the cause of most of the disasters of the Democratic party. "[1042]At Troy he declared that "the Democracy were suffering now from theinfernal blunder at Chicago last year, " and that "if Seymour andVallandigham had been kicked out of the national convention it wouldhave been a good thing for the party. "[1043]

[Footnote 1042: From letter of Chauncey M. Depew. --Albany _EveningJournal_, October 23, 1864. ]

[Footnote 1043: New York _Tribune_, November 3, 1865. ]

This opinion scarcely expressed the sentiment of a majority ofDemocrats, but those who had preferred John A. Dix as the man ofdestiny held Seymour and his school of statesmen responsible for theparty's deplorable condition. It had emerged from the war defeated inevery distinctive principle it had promulgated, and in the absence ofan available issue it now sought to atone for the past and to gain theconfidence of the people by nominating candidates who were eitheractive in the field or recognised as sincerely devoted to a vigorousprosecution of the war. To aid in this new departure Van Buren threwhis old-time fire into the campaign, speaking daily and to the delightof his audiences; but he soon discovered that things were lookingserious, and when the Union Republican ticket was elected bymajorities ranging from 28, 000 to 31, 000, with two-thirds of theAssembly and all the senators save one, he recognised that the gloryof Lee's surrender and the collapse of the Confederacy did notstrengthen the Democratic party, although one of its candidates hadled an army corps, and another, with eloquence and irresistibleargument, had stirred the hearts of patriotic Americans in the darkesthours of the rebellion. [1044]

[Footnote 1044: For more than a year Van Buren's health had beenimpaired, and in the spring of 1866 he went to Europe. But a change ofclimate brought no relief, and he died, on the return voyage, at theage of fifty-six. That the people deeply mourned his loss is theevidence of those, still living, to whom there was something dashingand captivating even in his errors. ]

CHAPTER XI

RAYMOND CHAMPIONS THE PRESIDENT

1866

When Congress convened in December, 1865, President Johnson, in a calmand carefully prepared message, advocated the admission of Southerncongressmen whenever their States ratified the Thirteenth Amendment. He also recommended that negro suffrage be left to the States. On theother hand, extreme Radicals, relying upon the report of Carl Schurz, whom the President had sent South on a tour of observation, demandedsuffrage and civil rights for the negro, and that congressionalrepresentation be based upon actual voters instead of population. Schurz had remained three months in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and to him "treason, under existingcircumstances, does not appear odious in the South. The people are notimpressed with any sense of its criminality. And there is yet amongthe Southern people an utter absence of national feeling. . . . Whileaccepting the abolition of slavery, they think that some species ofserfdom, peonage, or other form of compulsory labour is not slavery, and may be introduced without a violation of their pledge. " Schurz, therefore, recommended negro suffrage as "a condition precedent toreadmission. "[1045]

[Footnote 1045: Senate Ex. Doc. No. 2, 39th Cong. , 1st Session. ]

On the contrary, General Grant, who had spent a couple of weeks in theSouth upon the invitation of the President, reported that the mass ofthinking men accepted conditions in good faith; that they regardedslavery and the right to secede as settled forever, and were anxiousto return to self-government within the Union as soon as possible;that "while reconstructing they want and require protection from thegovernment. They are in earnest in wishing to do what is required bythe government, not humiliating to them as citizens, and if such acourse was pointed out they would pursue it in good faith. "[1046]

[Footnote 1046: McPherson, _History of Reconstruction_, pp. 67-68. ]

The North had been too happy over the close of the war and the returnof its soldiers to anticipate the next step, but when Thaddeus Stevensof Pennsylvania, the leader of the Radicals, opened the discussion inCongress on December 10 (1865), the people quickly saw the drift ofthings. Stevens contended that hostilities had severed the originalcontract between the Southern States and the Union, and that theformer, in order to return to the Union, must come in as new Statesupon terms made by Congress and approved by the President. In likemanner he argued that negroes, if denied suffrage, should be excludedfrom the basis of representation, thus giving the South 46representatives instead of 83. "But why should slaves be excluded?"demanded Stevens. "This doctrine of a white man's government is asatrocious as the infamous sentiment that damned the late Chief Justiceto everlasting fame, and, I fear, to everlasting fire. "[1047]

[Footnote 1047: _Congressional Globe_, Vol. 37, Part 1, pp. 73-74. ]

Stevens' speech, putting Johnson's policy squarely in issue, wasanswered by Henry J. Raymond, now the selected and acknowledged leaderof the Administration in the House. Raymond had entered Congress witha prestige rarely if ever equalled by a new member. There had beengreater orators, abler debaters, and more profound statesmen, but noone had ever preceded him with an environment more influential. He wasthe favourite of the President; he had been brought into more or lessintimate association with all the men of his party worth knowing; hewas the close friend of Weed and the recognized ally of Seward; hisgood will could make postmasters and collectors, and his displeasure, like that of a frigid and bloodless leader, could carry swift penalty. Indeed, there was nothing in the armory of the best equippedpolitician, including able speaking and forceful writing, that he didnot possess, and out of New York as well as within it he had beenregarded the earnest friend and faithful champion of Republicandoctrines. On the surface, too, it is doubtful if a member ofCongress, whether new or old, ever seemed to have a better chance ofwinning in a debate. Only three months before the people of the North, with great unanimity, had endorsed the President and approved hispolicy. Besides, the great body of Republicans in Congress preferredto work with the President. He held the patronage, he had succeeded bythe assassin's work to the leadership of the party, and thus far hadevinced no more dogmatism than Stevens or Sumner. Moreover, thesentiment of the North at that time was clearly against negrosuffrage. All the States save six[1048] denied the vote to the negro, and in the recent elections three States had specifically declaredagainst extending it to him. 

[Footnote 1048: New York and the New England States except Connecticut, although New York required a property qualification, but none for thewhite. ]

Thus fortified Raymond did not object to speaking for theAdministration. To him Stevens' idea of subjecting the South to thediscipline and tutelage of Congress was repulsive, and his ringingvoice filled the spacious hall of the House with clear-cut sentences. He denied that the Southern States had ever been out of the Union. "Ifthey were, " he asked, "how and when did they become so? By whatspecific act, at what precise time, did any one of those States takeitself out of the American Union? Was it by the ordinance ofsecession? An ordinance of secession is simply a nullity, because itencounters the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Didthe resolutions of those States, the declaration of their officials, the speeches of the members of their Legislatures, or the utterancesof their press, accomplish the result desired? Certainly not. Allthese were declarations of a purpose to secede. Their secession, if itever took place, certainly could not date from the time when theirintention to secede was first announced. They proceeded to sustaintheir purpose of secession by arms against the force which the UnitedStates brought to bear against them. Were their arms victorious? Ifthey were, then their secession was an accomplished fact. If not, itwas nothing more than an abortive attempt--a purpose unfulfilled. Theyfailed to maintain their ground by force of arms. In other words, theyfailed to secede. But if, " he concluded, "the Southern States did goout of the Union, it would make those in the South who resisted theConfederacy guilty of treason to an independent government. Do youwant to make traitors out of loyal men?"[1049]

[Footnote 1049: _Congressional Globe_, Vol. 37, Part 1, pp. 120-123. ]

Raymond received close attention. Several leaders acknowledged theirinterest by asking questions, and the congratulations that followedevidenced the good will of his colleagues. His speech had shown noneof the usual characteristics of a maiden effort. Without advertisinghis intention to speak, he obtained the floor late in the afternoon, referred with spirit to the sentiments of the preceding speaker, andmoved along with the air of an old member, careless of making arhetorical impression but intensely in earnest in what he had topresent. As an argument in favor of the adoption of a liberal policytoward the South, regardless of its strict legal rights, the speechcommended itself to his colleagues as an admirable one, but itentirely failed to meet Stevens' logic that the States lately inrebellion could not set up any rights against the conqueror exceptsuch as were granted by the laws of war. In his reply thePennsylvanian taunted Raymond with failing to quote a single authorityin support of his contention. "I admit the gravity of the gentleman'sopinion, " he said, "and with the slightest corroborating authorityshould yield the case. But without some such aid I am not willing thatthe sages of the law--Grotius, Vattel, and a long line ofcompeers--should be overthrown and demolished by the single arm of thegentleman from New York. I pray the gentleman to quote authority; notto put too heavy a load upon his own judgment; he might sink under theweight. Give us your author. "[1050]

[Footnote 1050: _Congressional Globe_, Vol. 37, Part 2, pp. 1307-1308. ]

As the debate continued it became evident the President's friends werelosing ground. Aside from the withering blows of Stevens, unseenoccurrences which Raymond, in his eagerness to champion Johnson'spolicy, did not appreciate or willingly ignored, had a most disturbinginfluence. The Northern people welcomed peace and approved thegenerosity of the government, but they wanted the South to exhibit itsappreciation by corresponding generosity to the government's friends. Its acts did not show this. Enactments in respect to freedmen, passedby the President's reconstructed legislatures, grudgingly bestowedcivil rights. A different punishment for the same offence wasprescribed for the negroes; apprentice, vagrant, and contract labourlaws tended to a system of peonage; and the prohibition of publicassemblies, the restriction of freedom of movement, and thedeprivation of means of defence illustrated the inequality of theirrights. Such laws, for whatever purpose passed, had a powerful effecton Northern sentiment already influenced by reported cruelties, whilethe Southern people's aversion to Union soldiers settling in theirmidst intensified the feeling. Moreover, Southern and Democraticsupport of the President made Republicans distrust his policy. IfStates can be reconstructed in a summer and congressmen admitted in awinter, it was said, the South, helped by the Democracy of the North, might again be in control of the Government within two years. Theseconsiderations were bound to affect the judgment of Republicans, andwhen Stevens began to talk and the real conditions in the South cameto be known, it aroused party indignation to a high pitch in theHouse. 

Raymond, in his brilliant rejoinders, endeavoured to recover lostground. He had created no enemies. On the contrary his courtesy andtact smoothed the way and made him friends. But after weeks ofdiscussion an effort to adopt a resolution of confidence in thePresident met with overwhelming defeat. Stevens asked that theresolution be referred to the Committee on Reconstruction--Raymonddemanded its adoption at once. On a roll-call the vote stood 32 to 107in favour of reference, Raymond and William A. Darling of New YorkCity being the only Republicans to vote against it. It was a heavyblow to the leader of the Conservatives. It proved the unpopularity ofJohnson's policy and indicated increasing estrangement between thePresident and his party. Moreover, it was personally humiliating. On atest question, with the whole power of the Administration behind him, Raymond had been able, after weeks of work, to secure the support ofonly one man and that a colleague bound to him by the ties of personalfriendship. 

The division in the party spread with the rapidity of a rising thundercloud. On February 6 Congress passed the Freedman's Bureau Bill, designed to aid helpless negroes, which the President vetoed. A monthlater his treatment of the Civil Rights Bill, which set in motion thenecessary machinery to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment, shattered theconfidence of the party. "Surely, " declared Senator Trumbull ofIllinois, "we have authority to enact a law as efficient in theinterest of freedom as we had in the interest of slavery. "[1051] Butthe President promptly vetoed it, because, he said, it conferredcitizenship on the negro, invaded the rights of the States, had nowarrant in the Constitution, and was contrary to all precedent. 

[Footnote 1051: _Congressional Globe_, p. 474. ]

The President had developed several undesirable characteristics, beingessentially obstinate and conceited, the possessor of a bad temper, and of a coarse and vulgar personality. His speech on February 22, inwhich he had invoked the wild passions of a mob, modified the opinionseven of conservative men. "It is impossible to conceive of a morehumiliating spectacle, " said Sherman. [1052] "During the progress ofevents, " wrote Weed, "the President was bereft of judgment and reason, and became the victim of passion and unreason. "[1053] But up to thistime the party had hoped to avoid a complete break with the Executive. Now, however, the question of passing the Civil Rights Bill over hisveto presented itself. Not since the beginning of the government hadCongress carried an important measure over a veto. Besides, it meant acomplete and final separation between the President and his party. Edwin D. Morgan so understood it, and although he had heretoforesustained the President, he now stood with the Radicals. Raymond alsoknew the gravity of the situation. But Raymond, who often wavered andsometimes exhibited an astonishing fickleness, [1054] saw only one sideto the question, and on April 9 when the House, by a vote of 122 to41, overrode the veto, he was one of only seven Unionists to supportthe President. [1055]

[Footnote 1052: _Congressional Globe_, Appendix, p. 124. ]

[Footnote 1053: T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p. 630. ]

[Footnote 1054: Augustus Maverick, _Life of Henry J. Raymond_, p. 225. 

Apropos of Raymond's fickleness Stevens remarked, when the formerappealed to his friends on the floor to furnish him a pair, that hesaw no reason for it, since he had observed that the gentleman fromNew York found no difficulty in pairing with himself. --William M. Stewart, _Reminiscences_, pp. 205-206. 

At another time when an excited member declared that Stevens commandsus to "go it blind, " Hale of New York, with an innocent expression, asked the meaning of the phrase. Instantly Stevens retorted: "It meansfollowing Raymond. " The hit was doubly happy since Hale had followedRaymond in his support of Johnson. --Boutwell, _Reminiscences_, Vol. 2, p. 11. ]

[Footnote 1055: Edward McPherson, _History of the Reconstruction_, p. 81. ]

After the passage of the Civil Rights Bill the President's friendsproposed to invoke, through a National Union convention to be held atPhiladelphia on August 14, the support of conservative Republicansand Democrats. Weed told Raymond of the project and Seward urged itupon him. Raymond expressed a disinclination to go to the conventionbecause it seemed likely to fall into the hands of former Confederatesand their Northern associates, and to be used for purposes hostile tothe Union party, of which, he said, he was not only a member, but thechairman of its national committee. Seward did not concur in thisview. He said it was not a party convention and need not affect theparty standing of those who attended it. He was a Union man, hedeclared, and he did not admit the right of anybody to turn him out ofthe Union party. Moreover, he wanted Raymond to attend the conventionto prevent its control by the enemies of the Union party. 

Raymond, still undecided, called with Seward upon the President, whofavoured neither a new party nor the restoration to power of theDemocratic party, although the movement, he said, ought not to repelDemocrats willing to act with it. He wanted the matter settled withinthe Union party, and thought the proposed convention, in whichdelegates from all the States could again meet in harmony, would exerta wholesome influence on local conventions and nominations toCongress. [1056] Raymond, however, was still apprehensive. He deemed theThirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments "reasonable, wise, and popular;"thought the President had "made a great mistake in taking groundsagainst them;" and declared that notwithstanding the peppery method oftheir passage "the people will not be stopped by trifles. " The outcomeof the convention also worried him. "If it should happen to lay down aplatform, " he continued, "which shall command the respect of thecountry, it would be such a miracle as we have no right to expect inthese days. However, " he concluded, "I shall be governed in my coursetoward it by developments. I do not see the necessity of denouncingit from the start, nor until more is known of its composition, purposes, and actions. "[1057]

[Footnote 1056: The above statement is based upon the diary of Raymond, published by his son. ]

[Footnote 1057: Letter of July 17. --Augustus Maverick, _Life ofRaymond_, pp. 173-174. ]

Raymond did not attend the preliminary State convention held atSaratoga on August 9. He left this work to Weed, who, with the help ofDean Richmond, made an excellent showing in numbers and enthusiasm. The support of the Democrats was assured because they would benefit, and the presence of Tilden, Kernan, William H. Ludlow, and Sanford E. Church created no surprise; but the interest manifested by John A. Dix, Hamilton Fish, Moses Taylor, Marshall O. Roberts, Francis B. Cutting, and Richard M. Blatchford amazed the Republicans. Henry J. Raymond was made a delegate-at-large, with Samuel J. Tilden, John A. Dix, and Sanford E. Church. 

At Philadelphia the convention derived a manifest advantage fromhaving all the States, South as well as North, fully represented, making it the first real "National" convention to assemble, it wassaid, since 1860. Besides, it was a picturesque convention, full ofstriking contrasts and unique spectacles. In the hotel lobbies Weedand Richmond, walking together, seemed ubiquitous as they dominatedthe management and arranged the details. Raymond and Church sat sideby side in the committee on resolutions, while the delegates fromMassachusetts and South Carolina, for spectacular effect, entered thegreat wigwam arm in arm. This picture of apparent reconciliationevoked the most enthusiastic cheers, and became the boast of theJohnsonians until the wits likened the wigwam to Noah's Ark, intowhich there went, "two and two, of clean beasts, and of beasts thatare not clean, and of fowls, and of everything that creepeth upon theearth. "

John A. Dix became temporary chairman, and the resolutions, recitingthe issue between the President and the Republicans, laid greatemphasis upon the right of every State, without condition, torepresentation in Congress as soon as the war had ended. But Raymond, presumably to please Southern delegates, [1058] pressed the argument farbeyond the scope of the resolutions, maintaining that even if thecondition of the Southern States rendered their admission unsafebecause still disloyal in sentiment and purpose, Congress had no powerto deny them rights conferred by the Constitution. This reckless claimamazed his friends as much as it aroused his enemies, and he at oncebecame the object of most cutting reproaches. "Had he been elected asa Copperhead, " said the _Tribune_, "no one could have complained thathe acted as a Copperhead, and had Judas been one of the Phariseesinstead of one of the Disciples, he would not be the worst examplethat Presidents and Congressmen can follow. "[1059] Ten days later theRepublican National committee removed him from the chairmanship, apunishment promptly followed by his removal from the committee. [1060]Raymond, in his talk with Seward, had anticipated trouble of thischaracter, but the humiliation was now doubly deep because itseparated him from friends whose staunch support had contributed tohis strength. Moreover, in a few weeks he was compelled to abandon thePresident for reasons that had long existed. "We have tried hard, " hewrote, "to hold our original faith in his personal honesty, and toattribute his disastrous action to errors of judgment and infirmitiesof temper. The struggle has often been difficult, and we can maintainit no longer. "[1061] But the change came too late. He had followed toofar. It added to the sadness, also, because his popularity was neverto return to any considerable extent during the remaining three yearsof his brilliant life. 

[Footnote 1058: New York _Tribune_, August 22, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1059: _Ibid. _, September 28. ]

[Footnote 1060: _Ibid. _, September 4 and 6. ]

[Footnote 1061: Augustus Maverick, _Life of Raymond_, p. 174. ]

Raymond's congressional experience, confined to a single term, addednothing to his fame. He delivered clever speeches, his wideintelligence and courteous manner won him popularity, and to someextent he probably influenced public opinion; but his brief careerleft no opportunity to live down his fatal alliance with Johnson. Indeed, it may well be doubted if longer service or more favourableconditions would have given him high standing as a legislator. Prominence gained in one vocation is rarely transferred to another. Legislation is a profession as much as medicine or law or journalism, the practice of which, to gain leadership, must be long andcontinuous, until proposed public measures and their treatment workedout in the drudgery of the committee room, become as familiar as thevariety of questions submitted to lawyers and physicians. Theprolonged and exacting labour as a journalist which had given Raymondhis great reputation, must, in a measure, have been repeated as alegislator to give him similar leadership in Congress. At forty-fivehe was not too old to accomplish it. Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio, whomade his greatest speech in reply to Raymond, began his congressionallife at forty-nine, and Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the House, atfifty-seven. But the mental weariness, already apparent in Raymond'sface, indicated that the enthusiasm necessary for such preparation haddeparted. Besides, he lacked the most important qualification for alegislative leader--the rare political sagacity to know the thoughtsof people and to catch the tiniest shadow of a coming event. 

Seward shared Raymond's unpopularity. Soon after assuming officePresident Johnson outlined a severe policy toward the South, violentlydenouncing traitors, who, he declared, must be punished andimpoverished. "The time has arrived, " he said, "when the Americanpeople should be educated that treason is the highest crime and thoseengaged in it should suffer all its penalties. "[1062] These sentiments, reiterated again and again, extorted from Benjamin F. Wade, the chiefof Radicals, an entreaty that he would limit the number to be hung toa good round dozen and no more. [1063] Suddenly the President changedhis tone to one of amnesty and reconciliation, and in answering thequestion, "who has influenced him?" Sumner declared that "Seward isthe marplot. He openly confesses that he counselled the present fatalpolicy. "[1064] Blaine also expressed the belief that the Secretary ofState changed the President's policy, [1065] a suggestion that Sewardhimself corroborated in an after-dinner speech at New York inSeptember, 1866. "When Mr. Johnson came into the Presidency, " said theSecretary, "he did nothing until I got well, and then he sent for meand we fixed things. "[1066]

[Footnote 1062: McPherson's _Reconstruction_, p. 45. ]

[Footnote 1063: Blaine's _Twenty Tears of Congress_, Vol. 2, p. 14. ]

[Footnote 1064: Edward L. Pierce, _Life of Sumner_, Vol. 4, p. 376;Sumner's _Works_, Vol. 11, p. 19. ]

[Footnote 1065: James G. Blaine, _Twenty Years of Congress_, Vol. 2, p. 63. ]

[Footnote 1066: New York _Tribune_, September 4, 1866. ]

But Seward did more to exasperate Republicans than change a harshpolicy to one of reconciliation. He believed in the soundness of thePresident's constitutional views and the correctness of his vetoes, deeming the course of Congress unwise. [1067] It is difficult, therefore, to credit Blaine's unsupported statement that Seward"worked most earnestly to bring about an accommodation between theAdministration and Congress. "[1068] The split grew out of thePresident's veto messages which Seward approved and probably wrote. 

[Footnote 1067: Thornton K. Lothrop, _Life of Seward_, p. 424. ]

[Footnote 1068: James G. Blaine, _Twenty Years of Congress_, Vol. 2, p. 115. ]

Until the spring of 1866 Seward's old friends believed he had remainedin the Cabinet to dispose of diplomatic questions which the war leftunsettled, but after his speech at Auburn on May 22 the men who onceregarded him as a champion of liberty and equality dropped him fromtheir list of saints. He argued that the country wanted reconciliationinstead of reconstruction, and denied that the President wasunfaithful to the party and its cardinal principles of public policy, since his disagreements with Congress on the Freedman's Bureau andCivil Rights Bills "have no real bearing upon the question ofreconciliation. " Nor was there any "soundness in our politicalsystem, if the personal or civil rights of white or black, free bornor emancipated, are not more secure under the administration of aState government than they could be under the administration of theNational government. "[1069] This sentiment brought severe criticism. "Mr. Seward once earned honour by remembering the negro at a time whenothers forgot him, " said the _Independent_; "he now earns dishonour byforgetting the negro when the nation demands that the negro should beremembered. "[1070]

[Footnote 1069: This speech does not appear in his _Works_, but waspublished at the time of its delivery in pamphlet form. ]

[Footnote 1070: New York _Independent_, May 31, 1866. ]

Seward's participation in the President's tour of the countrycontributed to destroy his popularity. This Quixotic junketing journeyquickly passed into history as the "swinging-around-the-circle" trip, which Lowell described as an "advertising tour of a policy in want ofa party. "[1071] Seward had many misgivings. The memory of thePresident's condition on inauguration day and of his unfortunatespeech on February 22 did not augur well for its success. "But it is aduty to the President and to the country, " he wrote, "and I shall goon with right good heart. "[1072] In the East the party got on verywell, but at Cleveland and other Western cities the President actedlike a man both mad and drunk, while people railed at him as if hewere the clown of a circus. "He sunk the Presidential office to thelevel of a grog-house, " wrote John Sherman. [1073]

[Footnote 1071: James Russell Lowell, _Political Essays_, p. 296. ]

[Footnote 1072: F. W. Seward, _Life of W. H. Seward_, Vol. 3, p. 339. ]

[Footnote 1073: Sherman's Letters, p. 278. ]

Seward's position throughout was pathetic. His apologies andcommonplace appeals for his Chief contrasted strangely with thecourageous, powerful, and steady fight against the domination ofslavery which characterised his former visits to Cleveland, and themen who had accepted him as their ardent champion deprecated both hisacts and his words. It called to mind Fillmore's desertion of hisanti-slavery professions, and Van Buren's revengeful action in 1848. "Distrusted by his old friends, " said the _Nation_, "he will never betaken to the bosom of his old enemies. His trouble is not that theparty to which he once belonged is without a leader, but that hewanders about like a ghost--a leader without a party. "[1074]

[Footnote 1074: New York _Nation_, Vol. 3, p. 234. ]

CHAPTER XII

HOFFMAN DEFEATED, CONKLING PROMOTED

1866

The knowledge that Republicans, to overcome the President's vetoes, must have a two-thirds majority in Congress, precipitated a Statecampaign of unusual energy. The contest which began on April 9, whenJohnson disapproved the Civil Rights Bill, was intensified by thePhiladelphia convention and the President's "swing-around-the-circle;"but the events that made men bitter and deeply in earnest were theMemphis and New Orleans riots, in which one hundred and eighty negroeswere killed and only eleven of their assailants injured. To the Norththis became an object-lesson, illustrating the insincerity of theSouth's desire, expressed at Philadelphia, for reconciliation andpeace. 

The Republican State convention, meeting at Syracuse on September 5, echoed this sentiment. In the centre of the stage the Stars andStripes, gracefully festooned, formed a halo over the portrait ofAbraham Lincoln, while a Nast caricature of President Johnson betrayedthe contempt of the enthusiastic gathering. Weed and Raymond wereconspicuous by their absence. The Radicals made Charles H. Van Wyckchairman, Lyman Tremaine president, George William Curtis chairman ofthe committee on resolutions, and Horace Greeley the lion of theconvention. At the latter's appearance delegates leaped to their feetand gave three rounds of vociferous cheers. The day's greatestdemonstration, however, occurred when the chairman, in his openingspeech, stigmatised the New York friends of the President. [1075] VanWyck prudently censored his bitterness from the press copy, but theepisode reflected the intense unpopularity of Seward, Weed, andRaymond. 

[Footnote 1075: New York _Tribune_, September 6, 1866. ]

In the privacy of the club Seward's old-time champions had spoken of"the decline of his abilities, " "the loss of his wits, " and "thatdry-rot of the mind's noble temper;" but now, in a crowded publichall, they cheered any sentiment that charged a betrayal of trust andthe loss of principles. Of course Seward had not lost his principles, nor betrayed his trust. He held the opinions then that he entertainedbefore the removal of the splints and bandages from the woundsinflicted by the bowie-knife of the would-be assassin. He had been inthorough accord with Lincoln's amnesty proclamation, issued inDecember, 1863, as well as with his "Louisiana plan" ofreconstruction, and Johnson's proclamation and plan of reconstruction, written under Seward's influence, did not differ materially. ButSeward's principles which rarely harmonised with those of theRadicals, now became more conspicuous and sharply defined because ofthe tactlessness and uncompromising spirit of Lincoln's successor. Besides, he was held responsible for the President's follies. To aconvention filled with crutches, scarred faces, armless sleeves, andrepresentatives of Andersonville and Libby Prisons, such an attitudeseemed like a betrayal of his trust, and the resentment of thedelegates, perhaps, was not unnatural. 

If Seward was discredited, Reuben E. Fenton was conspicuously trusted. According to Andrew D. White, a prominent State senator of that day, the Governor was not a star of the magnitude of his Republicanpredecessors. [1076] Others probably held the same opinion. Fenton'sparty, however, renominated him by acclamation, and then showed itsinconsistency by refusing a like honour to Thomas G. Alvord, thelieutenant-governor. The service of the Onondaga Chief, as his friendsdelighted to call him, had been as creditable if not as important asthe Governor's, but the brilliant gifts of Stewart L. Woodford, ayoung soldier of patriotic impulses, attracted a large majority of theconvention. [1077] Up to that time, Woodford, then thirty years of age, was the youngest man nominated for lieutenant-governor. He had made aconspicuous sacrifice to become a soldier. In 1861 Lincoln appointedhim an assistant United States attorney, but the silenced guns ofSumter inspired him to raise a company, and he marched away at itshead, leaving the civil office to another. Later he became commandantof the city that sheltered the guns first trained upon the Americanflag, and after his return, disciplined and saddened by scenes ofcourage and sacrifice, the clarion notes of the young orator easilycommanded the emotions of his hearers. No one ever wearied when hespoke. His lightest word, sent thrilling to the rim of a vastaudience, swayed it with the magic of control. He was not then at thefulness of his power or reputation, but delegates had heard enough todesire his presence in the important campaign of 1866, and tostimulate his activity they made him a candidate. 

[Footnote 1076: "There stood Fenton, marking the lowest point in thechoice of a State executive ever reached in our Commonwealth by theRepublican party. "--_Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 131. ]

[Footnote 1077: "The Republican ticket was as follows: Governor, ReubenE. Fenton, Chautauqua; Lieutenant-Governor, Stewart L. Woodford, Kings; Canal Commissioner, Stephen T. Hoyt, Steuben; Prison Inspector, John Hammond, Essex. "--New York _Tribune_, September 7, 1866. ]

The platform declared that while the constitutional authority of theFederal government cannot be impaired by the act of a State or itspeople, a State may, by rebellion, so far rupture its relations to theUnion as to suspend its power to exercise the rights which itpossessed under the Constitution; that it belonged to the legislativepower of the government to determine at what time a State may safelyresume the exercise of its rights; and that the doctrine that suchState is itself to judge when it is in proper condition to resume itsplace in the Union is false, as well as the other doctrine that thePresident was alone sole judge of the period when such suspensionshall be at an end. 

If these propositions created no surprise, the refusal squarely tomeet the suffrage issue created much adverse comment. One resolutionexpressed a hope that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment wouldtend to the equalisation of all political rights among citizens of theUnion, but although Greeley submitted a suffrage plank, as he did inthe preceding year, Curtis carefully avoided an expression favourableeven to the colored troops. 

"Extreme opinions usually derive a certain amount of strength fromlogical consistency, " wrote Raymond. "Between the antecedentproposition of an argument and its practical conclusion there isordinarily a connection which commends itself to the advocates ofprinciple. But the radicalism which proposes to reconstruct the Unionhas not this recommendation. Its principles and its policy are notmore alike than fire and water. What it contends for theoretically itsurrenders practically. "[1078] Although this was clearly a justcriticism, the radicalism of Congress showed more leniency in practicethan in theory. The Northern people themselves were not yet ready fornegro suffrage, and had the South promptly accepted the FourteenthAmendment and the congressional plan of reconstruction, it is doubtfulif the Fifteenth Amendment would have been heard of. 

[Footnote 1078: New York _Times_ (editorial), September 7, 1866. ]

Conservative Republicans, however, were too well satisfied with theirwork at Philadelphia to appreciate this tendency of Congress. Theevidence of reconciliation had been spectacular, if not sincere, andthey believed public opinion was with them. The country, it wasargued, required peace; the people have made up their minds to havepeace; and to insure peace the Southern States must enjoy theirconstitutional right to seats in Congress. "This is the one questionnow before the country, " said the _Post_; "and all men of every partywho desire the good of the country and can see what is immediatelynecessary to produce this good, will unite to send to Congress onlymen who will vote for the immediate admission of Southernrepresentatives. "[1079] In the opinion of such journals the situationpresented a rare opportunity to the Democratic party. By becoming thevehicle to bring real peace and good will to the country, it would notonly efface its questionable war record, but it could "spike the guns"of the Radicals, control Congress, sustain the President, and carrythe Empire State. This was the hope of Raymond and of Weed, back ofwhom, it was said, stood tens of thousands of Republicans. 

[Footnote 1079: New York _Evening Post_, August 27, 1866. ]

To aid in the accomplishment of this work, great reliance had beenplaced upon the tour of the President. Raymond reluctantly admittedthat these anticipations were far from realised, [1080] although themanagers thought the tour through New York, where the President hadbeen fairly discreet, was of value in marshalling the sentiment ofRepublicans. Besides, it seemed to them to show, in rural districtsand towns as well as in the commercial centres, a decided preferencefor a policy aimed to effect the union of all the States according tothe Constitution. 

[Footnote 1080: New York _Times_, September 7. ]

To encourage the coöperation of Republicans, the Democrats, led byDean Richmond, agreed, temporarily at least, to merge their name andorganisation in that of the National Union party. This arrangement wasnot easily accomplished. The _World_ hesitated and the _Leader_ridiculed, but when the Democracy of the State approved, thesejournals acquiesced. [1081] In obedience to this understanding theDemocratic State committee called a National Union State convention, and invited all to participate who favoured the principles enunciatedby the Philadelphia convention. The obscuration of State policies andpartisan prejudices made this broad and patriotic overture, devotedexclusively to a more perfect peace, sound as soft and winning as thespider's invitation to the fly. "If the action of the convention is inharmony with the spirit of the call, " wrote Raymond, "it cannot failto command a large degree of popular support. "[1082] As countydelegations equally divided between Republicans and Democrats arrivedat Albany on September 11, it was apparent that the invitation hadbeen accepted at its face value. Although no Republican of prominenceappeared save Thurlow Weed, many Republicans of repute in theirrespective localities answered to the roll call. These men favouredJohn A. Dix for governor. To them he stood distinctly for the specificpolicy announced at Philadelphia. In his opening address at thatconvention he had sounded the keynote, declaring a speedy restorationof the Union by the admission of Southern representatives to Congressa necessary condition of safe political and party action. Besides, Dixhad been a Democrat all his life, a devoted supporter of thegovernment during the war, and it was believed his career wouldcommand the largest measure of public confidence in the presentemergency. 

[Footnote 1081: Letter of Thurlow Weed, New York _Times_, October 9, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1082: New York _Times_, September 10, 1866. ]

This had been the opinion of Dean Richmond, whose death on August 27deprived the convention of his distinguished leadership. This was alsothe view of Edwards Pierrepont, then as afterward a powerful factor inwhatever circle he entered. Although a staunch Democrat, Pierreponthad announced, at the historic meeting in Union Square on April 20, 1861, an unqualified devotion to the government, and had accepted, with James T. Brady and Hamilton Fish, a place on the union defencecommittee. Later, he served on a commission with Dix to try prisonersof state, and in 1864 advocated the election of Lincoln. There was nodough about Pierrepont. He had shown himself an embodied influence, speaking with force, and usually with success. He possessed the gritand the breadth of his ancestors, one of whom was a chief founder ofYale College, and his presence in the State convention, although hehad not been at Philadelphia, encouraged the hope that it wouldconcentrate the conservative sentiment and strength of New York, andrestore Democracy to popular confidence. Stimulated by hisearnestness, the up-State delegates, when the convention opened, hadpractically settled Dix's nomination. 

There were other candidates. A few preferred Robert H. Pruyn ofAlbany, a Republican of practical energy and large politicalexperience, and until lately minister to Italy, while others thoughtwell of Henry C. Murphy of Brooklyn, a Democrat and State senator ofrecognised ability. But next to Dix the favourite was John T. Hoffman, then mayor of New York. It had been many years since the Democrats ofthe metropolis had had a State executive. Edwards Pierrepont said that"no man in the convention was born when the last Democratic governorwas elected from New York or Brooklyn. "[1083] This, of course, washyperbole, since Pierrepont himself could remember when, at theopening of the Erie Canal, Governor DeWitt Clinton, amidst the roar ofartillery and the eloquence of many orators, passed through the locksat Albany, uniting the waters of Lake Erie with those of the Hudson. Perhaps the thought of Clinton, climbing from the mayoralty to themore distinguished office of governor, added to the desire of Hoffman, for although the latter's capacity was limited in comparison with theastonishing versatility and mental activity of Clinton, he was notwithout marked ability. 

[Footnote 1083: New York _Times_, September 13, 1866. ]

Hoffman's life had been full of sunshine and success. He was adistinguished student at Union College, an excellent lawyer, aneffective speaker, and a superb gentleman. Slenderly but stronglybuilt, his square, firm chin and prominent features, relieved by largebrown eyes, quickly attracted attention as he appeared in public. "Inthe winter of 1866, " wrote Rhodes, "I used frequently to see him at anearly morning hour walking down Broadway on his way to the City Hall. Tall and erect, under forty and in full mental and physical vigor, hepresented a distinguished appearance and was looked at with interestas he passed with long elastic strides. He was regarded as one of thecoming men of the nation. He had the air of a very successful man whois well satisfied with himself and confident that affairs in generalare working for his advantage. "[1084]

[Footnote 1084: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 6, p. 401, note. ]

Not always overstocked with eligibles whom it could admire and trust, Tammany, proud of the young man's accomplishments, elected him in1860, at the age of thirty-two, recorder of the city, the presidingofficer of what was then the principal criminal court. Here heacquitted himself, especially in the draft riot of 1863, with suchcredit that Republicans and Democrats united in re-electing him, andin 1865, before the expiration of his second term as recorder, Tammanymade him mayor. It was a hard, close contest. Indeed, success couldnot have come to Tammany without the aid of Hoffman's increasingpopularity. This office, however, plunged him at once into partisanpolitics, and gave to his career an uncertain character, as if a turnof chance would decide what path of political life he was next tofollow. Now, at the age of thirty-eight, Tammany proposed making himgovernor. 

But Hoffman represented neither the principles nor the purposes of thePhiladelphia convention. The success of that movement depended largelyupon the pre-eminent fitness of the men who led it. The question was, would the State be safer in the hands of a well-known Democraticstatesman like Dix than in the control of Fenton and the Radicals? Dixstood for everything honest and conservative. For more than threedecades his prudence had been indissolubly associated with the wisediscretion of William L. Marcy and Silas Wright, while Hoffman, theexponent of unpurged Democracy, charged with promoting its welfare andsuccess, was the one man whom conservative Republicans wished toavoid, and whom, in their forcible presentation of Dix, they weredriving out of the race. 

Democratic leaders saw the situation with alarm. They had endorsed thePhiladelphia movement to get into power, --not to give it to Dix andthe Conservatives. The President's reconstruction policy, benefitingtheir party in the South and thus strengthening it in nationalelections, had been adopted with sincerity, but they did not seriouslypropose to merge their organisation in the State with another, givingit the reins and the whip. "The New York delegation to Philadelphia, "said the _World_, "was appointed by a gathering of politicians atSaratoga, who neither represented, had any authority to bind, nor madeany pretence of binding the Democratic organisation of theState. "[1085] Indeed, it was treated as a surprising revelation thatconservative Republicans and Dix Democrats should come to Albany withsuch a notion. However, the Dix appeal, developing wonderful strength, could not be reasoned with, and in their desperation the Democratssought an adjournment until the morrow. This the convention refused, granting only a recess until four o'clock. In the meantime Dix'schances strengthened. It was plain that his nomination, on linesapproved by Seward, meant a split in Republican ranks, and theup-State delegates, fearing delay, stood for early action. Then camethe inevitable trick. On reassembling a motion to adjourn was voteddown three to one, but Sanford E. Church, the chairman, declaring itcarried, put on his hat and quickly left the hall. It was an audaciousproceeding. Two-thirds of the convention stood aghast, and Church, thenext morning, found it necessary to make an abject apology. Nevertheless, his purpose had been accomplished. Adjournment gaveTammany the time fiercely to assail Dix, who was now charged withconsigning Democrats to Fort Lafayette, suppressing Democraticlegislatures, and opposing Seymour in 1864. John Morrissey, thepugilist and congressman, declared that Dix could not poll twentythousand votes in New York City. Meanwhile Democratic leaders, closingthe door against Weed and the Conservatives, quietly agreed uponHoffman. Had Dean Richmond lived a month longer this _coup d'état_would probably not have occurred. In vigour of intellect, in tersenessof expression, and in grasp of questions presented for consideration, Richmond was recognised as the first unofficial man in America, and hehad long thought it time for the Democratic party to get into stepwith the progress of events. 

[Footnote 1085: New York _World_, October 5, 1866. ]

The next morning, as pre-arranged, Edwards Pierrepont took the floor, and after characterising the assembly as a Democratic convention whoseprogramme had been settled in advance by Democrats, he formally andapparently with the assent of Dix coolly withdrew the latter's name, moving that the nomination of John T. Hoffman be made byacclamation. [1086] This was carried with shouts of wild exultation. Many Dix supporters, anticipating the outcome, had silently left thehall, but enough remained to hear, with profound astonishment, theconfession of Pierrepont that he had united with Tammany for thenomination of Hoffman before the meeting of the Philadelphiaconvention. Why, then, it was asked, did he advocate Dix the daybefore? and upon whose authority did he withdraw Dix's name? Aftersuch an exposure it could not be said of Pierrepont that he waswithout guile. "It was the occasion of especial surprise and regret, "wrote Weed, "that even before the National Union State convention hadconcluded its labours, Judge Pierrepont should have assumed that itwas a Democratic convention, and that its programme had been settledin advance by Democrats. This was not less a surprise when Iremembered that on the day previous to that announcement, JudgePierrepont concurred fully with me in the opinion that the nominationof General Dix for governor was expedient and desirable. "[1087]

[Footnote 1086: The ticket was as follows: Governor, John T. Hoffman, New York; Lieutenant-Governor, Robert H. Pruyn, Albany; CanalCommissioner, William W. Wright; Prison Inspector, Frank B. Gallagher, Erie. ]

[Footnote 1087: New York _Times_, October 9, 1866. ]

But the worst blow to a union of political interests was yet to come. To afford the people safety in their persons, security in theirproperty, and honesty in the administration of their government, aRepublican Legislature had placed the affairs of New York City largelyin control of Boards and Commissions. Tammany naturally resented thisinvasion of home rule, and after reaffirming the principles of thePhiladelphia movement, the convention declared that "recentlegislation at Albany has usurped a supreme yet fitful control of thelocal affairs which counties and municipalities are entitled toregulate. "[1088] To Conservatives nothing could have been moreoffensive than such a declaration. "There are thousands ofRepublicans, " said Raymond, "who long for a restoration of the Unionby the admission to their seats in Congress of loyal men from loyalStates, but who will be quite likely to prefer taking their chances ofsecuring this result from the action of the Republican party, modifiedas it may be by reflection and moderate counsels, rather than seek itin the way marked out for them by the Albany Democraticconvention. "[1089]

[Footnote 1088: New York _Times_, September 13, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1089: _Ibid. _, September 17. ]

Thus the clash began. Conservatives resented the evident intention ofthe Democrats to strengthen their party at the expense of thePhiladelphia movement. "We desire to call special attention, " said aBuffalo paper, "to the necessity of carrying out in good faith theunderstanding which was entered into at the Philadelphia conventionthat all old party antecedents and future action should be merged inthe National Union organisation. It was not contemplated then, orsince, to strengthen the Democratic party by that movement, and anyeffort in that direction now cannot fail to be mischievous. "[1090]Before the month of September expired Raymond warned the _World_ thathe was not pledged to the action of the Albany convention. "NoRepublican went into it for any such purpose, " he said. "No hint ofputting it to any such use was given in the call or in any of itspreliminary proceedings. The convention was called to give effect tothe principles and policy of the Philadelphia convention, andRepublicans who approved those principles concurred in the call. Buthow did this give that convention the right to commit them in favourof measures alien from its ostensible purpose, and at war with theirentire political action? It is utterly preposterous to suppose thatthey can coöperate with the Democratic party in the accomplishment ofany such design. "[1091]

[Footnote 1090: Buffalo _Commercial Advertiser_, September 14, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1091: New York _Times_, September 27, 1866. ]

Five days later Raymond announced his support of the Republicanticket. [1092] It was significant of his sincerity that he declined torun again for Congress. Thomas E. Stewart, a conservative Republican, was easily elected in the Sixth District, and Raymond could have hadthe same vote, but without "the approval of those who originally gaveme their suffrage, " he said, "a seat in Congress ceases to have anyattraction. With the Democratic party, as it has been organised anddirected since the rebellion broke out, I have nothing incommon. "[1093] It is impossible not to feel a high respect for themanner in which Raymond, having come to this determination, at onceacted upon it. He resented no criticism; he allowed no gleam offeeling to creep into his editorials. Few men could have avoided thetemptation to assume the tone of the wronged one who endures much andwill not complain. Instinctively, however, Raymond felt the bad tasteand unwisdom of such a style, and he joined heartily andgood-naturedly in the effort to elect Reuben E. Fenton. 

[Footnote 1092: _Ibid. _, October 2, 5. ]

[Footnote 1093: _Ibid. _, September 27. ]

Thurlow Weed, on the other hand, remained a Conservative. Indeed, hewent a step farther in the way of irreconciliation, preferring Hoffmanand Tammany, he said, to "the reckless, red-radicalism which rules thepresent Congress. . . . The men who now lead the radical crusade againstthe President, " he continued, explanatory of his course, "attemptedduring the war to divide the North. That calamity was averted by thefirmness and patriotism of conservative Republicans. In 1864 the sameleaders, as hostile to Mr. Lincoln as they are to President Johnson, attempted to defeat his election by a flank movement at Cleveland. Mr. Greeley wrote private letters to prominent Republicans invitingtheir coöperation in a scheme to defeat Mr. Lincoln's election. Thesame leaders went to Washington last December with the deliberateintention to quarrel with the President, who up to that day and hourhad followed in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor. Theirdenunciations have been systematic and fiendish. If, under a keensense of injustice, he has since erred in judgment or temper, nonewill deny the sufficiency of the provocation. That it would have beenwiser, though less manly, to forbear, I admit. But no nature, merelyhuman, excepting, perhaps, that of Abraham Lincoln, can patientlyendure wanton public indignities and contumely. "[1094]

[Footnote 1094: New York _Times_, October 9, 1866. ]

After the October elections it became apparent that the North wouldsupport Congress rather than the President. One cause of distrust wasthe latter's replacement of Republican office-holders with men notedfor disloyalty during the war. Weed complained that the appointment ofan obnoxious postmaster in Brooklyn "has cost us thousands of votes inthat city. "[1095] During the campaign Johnson removed twelve hundredand eighty-three postmasters, and relatively as many custom-houseemployés and internal revenue officers. [1096] Among the latter wasPhilip Dorsheimer of Buffalo. Indeed, the sweep equalled the violentaction of the Council of Appointment in the days when DeWitt Clintonand Ambrose Spencer, resenting opposition to Morgan Lewis, sent PeterB. Porter to the political guillotine for supporting Aaron Burr. Suchwholesale removals, however, did not arrest the progress of theRepublican party. After Johnson's "swing around the circle, "Conservatives were reduced to a few prominent men who could notconsistently retrace their steps, and to hungry office-holders whowere known as "the bread and butter brigade. "[1097] The _Post_, aloyal advocate of the President's policy, thought it a melancholyreflection "That its most damaging opponent is the President, whomakes a judicious course so hateful to the people that no argument islistened to, and no appeals to reason, to the Constitution, to commonsense, can gain a hearing. "[1098] Henry Ward Beecher voiced a similarlament. The great divine had suffered severe criticism for casting hislarge influence on the side of Johnson, and he now saw success meltingaway because of the President's vicious course. "Mr. Johnson just nowand for some time past, " he wrote, "has been the greatest obstacle inthe way of his own views. The mere fact that he holds them is theircondemnation with a public utterly exasperated with his rudeness andviolence. "[1099] A few weeks later the Brooklyn minister, tired of theinsincerity of the President and of his Philadelphia movement, openedthe campaign with a characteristic speech in support of the Republicancandidates. [1100]

[Footnote 1095: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 1096: The _Nation_, September 6, p. 191; September 27, p. 241. ]

[Footnote 1097: New York _Tribune_, October 1, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1098: New York _Evening Post_, September 11, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1099: Extract from private letter, September 6, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1100: New York _Tribune_, October 16, 1866. ]

In animation, frequent meetings, and depth of interest, the campaignresembled a Presidential contest. The issues were largely national. Asone of the disastrous results of Johnson's reconstruction policy, Republicans pointed to the New Orleans and Memphis massacres, intensified by the charge of the Southern loyalists that "more than athousand devoted Union citizens have been murdered in cold blood sincethe surrender of Lee. "[1101] The horrors of Andersonville, illuminatedby eye witnesses, and the delay to try Jefferson Davis, added to theexasperation. On the other hand, Democrats traced Southern conditionsto opposition to the President's policy, charging Congress with a basebetrayal of the Constitution in requiring the late Confederate Statesto ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition precedent to theadmission of their representatives. The great debate attracted to therostrum the ablest and best known speakers. For the Republicans, Roscoe Conkling, sounding the accepted keynote, now for the firsttime made an extended tour of the State, speaking in fourteen townsand cities. On the other hand, true to the traditions of his life, John A. Dix threw his influence on the side of the President. 

[Footnote 1101: _Ibid. _, September 7. ]

Hoffman, also, patiently traversed the State, discussingconstitutional and legal principles with the care of an able lawyer. There was much in Hoffman himself to attract the enthusiasm of popularassemblages. Kind and sympathetic, with a firm dignity that avoidedundue familiarity, he was irresistibly fascinating to men as he movedamong them. He had an attractive presence, a genial manner, and a goodname. He had, too, a peculiar capacity for understanding and pleasingpeople, being liberal and spontaneous in his expressions of sympathy, and apparently earnest in his attachment to principle. He was not anorator. He lacked dash, brilliant rhetoric, and attractive figures ofspeech. He rarely stirred the emotions. But he pleased people. Theyfelt themselves in the presence of one whom they could trust as wellas admire. The Democratic party wanted a new hero, and the favouriteyoung mayor seemed cut out to supply the want. 

However, Hoffman did not escape the barbed criticism of the Republicanpress. Raymond had spoken of his ability and purity, and of his courseduring the war as patriotic. [1102] Weed, also, had said that "duringthe rebellion he was loyal to the government and Union. "[1103] Toovercome these certificates of character, the _Tribune_ declared that"Saturn is not more hopelessly bound with rings than he. Rings ofcouncilmen, rings of aldermen, rings of railroad corporations, holdhim in their charmed circles, and would, if he were elected, use hisinfluence to plunder the treasury and the people. "[1104] It alsocharged him with being disloyal. In 1866 and for several years laterthe standing of pronounced Copperheads was similar to that of Toriesafter the Revolution, and it seriously crippled a candidate for officeto be classed among them. Moreover, it was easy to discredit aDemocrat's loyalty. To most members of the Union party the name itselfclothed a man with suspicion, and the slightest specification, likethe outcropping of a ledge of rocks, indicated that much more wasconcealed than had been shown. On this theory, the Republican press, deeming it desirable, if not absolutely essential, to put Hoffman intothe disloyal class, accepted the memory of men who heard him speak atSing Sing, his native town, in 1864. As they remembered, he haddeclared that "Democrats only had gone to war;" that "volunteeringstopped when Lincoln declared for an abolition policy;" and that he"would advise revolution and resistance to the government" if Lincolnwas elected without Tennessee being represented in the electoralcollege. [1105] Other men told how "at one of the darkest periods of thewar, Hoffman urged an immediate sale of United States securities, thenunder his control and held by the sinking fund of the city. "[1106] Inthe _Tribune's_ opinion such convenient recollections of unnamed andunknown men made him a "Copperhead. "[1107]

[Footnote 1102: New York _Times_, September 13, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1103: _Ibid. _, September 9. ]

[Footnote 1104: New York _Tribune_, November 1, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1105: New York _Tribune_, Oct. 5, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1106: _Ibid. _, Oct. 10. ]

[Footnote 1107: _Ibid. _]

Although New York indicated the same direction of the popular willthat had manifested itself in Pennsylvania and other October States, the heavy and fraudulent registration in New York City encouraged thebelief that Tammany would overcome the up-State vote. [1108] However, the pronounced antagonism to the President proved too serious ahandicap, and the Radicals, electing Fenton by 13, 000 majority, [1109]carried both branches of the Legislature, and twenty out of thirty-onecongressmen. It was regarded a great victory for Fenton, who wasreally opposed by one of the most formidable combinations known to thepolitics of the State. Besides the full strength of the Democraticparty, the combined liquor interest antagonised him, while the Weedforces, backed by the Johnsonised federal officials, were not lesspotent. Indeed, Seward publicly predicted Republican defeat by 40, 000majority. [1110]

[Footnote 1108: Gustavus Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 250. ]

[Footnote 1109: Fenton, 366, 315; Hoffman, 352, 526. --_Civil List, Stateof New York_, 1887, p. 166. ]

[Footnote 1110: New York _Tribune_, January 18, 1869. ]

The result also insured the election of a Republican to the UnitedStates Senate to succeed Ira Harris on March 4, 1867. Candidates forthe high honour were numerous. Before the end of November HoraceGreeley, having suffered defeat for Congress in the Fourth District, served notice of his desire. [1111] George William Curtis had a likeambition. Lyman Tremaine, too, was willing. Charles J. Folger, thestrong man of the State Senate, belonged in the same class, and RansomBalcom of Binghamton, who had achieved an enviable reputation as aSupreme Court judge, also had his friends. But the three men seriouslytalked of were Ira Harris, Noah Davis, and Roscoe Conkling. 

[Footnote 1111: _Ibid. _, November 9, 1866. ]

Harris had been something of a disappointment. He had performed theduties of judge and legislator with marked ability, but in Washington, instead of exercising an adequate influence on the floor of theSenate, he contented himself with voting, performing committee work, and attending to the personal wants of soldiers and otherconstituents. President Lincoln, referring to the Senator'spersistency in pressing candidates for office, once said: "I neverthink of going to sleep now without first looking under my bed to seeif Judge Harris is not there wanting something for somebody. "[1112]

[Footnote 1112: Andrew D. White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 134. ]

Davis had been on the Supreme bench since 1857, and although he hadhad little opportunity to develop statesmanship, his enthusiasticdevotion to the Union had discovered resources of argument and afearless independence which were destined to win him great fame in thetrial of William M. Tweed. People liked his nerve, believed in hishonesty, confided in his judgment, and revelled in the retorts thatleaped to his lips. There was no question, either, how he would standif called to vote upon the impeachment of the President, a proceedingalready outlined and practically determined upon by the majority inCongress. This could not be said with confidence of Ira Harris. Although his radicalism had stiffened as the time for a re-electionapproached, he had not always been terribly in earnest. It was not hisnature to jump to the support of a measure that happened to please thefancy of the moment. Yet his votes followed those of SenatorFessenden, and his voice, if not strong in debate, expressed thewisdom and judgment of a safe counsellor. 

In the House of Representatives Conkling had displayed real ability. Time had vindicated his reasons for demanding a bankrupt law, and hisvoice, raised for economy in the public expense, had made him ofspecial service during the war. He voted to reduce the mileage ofcongressmen, he opposed the creation of wide-open commissions, and heaided in uncovering frauds in the recruiting service. In the darkesthour of rebellion he approved Vallandigham's arrest and refused tojoin a movement to displace Lincoln for another candidate. On hisreturn to Congress, after his defeat in 1862, he had passed to theCommittee on Ways and Means, and to the Joint Committee onReconstruction. Of the Radicals no one surpassed him in diligence andenergy. He voted to confiscate the property of rebels, he stood withStevens for disfranchising all persons who voluntarily adhered to thelate insurrection until July 4, 1870, and he would agree to no planthat operated to disfranchise the coloured population. Indeed, to thesystem of constructive legislation which represented the plan ofreconstruction devised by Congress, he practically devoted his time. 

Of the New York delegation Conkling was admittedly the ablest speaker, although in a House which numbered among its members James A. Garfield, Thaddeus Stevens, and James G. Blaine, he was not anadmitted star of the first magnitude. Blaine's serious oratoricalcastigation, administered after a display of offensive manners, haddisarmed him except in resentment. [1113] The _Times_ spoke of him asof "secondary rank, "[1114] and the _Tribune_, the great organ of theparty, had declined to put upon him the seal of its approval. Besides, his vanity and arrogance, although not yet a fruitful subject of thecomic literature of the day, disparaged almost as much as hisbrilliant rhetoric exalted him. Careful observers, however, had notfailed to measure Conkling's ability. From Paris, William CullenBryant wrote his friends to make every effort to nominate him, andParke Godwin extended the same quality of support. [1115] His recentcampaign, too, had made men proud of him. Although disaffectedRepublicans sought to drive him from public life, and the _Tribune_had withheld its encouragement, he gained a great triumph. 

[Footnote 1113: "As to the gentleman's cruel sarcasm, " said Blaine, "Ihope he will not be too severe. The contempt of that large-mindedgentleman is so wilting, his haughty disdain, his grandiloquent swell, his majestic, supereminent, overpowering, turkey-gobbler strut hasbeen so crushing to myself and all the members of this House, that Iknow it was an act of the greatest temerity for me to venture upon acontroversy with him. " Referring to a comparison which had been madeof Conkling to Henry Winter Davis, Blaine continued: "The gentlemantook it seriously, and it has given his strut additional pomposity. The resemblance is great; it is striking. Hyperion to a Satyr, Thersites to Hercules, mud to marble, dunghill to diamond, a singedcat to a Bengal tiger, a whining puppy to a roaring lion. "--_CongressionalGlobe_, April 20, 1866, Vol. 37, Part 3, p. 2298. 

"I do not think Conkling was the equal in debate with Blaine. "--GeorgeF. Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 2, p. 55. "Conkling was the moredignified and commanding, but Blaine more aggravating and personal. When Blaine likened Conkling to a strutting turkey-gobbler, the Houseslightly hissed. But on the whole that debate was regarded as adraw. "--William M. Stewart, _Reminiscences_, p. 206. ]

[Footnote 1114: New York _Times_, January 3, 1867. ]

[Footnote 1115: A. R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, pp. 286-7. ]

But men talked geography. Seward and Preston King had representedwestern New York, and since Morgan had succeeded King, a western man, it was argued, should succeed Harris. This strengthened Noah Davis. Never in the history of the State, declared his friends, had a UnitedStates senator been taken from territory west of Cayuga Bridge, asection having over one million people, and giving in the recentelection 27, 000 Republican majority. On this and the strength of theircandidate the western counties relied, with the further hope ofinheriting Harris' strength whenever it left him. On the other hand, Harris sought support as the second choice of the Davis men. Greeleynever really got into the race. Organisation would probably not haveavailed him, but after serving notice upon his friends that theirardent and button-holing support would not be sanctioned by him, theimpression obtained that Greeley was as ridiculous as his letter. [1116]When Lyman Tremaine withdrew from the contest he threw his influenceto Conkling. This jolted Harris. Then Andrew D. White changed fromCurtis to the Oneidan. Curtis understood the situation too well tobecome active. "The only chance, " he wrote, "is a bitter deadlockbetween the three, or two, chiefs. The friends of Davis proposed to meto make a combination against Conkling, the terms being the electionof whichever was stronger now, --Davis or me, --and the pledges of thesuccessful man to support the other two years hence. I declinedabsolutely. "[1117] As Harris weakened, Reuben E. Fenton, hopeful ofbecoming Edwin D. Morgan's successor in 1869, restrained any rush toDavis. 

[Footnote 1116: New York _Tribune_, November 9, 1866. ]

[Footnote 1117: Edward Cary, _Life of Curtis_, p. 193. ]

The potential influence of Ellis H. Roberts, editor of the Utica_Herald_, a paper of large circulation in northern and central NewYork, proved of great assistance to Conkling. Roberts was of Welshorigin, a scholar in politics, strong with the pen, and conspicuouslyprominent in the discussion of economic issues. When in Congress(1871-75) he served upon the Ways and Means Committee. In 1867 hisfriends sent him to the Assembly especially to promote the election ofUtica's favourite son, and in his sincere, earnest efforts he verynearly consolidated the Republican press of the State in Conkling'sbehalf. During the week's fierce contest at Albany he marshalled hisforces with rare skill, not forgetting that vigilance bringsvictory. [1118]

[Footnote 1118: Conkling and Roberts quarrelled in the earlyseventies--the former, perhaps, unwilling to have two great men inOneida County--and Roberts was defeated for Congress in 1874. Afterthat the Utica _Herald_ became Conkling's bitterest enemy. Seeinterviews, New York _Herald_, November 9, 1877, and New York_Tribune_, November 10, 1877. ]

Thus the strife, without bitterness because free from factionalstrife, remained for several days at white-heat. "On reaching hereTuesday night, " Conkling wrote his wife, "the crowd took and heldpossession of me till about three o'clock the next morning. Hundredscame and went, and until Thursday night this continued from earlymorning to early morning again. The contest is a very curious andcomplex one. Great sums of money are among the influences here. I haveresolutely put down my foot that no friend of mine, even without myknowledge, shall pay a cent, upon any pretext nor in any strait, comewhat will. If chosen, it will be by the men of character, and ifbeaten this will be my consolation. The gamblers say that I can have$200, 000 here from New York in a moment if I choose, and that themembers are fools to elect me without it. "[1119] As evidence of thewant of faith in legislative virtue, the _Times_ gave the answer of aveteran lobbyist, who was asked respecting the chances of FreemanClarke. "Who's Clark?" he inquired. "Formerly the comptroller of thecurrency, " was the reply. "Oh, yes, " said the lobbyist; "and if hecontrolled the currency now, he would have a sure thing of it. "[1120]

[Footnote 1119: A. R. Conkling, _Life of Roscoe Conkling_, pp. 286-287. ]

[Footnote 1120: New York _Times_, January 4, 1867. ]

Conkling's winning card was his forensic ability. In the United StateSenate, since the days of Seward, New York had been weak in debatingpower, and the party's desire to be represented by one who could placethe Empire State in the front rank of influence appealed strongly tomany of the legislators. Andrew D. White, therefore, raised awhirlwind of applause at the caucus when he declared, in secondingConkling's nomination, that what the Empire State wanted was notjudicial talent "but a voice. "[1121]

[Footnote 1121: New York _Times_, January 10. ]

Nevertheless, so evenly did the members divide that it took fiveballots to make a nomination. Conkling led on the first ballot andDavis on the second. On the third, Conkling stood one ahead, and threeon the fourth, with Harris clinging to six votes. The disposition ofthese six would make a senator, and by gaining them Conkling becamethe nominee on the fifth ballot. [1122] Had they gone to Noah Davis, Fenton's way to the Senate in 1869 must have been blocked. But theGovernor was watchful. At the critical moment on the last ballot, onevote which had been twice thrown for Davis went back to Folger. TheChautauquan did not propose to take any chances. 

[Footnote 1122: The vote by ballots stood as follows:

 First Second Third Fourth FifthConkling 33 39 45 53 59Davis 30 41 44 50 49Harris 32 24 18 6 --Balcom 7 4 2 -- --Greeley 6 -- -- -- --Folger 1 1 -- -- 1

The Democratic caucus, held the same evening, nominated Henry C. Murphy of Brooklyn, who received 25 votes to 21 for A. Oakey Hall ofNew York. ]

CHAPTER XIII

THE RISE OF TWEEDISM

1867

The election of Roscoe Conkling to the United States Senate made himthe most prominent, if not the most influential politician in NewYork. "No new senator, " said a Washington paper, "has ever made in soshort a time such rapid strides to a commanding position in thatbody. "[1123]

[Footnote 1123: Washington _Chronicle_, March 28, 1867. ]

Conkling was not yet established, however. His friends who wished tomake him chairman of the Republican State convention which assembledat Syracuse on September 24, 1867, discovered that he was not belovedby the Radical leaders. He had a habit of speaking his own mind, andinstead of confining his thoughts to the committee room, or whisperingthem in the ears of a few alleged leaders, it was his custom to takethe public into his confidence. Horace Greeley, jealous of hisprerogative, disapproved such independence, and Governor Fenton, the_Tribune's_ protégé, had apprehensions for his own leadership. Besides, it was becoming more apparent each day that the men who didnot like Greeley and preferred other leadership to Fenton's, thoughtwell of Conkling. He was not a wild partisan. Although a stiff Radicalhe had no reason to feel bitter toward men who happened to differ withhim on governmental policies. His life did not run back into thequarrels between Greeley and Thurlow Weed, and he had no dispositionto be tangled up with them; but when he discovered that Greeley hadlittle use for him, he easily formed friendships among men who hadlittle use for Greeley. It was noticeable that Conkling did notcriticise Raymond's erratic run after Andrew Johnson. He heardShellabarger's stinging reply, he listened to the editor's hopelessappeal for support, and he voted against the resolution of confidencein the President, but he added nothing to Raymond's humiliation. Perhaps this accounted for the latter's appreciation of the youngSenator. At all events, the _Times_ complimented while the _Tribune_remained silent. It was evident the great Republican organ did notintend advertising the ability of the strenuous, self-assertingSenator, who was rapidly becoming a leader. 

The existence of this jealousy quickly betrayed itself to Conkling'sadmirers at the State convention. On the surface men were calm andresponsive. But in forming the committee on permanent organisationFenton's supporters, who easily controlled the convention, secretlyarranged to make Lyman Tremaine chairman. When this plan came to theears of the Conkling men, one of them, with the shrewdness of agenuine politician, surprised the schemers by moving to instruct thecommittee to report the Senator for permanent president. This made itnecessary to accept or squarely to reject him, and wishing to avoidopen opposition, the Governor's managers allowed the convention toacquiesce in the motion amid the vociferous cheers of the Senator'sfriends. 

Conkling's speech on this occasion was one of interest. He outlined apolicy for which, he contended, his party in the Empire State ought tostand. This was a new departure in New York. Heretofore, its chosenrepresentatives, keeping silent until a way had been mapped out inWashington or elsewhere, preferred to follow. Conkling preferred tolead. There was probably not a Republican in the State capable offorming an opinion who did not know that from the moment Conklingbecame a senator the division of the party into two stout factions wasmerely a question of time. That time had not yet come, but even thenit was evident to the eye of a close observer that the action of theRadicals, led by Fenton, turned in a measure upon their distrust ofConkling and his supporters. 

This was manifest in the cool treatment accorded the New York Citydelegates who represented the bolting Republicans of the year before. Conkling's friends, disposed to be liberal, argued that the vote of a"returning sinner" counted as much on election day as that of a saint. On the other hand, the Fenton forces, while willing to benefit by thesuffrage of Conservatives, were disinclined to admit to the conventionmen tainted with the sin of party treason, who would naturallystrengthen their adversaries. In the end, after a fierce strugglewhich absorbed an entire session, the Conservatives were left out. 

Opposition to the State officials who had shown a disposition tofavour the Senator was less open but no less effective. The exposureof canal frauds in the preceding winter, showing that for a period ofsix years trifling causes had been deemed sufficient to displace lowbids for high ones, thus greatly enriching a canal ring at the expenseof the State, involved only the Canal Commissioner. Indeed, everyreason existed why Barlow and his soldier associates whose armyrecords had strengthened their party in 1865 should receive the usualendorsement of a renomination; but to avoid what, it was claimed, might otherwise be regarded an invidious distinction, the GreeleyRadicals cleverly secured a new ticket. [1124] "In their zeal to becomehonest, " said Horatio Seymour, "the Republicans have pitched overboardall the officials who have not robbed the treasury. "[1125]

[Footnote 1124: The following were nominated: Secretary of State, JamesB. McKean, Saratoga; Comptroller, Calvin T. Hulburd, St. Lawrence;Treasurer, Theodore B. Gates, Ulster; Attorney-General, Joshua M. VanCott, Kings; State Engineer, Archibald C. Powell, Onondaga; CanalCommissioner, John M. Hammond, Allegany; Prison Inspector, Gilbert DeLamatyr, Wyoming; Court of Appeals, Charles Mason, Madison. Of thoseselected, McKean and Hulburd had served two terms each in Congress. ]

[Footnote 1125: New York _World_, October 4, 1867. ]

The platform no longer revealed differences in the party. It affirmedimpartial suffrage, protested against maladministration and corruptionin State affairs, supported Congress in its policy of reconstruction, and rebuked all tampering with the financial obligations of the Union. Upon these plain, simple issues Conservatives and Radicals stoodunited. Those who, in 1865, thought the restoration of the Union onthe President's plan would have been wise, conceded that under thechanged conditions in 1867 it would be impracticable as well as unsafeand impolitic. Indeed, in his conduct of the _Times_, Raymond wasagain in accord with the Republicans, but he did not seek to renew hisformer relations with the party. Being complimented for "keeping inthe background, "[1126] he replied that "when, a year ago, he declined are-election to Congress, it was for the purpose of devoting himselfwholly to the editorship of the _Times_, a position more to his tastethan any other, and which carries with it as much of influence, honour, and substantial reward as any office in the gift of Presidentsor political parties. "[1127] Had he appreciated the truth of this wisestatement in 1864 his sun might not have set in a cloud. "Hisparliamentary failure, " says Blaine, "was a keen disappointment tohim, and was not improbably one among many causes which cut short abrilliant and useful life. "[1128]

[Footnote 1126: Buffalo _Commercial Advertiser_, September 25, 1867. ]

[Footnote 1127: New York _Times_, September 27, 1867. ]

[Footnote 1128: James G. Blaine, _Twenty Years of Congress_, Vol. 2, p. 140. ]

The passing of Raymond and the advent of John T. Hoffman as a factorin the State illustrate the curious work often wrought by politicalchanges. Raymond's efforts in behalf of reconciliation and peacehappened to concur in point of time with the demands of Tammany forHoffman and home-rule, and the latter proved the more potent. 

Hoffman's appearance in State politics marked the beginning of a newera. The increased majority in New York City in 1866, sodisproportionate to other years, and the naturalisation of immigrantsat the rate of one thousand a day, regardless of the period of theirresidence in the country, [1129] indicated that a new leader of thefirst magnitude had appeared, and that methods which differentiatedall moral principles had been introduced. For ten years William MarcyTweed had been sachem or grand sachem of Tammany and chairman of itsgeneral committee. In climbing the ladder of power he had had his upsand downs. He endured several defeats, notably for assistant alderman, for re-election to Congress after a service of one term, and forsheriff of New York County. But his popularity suffered no eclipse. Ever since he led the ropes as a volunteer fireman, carrying asilver-mounted trumpet, a white fire coat, and a stiff hat, the youngmen of his class had made a hero of the tall, graceful, athleticchief. His smiles were winning and his manners magnetic. From leadinga fire company he quickly led the politics of his district and then ofhis ward, utilising his popularity by becoming in 1859 a member of theBoard of Supervisors, and in 1863 deputy street commissioner. Assupervisor he influenced expenditures and the making of contracts, while the street deputy-ship gave him control of thousands oflabourers and sent aldermen after him for jobs for their wardsupporters. Thus intrenched he dropped chair-making, a businessinherited from his father, put up the sign of lawyer, and became knownto friends and foes as Boss Tweed, a title to which he did not object. 

[Footnote 1129: Gustavus Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 250. ]

Like Hoffman, Tweed had a most agreeable personality. Alwaysscrupulously neat in his dress and suave in manner, he possessed theoutward characteristics of a gentleman, being neither boastful nornoisy, and never addicted to the drink or tobacco habit. To hisfriends the warmth of his greeting and the heartiness of hishand-shake evidenced the active sympathies expressed in numberlessdeeds of kindness and charity. Yet he could be despotic. If he desireda motion carried in his favour he neglected to call for negativevotes, warning opponents with significant glances of the danger ofincurring his displeasure. Once, when his ruling as chairman of aTammany nominating convention raised a storm of protests, he blockedthe plans of his adversaries by adjourning the meeting and turning offthe gas. 

Although Tweed, perhaps, was often at fault in his estimate of men whofrequently deceived him, he selected his immediate lieutenants withintelligent care. In 1857 he had George G. Barnard elected recorderand Peter B. Sweeny district attorney. About the same time Richard B. Connolly became county clerk. When Barnard's term expired in 1860 headvanced him to the Supreme Court and took up Hoffman for recorder. Later Hoffman became mayor and Connolly city comptroller. AfterHoffman's second promotion A. Oakey Hall was made mayor. In his wayeach of these men contributed strength to the political junta whichwas destined to grow in influence and power until it seemedinvincible. Hall had been a versifier, a writer of tales in prose, aKnow-nothing, a friend of Seward, and an anti-Tammany Democrat. As aclubman, ambitious for social distinction, he was known as "elegantOakey. " Although "without ballast, " as Tweed admitted, he wasindispensable as an interesting speaker of considerable force, whoyielded readily to the demands of a boss. Connolly, suave and courtly, was at heart so mean and crafty that Tweed himself held him in theutmost contempt as a "Slippery Dick. " But he was a good bookkeeper. Besides, however many leeches he harboured about him, his intimateknowledge of Tweed's doings kept him in power. Perhaps Barnard, morein the public eye than any other, had less legal learning than wit, yet in spite of his foppish dress he never lacked sufficient dignityto float the appearance of a learned judge. He was a handsome man, tall and well proportioned, with peculiarly brilliant eyes, a jetblack moustache, light olive complexion, and a graceful carriage. Whenever in trouble Tweed could safely turn to him withoutdisappointment. But the man upon whom the Boss most relied was Sweeny. He was a great manipulator of men, acquiring the cognomen of PeterBrains Sweeny in recognition of his admitted ability. He had littletaste for public life. Nevertheless, hidden from sight, withoutconscience and without fear, his sly, patient intrigues surpassedthose of his great master. The _Tribune_ called him "theMephistopheles of Tammany. "[1130]

[Footnote 1130: New York _Tribune_, March 5, 1868. ]

The questionable doings of some of these men had already attracted theattention of the press. It was not then known that a thirty-five percent. Rake-off on all bills paid by the city was divided between Tweedand Connolly, or that Sweeny had stolen enough to pay $60, 000 for hisconfirmation as city chamberlain by the Board of Aldermen;[1131] butthe prompt subscription of $175, 000 by a few members of Tammany forthe erection of a new hall on Fourteenth Street, the cornerstone ofwhich was laid on July 4, 1867, showed that some folks were rapidlygetting rich. [1132] In the year after Hoffman's defeat for governor theaim of Tweed and his lieutenants was to carry city elections andcontrol State conventions, with dreams of making Hoffman governor andthen President, and of electing Tweed to the United States Senate. 

[Footnote 1131: Tweed's testimony, Document No. 8, p. 105. ]

[Footnote 1132: Gustavus Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 257. ]

With this ambitious scheme in view the Tammany braves, reaching Albanyon October 3, 1867, demanded that Hoffman be made president of theDemocratic State convention. It was a bold claim for a defeatedcandidate. After Fenton's election in 1864 Seymour had deemed itproper to remain in the background, and for two years did not attend aState convention. He had now reappeared, and the up-State delegates, delighted at his return, insisted upon his election as president. Instantly this became the issue. The friends of the Governor pointedto his achievements and to his distinguished position as the greatapostle of Democracy. On the other hand, Tammany, with its usualassurance, talked of its 50, 000 majority given the Democratic ticketin 1866, declared that Seymour had had enough, and that Hoffman neededthe endorsement to secure his re-election as mayor in the followingDecember. Thus the contest raged. Tammany was imperious and thecountry delegates stubborn. One year before these men had allowedtheir better judgment to be coerced into a condemnation of John A. Dixbecause of his alleged ill treatment of Democrats; but now, standinglike a stone wall for Seymour, they followed their convictions as tothe best interests of the party. In the end Hoffman became temporarychairman and Seymour president. The generous applause that greetedHoffman's appearance must have satisfied his most ardent friend untilhe witnessed the spontaneous and effusive welcome accorded Seymour. Ifit was noisy, it was also hearty. It had the ring of real joy, mingledwith an admiration that is bestowed only upon a leader who captivatesthe imagination by recalling glorious victory and exciting high hopesof future success. [1133]

[Footnote 1133: New York _World_, October 4, 1867. ]

The selection of candidates provoked no real contests, [1134] but theplatform presented serious difficulties. The Democratic partythroughout the country found it hard to digest the war debt. Men whobelieved it had been multiplied by extravagance and corruption in theprosecution of an unholy war, thought it should be repudiatedoutright, while many others, especially in the Western States, wouldpay it in the debased currency of the realm. To people whosecirculating medium before the war was mainly the bills of wild-catbanks, greenbacks seemed like actual money and the best money they hadever known. It was attractive and everywhere of uniform value. Moreover, as the Government was behind it the necessity for gold andsilver no longer appealed to them. The popular policy, therefore, made the 5-20 bonds payable in greenbacks instead of coin. Of thewhole interest-bearing debt of $2, 200, 000, 000, there were outstandingabout $1, 600, 000, 000 of 5-20's, or securities convertible into them, and of these $500, 000, 000 became redeemable in 1867. Their redemptionin gold, worth from 132 to 150, it was argued, would not only be adiscrimination in favour of the rich, but a foolish act of generosity, since the law authorising the bonds stipulated that the interestshould be paid in "coin" and the principal in "dollars. " As greenbackswere lawful money they were also "dollars" within the meaning of thelegal tender act, and although an inflation of the currency, madenecessary by the redemption of bonds, might increase the price of goldand thus amount to practical repudiation, it would in nowise modifythe law making the bonds payable in paper "dollars. " This was known asthe "Ohio idea. " It was a popular scheme with debtors, real estateowners, shopkeepers, and business men generally, who welcomedinflation as an antidote for the Secretary of the Treasury'scontraction of the currency. Democratic politicians accepted thispolicy the more readily, too, because of the attractive cry--"the samecurrency for the bondholder and the ploughboy. "

[Footnote 1134: The following persons were nominated: Secretary ofState, Homer A. Nelson, Dutchess; Comptroller, William F. Allen, Oswego; Treasurer, Wheeler H. Bristol, Tioga; Attorney-General, Marshal B. Champlain, Allegany; State Engineer, Van R. Richmond, Wayne; Canal Commissioner, John F. Fay, Monroe; Prison Inspector, Nicholas B. Scheu, Erie; Court of Appeals, Martin Grover, Allegany. ]

There was much of this sentiment in New York. Extreme Democrats, taught that the debt was corruptly incurred, resented the suggestionof its payment in gold. "Bloated bondholders" became a famousexpression with them, to whom it seemed likely that the $700, 000, 000of United States notes, if inflated to an amount sufficient to pay thebonds, would ultimately force absolute repudiation. These views foundready acceptance among delegates to the State convention, and to puthimself straight upon the record, John T. Hoffman, in his speech astemporary chairman, boldly declared "the honour of the country pledgedto the payment of every dollar of the national debt, honestly andfully, in the spirit as well as in the letter of the bond. "[1135]

[Footnote 1135: New York _World_, October 4, 1867. ]

Seymour, with his usual dexterity, declined to commit himself or hisparty to any decided policy. Although he would "keep the publicfaith, " and "not add repudiation to the list of crimes which destroyconfidence in republican governments, " his arguments shed no light onthe meaning of those words. He declared that "waste and corruption hadpiled up the national debt, " and that it was "criminal folly to exemptbonds from taxation. " Then, entering into a general discussion offinance, he arraigned the war party for its extravagance, infidelity, and plundering policy. "Those who hold the power, " he said, "have notonly hewed up to the line of repudiation, but they have not tried togive value to the public credit. It is not the bondholder, it is theoffice holder who sucks the blood of the people. If the moneycollected by the government was paid to lessen our debt we couldcommand the specie of the world. We could gain it in exchange for oursecurities as the governments of Europe do. Now, they are peddled outat half price in exchange for dry-goods and groceries. The reports ofthe Secretary of the Treasury show that we could swiftly wipe out ourdebt if our income was not diverted to partisan purposes. Do not thecolumns of the press teem with statements of official plunder andfrauds in every quarter of our land, while public virtue rots underthis wasteful expenditure of the public fund? It is said it isrepudiation to force our legal tenders upon the bondholders. Whatmakes it so? The low credit of the country. Build that up; make yourpaper as good as gold, and this question cannot come up. Thecontroversy grows out of the fact that men do not believe our legaltenders ever will be as good as gold. If it is repudiation to pay suchmoney, it is repudiation to make it, and it is repudiation to keep itdebased by waste and by partisan plans to keep our country in disorderand danger. "[1136]

[Footnote 1136: New York _World_, October 4, 1867. ]

Perhaps no American ever possessed a more irritating way of presentingthe frailties of an opposite party. The unwholesome sentiment of hisTweddle Hall and draft-riot speeches, so shockingly out of key withthe music of the Union, provoked the charge of sinning against clearlight; but ordinarily he had such a faculty for skilfully blendingtruth with hyperbole in a daring and spirited argument that Greeley, who could usually expose the errors of an opponent's argument in adozen sentences, found it woven too closely for hasty answer. On thisoccasion his speech compelled the committee on resolutions, after anall day and night session, to refer the matter to Samuel J. Tilden andtwo associates, who finally evaded the whole issue by declaring for"equal taxation. " This meant taxation of government bonds withoutspecification as to their payment. John McKeon of New York Cityattacked the words as "equivocal" and "without moral effect, " but theinfluence of Seymour and Tilden carried it with practical unanimity. 

The power of Seymour, however, best exhibited itself in the treatmentaccorded Andrew Johnson. The conventions of 1865 and 1866 hadsustained the President with energy and earnestness, endorsing hispolicy, commending his integrity, and encouraging him to believe inthe sincerity of their support. In recognition Johnson had displacedRepublicans for Democrats until the men in office resembled theappointees of Buchanan's administration. The proceedings of theconvention of 1867, however, contained no evidence that the UnitedStates had a Chief Executive. Nothing could have been moreremorseless. The plan, silently matured, was suddenly and withoutscruple flashed upon the country that Andrew Johnson, divested ofrespect, stripped of support, and plucked of offices, had been coollydropped by the Democracy of the Empire State. 

The campaign opened badly for the Republicans. Weighted with canalfrauds the party, with all its courage and genius, seemed unequal tothe odds against which it was forced to contend. The odiousdisclosures showed that the most trifling technicalities, often only amisspelled or an interlined word, and in one instance, at least, simply an ink blot, had been held sufficient to vacate the lowestbids, the contracts afterward being assigned to other bidders atlargely increased amounts. So insignificant were these informalitiesthat in many cases the official who declared the bids irregular couldnot tell upon the witness stand wherein they were so, although headmitted that in no instance did the State benefit by the change. Indeed, without cunning or reason, the plunderers, embracing all whomade or paid canal accounts, declared bids informal that contracts atincreased prices might be given to members of a ring who divided theirill-gotten gains. These increases ranged from $1, 000 to $100, 000 each, aggregating a loss to the State of many hundreds of thousands ofdollars. "The corruption is so enormous, " said the _World_, "as torender absurd any attempt at concealment. "[1137]

[Footnote 1137: New York _World_, September 27, 1867. 

The story of these frauds is found in two volumes of testimonysubmitted by the Canal Investigation Committee to the ConstitutionalConvention of 1867. ]

Republicans offered no defence except that their party, having had thecourage to investigate and expose the frauds and the methods of thepeculators, could be trusted to continue the reform. To this the_World_ replied that "a convention of shoddyites might, with as good aface, have lamented the rags hanging about the limbs of our shiveringsoldiers, or a convention of whisky thieves affect to deplore thefalling off of the internal revenue. "[1138] Moreover, Democrats claimedthat the worst offender was still in office as an appointee ofGovernor Fenton, [1139] and that the Republican nominee for canalcommissioner had been guilty of similar transactions whensuperintendent of one of the waterways. [1140] These charges became themore glaring because Republicans refused to renominate senators whohad been chiefly instrumental in exposing the frauds. "They take greatcredit to themselves for having found out this corruption in themanagement of the canals, " said Seymour. "But how did they exhibittheir hatred of corruption? Were the men who made these exposuresrenominated? Not by the Republicans. One of them is running upon ourticket. "[1141] On another occasion he declared that "not one of thepublic officers who are charged and convicted by their own friends offraud and robbery have ever been brought to the bar of justice. "[1142]The severity of such statements lost none of its sting by thedeclaration of Horace Greeley, made over his own signature, thatRepublican candidates were "conspicuous for integrity and forresistance to official corruption. "[1143]

[Footnote 1138: New York _World_, September 27, 1867. ]

[Footnote 1139: _Ibid. _, October 16, 22. ]

[Footnote 1140: _Ibid. _, October 22. ]

[Footnote 1141: _New York World_, October 25. ]

[Footnote 1142: _Ibid. _, October 4. ]

[Footnote 1143: New York _Tribune_, September 26, 1867. ]

The practical failure of the constitutional convention to accomplishthe purpose for which it assembled also embarrassed Republicans. Bythe terms of the Constitution of 1846 the Legislature was required, ineach twentieth year thereafter, to submit to the people the questionof convening a convention for its revision, and in 1866, anaffirmative answer being given, such a convention began its work atAlbany on June 4, 1867. Of the one hundred and sixty delegates, ninety-seven were Republicans. Its membership included many men of thehighest capacity, whose debates, characterised by good temper andforensic ability, showed an intelligent knowledge of the needs of theState. Their work included the payment of the canal and other Statedebts, extended the term of senators from two to four years, increasedthe members of the Assembly, conferred the right of suffrage withoutdistinction of colour, reorganised the Court of Appeals with a chiefjustice and six associate justices, and increased the tenure ofsupreme and appellate judges to fourteen years, with an age limit ofseventy. 

Very early in the life of the convention, however, the press, largelyinfluenced by the New York _Tribune_, began to discredit its work. Horace Greeley, who was a member, talked often and always well, butthe more he talked the more he revealed his incapacity for safeleadership. He seemed to grow restive as he did in Congress overimmaterial matters. Long speeches annoyed him, and adjournments fromFriday to the following Tuesday sorely vexed him, although thisarrangement convenienced men of large business interests. Besides, committees not being ready to report, there was little to occupy thetime of delegates. Nevertheless, Greeley, accustomed to work withoutlimit as to hours or thought of rest, insisted that the conventionought to keep busy six days in the week and finish the revision forwhich it assembled. When his power to influence colleagues hadentirely disappeared, he began using the _Tribune_, whose acridarguments, accepted by the lesser newspapers, completely underminedall achievement. Finally, on September 24, the convention recesseduntil November 12. 

Democrats charged at once that the adjournment was a skulkingsubterfuge not only to avoid an open confession of failure, but toevade submitting negro suffrage to a vote in November. The truth ofthe assertion seemed manifest. At all events, it proved a most serioushandicap to Republicans, who, by an act of Congress, passed on March2, 1867, had forced negro suffrage upon the Southern States. Theirplatform, adopted at Syracuse, also affirmed it. Moreover, theirabsolute control of the constitutional convention enabled them, ifthey had so desired, to finish and submit their work in the earlyautumn. This action subjected their convention resolve for "impartialsuffrage" to ridicule as well as to the charge of cowardice. If youshrink from giving the ballot to a few thousand negroes at home, itwas asked, why do you insist that it should be conferred on millionsin the South? If, as you pretend, you wish the blacks of this State tohave the ballot, why do you not give it to them? How can you blame theSouth for hesitating when you hesitate? "It is manifest, " said the_World_, "that the Republicans do not desire the negroes of this Stateto vote. Their refusal to present the question in this election is aconfession that the party is forcing on the South a measure tooodious to be tolerated at home. "[1144]

[Footnote 1144: New York _World_, September 27, 1867. ]

This charge, perhaps, was the most disturbing influence Republicanshad to meet in the campaign. Responsibility for canal frauds made themwince, since it appealed strongly and naturally to whatever there wasof discontent among the people, but their apparent readiness to forceupon the South what they withheld in New York seemed so unreasonableand unjust that it aided materially in swelling the strength of theDemocrats. 

James T. Brady, Henry C. Murphy, John T. Hoffman, and Samuel J. Tildenmade the campaign attractive, speaking with unsparing severity to thegreat audiences gathered in New York City. Although somewhatcapricious in his sympathies, Brady seemed never to care who knew whathe thought on any subject, while the people, captivated by hismarvellously easy mode of speech, listened with rapture as heexercised his splendid powers. It remained for Seymour, however, togive character to the discussion in one of his most forciblephilippics. He endeavoured to show that the ballot, given to a fewnegroes in New York, could do little harm compared to theenfranchisement of millions of them in the Southern States. TheRadicals, he said, not only propose to put the white men of the Southunder the blacks, but the white men of the North as well. To allowthree millions of negroes, representing ten Southern States, to sendtwenty senators to Washington, while more than half the whitepopulation of the country, living in nine Northern States, have buteighteen senators, is a home question. "Will you sanction it?" heasked. "Twenty senators, recollect, who are to act in relation tointerests deeply affecting you. Can you afford to erect such agovernment of blacks over the white men of this continent? Will yougive them control in the United States Senate and thus in factdisfranchise the North? This to you is a local question. It willsearch you out just as surely as the tax-gatherer searches youout. "[1145]

[Footnote 1145: New York _World_, October 25, 1867. ]

Republicans acknowledged their weakness. An opposition that invitedattention to disclosures as sensational and corrupt as they wereindefensible had deeper roots than ordinary political rivalry, whilethe question of manhood suffrage, like a legacy of reciprocal hate, aroused the smouldering prejudices that had found bitter expressionduring the discussion of emancipation. Moreover, the feeling developedthat the narrow and unpatriotic policy which ruled the Syracuseconvention had displaced good men for unsatisfactory candidates. Thisled to the substitution of Thomas H. Hillhouse for comptroller, whoseincorruptibility made him a candidate of unusual strength. But thesacrifice did not change the political situation, aggravated amongother things by hard times. The wave of commercial depression whichspread over Europe after the London financial panic of May, 1866, extended to this country during the last half of 1867. A reaction fromthe inflated war prices took place, quick sales and large profitsceased, and a return to the old methods of frugality and goodmanagement became necessary. In less than two years the currency hadbeen contracted $140, 000, 000, decreasing the price of property andenhancing the face value of debts, and although Congress, in thepreceding February, had suspended further contraction, business mencharged financial conditions to contraction and the people held theparty in power responsible. 

Indeed, the people had become tired of Republican rule, and theirverdict changed a plurality of 13, 000, given Fenton in 1866, to aDemocratic majority of nearly 48, 000, with twenty-two majority onjoint ballot in the Legislature. New York City gave the Democrats60, 000 majority. Thousands of immigrants had been illegallynaturalised, and a fraudulent registration of 1, 500 in one wardindicated the extent of the enormous frauds that had been practised byBoss Tweed and his gang;[1146] but the presence of large Democraticgains in the up-State counties showed that Republican defeat was dueto other causes than fraudulent registration and illegal voting. "Outside the incapables and their miserable subalterns who managed theSyracuse convention, " said one Republican paper, "a pervadingsentiment existed among us, not only that we should be beaten, butthat we needed chastisement. "[1147] Another placed the responsibilityupon "a host of political adventurers, attracted to the party byselfish aggrandisements. "[1148] The _Tribune_ accepted it as apunishment for cowardice on the negro suffrage question. "To say thatwe are for manhood suffrage in the South and not in the North is toearn the loathing, contempt, and derision alike of friends andfoes. "[1149] Thus had Republican power disappeared like Aladdin'spalace, which was ablaze with splendour at night, and could not beseen in the morning. 

[Footnote 1146: Gustavus Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 250. ]

[Footnote 1147: Buffalo _Commercial Advertiser_, November 6, 1867. ]

[Footnote 1148: Albany _Evening Journal_, November 6. ]

[Footnote 1149: New York _Tribune_, November 6. ]

CHAPTER XIV

SEYMOUR AND HOFFMAN

1868

The fall elections of 1867 made a profound impression in the EmpireState. Pennsylvania gave a small Democratic majority, Ohio defeated anegro suffrage amendment by 50, 000, besides electing a Democraticlegislature, and New York, leading the Democratic column, surprisedthe nation with a majority of nearly 48, 000. In every county theRepublican vote had fallen off. It was plain that reconstruction andnegro suffrage had seriously disgruntled the country. The policy ofthe Republicans, therefore, which had hitherto been one of delay inadmitting Southern States to representation in Congress, now changedto one of haste to get them in, the party believing that with negroenfranchisement and white disfranchisement it could control the South. This sudden change had alarmed conservatives of all parties, and theDemocratic strength shown at the preceding election encouraged thebelief that the radical work of Congress might be overthrown. "Thedanger now is, " wrote John Sherman, "that the mistakes of theRepublicans may drift the Democratic party into power. "[1150]

[Footnote 1150: Sherman's Letters, p. 299. ]

The action of Congress after the removal of Edwin M. Stanton, thensecretary of war, did not weaken this prediction. The Senate hadalready refused its assent to the Secretary's suspension, and when thePresident, exercising what he believed to be his constitutional power, appointed Adjutant-General Thomas in his place, it brought the contestto a crisis. Stanton, barricaded in the War Office, refused to leave, while Thomas, bolder in talk than in deeds, threatened to kick himout. [1151] In support of Stanton a company of one hundred men, musteredby John A. Logan, a member of Congress, occupied the basement of theWar Department. Not since the assassination of Lincoln had the countrybeen in such a state of excitement. Meanwhile former propositions ofimpeachment were revived, and although without evidence of guiltyintent, the House, on February 14, resolved that Andrew Johnson beimpeached of high crimes and misdemeanours. This trial, whichcontinued for nearly three months, kept the country flushed withpassion. 

[Footnote 1151: _Impeachment Trial_, Vol. 1, p. 223. ]

New York Democrats greatly enjoyed the situation. To them it meant adivision of the Republican party vastly more damaging than the one in1866. Opposition to Grant's candidacy also threatened to widen thebreach. The Conservatives, led by Thurlow Weed, wishing to break theintolerant control of the Radicals by securing a candidate free fromfactional bias, had pronounced for the Soldier's nomination forPresident as early as July, 1867, [1152] and although the current ofRepublican journalism as well as the drift of party sentiment tendedto encourage the movement, the Radicals opposed it. Grant's report onthe condition of the South in 1865, and his attendance upon thePresident in 1866 during the famous swing-around-the-circle, hadprovoked much criticism. Besides, his acceptance of the War Officeafter Stanton's suspension indicated marked confidence in the ChiefExecutive. Indeed, so displeasing had been his record since the closeof the war that the _Tribune_ ridiculed his pretensions, predictingthat if any man of his type of politics was elected it would be by theDemocrats. [1153] Even after the loss of the elections the _Tribune_continued its opposition. "We object to the Grant movement, " it said. "It is of the ostrich's simple strategy that deceives only himself. There are times in which personal preference and personal popularitygo far; but they are not these times. Does any one imagine thatGeneral Grant, supported by the Republicans, would carry Maryland orKentucky, under her present Constitution, against Seymour orPendleton?"[1154] Many agreed with Greeley. Indeed, a majority of theRadicals, deeming Grant unsound on reconstruction and the negro, preferred Chief Justice Chase. 

[Footnote 1152: New York _World_, July 25, 1867. ]

[Footnote 1153: New York _Tribune_, October 15, 1867. ]

[Footnote 1154: New York _Tribune_, November 7, 1867. ]

Very unexpectedly, however, conditions changed. Stanton's suspensionin August, 1867, led to Grant's appointment as secretary of war, butwhen the Senate, early in the following January, refused to concur inJohnson's action, Grant locked the door of the War Office and resumedhis post at army headquarters. The President expressed surprise thathe did not hold the office until the question of Stanton'sconstitutional right to resume it could be judicially determined. Thiscriticism, delivered in Johnson's positive style, provoked a long andheated controversy, involving the veracity of each and leaving themenemies for life. The quarrel delighted the Radicals. It put Grantinto sympathy with Congress, and Republicans into sympathy with Grant. Until then it was not clear to what party he belonged. Before the warhe acted with the Democrats, and very recently the successors of theold Albany Regency had been quietly preparing for his nomination. [1155]Now, however, he was in cordial relation with Republicans, whoseconvention, held at Syracuse on February 5, 1868, to select delegatesto the National convention, indorsed his candidacy by acclamation. TheConservatives welcomed this action as their victory. Moreover, it wasthe first formal expression of a State convention. Republicans ofother Commonwealths had indicated their readiness to accept Grant as acandidate, but New York, endorsing him before the termination of hiscontroversy with the President, anticipated their action and set theparty aflame. Indeed, it looked to Republicans as if this nominationassured success at a moment when their chances had seemed hopeless. 

[Footnote 1155: T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 458. ]

In like manner the convention recommended Reuben E. Fenton forVice-President. Fenton had made an acceptable governor. Under hisadministration projects for lengthening the locks on the Erie Canaland other plans for extending the facilities of transportation werepresented. Another memorable work was the establishment of CornellUniversity, which has aptly been called "the youngest, the largest, and the richest" of the nearly thirty colleges in the State. Even the_Times_, the great organ of the Conservatives, admitted that theGovernor's "executive control, in the main, has been a success. "[1156]Opposition to his promotion, however, presented well-defined lines. ToThurlow Weed he represented the mismanagement which defeated theparty, [1157] and to Conkling he appealed only as one on whom to employwith effect, when occasion offered, his remarkable resources ofsarcasm and rhetoric. The Governor understood this feeling, and toavoid its influence delegates were instructed to vote for him as aunit, while three hundred devoted friends went to Chicago. Daniel E. Sickles became chairman of the delegation. 

[Footnote 1156: New York _Times_, February 4, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1157: T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 459. ]

The Republican convention convened at Chicago on May 20, and amidstthroat-bursting cheers and salvos of artillery Ulysses S. Grant wasnominated for President by acclamation. For Vice-President a dozencandidates were presented, including Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, Reuben E. Fenton of New York, Benjamin Wade of Ohio, and SchuylerColfax of Indiana. Fenton's friends, finding the Northern Statespre-empted by other candidates, turned to the South, hoping to benefitas Wade's strength receded. Here, however, it was manifest that Wilsonwould become the Buckeye's residuary legatee. Fenton also sufferedfrom the over-zeal of friends. In seconding his nomination an Illinoisdelegate encountered John A. Logan, who coolly remarked that Fentonwould get three votes and no more from his State. To recover prestigeafter this blow Daniel E. Sickles, in a brief speech, deftly includedhim with Morton of Indiana, Curtin of Pennsylvania, Andrew ofMassachusetts, and other great war governors. In this company Fenton, who had served less than four months at the close of the war, seemedout of place, and Sickles resumed his seat undisturbed by anydemonstration except by the faithful three hundred. [1158] Fenton'svote, however, was more pronounced than the applause, although hisstrength outside of New York came largely from the South, showing thathis popularity centred in a section whose representatives in NationalRepublican conventions have too often succumbed to influences otherthan arguments. [1159]

[Footnote 1158: _Official Proceedings of the Convention_, p. 96. ]

[Footnote 1159: BALLOTS

 1 2 3 4 5 6Wade 147 170 178 206 207 38Colfax 115 145 165 186 226 541Fenton 126 144 139 144 139 69Wilson 119 114 101 87 56Hamlin 28 30 25 25 20Curtin 51 45 40

Outside of New York Fenton's vote was as follows:

Northern States 23 33 32 32 31 2Southern States 44 45 42 48 61 1]

The echo of Fenton's defeat seriously disturbed the Syracuse Stateconvention (July 8). The Conservatives of New York City, many of whomhad now become the followers of Conkling, objected to the Fentonmethod of selecting delegates, and after a bitter discussion betweenMatthew Hale of Albany and Charles S. Spencer, the Governor's ardentfriend, the convention limited the number of delegates from a citydistrict to the Republican vote actually cast, and appointed acommittee to investigate the quarrel, with instructions to report atthe next State convention. 

The selection of a candidate for governor also unsettled theRepublican mind. Friends of Lyman Tremaine, Charles H. Van Wyck, Frederick A. Conkling (a brother of the Senator), Stewart L. Woodford, and John A. Griswold had not neglected to put their favourites intothe field at an early day, but to all appearances Horace Greeley wasthe popular man among the delegates. Although Conkling had snuffed outhis senatorial ambition, he had been the directing power of theFebruary convention, and was still the recognised guide-post of theparty. Besides, the withdrawal of Tremaine, Van Wyck, and Conklingpractically narrowed the rivalry to Greeley and Griswold. Indeed, itseemed as if the ambition of the editor's life was at last to besatisfied. Weed was in Europe, Raymond still rested "outside thebreastworks, " and the Twenty-third Street organisation, as theConservatives were called, sat on back seats without votes and withoutinfluence. 

Greeley did not go to Syracuse. But his personal friends appeared inforce, led by Reuben E. Fenton, who controlled the State convention. Greeley believed the Governor sincerely desired his nomination. Perhaps he was also deceived in the strength of John A. Griswold. Thepeople, regarding Griswold's change from McClellan to Lincoln as apolitical emancipation, had doubled his majority for Congress in 1864and again in 1866. The poor loved him, the workmen admired him, andbusiness men backed him. Though but forty-six years old he had alreadymade his existence memorable. In their emphasis orators expressed nofear that the fierce white light which beats upon an aspirant for highoffice would disclose in him poor judgment, or any weakness ofcharacter. To these optimistic speeches delegates evinced aresponsiveness that cheered his friends. 

But the real noise of the day did not commence until Chauncey M. Depewbegan his eulogy of the great editor. The applause then came in driftsof cheers as appreciative expressions fell from the lips of hischampion. It was admitted that Depew's speech adorned the day'swork. [1160] He referred to Greeley as "the embodiment of the principlesof his party, " "the one man towering above all others in intellect, "who "has contributed more than any other man toward theenfranchisement of the slaves, " and "with his pen and his tongue hasdone more for the advancement of the industrial classes. " Inconclusion, said the speaker, "he belongs to no county, to nolocality; he belongs to the State and to the whole country, because ofthe superiority of his intellect and the purity of his patriotism. "[1161]As the speaker finished, the applause, lasting "many minutes, "[1162]finally broke into several rounds of cheers, while friends of Griswoldas well as those of Greeley, standing on chairs, swung hats andumbrellas after the fashion of a modern convention. Surely, HoraceGreeley was the favourite. 

[Footnote 1160: New York _Tribune_, July 9, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1161: New York _Tribune_, July 9, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1162: _Ibid. _]

The roll-call, however, gave Griswold 247, Greeley 95, Woodford 36. For the moment Greeley's friends seemed stunned. It was worse than adefeat--it was utter rout and confusion. He had been led into anambuscade and slaughtered. The _Tribune_, in explaining the affair, said "it was evident in the morning that Griswold would get thenomination. His friends had been working so long and there were somany outstanding pledges. " Besides, it continued, "when the factdeveloped that he had a majority, it added to his strengthafterward. "[1163] Why, then, it was asked, did Greeley's friends puthim into a contest already settled? Did they wish to humiliate him?"Had Greeley been here in person, " said the _Times_, with apparentsympathy, "the result might have been different. "[1164] The _Nation_thought otherwise. "In public, " it said, "few members of conventionshave the courage to deny his fitness for any office, such are theterrors inspired by his editorial cowskin; but the minute the votingby ballots begins, the cowardly fellows repudiate him under the veilof secrecy. "[1165] The great disparity between the applause and thevote for the editor became the subject of much suppressed amusement. "The highly wrought eulogium pronounced by Depew was applauded to theecho, " wrote a correspondent of the _Times_, "but the enthusiasmsubsided wonderfully when it came to putting him at the head of theticket. "[1166] Depew himself appreciated the humour of the situation. "Everybody wondered, " said the eulogist, speaking of it in lateryears, "how there could be so much smoke and so little fire. "[1167] Tothose conversant with the situation, however, it was not a mystery. Among conservative men Greeley suffered discredit because of hisill-tempered criticisms, while his action in signing Jefferson Davis'sbail-bond was not the least powerful of the many influences thatcombined to weaken his authority. It seemed to shatter confidence inhis strength of mind. After that episode the sale of his _AmericanConflict_ which had reached the rate of five hundred copies a day, fell off so rapidly that his publishers lost $50, 000. [1168]

[Footnote 1163: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 1164: New York _Times_, July 9. ]

[Footnote 1165: The _Nation_, July 16. ]

[Footnote 1166: New York _Times_, July 9, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1167: Conversation with the author. 

The ticket nominated was as follows: Governor, John A. Griswold, Rensselaer; Lieutenant-Governor, Alonzo B. Cornell, Wyoming; CanalCommissioner, Alexander Barkley, Washington; Prison Inspector, HenryA. Barnum, Onondaga. ]

[Footnote 1168: _The Nation_, November 11, 1869. ]

The platform approved the nomination of Grant and Colfax, heldinviolate the payment of the public debt in the spirit as well as theletter of the law, commended the administration of Fenton, anddemanded absolute honesty in the management and improvement of thecanals; but adopting "the simple tactics of the ostrich" it maintainedthe most profound silence in regard to suffrage of any kind--manhood, universal, impartial, or negro. [1169]

[Footnote 1169: New York _Tribune_, July 9, 1868. ]

The day the Syracuse convention avoided Greeley, the NationalDemocratic convention which had assembled in Tammany's new building onJuly 4, accepted a leader under whom victory was impossible. It was anhistoric gathering. The West sent able leaders to support itsfavourite greenback theory, the South's delegation of Confederateofficers recalled the picturesque scenes at Philadelphia in 1866, andNew England and the Middle States furnished a strong array of theirwell-known men. Samuel J. Tilden headed the New York delegation, Horatio Seymour became permanent president, and in one of the chairsset apart for vice presidents, William M. Tweed, "fat, oily, anddripping with the public wealth, "[1170] represented the Empire State. 

[Footnote 1170: New York _Tribune_, March 5, 1868. ]

The chairmanship of the committee on resolutions fell to Henry C. Murphy of Brooklyn. Murphy was a brave fighter. In 1832, when barelyin his twenties, he had denounced the policy of chartering banks inthe interest of political favourites and monopolists, and the reform, soon after established, made him bold to attack other obnoxious fiscalsystems. As mayor of Brooklyn he kept the city's expenditures withinits income, and in the constitutional convention of 1846 he stood withMichael Hoffman in preserving the public credit and the public faith. To him who understood the spirit of the Legal Tender Act of 1862, itseemed rank dishonesty to pay bonds in a depreciated currency, and hesaid so in language that did not die in the committee room. Butopposed to him were the extremists who controlled the convention. These Greenbackers demanded "that all obligations of the government, not payable by their express terms in coin, ought to be paid in lawfulmoney, " and through them the Ohio heresy became the ruling thought ofthe Democratic creed. 

Although New York consented to the Pendleton platform, it determinednot to sacrifice everything to the one question of finance bypermitting the nomination of the Ohio statesman. There were othercandidates. Andrew Johnson was deluded into the belief that he had achance; Winfield S. Hancock, the hero of the famous Second Army Corps, who had put himself in training while department commander at NewOrleans, believed in his star; Salmon P. Chase, chief justice of theUnited States Supreme Court, having failed to capture the nominationat Chicago, was willing to lead whenever and by whomsoever called;while Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana, then a United States senatorand supporter of the "Ohio idea, " hoped to succeed if Pendletonfailed. Of these candidates Seymour favoured Chase. If nominated, hesaid, the Chief Justice would disintegrate the Republican party, carryCongress, and by uniting conservative Republicans and Democrats securea majority of the Senate. It was known that the sentiments of Chaseharmonised with those of Eastern Democrats except as to negrosuffrage, and although on this issue the Chief Justice declined toyield, Seymour did not regard it of sufficient importance to quarrelabout. Indeed, it was said that Seymour had approved a platform, submitted to Chase by Democratic progressionists, which accepted negrosuffrage. [1171]

[Footnote 1171: New York _Times_, September 4, 1868. ]

Samuel J. Tilden, appreciating the importance of defeating Pendleton, at once directed all the resources of a cold, calculating nature to asolution of the difficult problem. To mask his real purpose he pressedthe name of Sanford E. Church until the eighth ballot, when headroitly dropped it for Hendricks. It was a bold move. The Hoosier wasnot less offensive than the Buckeye, but it served Tilden's purpose todissemble, and, as he apprehended, Hendricks immediately took thevotes of his own and other States from the Ohioan. This proved the endof Pendleton, whose vote thenceforth steadily declined. On thethirteenth ballot California cast half a vote for Chase, throwing theconvention into wild applause. For the moment it looked as if theChief Justice, still in intimate correspondence with influentialdelegates, might capture the nomination. Vallandigham, who preferredChase to Hendricks, begged Tilden to cast New York's vote for him, butthe man of sheer intellect was not yet ready to show his hand. Meanwhile Hancock divided with Hendricks the lost strength ofPendleton. Amidst applause from Tammany, Nebraska, on the seventeenthand eighteenth ballots, cast three votes for John T. Hoffman. Thisclosed the fourth day of the convention, the eighteenth ballotregistering 144-1/2 votes for Hancock, 87 for Hendricks, 56-1/2 forPendleton, and 28 scattering. 

On the morning of the fifth and last day, the New York delegation, before entering the convention, decided by a vote of 37 to 24 tosupport Chase provided Hendricks could not be nominated. Seymourfavoured the Chief Justice in an elaborate speech, which he intendeddelivering on the floor of the convention, and for this purpose hadarranged with a delegate from Missouri to occupy the chair. It wasknown, too, that Chase's strength had increased in other delegations. Eleven Ohio delegates favoured him as their second choice, whileMaine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Georgia, and Wisconsin could bedepended upon. Indeed, it was in the air that the Chief Justice wouldbe nominated. When the convention opened, however, a letter severaldays old was read from Pendleton withdrawing from the contest. Thisquickly pushed Hendricks to 107. On the twenty-first ballot he rose to132 and Hancock fell off to 135-1/2, while four votes for Chase, givenby Massachusetts, called out hisses[1172] as well as applause, indicating that the ambitious Justice was not entirely _persona grata_to all of the Westerners. To the confused delegates, worn out withloss of sleep and the intense heat, the situation did not excite hopesof an early settlement. New York could not name Chase sincePendleton's withdrawal had strengthened Hendricks, while thenomination of a conservative Union soldier like Hancock, so soon afterthe close of the war, would inevitably exasperate the more radicalelement of the party. Thus it looked as if the motion to adjourn tomeet at St. Louis in September presented the only escape. Pending aroll-call, however, this motion was declared out of order, and thevoting continued until the Ohio delegation, having returned from aconference, boldly proposed the name of Horatio Seymour. Thedelegates, hushed into silence by the dominating desire to verifyrumours of an impending change, now gave vent to long, excitedcheering. "The folks were frantic, " said an eye-witness; "the delegatesdaft. All other enthusiasms were as babbling brooks to the eternalthunder of Niagara. The whole mass was given over to acclaims thatcannot even be suggested in print. "[1173]

[Footnote 1172: New York _World_, July 10, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1173: New York _World_, July 10, 1868. ]

Seymour had positively declined a score of times. As early asNovember, 1867, after the Democratic victories of that month, he hadaddressed a letter to the _Union_, a Democratic paper of Oneida, stating that for personal reasons which he need not give, he was notand could not be a candidate. Other letters of similar purport hadfrequently appeared in the press. To an intimate friend he spoke offamily griefs, domestic troubles, impaired health, and theimpossibility of an election. Besides, if chosen, he said, he would beas powerless as Johnson, a situation that "would put him in his gravein less than a year. "[1174] In the whole convention there was not a manwho could truthfully say that the Governor, by look, or gesture, orinflection of voice, had encouraged the hope of a change of mind. Within forty-eight hours every Democrat of influence had sounded himand gone away sorrowful. Now, when order was restored, he declinedagain. His expressions of gratitude seemed only to make thedeclaration stronger. "I do not stand here, " he said, "as a man proudof his opinion or obstinate in his purposes, but upon a question ofduty and of honour I must stand upon my own convictions against theworld. When I said here, at an early day, that honour forbade myaccepting a nomination, I meant it. When I said to my friends I couldnot be a candidate, I meant it. And now, after all that has takenplace here, I could not receive the nomination without placing myselfin a false position. Gentlemen, I thank you for your kindness, butyour candidate I cannot be. "[1175]

[Footnote 1174: New York _Times_, Sept. 4. ]

[Footnote 1175: New York _World_, July 10. ]

Vallandigham replied that in times of great public exigency personalconsideration should yield to the public good, and Francis Kernan, disclaiming any lot or part in Ohio's motion, declared that othersthan the New York delegation must overcome the sensitiveness of thechairman. Still, he said, Horatio Seymour ought to abide the action ofthe convention. These speeches over, the roll-call monotonouslycontinued, each State voting as before until Wisconsin changed fromDoolittle to Seymour. In an instant the chairman of each Statedelegation, jumping to his feet, changed its vote to the New Yorker. The pandemonium was greater than before, in the midst of whichSeymour, apparently overwhelmed by the outcome, retired to a committeeroom, where Church, Joseph Warren of the Buffalo _Courier_, and otherfriends urged him to yield to the demands of the Democracy of thecountry. He was deeply affected. Tears filled his eyes, and hepiteously sought the sympathy of friends. [1176] Soon after he left thebuilding. Meanwhile Tilden rose to change the vote of the Empire Statefrom Hendricks to Seymour. "It is fit on this occasion, " he said, "that New York should wait for the voice of all her sister States. Last evening I did not believe this event possible. There was oneobstacle--Horatio Seymour's earnest, sincere, deep-felt repugnance toaccept this nomination. I did not believe any circumstance would makeit possible except that Ohio, with whom we have been unfortunatelydividing our votes, demanded it. I was anxious that whenever we shouldleave this convention there should be no heart-burnings, no jealousy, no bitter disappointment; and I believe that in this result we havelifted the convention far above every such consideration. And Ibelieve further that we have made the nomination most calculated togive us success. "[1177]

[Footnote 1176: New York _Times_, Sept. 4, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1177: New York _World_, July 10. ]

This did not then seem to be the opinion of many men outside theconvention. The nomination did not arouse even a simulated enthusiasmupon the streets of the metropolis. [1178] In Washington Democraticcongressmen declared that but one weaker candidate was before theconvention, [1179] while dispatches from Philadelphia and Bostonrepresented "prominent Democrats disgusted at Seymour and theartifices of his friends. "[1180] Even Tammany, said the _Times_, "quailed at the prospect of entering upon a canvass with a leadercovered with personal dishonour, as Seymour had said himself he wouldbe, if he should accept. Men everywhere admit that such a nomination, conferred under such circumstances, was not only pregnant withdisaster, but if accepted stained the recipient with personalinfamy. "[1181]

[Footnote 1178: New York _Times_, July 10. ]

[Footnote 1179: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 1180: New York _Times_, July 10, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1181: _Ibid. _]

Not since the Democratic party began holding national conventions hadthe tactics practised at New York been equaled. The convention of 1844must always be ranked as a masterpiece of manipulation, but itsdiplomacy was played to defeat Van Buren rather than nominate acandidate. In 1852 circumstances combined to prevent the nomination ofthe convention's first or second choice, and in the end, as aball-player at the bat earns first base through the errors of apitcher, Franklin Pierce benefited. But in 1868 nothing was gained byerrors. Although there was a chief candidate to defeat, it was notdone with a bludgeon as in 1844. Nor were delegates allowed tostampede to a "dark horse" as in 1852. On the contrary, while theleading candidate suffered slow strangulation, the most conspicuousman in the party was pushed to the front with a sagacity and firmnessthat made men obey the dictates of a superior intelligence, and topeople who studied the ballots it plainly appeared that Samuel J. Tilden had played the game. 

Tilden had not sought prominence in the convention. He seldom spoke, rarely figured in the meeting of delegates, and except to cast thevote of the New York delegation did nothing to attract attention. Butthe foresight exhibited in changing from Church to Hendricks on theeighth ballot discovered a mind singularly skilled in controlling theactions of men. The play appeared the more remarkable after therevelation of its influence. New York did not want Hendricks. Besides, up to that time, the Hoosier had received less than forty votes, hisown State refusing to unite in his support. Moreover, since adjoiningStates save Michigan warmly advocated Pendleton, all sources of growthseemed closed to him. Yet Tilden's guiding hand, with infalliblesagacity, placed New York's thirty-three votes on Indiana andabsolutely refused to move them. To dispose of Hendricks, Vallandighamand other Ohio delegates offered to support Chase, and if the chairmanof the New York delegation had led the way, a formidable coalitionmust have carried the convention for the Chief Justice. But the manwhose subtile, mysterious influence was already beginning to berecognised as a controlling factor in the party desired Seymour, andto force his nomination he met at Delmonico's, on the evening of thefourth day, Allen G. Thurman, George E. Pugh, Washington McLean, George W. McCook, and George W. Morgan, Ohio's most influentialdelegates, and there arranged the _coup d'état_ that succeeded soadmirably. This scheme remained a profound secret until the Ohiodelegation retired for consultation after the twenty-first ballot, sothat when Seymour was addressing the New York delegation in behalf ofChase, Tilden knew of the pending master-stroke. "The artful Tilden, "said Alexander Long, a well-known politician of the day, "is acandidate for the United States Senate, and he thinks that withSeymour the Democrats can carry both branches of the New YorkLegislature. "[1182]

[Footnote 1182: New York _Times_, September 4, 1868. ]

Tilden disclaimed all instrumentality in bringing about thenomination. "I had no agency, " he wrote, "in getting Governor Seymourinto his present scrape. "[1183] He likewise professed ignorance as towhat the convention would do. "I did not believe the event possible, "he said, "unless Ohio demanded it. "[1184] This admission, franklyconceding the necessity of Ohio's action which he had himself forced, shattered the sincerity of Tilden's disclaimer. 

[Footnote 1183: John Bigelow, _Life of Samuel J. Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 211. ]

[Footnote 1184: New York _World_, July 10, 1868. ]

Seymour also had difficulty in preserving the appearance of sincerity. The press claimed that when he saw the nomination coming to him withthe approval of Pendleton's supporters he quickly retired instead offurther insisting upon his declination. This insinuation allied hisdramatic performance with Tilden's tactics, and he hesitated to exposehimself to such a compromising taunt. In this emergency Tildenendeavoured very adroitly to ease his mind. "My judgment is, " he wrotea mutual friend, "that acceptance under present circumstances wouldnot compromise his repute for sincerity or be really misunderstood bythe people; that the case is not analogous to the former instanceswhich have made criticism possible; that the true nature of thesacrifice should be appreciated, while on the other hand the oppositecourse would be more likely to incite animadversion; that, on thewhole, acceptance is the best thing. I think a decision is necessary, for it is not possible to go through a canvass with a candidatedeclining. I am sincerely willing to accept such action as will bemost for the honour of our friend; at the same time my personal wishis acceptance. You may express for me so much on the subject as youfind necessary and think proper. "[1185]

[Footnote 1185: John Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 212. ]

On August 4, when Seymour finally accepted, he neither apologised norexplained. "The nomination, " he wrote, "was unsought and unexpected. Ihave been caught up by the overwhelming tide which is bearing us on toa great political change, and I find myself unable to resist itspressure. "[1186] Those who recalled the Governor's alleged tortuouscourse at Chicago and again at Albany in 1864 did not credit him withthe candour that excites admiration. "Such men did not believe in thesincerity of Seymour's repeated declinations, " said Henry J. Raymond, "and therefore accepted the final result with the significant remark, 'I told you so. '"[1187] Horace Greeley was more severe. "The means bywhich Horatio Seymour obtained his nomination, " he wrote, "arecharacteristic of that political cunning which has marked his career. The whole affair was an adroit specimen of political hypocrisy, bywhich the actual favourite of the majority was not only sold, but wasinduced to nominate the trickster who had defeated him. "[1188]

[Footnote 1186: _Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, p. 343. ]

[Footnote 1187: New York _Times_, August 10. ]

[Footnote 1188: New York _Tribune_, November 5, 1868. ]

After Seymour's nomination the first expression of the campaignoccurred in Vermont. Although largely Republican the Democrats made anunusually animated contest, sending their best speakers and furnishingthe needed funds. Nevertheless, the Republicans added 7, 000 to theirmajority of the preceding year. This decisive victory, celebrated inAlbany on September 2, had a depressing influence upon the DemocraticState convention then in session, ending among other things thecandidacy of Henry C. Murphy for governor. The up-State opponents ofthe Tweed ring, joined by the Kings County delegation, hoped to make awinning combination against John T. Hoffman, and for several daysMurphy stood up against the attacks of Tammany, defying its threatsand refusing to withdraw. But he wilted under the news from Vermont. If not beaten in convention, he argued, defeat is likely to come inthe election, and so, amidst the noise of booming cannon and paradingRepublicans, he allowed Hoffman to be nominated by acclamation. [1189]

[Footnote 1189: "Then we have John T. Hoffman, who is kept by TammanyHall as a kind of respectable attaché. His humble work is to wear goodclothes and be always gloved, to be decorous and polite; to be as mucha model of deportment as Mr. Turvydrop; to repeat as often as need be, in a loud voice, sentences about 'honesty' and 'public welfare, ' butto appoint to rich places such men as Mr. Sweeny. Hoffman is kept forthe edification of the country Democrats, but all he has or ever canhave comes from Tammany Hall. "--_Ibid. _, March 5, 1868. ]

In the selection of a lieutenant-governor Tammany did not fare sowell. Boss Tweed, in return for Western support of Hoffman, haddeclared for Albert P. Laning of Buffalo, and until District AttorneyMorris of Brooklyn seconded the nomination of another, Laning'sfriends had boasted a large majority. Morris said he had no objectionto Laning personally. He simply opposed him as a conspirator who hadcombined with Tammany to carry out the programme of a grasping clique. He wished the country delegates who had unconsciously aided itswire-pulling schemes to understand that it sought only its ownaggrandisement. It cared nothing for the Democratic party except as itcontributed to its selfish ends. This corrupt oligarchy, continued theorator, his face flushed and his eyes flashing with anger, intendsthrough Hoffman to control the entire patronage of the State, and ifSeymour is elected it will grasp that of the whole country. Supposethis offensive ring, with its unfinished courthouse and its thousandother schemes of robbery and plunder, controls the political power ofthe State and nation as it now dominates the metropolis, what honestDemocrat can charge corruption to the opposite party? Did men from theinterior of the State understand that Hoffman for governor means aring magnate for United Sates senator? That is the game, and if itcannot be played by fair means, trickery and corruption willaccomplish it. Kings County, which understands the methods of thisclique, has not now and he hoped never would have anything in commonwith it, and he warned the country members not to extend its wickedsway. [1190]

[Footnote 1190: New York _Times_, _World_, and _Tribune_, September 3, 1868. ]

Morris' speech anticipated the startling disclosures of 1871, and asthe orator raised his voice to a pitch that could easily be heardthroughout the hall, the up-State delegates became deeply interestedin his words. He did not deal in glittering generalities. He was aprosecuting officer in a county adjoining Tammany, and when hereferred to the courthouse robbery he touched the spot that reekedwith corruption. The Ring winced, but remained speechless. Tweed andhis associate plunderers, who had spent three millions on thecourthouse and charged on their books an expenditure of eleven, hadno desire to stir up discussion on such a topic and be pilloried by across-examination on the floor of the convention. A majority of thedelegates, however, convinced that Tammany must not control thelieutenant-governor, nominated Allen C. Beach of Jefferson, giving him77 votes to 47 for Laning. [1191]

[Footnote 1191: New York _World_, July 10, 1868. ]

In the light of this result Murphy's friends seriously regretted hishasty withdrawal from the contest. Morris intended arraigning Tammanyin his speech, nominating the Brooklyn Senator for governor, and thelatter's supporters believed that Hoffman, whom they recognised as thepersonal representative of the Tweed ring, must have gone down underthe disclosures of the District Attorney quite as easily as didLaning. This hasty opinion, however, did not have the support oftruth. Hoffman's campaign in 1866 strengthened him with the people ofthe up-counties. To them he had a value of his own. In his speeches hehad denounced wrongs and rebuked corruption, and his record as mayordisplayed no disposition to enrich himself at the expense of hisreputation. He was careful at least to observe surface proprieties. Besides, at this time, Tammany had not been convicted of crime. Vitriolic attacks upon the Tweed Ring were frequent, but they camefrom men whom it had hurt. Even Greeley's historic philippic, asfamous for its style as for its deadly venom, came in revenge forTweed's supposed part in defeating him for Congress in 1866. [1192]

[Footnote 1192: New York _Tribune_, March 5. 

The ticket nominated was as follows: Governor, John T. Hoffman, NewYork; Lieutenant-Governor, Allen C. Beach, Jefferson; CanalCommissioner, Oliver Bascom, Washington; Inspector of Prisons, DavidB. McNeil, Cayuga; Clerk of Court of Appeals, Edward O. Perrin, Queens. ]

CHAPTER XV

THE STATE CARRIED BY FRAUD

1868

Horatio Seymour's nomination for President worried his Republicanopponents in New York. It was admitted that he would adorn the greatoffice, and that if elected he could act with more authority andindependence than Chief Justice Chase, since the latter must have beenregarded by Congress as a renegade and distrusted by Democrats as aradical. It was agreed, also, that the purity of Seymour's life, hischaracter for honesty in financial matters, and the high socialposition which he held, made him an especially dangerous adversary ina State that usually dominated a national election. On the other hand, his opponents recalled that whenever a candidate for governor he hadnot only run behind his ticket, but had suffered defeat three out offive times. It was suggested, too, that although his whole public lifehad been identified with the politics of the Commonwealth, his name, unlike that of Daniel D. Tompkins, DeWitt Clinton, or Silas Wright, was associated with no important measure of State policy. To thiscriticism Seymour's supporters justly replied that as governor, in1853, he had boldly championed the great loan of ten and one-halfmillions for the Erie Canal enlargement. 

As usual national issues controlled the campaign in New York. Althoughboth parties denounced corruption in the repair of the Erie Canal, thepeople seemed more concerned in a return of good times and in a betterunderstanding between the North and South. The financial depression ofthe year before had not disappeared, and an issue of greenbacks inpayment of the 5-20 bonds, it was argued, would overcome the policyof contraction which had enhanced the face value of debts anddecreased the price of property. Pendleton's tour through Maineemphasised this phase of the financial question, and while Democratstalked of "The same currency for ploughboy and bondholder, "Republicans insisted upon "The best currency for both ploughboy andbondholder. "

The campaign in Maine, however, satisfied Republicans that theSouthern question, forced into greater prominence by recent acts ofviolence, had become a more important issue than the financialproblem. In Saint Mary's parish, Louisiana, a Republican sheriff andjudge were shot, editors and printers run out of the county, and theirnewspaper offices destroyed. But no arrests followed. In Arkansas aRepublican deputy sheriff was tied to a negro and both killed with oneshot. In South Carolina a colored State senator, standing on theplatform of a street car, suffered the death penalty, his executionerspublicly boasting of their act. In Georgia negro members of theLegislature were expelled. Indeed, from every Southern State camereports of violence and murder. These stories were accentuated by theCamilla riot in Georgia, which occurred on September 19. With bannersand music three hundred Republicans, mostly negroes, were marching toCamilla to hold a mass meeting. Two-thirds of them carried arms. Before reaching the town the sheriff endeavoured to persuade them tolay aside their guns and revolvers, and upon their refusal a riotensued, in which eight or nine negroes were killed and twenty orthirty wounded. As usual their assailants escaped arrest and injury. General Meade, commander of the department, reported that "the authorsof this outrage were civil officers who, under the guise of enforcingthe law and suppressing disorder, had permitted a wanton sacrifice oflife and blood. "[1193]

[Footnote 1193: Report of the Secretary of War, 1868, p. 81. ]

The mere recital of these incidents aroused Northern feeling. It wasthe old story--murder without arrests or investigation. Theknowledge, too, that it was in part the work of the Ku-Klux-Klan, asecret organisation pledged to disfranchise the negro by intimidation, intensified the bitterness. It is probably true that many reportedatrocities were merely campaign stories. It is likely, too, that horsethieves and illicit distillers screened their misdeeds behind theKu-Klux. It is well understood, also, that ambitious carpet-bagagitators, proving bad instructors for negroes just emerging fromslavery, added largely to the list of casualties, making crime appeargeneral throughout the South. But whether violence was universal orsporadic Republicans believed it a dangerous experiment to commit thegovernment to the hands of "rebels and copperheads, " and in theircontest to avoid such an alleged calamity they emphasised Southernoutrages and resurrected Seymour's speech to the draft rioters inJuly, 1863. To give the latter fresh interest Nast published a cartoonentitled "Matched, "[1194] which represented Grant demanding theunconditional surrender of Vicksburg, while Seymour, addressing a mobof foreigners wet with the blood of their victims, called them "myfriends. " Nast presented another cartoon which disturbed theDemocracy. It represented John T. Hoffman standing before a screenbehind which a gang of thieves was busily rifling the city treasury. The face of Hoffman only was depicted, but the picture's serious noteof warning passed for more than a bit of campaign pleasantry. Frank P. Blair, the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, also furnished atext for bitter invective because of his declaration that "there isbut one way to restore the government and the Constitution and that isfor the President-elect to declare the Reconstruction Acts null andvoid, compel the army to undo its usurpations at the South, dispersethe carpet-bag State governments, allow the white people to reorganisetheir own governments and elect senators and representatives. "[1195]Republicans charged that this represented the Democratic policy. Onthe other hand, the closing sentence of Grant's brief letter ofacceptance, "Let us have peace, " became the shibboleth of hisfollowers, who claimed that the courteous and deferential spirit shownat Appomattox would characterise his administration. Indeed, the issuefinally resolved itself to "Blair and Revolution" or "Grant andPeace, " and after a contest of unusual bitterness Republicans carriedthe October States, although with greatly reduced majorities. Pennsylvania gave only 10, 000, Ohio 17, 000, and Indiana less than1, 000. 

[Footnote 1194: Albert B. Paine, _Life of Thomas Nast_, p. 130. ]

[Footnote 1195: McPherson, _History of Reconstruction_, p. 381. ]

Though these elections presaged a Republican victory in November, Democrats, still hopeful of success, renewed their efforts with greatenergy. Blair went to the rear and Seymour took the stump. Withstudied moderation Seymour had written his letter of acceptance tocatch the wavering Republican voter. He made it appear that the Southwas saved from anarchy by the military, and that the North, to thesincere regret of many Republicans and their ablest journals, was nolonger controlled by the sober judgment of the dominant party's safestleaders. "There is hardly an able man who helped to build up theRepublican organisation, " he said, "who has not within the past threeyears warned it against its excesses. " These men he pictured as forcedto give up their sentiments or to abandon their party, arguing thatthe latter's policy must be more violent in future unless checked by adivision of political power. "Such a division, " he said, adroitlyseeking to establish confidence in himself, "tends to assure the peaceand good order of society. The election of a Democratic Executive anda majority of Democratic members to the House of Representatives wouldnot give to that party organisation the power to make sudden orviolent changes, but it would serve to check those extreme measureswhich have been deplored by the best men of both politicalorganisations. "[1196]

[Footnote 1196: Horatio Seymour, _Public Record_, p. 345. ]

Preaching this gospel of peace Seymour passed through Western NewYork, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, attempting toovercome the prestige of Grant's great fame, and to stem the tide ofNorthern prejudice against Southern outrages. Meanwhile RoscoeConkling, having returned from a pleasure trip to Denver, entered thecampaign with earnestness against his brother-in-law. He desiredespecially to carry Oneida County, to which he devoted his energies inthe closing days of the contest, making a schoolhouse canvass thatlifted the issue above local pride in its distinguished citizen whoheaded the Democratic ticket. In going the rounds he met "BlackPaddy, " a swarthy Irishman and local celebrity, who announced that hehad "turned Democrat. "

"How so?" asked the Senator. 

"Shure, sir, " replied the quick-witted Celt, "O'im payin' ye acompliment in votin' for your brother-in-law. "[1197]

[Footnote 1197: A. R. Conkling, _Life of Roscoe Conkling_, p. 313. ]

Near the close of the campaign, in accordance with the habit of manyyears, William H. Seward returned to Auburn to speak to his neighborsand townsmen. No one then realised that this was to be his lastpolitical meeting, or that before another presidential electionoccurred he would have entered upon his long sleep on Fort Hill. Butthe hall was as full as if it had been so advertised. He was neitheran old man, being sixty-seven, nor materially changed in appearance. Perhaps his face was a trifle thinner, his hair lighter, and his jawmore prominent, but his mental equipment survived as in the olden dayswhen the splendid diction hit the tone and temper of the anti-slaveryhosts. His speech, however, showed neither the spirit that nerved himin the earlier time, nor the resources that formerly sustained him invigorous and persuasive argument. He spoke rather in a vein ofextenuation and reminiscence, as one whose work, judged by itsbeginnings, had perhaps ended unsatisfactorily as well as illogically, and for which there was no sufficient reason. [1198]

[Footnote 1198: _Seward's Works_, Vol. 5, pp. 550-556. ]

This speech had the effect of widening the breach between him and hisold associates, who bitterly resented his apparent indifference in thegreat contest, while men of a younger generation, looking at him withwonder and interest, found it hard to realise that he had been one ofthe most conspicuous and energetic figures in political life. Howcomplete was the loss of his political influence is naïvelyillustrated by Andrew D. White. "Mr. Cornell and I were arranging aprogramme for the approaching annual commencement when I suggested Mr. Seward for the main address. Mr. Cornell had been one of Mr. Seward'slifelong supporters, but he received this proposal coldly, pondered itfor a few moments silently, and then said dryly: 'Perhaps you areright, but if you call him you will show to our students the deadestman that ain't buried in the State of New York. '"[1199]

[Footnote 1199: _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 151. ]

Samuel J. Tilden voiced the supreme ante-election confidence of theDemocrats. "Speaking from an experience of more than thirty years inpolitical observation and political action, " he said, "I do nothesitate to say that in no presidential conflict since the days ofAndrew Jackson have omens of victory to any party or any cause been soclear, so numerous, and so inspiring as those which now cheer theparty of the national Democracy to battle in the cause of Americanliberty. "[1200] The victory of 1867, in the opinion of leadingDemocrats, had removed the Empire State from the doubtful list, butwhile proclaiming their confidence of success many of them knew that aconfidential circular, issued from the rooms of the Democratic StateCommittee and bearing the signature of Samuel J. Tilden, instructedcertain persons in each of the up-State counties to telegraph WilliamM. Tweed, "the minute the polls close and at his expense, " theprobable Republican majority. [1201] Its purpose was plain. Theconspirators desired to know how many fraudulent votes would be neededto overcome the Republican superiority, and their method, then noveland ingenious, avoided all chance of failure to carry the State. Tilden denied knowledge of this circular. He also disclaimed its evilpurpose, but preferred to remain silent rather than denounce theforgers. [1202]

[Footnote 1200: John Bigelow, _Life of Samuel J. Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 217. ]

[Footnote 1201: New York _Tribune_, November 14, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1202: New York _Evening Post_, November 4, 1868; _Harper'sWeekly_, September 30, 1876. ]

Forewarned by the returns of 1867 Griswold's supporters, fearing fraudin the metropolis, invoked the aid of the United States Court toprevent the use of forged naturalisation papers, which resulted in theindictment of several men and the publication of fraudulent registrylists. Against such action John T. Hoffman, as mayor, violentlyprotested. "We are on the eve of an important election, " said hisproclamation. "Intense excitement pervades the whole community. Unscrupulous, designing, and dangerous men, political partisans, areresorting to extraordinary means to increase it. Gross and unfoundedcharges of fraud are made by them against those high in authority. Threats are made against naturalised citizens, and a federal grandjury has been induced to find, in great haste and secrecy, bills ofindictment for the purpose, openly avowed, of intimidating them in thedischarge of their public duties. . . . Let no citizen, however, bedeterred by any threats or fears, but let him assert his rights boldlyand resolutely, and he will find his perfect protection under the lawsand the lawfully constituted authorities of the State. By virtue ofauthority invested in me I hereby offer a reward of $100 to be paid onthe arrest and conviction of any person charged . . . With intimidating, obstructing or defrauding any voter in the exercise of his right as anelector. "[1203] Thus did the Tweed Ring strike back. 

[Footnote 1203: New York _Times_, November 2, 1868. ]

The result of the election in the country at large deeply disappointedthe Democrats. Grant obtained 214 electoral votes in twenty-sixStates, while Seymour secured 80 in eight States. In New York, however, the conspirators did their word well. Although theRepublicans won a majority in both branches of the Legislature andelected eighteen of the thirty-one congressmen, Seymour carried theState by 10, 000 and Hoffman by 27, 946. 

After the election the Union League Club charged that in New York Cityfalse naturalisation and fraudulent voting had been practised upon agigantic scale. It appeared from its report that one man sold seventhousand fraudulent naturalisation certificates; that thousands offictitious names, with false residences attached, were enrolled, andthat gangs of repeaters marched from poll to poll, voting many timesin succession. The _Tribune_ showed that in twenty election districtsthe vote cast for Hoffman largely exceeded the registry lists, alreadyheavily padded with fictitious names, and that by comparison withother years the aggregate State vote clearly revealed the work of theconspirators. [1204] Instead of being the choice of the people, it said, "Hoffman was 'elected' by the most infamous system of fraud. "[1205]Andrew D. White wrote that "the gigantic frauds perpetrated in thesinks and dens of the great city have overborne the truthful vote andvoice of the Empire State. The country knows this, and the Democraticparty, flushed with a victory which fraud has won, hardly cares todeny it. "[1206] A few months later Conkling spoke of it as a well knownfact that John T. Hoffman was counted in. "The election was abarbarous burlesque, " he continued. "Many thousand forgednaturalisation papers were issued; some of them were white and somewere coffee-coloured. The same witnesses purported to attest hundredsand thousands of naturalisation affidavits, and the stupendous fraudof the whole thing was and is an open secret. . . . Repeating, ballot-boxstuffing, ruffianism, and false counting decided everything. Tweedmade the election officers, and the election officers were corrupt. Thirty thousand votes were falsely added to the Democratic majority inNew York and Brooklyn alone. Taxes and elections were the mere spoiland booty of a corrupt junta in Tammany. Usurpation and fraudinaugurated a carnival of corrupt disorder; and obscene birds withoutnumber swooped down to the harvest and gorged themselves on every sidein plunder and spoliation. "[1207]

[Footnote 1204: New York _Tribune_, November 6, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1205: _Ibid. _, November 7. ]

[Footnote 1206: _Ibid. _, November 23. ]

[Footnote 1207: From speech of Conkling delivered in the U. S. Senate, April 24, 1879. --Thomas V. Cooper, _American Politics_, Book 3, p. 180. ]

When Congress convened a committee, appointed to investigatenaturalisation frauds in the city of New York, reported that prior to1868 the Common Pleas and Superior Courts, controlling matters ofnaturalisation, annually averaged, from 1856 to 1867, 9, 000 newvoters, but that after the Supreme Court began making citizens onOctober 6, 1868, the number rapidly increased to 41, 112. Severalrevelations added interest to this statement. Judge Daly served in theCommon Pleas, while McCunn, Barnard, Cardozo, and others whom Tweedcontrolled, sat in the Supreme and Superior Courts. Daly required fromthree to five minutes to examine an applicant, but McCunn boasted thathe could do it in thirty seconds, with the result that the SupremeCourt naturalised from 1, 800 to 2, 100 per day, whereas the CommonPleas during the entire year acted upon only 3, 140. On the other hand, the Supreme and Superior Courts turned out 37, 967. "One day last weekone of our 'upright judges, '" said the _Nation_, "invited a friend tosit by him while he played a little joke. Then he left off callingfrom the list before him and proceeded to call purely imaginary namesinvented by himself on the spur of the moment: John Smith, JamesSnooks, Thomas Noakes, and the like. For every name a man instantlyanswered and took a certificate. Finally, seeing a person scratchinghis head, the judge called out, 'George Scratchem!' 'Here, ' respondeda voice. 'Take that man outside to scratch, ' said his honour to anusher, and resumed the more regular manufacture of voters. "[1208]

[Footnote 1208: The _Nation_, October 29, 1868. ]

To show that a conspiracy existed to commit fraud, the committeesubmitted valuable evidence contributed by the clerks of these courts. Instead of printing the usual number of blank certificates based onthe annual average of 9, 000, they ordered, between September 16 andOctober 23, more than seven times as many, or 69, 000, of which 39, 000went to the Supreme Court. As this court had just gone into thenaturalisation business the order seemed suspiciously large. At thetime of the investigation 27, 068 of these certificates wereunaccounted for, and the court refused an examination of its records. However, by showing that the vote cast in 1868, estimated upon theaverage rate of the increase of voters, should have been 131, 000instead of 156, 000, the committee practically accounted for them. The_Nation_ unwittingly strengthened this measured extent of the fraud, declaring on the day the courts finished their work, that of "the35, 000 voters naturalised in this city alone, 10, 000 are perhapsrightly admitted, 10, 000 have passed through the machine withouthaving been here five years, and the other 15, 000 have never been nearthe courtroom. "[1209] A table also published by the committee showedthe ratio of votes to the population at each of the five precedingpresidential elections to have been 1 to 8, while in 1868 it was 1 to4. 65. "The only fair conclusion from these facts would be, " said the_Nation_, "that enormous frauds were perpetrated. "[1210]

[Footnote 1209: The _Nation_, October 29, 1868. ]

[Footnote 1210: _Ibid. _, March 4, 1869. ]

On the other hand, the Democratic minority of the committee, afterexamining Hoffman and Tweed, who disclaimed any knowledge of thetransactions and affected to disbelieve the truth of the charges, pronounced the facts cited "stale slanders, " and most of the witnesses"notorious swindlers, liars, and thieves, " declaring that thefraudulent vote did not exceed 2, 000, divided equally between the twoparties. Moreover, it pronounced the investigation a shameful effortto convict the Democracy of crimes that were really the result of thelong-continued misgovernment of the Republicans. If that partycontrolled the city, declared one critic, it would become as adept in"repeating" as it was in "gerrymandering" the State, whose Legislaturecould not be carried by the Democrats when their popular majorityexceeded 48, 000 as in 1867. This sarcastic thrust emphasised thenotorious gerrymander which, in spite of the Tammany frauds, gave theRepublicans a legislative majority of twenty-four on joint-ballot. 

CHAPTER XVI

INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN SENATORIAL ELECTIONS

1869

The election of a legislative majority in 1868 plunged the Republicansinto a fierce contest over the choice of a successor to Edwin D. Morgan, whose term in the United States Senate ended on March 4. Inbitterness it resembled the historic battle between Weed and Greeleyin 1861. Morgan had made several mistakes. His support of Johnsonduring the first year of the latter's Administration discredited him, and although he diligently laboured to avoid all remembrance of it, the patronage which the President freely gave had continued toidentify him with the Johnsonised federal officials. To overcome thisdistrust he presented letters from Sumner and Wade, testifying to hisloyalty to the more radical element of the party. [1211] A revival ofthe story of his opposition to Wadsworth in 1862 also embarrassed him. He had overcome it when first elected to the Senate by the sustaininghand of Thurlow Weed, whose position in the management of the partywas strengthened by Wadsworth's defeat; but now Weed was absent, andto aid in meeting the ugly charges which rendered his way devious anddifficult, Morgan had recourse to Edwin M. Stanton, who wrote thatWadsworth, distinguishing the Senator from his betrayers, repeatedlyspoke of him as a true friend and faithful supporter. [1212]

[Footnote 1211: New York _Tribune_, January 13 and 18, 1869. ]

[Footnote 1212: New York _Times_, January 12, 1869. ]

Morgan's strength, though of a negative kind, had its head concealedunder the coils of Conkling's position. It was manifest that thelatter's admirers were combining to depose Reuben E. Fenton, Morgan'schief competitor for the senatorial toga. Chester A. Arthur, lookinginto the future, had already recognised the need of a new alignment, and the young Senator evidenced the qualities that appealed to him. There was a common impression that if Morgan were re-elected, he wouldyield to the greater gifts of Conkling and the purpose, now soapparent, was to crush Fenton and make Conkling the head of anorganisation which should include both Senators. John A. Griswoldunderstood this and declined to embarrass Morgan by entering the race. 

Fenton at this time was at the height of his power. His lieutenants, headed by Waldo M. Hutchins, the distributor of his patronage, excelled in the gifts of strategy, which had been illustrated in theelection of Truman G. Younglove for speaker. They were dominated, also, by the favourite doctrine of political leaders that organisationmust be maintained and victory won at any cost save by a revolution inparty policy, and they entered the senatorial contest with a courageas sublime as it was relentless. Their chief, too, possessed theconfidence of the party. His radicalism needed no sponsors. Besides, his four years' service as governor, strengthened by the veto ofseveral bills calculated to increase the public burdens, had receivedthe unmistakable approval of the people. 

Nevertheless he was heavily handicapped. Greeley, still smarting underFenton's failure to support him for governor in 1868, declared forMarshall O. Roberts, while Noah Davis, surprised at his insincerity, aided Morgan. If Greeley's grievance had merit, Davis' resentment wascertainly justified. The latter claimed that after Conkling's electionin 1867, Fenton promised to support him in 1869, and that upon theGovernor's advice, to avoid the prejudice against a judge who engagedin politics, he had resigned from the Supreme Court and made a winningrace for Congress. [1213]

[Footnote 1213: New York _World_, January 6, 1869. ]

But the _Commercial Advertiser_, a journal then conducted byConservatives, placed the most serious obstacle in Fenton's pathway, charging that an intimate friend of the Governor had received $10, 000on two occasions after the latter had approved bills for the New YorkDry Dock and the Erie Railroad Companies. [1214] Although the _Sun_promptly pronounced it "a remarkable piece of vituperation, "[1215] andthe _Tribune_, declaring "its source of no account, " called it "a mostscurrilous diatribe, "[1216] the leading Democratic journal of the Stateaccepted it as "true. "[1217] The story was not new. In the precedingsummer, during an investigation into the alleged bribery of members ofthe Legislature of 1868, Henry Thompson, an Erie director, was askedif his company paid Governor Fenton any money for approving the billlegalising the acts of its directors in the famous "Erie war. "Thompson refused to answer as the question fell without the scope ofthe committee's jurisdiction. Thereupon Thomas Murphy testified thatThompson told him that he saw two checks of $10, 000 each paid toHamilton Harris, the Governor's legal adviser, under an agreement thatFenton should sign the bill. Murphy added that afterwards, as chairmanof a Republican political committee, he asked Jay Gould, president ofthe Erie company, for a campaign contribution, and was refused for thereason that he had already given $20, 000 for Fenton. Harris and Gouldknew nothing of the transaction. [1218]

[Footnote 1214: New York _Commercial Advertiser_, January 2, 1869. ]

[Footnote 1215: New York _Sun_, January 4. ]

[Footnote 1216: New York _Tribune_, January 9. ]

[Footnote 1217: New York _World_, January 6. ]

[Footnote 1218: The _Nation_, March 18. ]

Matthew Hale, chairman of the Senate investigating committee, did notinclude this testimony in his report, and the startling and improbablepublication in the _Commercial Advertiser_ must have withered as thesensation of a day, had not the belief obtained that the use of moneyin senatorial contests played a prominent and important part. Thisscandalous practice was modern. Until 1863 nothing had been heard ofthe use of money in such contests. But what was then whispered, andopenly talked about in 1867 as Conkling testified, now became a commontopic of conversation. "It is conceded on all hands, " said the_Times_, editorially, "that money will decide the contest. "[1219]

[Footnote 1219: New York _Times_, January 9, 1869. ]

Talk of this kind appealed to the pessimist who believes a legislatoris always for sale, but Speaker Younglove, an assemblyman of longexperience, knowing that good committee appointments were more potentthan other influences, tactfully withheld the announcement of hiscommittees. Such a proceeding had never before occurred in the historyof the State, and twelve years later, when George H. Sharpe resortedto the same tactics, William B. Woodin declared that it made Younglove"a political corpse. "[1220] Nevertheless, Morgan soon understood thatchairmanships and assignments on great committees were vastly moreattractive than anything he had to offer, and on January 16 (1869) thefirst ballot of the caucus gave Fenton 52 votes to 40 for Morgan. Amonth later, Richard M. Blatchford, then a justice of the UnitedStates Supreme Court, wrote Thurlow Weed: "Morgan loses his electionbecause, you being sick, his backbone was missing. "[1221]

[Footnote 1220: New York _Tribune_, January 13, 1881. ]

[Footnote 1221: T. W. Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 462. ]

CHAPTER XVII

TWEED CONTROLS THE STATE

1869-70

William M. Tweed had become a State senator in 1867. At this time heheld seventeen city offices. [1222] But one more place did not embarrasshim, and in entering upon his new career he promptly invoked thetactics that strengthened him in the metropolis. Through the influenceof a Republican colleague on the Board of Supervisors he securedappointments upon the important committees of Finance and InternalAffairs, the first passing upon all appropriations, and the secondcontrolling most of the subordinate legislation in the State includingExcise measures. This opportunity for reviewing general legislationgave him the advantage of a hawk circling in the sky of missing nochance for plunder. By means of generous hospitality and a naturalaffability he quickly won the esteem of his fellow senators, many ofwhom responded to his gentle suggestion of city clerkships forconstituents. In his pretended zeal to serve Republicans he hadoffered, during the recent contest for United States senator, tomarshal the Democrats to the support of Charles J. Folger, the leaderof the Senate, provided two Republican senators and twelve assemblymenwould vote for him. [1223] Persons familiar with Tweed's true characterunderstood that a senator of Folger's integrity and ability would beless in the way at Washington than in Albany, but his apparent desireto help the Genevan did him no harm. 

[Footnote 1222: New York _Nation_, September 30, 1869. ]

[Footnote 1223: New York _World_, January 12, 1869. ]

Thus intrenched in the good will of his colleagues Tweed, early inthe session, began debauching the tax levies for the city and countyof New York. His party controlled the Assembly, and his henchman, William Hitchman, whom he had made speaker, controlled its committees. What the Senate did, therefore, would be approved in the House. Thetax levies contained items of expense based upon estimates by thedifferent departments of the municipal and county governments. Theywere prepared by the comptroller, examined by the city council andcounty supervisors respectively, and submitted to the Legislature forits approval. In the process they might be swelled by the comptrollerand the two boards, but the Legislature, acting as an outside anddisinterested party, usually trimmed them. Tweed, however, proposed toswell them again. Accordingly projects for public improvements, asylums, hospitals, and dispensaries that never existed except onpaper, appeared as beneficiaries of county and city. The comptrollerconcealed these thefts by the issue of stocks and bonds and thecreation of a floating debt, which formed no part of hisstatements. [1224] When the committee on appropriations reported theseadditions, "the increase, " it was claimed in the progress of thediscussion, "was called for only by plunderers. "

[Footnote 1224: Gustavus Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 274. ]

The passage of these vicious appropriations, requiring the help ofRepublicans, gave rise to numerous charges of bribery and corruption. "It was fully believed here, " said the _Tribune_, "that tax leviessupplied the means for fabricating naturalisation papers and hiringrepeaters whereby Republicans were swindled out of the vote of thisState. "[1225] Other corrupt practices in connection with importantrailroad legislation, having special reference to the passage of theso-called "Erie Bill, " likewise attracted public attention. ButMatthew Hale's investigating committee, after a long and fruitlesssession in the summer of 1868, expressed the opinion that the crime ofbribery could not be proven under the law as it then existed, sinceboth parties to the transaction were liable to punishment. This ledto a new statute exempting from prosecution the giver of a bribe whichwas accepted. 

[Footnote 1225: New York _Tribune_, July 24, 1869. ]

However, the Legislature elected in November, 1868, proved no lessplastic in the hands of the Boss, who again corrupted the tax levies. After allowing every just item the committee coolly added sixmillions, [1226] an amount subsequently reduced to three. [1227] Thisiniquity was immediately denounced and exposed through pamphlets, journals, and debates. Men frankly admitted that no reason or economicprinciple justified the existence of such monstrous levies. Indeed, every honest influence, legal, social, and political, opposed it. Thepress condemned it, good men mourned over it, and wise men unmaskedit. But with the help of twenty Republicans, backed by the approval ofJohn T. Hoffman, the bill became a law. This time, however, indignation did not die with the Legislature. The _Tribune_, chargingthat the twenty Republican assemblymen whose names it published were"bought and paid with cash stolen by means of tax levies, " insistedthat "the rascals" should not be renominated. "We firmly believe, " itadded, "that no Republican voted for these levies except for pay . . . And we say distinctly that we do not want victory this fall if it isto be in all respects like the victory of last fall. "[1228]

[Footnote 1226: New York _Tribune_, July 24, 1869. ]

[Footnote 1227: _Ibid. _, July 22. ]

[Footnote 1228: _Ibid. _, July 24, and 29. ]

Local party leaders, resenting the _Tribune's_ declarations, packedconventions, renominated the black-listed legislators, and spread suchdemoralisation that George William Curtis, Thomas Hillhouse, and JohnC. Robinson withdrew from the State ticket. As a punishment for hiscourse the State Committee, having little faith in the election of itscandidates, substituted Horace Greeley for comptroller in place ofHillhouse. [1229] In accepting the nomination Greeley expressed thehope that it never would be said of him that he asked for an office, or declined an honourable service to which he was called. [1230]

[Footnote 1229: The Republican State convention, held at Syracuse onSeptember 30, 1869, nominated the following ticket: Secretary ofstate, George William Curtis, Richmond; Comptroller Thomas Hillhouse, Ontario; Treasurer, Thomas S. Chatfield, Tioga; Attorney-General, Martin I. Townsend, Rensselaer; Engineer and Surveyor, John C. Robinson, Broome; Canal Commissioner, Stephen F. Hoyt, Steuben; PrisonInspector, Daniel D. Conover, New York; Court of Appeals, Lewis B. Woodruff, New York; Charles Mason, Madison. 

Franz Sigel, Horace Greeley, and William B. Taylor of Oneida weresubsequently substituted for Curtis, Hillhouse, and Robinson. ]

[Footnote 1230: New York _Tribune_, October 11, 1869. ]

If corruption had demoralised Republicans, fear of a repetition of theTweed frauds paralysed them. The plan of having counties telegraph thevotes needed to overcome an up-State majority could be worked again assuccessfully as before, since the machinery existed and the men weremore dexterous. Besides, danger of legal punishment had disappeared. The Union League Club had established nothing, the congressionalinvestigation had resulted in no one's arrest, and Matthew Hale'scommittee had found existing law insufficient. Moreover, Hale hadreported that newspaper charges were based simply upon rumoursunsupported by proof. [1231]

[Footnote 1231: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1869, p. 486. ]

Tweed understood all this, and his confidence whetted an ambition tocontrol the State as absolutely as he did the city. At the Syracuseconvention which assembled in September (1869) Tilden represented theonly influence that could be vitalised into organised opposition. Tilden undoubtedly despised Tweed. Yet he gave him countenance andsaved the State chairmanship. [1232]

[Footnote 1232: The Democratic ticket was as follows: Secretary ofstate, Homer A. Nelson, Dutchess; Comptroller, William F. Allen, Oswego; Treasurer, Wheeler H. Bristol, Tioga; Attorney-General, Marshall B. Champlain, Allegany; State Engineer, Van RensselaerRichmond, Wayne; Canal Commissioner, William W. Wright; PrisonInspector, Fordyce Laflin, Ulster; Court of Appeals, John A. Lott, Kings; Robert Earl, Herkimer. ]

The campaign pivoted on the acceptance or rejection of the new Stateconstitution, framed by the convention of 1867 and submitted by theLegislature of 1869. From the first the constitutional convention hadbecome a political body. Republicans controlled it, and theirinsistence upon unrestricted negro suffrage gave colour to the wholedocument, until the Democrats, demanding its defeat, focused upon ittheir united opposition. As a candidate for comptroller Horace Greeleylikewise became an issue. Democrats could not forget his impatient, petulant, and, as they declared, unfair charges of election frauds, and every satirist made merry at his expense. To denunciation andabuse, however, Greeley paid no attention. "They shall be most welcometo vote against me if they will evince unabated devotion to the causeof impartial suffrage. "[1233] But the people, tired of Republican rule, turned the State over to the Democrats regardless of men. [1234]

[Footnote 1233: New York _Tribune_, October 11, 1869. ]

[Footnote 1234: Nelson for secretary of state over Sigel, 22, 524; Allenfor comptroller over Greeley, 26, 533; Greeley over Sigel in New YorkCity, 1, 774; Sigel over Greeley in the State, 4, 938; against theconstitution, 19, 759; majority for the judiciary article, 6, 006. --NewYork _Tribune_, November 23, 1869. ]

Although this result was not unexpected, no one dreamed that theDemocracy would win every department of the State government, executive, legislative, and judicial. For seventeen years theDemocrats had twice elected the governor and once secured theAssembly, while the Republicans, holding the Senate continuously andthe governorship and Assembly most of the time, had come to regardthemselves the people's lawmakers and the representatives of executiveauthority. But Tweed's quiet canvass in the southern tier of countiestraversed by the Erie Railroad exhibited rare cunning in the captureof the State Senate. Until this fortress of Republican oppositionsurrendered, Hoffman's appointments, like those of Seward in 1839, could not be confirmed. 

After this election William M. Tweed's supremacy was acknowledged. In1867 he had captured the Assembly and elected most of the Stateofficials; in 1868, after forcing the nomination of John T. Hoffman, he made him governor by a system of gigantic frauds; and now in 1869, having employed similar tactics in the southern tier of counties, hehad carried the Senate by four majority, secured the Assembly bysixteen, and for the third time elected the State officials. This madehim leader of the State Democracy. Seymour so understood it, andTilden knew that he existed only as a figurehead. 

Tweed's power became more apparent after the Legislature opened inJanuary, 1870. He again controlled the Assembly committees throughWilliam Hitchman, his speaker; he arranged them to his liking in theSenate through Allen C. Beach, the lieutenant-governor; and hesweetened a majority of the members in both houses with substantialhopes of large rewards. This defeated an organisation, called theYoung Democracy, which hoped to break his power by the passage of ameasure known as the Huckleberry Charter, transferring the duties ofState commissions to the Board of Aldermen. Then Tweed appeared with acharter. Sweeny was its author and home-rule its alleged object. Itsubstituted for metropolitan commissions, devised and fostered byRepublicans, municipal departments charged with equivalent duties, whose heads were appointed by the mayor. It also created a departmentof docks, and merged the election of city and state officials. Itscrowning audacity, however, was the substitution of a superintendentof public works for street commissioner, to be appointed by the mayorfor a term of four years, and to be removable only after animpeachment trial, in which the entire six judges of the Common PleasCourt must participate. It was apparent that this charter perpetuatedwhatever was most feared in the system of commissions, and obliteratedall trace of the corrective. It was obvious, also, that by placingofficials beyond the reach of everybody interested in their goodbehaviour except the Courts, whose aid could be invoked only by themayor, and by him only for the extreme offense of malfeasance, it gavea firmer hold to a Ring actuated by the resolute determination toenrich itself at the public expense. 

Yet this measure encountered little opposition. The Young Democracy, backed by Tilden and the remnant of the Albany Regency, exposed itsdangerous features, the _Times_ called it an "abominablecharter, "[1235] and Manton Marble bitterly denounced it. But Tweedraised no flag of truce, and after the distribution of a million ofdollars the Sweeny charter had an easy passage through both houses, the Senate recording but two votes against it and the Assembly onlyfive. [1236] It was said that five Republican senators received $40, 000each, and six others $10, 000 each. Six hundred thousand went to alobbyist to buy assemblymen. [1237] Within three days after its passage(April 5) the Governor had approved it, the Mayor had appointed Tweedto the position of most power, and Sweeny had taken the place of mostlucre. Thereafter, as commissioner of public works, the Boss was to be"the bold burglar, " and his silent partner "the dark plotter. " A weeklater the departments of police and health, the office of comptroller, the park commission, and the great law bureau had passed into thecontrol of their pals, with Connolly as "sneak-thief" and Hall "thedashing bandit of the gang. "[1238] Indeed, a month had scarcely elapsedbefore the _ad interim_ Board of Audit, authorised by the Legislatureas an additional scheme for theft, and composed of Tweed, Hall, andConnolly, had ordered the payment of $6, 000, 000, and within the year, as subsequent revelations disclosed, its bills aggregated $12, 250, 000, of which 66 per cent. Went to the thieves. [1239]

[Footnote 1235: New York _Times_, March 25, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1236: The Tweed Case, 1876, Vol. 2, p. 1212. ]

[Footnote 1237: Document No. 8, pp. 84-92; Gustavus Myers, _History ofTammany Hall_, p. 272; James F. Rhodes, _History of the UnitedStates_, Vol. 6, p. 395; New York _Tribune_, September 17, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1238: Albert B. Paine, _Life of Thomas Nast_, p. 143. ]

[Footnote 1239: John Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 185. ]

John T. Hoffman approved Tweed's measures. During the earlier monthsof his gubernatorial career his veto of several bills granting aid torailroads gave promise of independence, but after Tweed and Sweenybecame directors of the Erie he approved the measure enabling corruptoperators to retain possession of the road for an indefinite period indefiance of the stockholders. It is probable that the real characterand fatal tendency of his associates had not been revealed to him. Nevertheless, ambition seems to have blunted a strong, alert mind. Theappointment of Ingraham, Cardozo, and Barnard to the General Term ofthe Supreme Court within the city of New York, if further evidencewere needed, revealed the Governor's subserviency. To avoid the Tweedjudges as well as interruption to the business of the Courts, the BarAssociation asked the Executive to designate outside judges. Tweedunderstood the real object, and before the lawyers' committee, consisting of Charles O'Conor, Joseph H. Choate, Henry Nicoll, WilliamH. Peckham, and William E. Curtis, could reach Albany, the Governor, under telegraphic instructions from the Boss, appointed the notorioustrio. Such revelations of weakness plunged the _Evening Post_ andother admirers into tribulation. "The moral of Hoffman's fall, " saidthe _Nation_, "is that respectable citizens must give up the notionthat good can be accomplished by patting anybody on the back who, having got by accident or intrigue into high official position, treatsthem to a few spasms of virtue and independence. . . . Had Hoffman heldout against the Erie Ring he would have had no chance of renomination, all hope of the Presidency would be gone, and he would find himselfostracised by his Democratic associates. "[1240]

[Footnote 1240: The _Nation_, May 27, 1869. ]

Hoffman knew this as well as the _Nation_, and his obedience made himthe favourite of the Democratic State convention which assembled atRochester on September 21, 1870. It was a Tweed body. When he noddedthe delegates became unanimous. Tilden called it to order and had hispocket picked by a gentleman in attendance. [1241] "We hope he has arealising sense of the company he keeps, " said the _Nation_, "when heopens conventions for Mr. Tweed, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Sweeny. "[1242] Aweek later it expressed the opinion that "Tilden's appearance ought tobe the last exhibition the country is to witness of the alliance ofdecent men for any purpose with these wretched thieves andswindlers. "[1243] The plundering Boss denied so much as a hearing tothe Young Democracy whom Tilden encouraged, while their delegates, without vote or voice or seat, witnessed the renomination of Hoffmanby acclamation, and saw the programme, drafted by Tweed, executed withunanimity. Mighty was Tammany, and, mightier still, its Tweed! TheRochester authorities urged the departure of the delegates beforedark, and upon their arrival at Jersey City the next morning the localpolice made indiscriminate arrests and locked up large batches ofthem, including a Commissioner of Charities and Correction. [1244]

[Footnote 1241: The _Nation_, September 29, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1242: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 1243: _Ibid. _, October 6. 

The following officials were nominated by acclamation: Governor, JohnT. Hoffman; Lieutenant-Governor, Allen C. Beach; Comptroller, Asher P. Nichols; Canal Commissioners, John D. Fay and George W. Chapman;Prison Inspector, Solomon E. Scheu. ]

[Footnote 1244: The _Nation_, September 29. ]

CHAPTER XVIII

CONKLING DEFEATS FENTON

1870

The Republican State convention which assembled at Saratoga onSeptember 7 was not so harmonious as the Tammany body. For severalyears Senator Morgan and Governor Fenton had represented the twosections of the party, the latter, soon after his inauguration onJanuary 1, 1865, having commenced building his political machine. Asan organiser he had few equals. One writer declares him "the ablestafter Van Buren. "[1245] At all events he soon became the head of theparty, controlling its conventions and distributing its patronage. After entering the Senate he paid assiduous attention to thePresident. The repeal of the Tenure-of-Office Act and an effort tosecure the confirmation of Alexander T. Stewart for secretary of thetreasury opened the way to Grant's heart, and for these and otherfavours he received the lion's share of appointments. In the meantimehis opponents insisted that under cover of loud radical professions hehad relied wholly upon trickery for success, banning able men anddemoralising the party. [1246]

[Footnote 1245: Charles E. Fitch, formerly editor of the Rochester_Democrat-Chronicle_. ]

[Footnote 1246: _Harper's Weekly_, June 24, 1871. ]

To these criticisms and Conkling's advances the President presented alistening ear. Conkling had not thrust himself upon Grant, but themore the President tired of Fenton's importunities, the more he likedConkling's wit and sarcasm and forceful speech. As patronage graduallydisappeared Fenton redoubled his efforts to retain it, until in hisdesperation he addressed a letter to the Chief Executive, referring tohis own presidential aspirations, and offering to withdraw and givehim New York if the question of offices could be satisfactorilyarranged. [1247] This ended their relations. 

[Footnote 1247: Conkling's speech, New York _Times_, July 24, 1872. ]

Subsequent appointments, however, did not meet with more favour. Fenton declared them fatal to party harmony, since some of the newofficials, besides holding confidential relations with Tammany, hadbeen friendly to the Philadelphia movement in 1866 and to Hoffman in1868. Bitter criticism especially followed the nomination of ThomasMurphy for collector of New York in place of Moses H. Grinnell. "ThePresident appointed Murphy without consulting either Senator, " saysStewart, for thirty years a senator from Nevada. "Grant met him atLong Branch, and being thoroughly acquainted with the country andquite a horseman he made himself such a serviceable friend that theChief Executive thought him a fit person for collector. "[1248] The NewYork _Times_ said, "the President has taken a step which all hisenemies will exult over and his friends deplore. "[1249] The _Tribune_was more severe. "The objection is not that he belongs to a particularwing of the Republican party, " it said, "but that he does not honestlybelong to any; that his political record is one of treachery wellrewarded; his business record such that the merchants of New York haveno confidence in him; and the record of his relations to thegovernment such that, until cleared up, he ought to hold no place oftrust under it. "[1250] Yet Murphy bore endorsements from men of thehighest respectability. "Of those who in writing recommended hisappointment or confirmation, " said Conkling, "are Edwin D. Morgan, George Opdyke, Henry Clews, John A. Griswold, Charles J. Folger, Matthew Hale, George Dawson, and others. Their signatures are in mypossession. "[1251]

[Footnote 1248: William M. Stewart, _Reminiscences_, p. 255. ]

[Footnote 1249: June 17, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1250: September 19, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1251: New York _Times_, July 24, 1872. ]

Nevertheless, Conkling preferred another, and until urged by hisfriend Stewart to secure Murphy's confirmation "to avoid the possibleappointment of a less deserving man, " he hesitated to act. "I told himthat the struggle to confirm Murphy would enlighten the President asto the political situation in New York, and that he would undoubtedlyaccord him the influence to which he was entitled. Then, to force thefight, Conkling, at my suggestion, objected to further postponement. "[1252]The contest came on July 11, 1870. 

[Footnote 1252: Stewart, _Reminiscences_, pp. 255-256. ]

Fenton recalled Murphy's malodorous army contracts, spoke of hisdisloyalty to the party while a member of the State Senate, submittedproof of his unscrupulous business relations with the leaders ofTammany, and denounced his political treachery in the gubernatorialcontest of 1866. In this fierce three hours' arraignment the Senatorspared no one. He charged that Charles J. Folger and Chester A. Arthurhad appeared in Washington in Murphy's behalf, because to the latter'spotent and corrupt influence with Tammany, Folger owed his election tothe Court of Appeals in the preceding May, [1253] while Arthur, throughMurphy's unclean bargaining with Tweed, was fattening as counsel forthe New York City Tax Commission. [1254]

[Footnote 1253: Under the provisions of the new judiciary article ofthe Constitution a chief justice and six associate justices of theCourt of Appeals were elected on May 17, 1870, each party beingallowed to put up only four candidates for associate justices. Tocomplete their ticket the Democrats selected Folger and Andrews, twoof the four Republican candidates. The election resulted in the choiceof the Democratic ticket. ]

[Footnote 1254: New York _Times_, July 12, 1870. ]

In his reply Conkling spoke for an hour in his most vigorous style. "Every sentence, " said Stewart, "was replete with logic, sarcasm, reason, and invective. Sometimes the senators would rise to theirfeet, so great was the effect upon them. Toward the conclusion of hisspeech Conkling walked down the aisle to a point opposite the seat ofFenton. 'It is true, ' he said, 'that Thomas Murphy is a mechanic, ahatter by trade; that he worked at his trade in Albany supporting anaged father and mother and crippled brother, and that while thusengaged another visited Albany and played a very different rôle. ' Atthis point he drew from his pocket a court record, and extending ittoward Fenton, he continued, --'the particulars of which I will notrelate except at the special request of my colleague. ' Fenton's headdropped upon his desk as if struck down with a club. The scene in theSenate was tragic. "[1255]

[Footnote 1255: Stewart, _Reminiscences_, pp. 256-7. 

"In early life Fenton, having undertaken to carry $12, 000 to Albany, reported the money lost. He was arrested and discharged after muchtestimony was taken. Whether accused justly or unjustly (most personsthought unjustly) it blurred his career. Conkling had a copy of theproceedings before the criminal court. "--_Ibid. _ See also _TheNation_, July 14, 1870. ]

It was a desperate battle. For several weeks heated politicians, withpockets full of affidavits, had hurried to Washington from all partsof New York, and while it was admitted that the appointee was not ashining credit to his backers, the belief obtained that the control ofthe party in the State depended upon the result. The two Senators sounderstood it, and their preparation for the contest omitted allamenities. Fenton, regardless of whom he hit, relied upon carefullydrawn charges sustained by affidavits; Conkling trusted to a fire ofscathing sarcasm, supported by personal influence with his Democraticcolleagues and the President's power in his own party. The resultshowed the senior Senator's shrewdness, for when he ceased talking theSenate, by a vote of 48 to 3, confirmed the appointment. 

From Washington the contest was transferred to Saratoga. Fenton, desiring to impress and coerce the appointing power, made a herculeaneffort to show that although Conkling had the ear of the President, hecould control the convention, and his plan included the election ofCharles H. Van Wyck for temporary chairman and himself for permanentpresident. No doubt existed that at this moment he possessed greatpower. Delegates crowded his headquarters, and a score of lieutenantsreported him far in the lead. From Fenton's accession to thegovernorship a majority of the State Committee had supported him, while chairmen, secretaries, and inspectors of the Republican districtorganisations in New York City, many of whom held municipalappointments under Tweed, had been welded together in the interest ofthe Chautauquan's ascendency. To try to break such a combine wasalmost attempting the impossible. Indeed, until the President, in aletter dated August 22, expressed the wish that Conkling might go as adelegate, the Senator had hesitated to attend the convention. [1256]Even on the eve of its meeting he counselled with friends on thepolicy of not taking his seat, while his backers talked of harmony andproposed George William Curtis for chairman. The confident Fenton, having retired for the night, would listen to no compromise. Meanwhilethe senior Senator, accompanied by Thomas Murphy, visited the rooms ofthe up-State delegates, telling them that a vote for Fenton was a blowat the Administration. [1257] This was the argument of desperation. Itmeant to one man the loss of a federal office and to another the hopethat one might be gained. Such a significant statement, addressed bythe favourite of the President to internal revenue and post-officeofficials, naturally demoralised the Fenton ranks, and when theconvention acted Curtis had 220 votes to 150 for Van Wyck. [1258]Promptly upon this announcement Conkling, with great cunning, as ifacting the part of a peacemaker, moved that the committee onorganisation report Van Wyck for permanent president. The acceptanceof this suggestion without dissent settled Fenton, who an hour laterheard Conkling named at the head and himself at the foot of thecommittee on resolutions. 

[Footnote 1256: A. R. Conkling, _Life of Roscoe Conkling_, p. 328. NewYork _World_, September 8, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1257: The _Nation_, September 15, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1258: "During the vote the delegates commenced a system ofcheering, first for Conkling, then for Fenton. Senator Conkling wasvery conspicuous throughout the balloting. His friends gathered aroundhim, while the other side surrounded Fenton, and whenever either movedtheir friends cheered. . . . Had there been a secret ballot Fenton wouldhave won in spite of the threats and bribes. "--New York _World_, September 8, 1870. ]

Thus far Conkling's success had been as unexpected as it was dazzling. Heretofore he had been in office but not in power. Now for the firsttime he had a strong majority behind him. He could do as he liked. Hepossessed the confidence of the President, the devotion of hisfollowers, and the admiration of his opponents, who watched histactics in the selection of a candidate for governor with deepestinterest. It was a harrowing situation. For several weeks HoraceGreeley had been the principal candidate talked of, and although theeditor himself did not "counsel or advise" his nomination, he admittedthat "he would feel gratified if the convention should deliberatelyadjudge him the strongest candidate. "[1259] Several circumstances addedto his strength. Conkling had encouraged his candidacy to checkmateFenton's support of Marshall O. Roberts. For this reason the Presidentalso favoured him. Besides, Stewart L. Woodford, who really expectedlittle, offered to withdraw if Greeley desired it, [1260] while DeWittC. Littlejohn, always a Titan in the political arena, likewiseside-stepped. These influences, as Conkling intended, silenced Fentonand suppressed Roberts. 

[Footnote 1259: New York _Tribune_, August 27, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1260: _Ibid. _, September 8. ]

On the other hand, Greeley's old-time enemies had not disappeared. Noone really liked him, [1261] while party managers, the shadow of whoseill-will never ceased to obscure his chances, shook their heads. Reasons given in 1868 were repeated with greater emphasis, and toprevent his nomination which now seemed imminent, influences that hadsuddenly made him strong were as quickly withdrawn. It was intimatedthat the President preferred Woodford, and to defeat Fenton's possiblerally to Roberts use was again made of Curtis. The latter did not asksuch preferment, but Conkling, who had made him chairman, promised himthe governorship and Curtis being human acquiesced. In the fierceencounter, however, this strategy, as questionable as it was sudden, destroyed Greeley, humiliated Curtis, and nominated Woodford. [1262]Conkling's tactics neither commended his judgment nor flattered hisleadership. But Conkling did not then possess the nerve openly to makewar upon Greeley. On the contrary, after secretly informing hislieutenants of his preference for Curtis, he dodged the vote on thefirst ballot and supported Greeley on the second, thus throwing hisfriends into confusion. To extricate them from disorder he sought anadjournment, while Fenton, very adroitly preventing such an excursionto the repair-shop, forced the convention to support Woodford oraccept Greeley. The feeling obtained that Conkling had lost theprestige of his early victory, but in securing control of the StateCommittee he began the dictatorship that was destined to continue foreleven years. 

[Footnote 1261: Edward Cary, _Life of George William Curtis_, p. 230. ]

[Footnote 1262: Three ballots were cast as follows:

Woodford 153 170-1/2 258Greeley 143 139 105-1/2Curtis 104-1/2 87-1/2 20 ------- ------- -------Total 390-1/2 397 383-1/2

The following ticket was nominated: Governor, Stewart L. Woodford, Kings; Lieutenant-Governor, Sigmund Kaufman, Kings; Comptroller, AbiahW. Palmer, Dutchess; Canal Commissioners, Absalom Nelson, Erie;Alexander Barkley, Washington; Prison Inspector, John Parkhurst, Clinton. ]

The New York _Times_ charged Greeley's defeat upon Fenton, insistingthat "the fault is not to be laid at the door of SenatorConkling. "[1263] Conkling also explained that "Greeley waspertinaciously supported by all those connected with the custom-house. He failed from a want of confidence in him, so general among thedelegates that electioneering and persuasion could not prevail againstit, and even those who voted for him declared, in many instances, thatthey did so as a harmless compliment, knowing that he could not benominated. "[1264] Greeley himself avoided the controversy, but hisacknowledgment of Fenton's loyal support and his sharp censure ofCurtis indicated full knowledge of Conkling's strategy, to whom, however, he imputed no "bad faith, " since "his aid had not beensolicited and none promised. "[1265] Nevertheless, the great editor didnot forget!

[Footnote 1263: September 10 and 14, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1264: From speech of July 23, 1872, New York _Times_, July24, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1265: New York _Tribune_, September 13, 1870. ]

CHAPTER XIX

TWEED WINS AND FALLS

1870

The campaign that followed the control of Tweed and Conkling combinedthe spectacular and the dramatic. The platform of each party wascatchy. Both congratulated Germany for its victories and France forits republic. Cuba also was remembered. But here the likeness ceased. Democrats praised Hoffman, arraigned Grant, sympathised with Ireland, demanded the release of Fenian raiders and the abolition of vexatioustaxes, declared the system of protection a robbery, and resolved thata license law was more favourable to temperance than prohibition. Onthe other hand, Republicans praised the President, arraigned theGovernor, applauded payments on the national debt and the reduction oftaxation, denounced election frauds and subventions to sectarianschools, and resolved that so long as towns and cities have the rightto license the sale of liquor, they should also have the right toprohibit its sale. The live issue, however, was Tammany and the Tweedfrauds. Congress had authorised Circuit Courts of the United States toappoint in every election district one person from each party to watchthe registration and the casting and the count of votes. It had alsoempowered United States marshals to appoint deputies to keep order atthe polls and to arrest for offences committed in their presence. Against these acts the Democrats vigorously protested, declaring themunconstitutional, revolutionary, and another step towardcentralisation, while Republicans pointed out their necessity in theinterest of a fair vote and an honest count. 

To Conkling the result of the campaign was of the utmost importance. He had suddenly come into power, and success would materially aid himin carrying out his policy of reorganising the party in themetropolis. For many years, under an arrangement with Tammany, Republicans had held important municipal positions. This custom hadgrown out of the appointment of mixed commissions, created byRepublican legislatures, which divided the patronage between the twoparties. But since 1865, under Fenton's skilful manipulation, theseTammany-Republicans, as they were called, had become the ardentpromoters of the Fenton machine, holding places on the general anddistrict committees, carrying primaries with the aid of Democraticvotes, and resorting to methods which fair-minded men did not approve. Among other things it was charged that Fenton himself had a secretunderstanding with Democratic leaders. [1266] These rumours had arousedthe suspicions of many Republicans, who thought it time to dissolvethe Tammany partnership, and having obtained control of the StateCommittee in the late convention, Conkling proposed to reorganise theNew York general committee. Fenton was not unmindful of Conkling'spurpose. It had been disclosed in the convention, and to defeat it theChautauquan was indifferent to ways and means. During much of thecampaign he absented himself from the State, while threats of avengingthe appointment of Murphy and the removal of Grinnell created theapprehension that his faction would secretly oppose the ticket. [1267]

[Footnote 1266: A. R. Conkling, _Life of Roscoe Conkling_, p. 329. ]

[Footnote 1267: "Governor Fenton and his friends were lukewarmthroughout the campaign, the Governor absenting himself from the Statemuch of the time. Late in October he returned from the Western States, and on the 31st, five days before election, he made a speech. " FromConkling's speech of July 22, 1872. New York _Times_, July 24. ]

Throughout the canvass Conkling was energetic. He spoke frequently. That his temper was hot no one who looked at him could doubt, but hehad it in tight control. Although he encountered unfriendlydemonstrations, especially in New York, the pettiness of ruffledvanity did not appear. Nothing could be more easy and graceful thanhis manner on these occasions. His expository statements, lucid, smooth, and equally free from monotony and abruptness, were models oftheir kind. In dealing with election frauds in New York hisutterances, without growing more vehement or higher keyed, foundexpression in the fire of his eye and the resistless strength of hiswords. The proud, bold nature of the man seemed to flash out, startling and thrilling the hearer by the power of his toweringpersonality. 

Revelations of fraud had been strengthened by the publication of theEighth Census. In many election districts it appeared that the countwas three, four, five, and even six times as large as an honest votecould be. Proofs existed, including in some instances a confession, that in 1868 the same men registered more than one hundred times underdifferent names--one man one hundred and twenty-seven times. Instanceswere known and admitted in which the same man on the same day votedmore than twenty times for John T. Hoffman. "To perpetuate thisinfamy, " declared Conkling, "Mayor Hall has invented since thepublication of the census new escapes for repeaters by changing thenumbers and the boundaries of most of the election districts, in somecases bisecting blocks and buildings, so that rooms on the samepremises are in different districts, thus enabling colonised repeatersto register and vote often, and to find doors of escape left open byofficials who have sworn to keep them closed. " The registration for1870, although twenty thousand less than in 1868, he declared, contained seventeen thousand known fraudulent entries. [1268] Thenewspapers strengthened his arguments. In one of Nast's cartoons Tweedas "Falstaff" reviews his army of repeaters, with Hoffman assword-bearer, and Comptroller Sweeny, Mayor Hall, James Fisk, Jr. , andJay Gould as spectators. [1269] Another pre-election cartoon, entitled"The Power behind the Throne, " presented Governor Hoffman crowned androbed as king, with Tweed grasping the sword of power and Sweeny theaxe of an headsman. [1270]

[Footnote 1268: New York _Times_, November 7, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1269: _Harper's Weekly_, November 5, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1270: _Harper's Weekly_, October 29, 1870. ]

Democrats resented these attacks. People, still indifferent to orignorant of Tweed's misdeeds, rested undisturbed. The Citizens'Association of New York had memorialised the Legislature to pass theTweed charter, men of wealth and character petitioned for itsadoption, and the press in the main approved it. [1271] Even the_World_, after its bitter attacks in the preceding winter upon theRing officials, championed their cause. [1272] "There is not anothermunicipal government in the world, " said Manton Marble, "whichcombines so much character, capacity, experience, and energy as are tobe found in the city government of New York under the newcharter. "[1273] The final Democratic rally of the campaign alsocontributed to Tammany's glory. Horatio Seymour was the guest of honorand August Belmont chairman. Conspicuous in the list ofvice-presidents were Samuel J. Tilden, George Tichnor Curtis, AugustusSchell, and Charles O'Conor, while Tweed, with Hoffman and McClellan, reviewed thirty thousand marchers in the presence of one hundredthousand people who thronged Union Square, attracted by anentertainment as lavish as the fêtes of Napoleon III. To many thisprodigal expenditure of money suggested as complete and sudden acollapse to Tweed as had befallen the French Emperor, then about tobecome the prisoner of Germany. In the midst of the noise Seymour, refraining from committing himself to Tammany's methods, read acarefully written essay on the canals. [1274] It was noted, too, thatTilden did not speak. 

[Footnote 1271: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1870, pp. 543, 544; Frank J. Goodnow in Bryce's _American Commonwealth_, Vol. 1, p. 342. ]

[Footnote 1272: New York _World_, March 29, 1870. ]

[Footnote 1273: _Ibid. _, June 13, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1274: _Ibid. _, Oct. 28, 1870. ]

The election resulted in the choice of all the Democratic candidates, with sixteen of the thirty-one congressmen and a majority in eachbranch of the Legislature. Hall was also re-elected mayor. [1275]Republicans extracted a bit of comfort out of the reduced majority inNew York City, but to all appearances Tammany had tightened its grip. Indeed, on New Year's Day, 1871, when Hoffman and Hall, with almostunlimited patronage to divide, were installed for a second time, theBoss had reason to feel that he could do as he liked. From a modesthouse on Henry Street he moved to Fifth Avenue. At his summer home inGreenwich he erected a stable with stalls of finest mahogany. Hisdaughter's wedding became a prodigal exhibition of great wealth, andadmittance to the Americus Club, his favourite retreat, required aninitiation fee of one thousand dollars. To the poor he gave lavishly. In the winter of 1870-71 he donated one thousand dollars to eachalderman to buy coal and food for the needy. His own ward receivedfifty thousand. Finally, in return for his gifts scattered broadcastto the press and to an army of protégés, it was proposed to erect astatue "in commemoration of his services to the Commonwealth of NewYork. " His followers thought him invulnerable, and those who despisedhim feared his power. In New York he had come to occupy something ofthe position formerly accorded to Napoleon III by the public opinionof Europe. 

[Footnote 1275: Hoffman over Woodford, 33, 096. James S. Graham, LaborReform candidate, received 1, 907 votes, and Myron H. Clark, Temperancecandidate, 1, 459 votes. Assembly, 65 Democrats to 63 Republicans;Senate, 17 Democrats to 14 Republicans. Hall's majority, 23, 811. Hoffman's majority in New York City, 52, 037, being 16, 000 less than in1868. Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1870, p. 547. ]

Tweed's legislative achievements, increasing in boldness, climaxed inthe session of 1871 by the passage of the Acts to widen Broadway andconstruct the Viaduct Railroad. The latter company had power to gradestreets, to sell five millions of its stock to the municipality, andto have its property exempted from taxation, [1276] while the Broadwayswindle, estimated to cost the city between fifty and sixtymillions, [1277] enabled members of the Ring to enrich themselves in thepurchase of real estate. To pass these measures Tweed required theentire Democratic vote, so that when one member resigned to avoidexpulsion for having assaulted a colleague, [1278] he found it necessaryto purchase a Republican to break the deadlock. The character ofRepublican assemblymen had materially changed for the better, and thebelief obtained that "none would be brazen enough to take the risk ofselling out;"[1279] but an offer of seventy-five thousand dollarssecured the needed vote. [1280] Thus did the power of evil seem morestrongly intrenched than ever. 

[Footnote 1276: Myers, _History of Tammany_, p. 276. ]

[Footnote 1277: Myers, _History of Tammany_, p. 276. ]

[Footnote 1278: Without provocation James Irving of New York assaultedSmith M. Weed of Clinton. ]

[Footnote 1279: New York _Tribune_, April 14, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1280: "Winans was unfortunate in his bargain, for afterrendering the service agreed upon Tweed gave him only one-tenth of thesum promised. " Myers' _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 277. It might beadded that Winans' wife left him, and that the contempt of hisneighbours drove him from home. A rumour that he subsequentlycommitted suicide remains unverified. ]

Meanwhile the constant and unsparing denunciation of the New York_Times_, coupled with Nast's cartoons in _Harper's Weekly_, excitedincreasing attention to the Ring. As early as 1869 Nast begansatirising the partnership of Tweed, Sweeny, Connolly, and Hall, andin 1870 the _Times_ opened its battery with an energy and sureness ofaim that greatly disturbed the conspirators. To silence its suggestiveand relentless attacks Tweed sought to bribe its editor, making anoffer of one million dollars. [1281] A little later he sent word to Nastthat he could have half a million. [1282] Failing in these attempts theRing, in November, 1870, secured an indorsement from Marshall O. Roberts, Moses Taylor, John Jacob Astor, and three others of likeposition, that the financial affairs of the city, as shown by thecomptroller's books, were administered correctly. It subsequentlytranspired that some of these men were associated with Tweed in thenotorious Viaduct job, [1283] but for the time their certificatere-established the Ring's credit more firmly than ever. "There isabsolutely nothing in the city, " said the _Times_, "which is beyondthe reach of the insatiable gang who have obtained possession ofit. "[1284]

[Footnote 1281: Paine, _Life of Nast_, p. 153. ]

[Footnote 1282: _Ibid. _, p. 182. ]

[Footnote 1283: Paine, _Life of Nast_, p. 145. ]

[Footnote 1284: February 24, 1871. ]

While Roberts and his associates were certifying to the correctness ofConnolly's books, William Copeland, a clerk in the office, was makinga transcript of the Ring's fraudulent disbursements. Copeland was aprotégé of ex-sheriff James O'Brien, who had quarrelled with Connollybecause the latter refused to allow his exorbitant bills, and with theCopeland transcript he tried to extort the money from Tweed. Failingin this he offered the evidence to the _Times_. A little later thesame journal obtained a transcript of fraudulent armoury accountsthrough Matthew J. O'Rourke, a county bookkeeper. When knowledge ofthe _Times'_ possessions reached the Ring, Connolly offered GeorgeJones, the proprietor, five million dollars to keep silent. "I cannotconsider your proposition, " said Jones. [1285]

[Footnote 1285: _Harper's Weekly_, February 22, 1890; Paine, _Life ofNast_, p. 170. ]

The _Times'_ publication of the armoury expenses furnished by O'Rourkecreated a sensation, but the excitement over the Copeland evidencegrew into a fierce tempest. These figures, carefully tabulated andprinted in large type, showed that the new courthouse, incomplete andmiserably furnished, involved a steal of $8, 000, 000. One plastererreceived $38, 187 for two days' work. Another, during a part of twomonths, drew nearly $1, 000, 000. A carpenter received $350, 000 for amonth's labour. A single item of stationery aggregated $186, 495, whileforty chairs and three tables cost $179, 729. In supplying aldermenwith carriages, mostly for funerals, two liverymen earned $50, 000 in afew days. Advertising in city newspapers amounted to $2, 703, 308. Carpets purchased at five dollars per yard would cover City Hall Parkthree times over. As these disclosures appeared in successive issuesthe people realised that a gang of very common thieves had been atwork. It was a favourite method to refuse payment for want of moneyuntil a claimant, weary of waiting, accepted the suggestion ofConnolly's agent to increase the amount of his bill. This turned anhonest man into a conspirator and gave the Ring the benefit of theraise. [1286]

[Footnote 1286: New York _Times_, July 21, 1871. ]

On September 4, 1871, a mass meeting of indignant citizens, held inCooper Union, created the Committee of Seventy, and charged it withthe conduct of investigations and prosecutions. Before it could actvouchers and cancelled warrants, covering the courthouse work for 1869and 1870, had been stolen from the comptroller's office. [1287] Thisincreased the excitement. At last Connolly, to escape becoming ascape-goat, appointed Andrew H. Green deputy comptroller, and theGovernor designated Charles O'Conor to act in behalf of theAttorney-General. Thus the Committee of Seventy passed into completecontrol of the situation, and under the pressure of suits and arreststhe Ring rapidly lost its power and finally its existence. On October26, 1871, Tweed was arrested and held to bail in the sum of$1, 000, 000, Jay Gould becoming his chief bondsman. Soon after Sweenyretired from the Board of Park Commissioners, Connolly resigned ascomptroller, and Tweed gave up the offices of grand sachem of Tammany, director of the Erie Railway, and commissioner of public works. Of allhis associates Mayor Hall alone continued in office, serving until theend of 1872, the close of his term. [1288]

[Footnote 1287: Subsequently the charred remains of these accounts werediscovered in an ash-heap in the City Hall attic. Myers, _History ofTammany Hall_, p. 387. ]

[Footnote 1288: Hall was indicted and tried, but the jury disagreed. The second grand jury did not indict. ]

Having anticipated a little it may not be improper to anticipate alittle more, and say what became of other members of this historicRing. When the public prosecutor began his work Sweeny and Connollyfled to Europe. [1289] After one mistrial, Tweed, found guilty onfifty-one counts, was sent to prison for twelve years on Blackwell'sIsland, but at the end of a year the Court of Appeals reversed thesentence, holding it cumulative. Being immediately rearrested Tweed, in default of bail fixed at $3, 000, 000, remained in jail until hisescape in December, 1875. Disguised by cutting his beard and wearing awig and gold spectacles, he concealed his whereabouts for nearly ayear, going to Florida in a schooner, thence to Cuba in a fishingsmack, and finally to Spain, where he was recognised and returned toNew York on a United States man-of-war. He re-entered confinement onNovember 23, 1876, and died friendless and moneyless in Ludlow Streetjail on April 12, 1878. 

[Footnote 1289: Sweeny afterwards compromised for $400, 000 and returnedto New York. Connolly, who was reported to have taken away $6, 000, 000, died abroad. ]

Meantime the Legislature of 1871 had ordered the impeachment ofBarnard and Cardozo of the Supreme Court, and McCunn of the SuperiorCourt. Their offences extended beyond the sphere of Tweed'soperations, indicating the greed of a Sweeny and the disregard of allhonorable obligations. Cardozo, the most infamous of the trio, calledthe Machiavelli of the Bench, weakened under investigation andresigned to avoid dismissal. Barnard and McCunn, being summarilyremoved, were forever disqualified from holding any office of trust inthe State. McCunn died three days after sentence, while Barnard, although living for seven years, went to his grave at the early age offifty. 

The aggregate of the Ring's gigantic swindles is known onlyapproximately. Henry F. Taintor, the auditor employed by Andrew H. Green, estimated it between forty-five and fifty millions; anAldermanic committee placed it at sixty millions; and Matthew J. O'Rourke, after thorough study, fixed it at seventy-five millions, adding that if his report had included the vast issues of fraudulentbonds, the swindling by franchises and favours granted, andpeculation by blackmail and extortion, the grand total would aggregatetwo hundred millions. Of the entire sum stolen only $876, 000 wererecovered. [1290]

[Footnote 1290: Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, pp. 297-298; New York_Herald_, January 13, 1901. ]

CHAPTER XX

CONKLING PUNISHES GREELEY

1871

"It were idle, " said Horace Greeley, soon after the election inNovember, 1870, "to trace the genealogy of the feud which has dividedRepublicans into what are of late designated Fenton and Conkling men. Suffice it that the fatal distraction exists and works inevitabledisaster. More effort was made in our last State convention to triumphover Senator Fenton than to defeat Governor Hoffman, and in selectingcandidates for our State ticket the question of Fenton and anti-Fentonwas more regarded by many than the nomination of strong and popularcandidates. Since then every Fenton man who holds a federal office hasfelt of his neck each morning to be sure that his head was stillattached to his shoulders. "[1291]

[Footnote 1291: New York _Tribune_, November 10, 1870. ]

Conkling's effort to obtain control of the State Committee provokedthis threnody. Subsequently, without the slightest warning, Fenton'snaval officer, general appraiser, and pension agent were removed. [1292]But as the year grew older it became apparent that designs more fatalin their consequences than removals from office threatened the Fentonorganisation. It was not a secret that the Governor had kept hiscontrol largely through the management of politicians, entitled"Tammany Republicans, " of whom "Hank" Smith, as he was familiarlycalled, represented an active type. Smith was a member of theRepublican State committee and of the Republican general citycommittee. He was also a county supervisor and a Tweed policecommissioner. Moreover, he was the very model of a resourcefulleader, acute and energetic, strong and unyielding, and utterlywithout timidity in politics. In supporting Fenton he appointedRepublicans to city offices, took care of those discharged from thecustom-house, and used the police and other instruments of power asfreely as Thomas Murphy created vacancies and made appointments. [1293]In his despotic sway he had shown little regard for opposition leadersand none whatever for minorities, until at last a faction of thegeneral city committee, of which Horace Greeley was then chairman, petitioned the State committee for a reorganisation. So long as Fentoncontrolled State conventions and State committees, Smith's iron ruleeasily suppressed such seceders; but when the State committee revealeda majority of Conkling men, with Cornell as chairman, thesemalcontents found ready listeners and active sympathisers. 

[Footnote 1292: _Ibid. _, April 4, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1293: "Mr. Murphy's 'weeding out' process is exactly the onewhich the devil would use if he were appointed collector of this port, and that he would perform it on exactly the same principles and withthe same objects and results as Mr. Murphy performs it, we challengeany one to deny who is familiar with the devil's character and habitsand Mr. Murphy's late doings. "--_The Nation_, January 19, 1871. 

"No collector was ever more destitute of fit qualifications for theoffice. " He made "three hundred and thirty-eight removals every fivedays during the eighteen months" he held office. Report of D. B. Eaton, chairman of the Civil Service Commission, p. 23. ]

Alonzo B. Cornell, then thirty-nine years old, had already enteredupon his famous career. From the time he began life as a boy offifteen in an Erie Railroad telegraph office, he had achievedphenomenal success in business. His talents as an organiser easilyopened the way. He became manager of the Western Union telegraphlines, the promoter of a steamboat company for Lake Cayuga, and thedirector of a national bank at Ithaca. Indeed, he forged ahead sorapidly that soon after leaving the employ of the Western Union, JayGould charged him with manipulating a "blind pool" in telegraphstocks. [1294] His education and experience also made him an expert inpolitical manipulation, until, in 1868, he shone as the Republicancandidate for lieutenant-governor. After his defeat and Grant'selection, he became surveyor of the port of New York, a supporter ofConkling, and the champion of a second term for the President. Hissilence, deepened by cold, dull eyes, justified the title of "Sphinx, "while his massive head, with bulging brows, indicated intellectual andexecutive power. He was not an educated man. Passing at an early agefrom his studies at Ithaca Academy into business no time was left him, if the disposition had been his, to specialise any branch of politicaleconomic science. He could talk of politics and the rapid growth ofAmerican industries, but the better government of great cities and theneed of reform in the national life found little if any place amonghis activities. In fact, his close identification with theorganisation had robbed him of the character that belongs to men ofpolitical independence, until the public came to regard him only anoffice-holder who owed his position to the favour of a chief whom heloyally served. 

[Footnote 1294: Stephen Fiske, _Off-Hand Portraits_, p. 58. ]

Very naturally the scheme of the malcontents attracted Cornell, whoadvised Horace Greeley that after careful and patient considerationthe State Committee, [1295] by a vote of 20 to 8, had decided upon anentire reorganisation of his committee. Cornell further declared thatif their action was without precedent so was the existing state ofpolitical affairs in the city, since never before in the history ofthe party had the general committee divided into two factions ofnearly equal numbers, one ordering primaries for the election of a newcommittee, and the other calling upon the State committee to direct anentire reorganisation. However, he continued, abundant precedentexisted for the arbitrary reorganisation of assembly, district, andward committees by county committees. Since the State committee borethe same official relation to county committees that those committeessustained to local organisations within their jurisdiction, it hadsufficient authority to act in the present crisis. [1296]

[Footnote 1295: "Mr. Conkling had already had much to do with theappointment of this committee, but it is worthy of note that severalchanges in the federal offices were made almost simultaneously withthe vote of the committee for Mr. Murphy's reorganisation, and thatthe men who voted for it got the best places. Addison H. Laflin wasmade naval officer, Lockwood L. Doty was made pension agent, RichardCrowley was made United States attorney for the Northern District. Itwill be seen that the committee were not disinterested in trying toplease Conkling and Murphy. "--New York _Evening Post_, September 29, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1296: New York _Times_, March 11, 1871. ]

Conscious of the motive inspiring Cornell's action, Greeley repliedthat the State committee was the creature of State conventions, delegated with certain powers confined to the interval of time betweensuch conventions. It executed its annual functions and expired. Whencontesting delegations from rival general committees had presentedthemselves in 1868, the State convention, rather than intrust thereorganisation to the State committee, appointed a special committeefor the purpose, and when, in 1869, that committee made its report, the State convention resolved that the general committee of 1870should thereafter be the regular and the only organisation. Nor wasthat all. When a resolution was introduced in the State convention of1870 to give the State committee power to interfere with the generalcommittee, the convention frowned and peremptorily dismissed it. Neither did the State committee, Greeley continued, take anything byanalogy. County committees had never assumed to dissolve or reorganiseassembly or district committees, nor had the power ever been concededthem, since assembly and district committees were paramount to countycommittees. But aside from this the general committee had other andgreater powers than those of county committees, for the Stateconvention in 1863, in 1866, and again in 1869 ordered that Republicanelectors in each city and assembly district should be enrolled intoassociations, delegates from each of which composed the generalcommittee. No such power was conceded to county committees. [1297]

[Footnote 1297: New York _Tribune_, March 3 and May 2, 1871. ]

Although this statement seemed to negative its jurisdiction tointerfere, the State committee, exposing the real reason for itsaction, based its right to proceed on the existence of improperpractices, claiming that certain officers and members of the Greeleyand district committees held positions in city departments under thecontrol of Tammany, and that when members of Republican associationswere discharged from federal offices by reason of Democraticaffiliations, they were promptly appointed to places under Democraticofficials. [1298] To this the Greeley committee replied that Republicansholding municipal offices did so under a custom growing out of mixedcommissions of Republicans and Democrats, which divided certain placesbetween the two parties--a custom as old as the party itself, and onethat had received the sanction of its best men. Indeed, it continued, George Opdyke, a member of the State committee, had himself, whenmayor, appointed well-known Democrats on condition that Republicansshould share the minor offices, [1299] and a Republican governor andSenate, in placing a Tammany official at the head of thestreet-cleaning department, invoked the same principle ofdivision. [1300] Several members of the State committee had themselves, until recently, held profitable places by reason of such anunderstanding without thought of their party fealty being questioned. It was a recognition of the rights of the minority. As to the wisdomof such a policy the committee did not express an opinion, but itsuggested that if members of the general committee or of districtassociations, holding such city places, should be charged with partyinfidelity, prompt expulsion would follow proof of guilt. It declareditself as anxious to maintain party purity and fidelity as the Statecommittee, and for the purpose of investigating all charges itappointed a sub-committee. [1301]

[Footnote 1298: New York _Times_, January 26. ]

[Footnote 1299: New York _Tribune_, September 8. ]

[Footnote 1300: New York _Times_, February 3. ]

[Footnote 1301: New York _Times_, Feb. 3, 1871. ]

It was manifest from the first, however, that no investigation, nopurging of the rolls, no compromise would avail. The charge had goneforth that "Tammany Republicans" controlled the Greeley committee, andin reply to the demand for specifications the State committee accusedHenry Smith and others with using Tammany's police, taking orders fromSweeny, and participating in Ring enterprises to the detriment of theRepublican party. [1302] "These men, " said the _Times_, "are receivingthe devil's pay, and consequently, it is to be presumed, are doing thedevil's work. Republicans under Tammany cannot serve two masters. ARepublican has a right to serve Tweed if he chooses. But he ought notat the same time to be taken into the confidence of Republicans whowage war against Tammany for debasing the bench, the bar, and everychannel of political life. "[1303]

[Footnote 1302: _Ibid. _, Jan. 7, 12, 25. ]

[Footnote 1303: _Ibid. _, Jan. 25. ]

To articles of this character Greeley replied that the Republicanismof Cornell and Smith did not differ. They had graced the same ticket;they had gone harmonious members of the same delegation to the lastState convention; and they were fellow members of the State committee, created by that convention, Smith being aided thither by Cornell'svote. [1304] In the presence of such evidence the Fenton factiondeclared that there was neither soundness nor sincerity in the_Times'_ statements or in the State committee's charges. Nevertheless, it was known then and publicly charged afterward that, althoughthoroughly honest himself, Greeley had long been associated with themost selfish politicians in the State outside of Murphy and theTammany Ring. [1305] Thus the accusation against "Tammany Republicans"became a taking cry, since the feeling generally obtained that it wasquite impossible for a man to perform service for Tweed and be afaithful Republican. Formerly the question had assumed lessimportance, but Tammany, identified with fraudulent government, acorrupt judiciary, and a dishonest application of money, could nolonger be treated as a political organisation. Its leaders werethieves, it was argued, and a Republican entering their service mustalso be corrupt. In his letter to John A. Griswold, Conkling openlycharged the Greeley committee with being corrupted and controlled byTammany money. [1306]

[Footnote 1304: New York _Tribune_, September 15, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1305: The _Nation_, May 9, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1306: New York _Tribune_, September 4, 1871. ]

The controversy, bitter enough before, became still more bitter now. Conscious that all was lost if the State committee succeeded, theGreeley organisation, by a vote of 99 to 1, declined to bereorganised. "The determination of the State committee to dissolve theregular Republican organisation of the city of New York and to createanother, without cause and without power, " it said, "is an actunprecedented in its nature, without justification, incompatible withthe principles and life of the Republican party, and altogether an actof usurpation, unmitigated by either policy or necessity. "[1307]Greeley alone appeared willing to yield. He offered a resolution, which, while describing the State committee's order as an injusticeand a wrong, agreed to obey it; but an adverse majority of 91 to 9showed that his associates interpreted his real feelings. [1308]

[Footnote 1307: New York _Times_, April 7, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1308: _Ibid. _]

Thus the break had come. It was not an unusual event for the generalcity committee to quarrel. For many years Republican contentions inthe metropolis had occupied the attention of the party throughout theState. In fact a State convention had scarcely met without beingwearied with them. But everything now conspired to make the spirit offaction unrelenting and to draw the line sharply between friend andfoe. The removal of Grinnell, the declaration of Greeley againstGrant's renomination, [1309] the intense bitterness between Conkling andFenton, and the boast of the State committee that it would controlthe State convention and substitute its own creature for the Greeleycommittee, all coalesced against harmony and a compromise. 

[Footnote 1309: New York _Tribune_, May 6, September 15, 1871. ]

Moreover, even the appearance of relations between Greeley andConkling had ceased. "Mr. Conkling's frenzy, " said the _Tribune_, "generally comes on during executive session, when, if we may beallowed the metaphor, he gets upon stilts and supports his dignity. . . . We can see the pose of that majestic figure, the sweep of thatbolt-hurling arm, the cold and awful gleam of that senatorial eye, ashe towers above the listening legislators. " It spoke of him as the"Pet of the Petticoats, " the "Apollo of the Senate, " the "darling ofthe ladies' gallery, " who "could look hyacinthine in just thirtyseconds after the appearance of a woman. " Then it took a shot at theSenator's self-appreciation. "No one can approach him, if anybody canapproach him, without being conscious that there is something greatabout Conkling. Conkling himself is conscious of it. He walks in animbus of it. If Moses' name had been Conkling when he descended fromthe Mount, and the Jews had asked him what he saw there, he wouldpromptly have replied, 'Conkling!' It is a little difficult to see whyMr. Conkling did not gain a reputation during the war. Many men tookadvantage of it for the display of heroic qualities. But this was notConkling's opportunity. Is he a man to make a reputation while hiscountry is in danger? He was not. Probably he knew best when to hitchhis dogcart to a star. Such a man could afford to wait. Wrapped in themantle of his own great opinion of himself, he could afford to let hisgreat genius prey upon itself until the fulness of time. "[1310] Ofcourse, after this there could be no relations between the editor andthe senator. These editorials recalled the Blaine episode, andalthough not so steeped in bitterness, as a character-study they didnot differ from the prototype. 

[Footnote 1310: New York _Tribune_ (editorials), May 19, 20, 25, 1871. ]

This was the condition of affairs when the Republican convention metat Syracuse on September 27. Except Greeley every prominent leader inthe State attended. The question whether the rival general committeecreated by the State organisation should be recognised involved thewhole party, and the audience assembled surpassed any previousattendance. The presence of a multitude of federal officials asdelegates and leaders indicated that the Administration at Washingtonalso took a deep interest. There was much doubt and solicitude as tothe result, for no opportunity had been given the factions to measurestrength since the convention of 1870. The nomination of a minoritycandidate for speaker of the Assembly in the preceding January hadbeen claimed as a Fenton victory, but the selection of James W. Husted, then at the threshold of a long and conspicuous career, didnot turn on such a hinge. Husted had strength of his own. Althoughnever to become an orator of great power and genuine inspiration, hisquickness of perception, coupled with the manners of an accomplishedgentleman, brilliant in conversation and formidable in debate, madehim a popular favourite whose strength extended beyond faction. Now, however, the issue was sharply drawn, and when Alonzo B. Cornellcalled the convention to order, the opposing forces, marshalled for afight to the finish, announced Andrew D. White and Chauncey M. Depewas their respective candidates for temporary chairman. White's recentappointment as a commissioner to San Domingo had been a distinct gainto the President's scheme of annexation, and he now appeared at theconvention in obedience to Cornell's solicitation. [1311] To gain a bitof advantage Depew, in the interest of harmony, he said, withdrew infavour of G. Hilton Scribner of Westchester, who had headed a youngmen's association formed to allay strife between the rival senators. The suggestion being accepted, Depew then moved to make Scribner andWhite temporary and permanent chairmen. Upon the temporary chairmandepended the character of the committees, and Cornell, with a frownupon his large, sallow, cleanly shaven face, promptly ruled the motionout of order. When a Fenton delegate appealed from the Chair'sruling, he refused to put the question. 

[Footnote 1311: White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 164. ]

Instantly the convention was upon its feet. Demands for roll-call andthe shouts of a hundred men stifled the work of the gavel. Policeinterference increased the noise. In the midst of the confusion thestentorian voice of John Cochrane, a Fenton delegate, declared "theroll entirely wrong. "[1312] This aggravated the situation. Finally, when delegates and chairman had physically exhausted themselves, WaldoM. Hutchins was allowed to suggest that in all cases of contestedseats the names of delegates be passed. To this Cornell reluctantlyagreed amidst loud applause from the Fenton faction, which desired itsaction interpreted as an unselfish concession in the interest ofharmony; but the tremendous surprise subsequently displayed upon theannouncement of White's election by 188 to 159 revealed itsinsincerity. It had confidently counted on twenty-one additionalvotes, or a majority of thirteen. [1313] Thus, in a moment, werebrightest hopes and fairest prospects blasted. 

[Footnote 1312: New York _Tribune_, September 28, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1313: "In particular they [the Fenton men] felt sure of onevote not received from Allegany County, two from Broome, three fromColumbia, two from Cortlandt, three from Dutchess, three fromJefferson, one from Ontario, three from Washington, and three fromWayne. "--_Ibid. _

"Mr. Murphy's office-holders were numerous and active, and turned thewhole organisation into an instrument for the service of his[Conkling's] personal ambition. When the State convention was to meet, Mr. Conkling and Mr. Murphy were among the first at Syracuse. It wasremarked that while they worked hard, they took no thought of thereform movement. Their sole object was to control the convention. Theconfidence which the delegates placed in them was astonishing, butmore astonishing still was the manner in which Andrew D. White lenthimself to this faction and did its work. "--New York _Evening Post_, September 29, 1871. ]

It was easy to speculate as to the cause of this overthrow. To declareit the triumph of patronage; to assert that delegates from Republicanstrongholds supported Fenton and that others from counties withoverwhelming Democratic majorities sustained Conkling; to stigmatisethe conduct of Cornell as an unprecedented exhibition of tyranny, andto charge White with seeking the votes of Fenton members on the pleathat his action would promote harmony, [1314] probably did not economisethe truth. Explanations, however, could not relieve the anguish ofdefeat or nerve the weak to greater effort. Many delegates, filledwith apprehension and anxious to be on the winning side, thoughtannihilation more likely than any sincere and friendly understanding, a suspicion that White's committee appointments quickly ratified. Although the Fenton faction comprised nearly one-half the convention, the Committee on Credentials stood 12 to 2 in favour of Conkling. Ofcourse the famous president of Cornell University did not select thiscommittee. He simply followed custom and fathered the list of namesCornell handed him. [1315] "But in blindly consenting to be thus used bythe State committee, " wrote Greeley, "he became the instrument of suchan outrage as no respectable presiding officer of any prominentdeliberative body has ever committed. "[1316]

[Footnote 1314: "Mr. White personally sought the votes of Fentonmembers for the temporary chairmanship on the pledge that he would soact as to promote harmony. "--New York _Tribune_, October 21, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1315: "I received the list of the convention committees fromthe State committee with express assurance that the list representedfairly the two wings of the party. I had no reason then, and have noreason now, to believe that the State committee abused myconfidence. "--White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 166. ]

[Footnote 1316: New York _Tribune_, September 29, 1871. ]

To the Fenton faction this severe criticism of a presumably fair manseemed justified after his jug-handle committee had made itsjug-handle report. It favoured seating all contesting delegatesoutside of the City, admitted the Greeley delegates and theiropponents with the right to cast half of one vote, and recognised theorganisation established by the State committee as the regular and theonly one. By this time the dullest delegate understood the trend ofaffairs. Indeed, dismissals and appointments in the civil service hadpreceded the assembling of the convention until politicians understoodthat the way to preferment opened only to those obedient to the newdictator. Accordingly, on the next roll-call, the weak-kneed tookflight, the vote standing 202 to 116. Upon hearing the astoundingresult a Fenton delegate exclaimed, "Blessed are they that expectnothing, for they shall not be disappointed. "[1317]

[Footnote 1317: New York _Tribune_, September 28, 1871. ]

In discussing the resolution to abolish the Greeley committee thequestion narrowed itself to members holding office under Tammany, theGreeley organisation maintaining that it had simply inherited thecustom, not created it, while Cornell and his associates, having"Hank" Smith in mind, declared it impossible to avoid the customwithout destroying the committee. To some of the Conkling leaders thisseemed unnecessarily severe. Having showed their teeth they hesitatedto lacerate the party, especially after the mad rush to the winningside had given them an overwhelming majority. At last, it fell toHamilton Ward, a friend of the Senator, for six years a member ofCongress, a forcible speaker, and still a young man of nerve, who wasto become attorney-general and a judge of the Supreme Court, topropose as a substitute that the State committee be directed toconsolidate and perfect the two city organisations. The Fenton peoplepromptly acquiesced, and their opponents, after eliminating Smith bydisallowing a member of the organisation to hold office under Tammany, cheerfully accepted it. 

This compromise, thus harmoniously perfected in the presence andhearing of the convention, was loudly applauded, and the chairman hadrisen to put the motion when Conkling interrupted, "Not yet thequestion, Mr. President!" Until then the Senator had been a silentspectator. Indeed, not until the previous roll-call did he become amember of the convention. But he was now to become its master. Hisslow, measured utterances and deep chest-tones commanded instantattention. If for a moment, as he calmly declared opposition to thesubstitute, he seemed to stand alone, his declaration that a horde ofTammany ballot-box stuffers, pirates, and robbers had controlled anddebauched the Republican organisation in the city of New York calledforth the loudest applause of the evening. His next statement, thatthe time had come when such encroachments must cease, renewed thecheering. Having thus paid his respects to the Greeley committee, Conkling argued that a new State committee could not do in the fourweeks preceding election what it had taken the old committee months toaccomplish. The campaign must be made not with a divided organisation, but with ranks closed up. Reading from an editorial in the _Tribune_, he claimed that it approved the committee's report, and he begged theconvention to take the editor at his word, shake hands, buryanimosities and disappointments, make up a ticket equally of bothfactions, and accept the reorganisation of the city committee, so thatdouble delegations might not appear at the next national convention toparade their dissensions. He disclaimed any unkind feeling, and infavouring the admission of both city delegations, he said, he supposedhe had worked in the interest of harmony. 

This appeal has been called one of Conkling's "most remarkablespeeches. "[1318] Unlike the Senator's usual efforts labouredpreparation did not precede it. The striking passage and theimpressive phrase are entirely wanting. Epigrammatic utterances arethe supreme test of a great orator or poet, but Conkling's speech ofSeptember 27 added nothing to that vocabulary. It may be said to lackevery element of a well-ordered oration. As preserved in thenewspapers of the day[1319] it is hard, if not impossible, to findsufficient rhetorical merit to entitle it to a place in any volume ofordinary addresses. It wanted the persuasive power that allures by anexquisite choice of words, or charms by noble and sympatheticelocution. Even the style of his appeal for harmony was tooself-assured and his faith in his own superiority too evident. Nevertheless, of the living who heard his explosive exclamation, "Notyet the question, Mr. President, " and the flaming sentences arraigningthe Greeley Republicans as partners of Tammany, it lingers in thememory as a forceful philippic, full of pose and gesture and dramaticaction. Its influence, however, is not so clear. The power ofpatronage had already twice carried the convention, and that thisincentive would have done so again had Conkling simply whispered tohis lieutenants, must be evident to all who read the story. Ward'smotion was lost by 154 to 194, the Conkling vote being eight less thanon the preceding roll-call. [1320]

[Footnote 1318: "Such a speech, in its terms, its forcible eloquence, its overwhelming results, was perhaps never heard in a similarassemblage. Many of Senator Conkling's friends insist that this wasone of his most remarkable speeches. "--Alfred R. Conkling, _Life ofRoscoe Conkling_, p. 341. ]

[Footnote 1319: Syracuse _Standard_, New York _Times_, September 28, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1320: "Just as the whole convention had agreed upon thecompromise, Conkling arose and ordered his office-holders to rejectit. "--New York _Evening Post_, September 29. ]

Conkling desired a solid delegation at the next Republican NationalConvention, and the recognition of the organisation established by theState committee assured it, whereas the Ward amendment, by includingthe Greeley constituency, inspired the fear of a divided one. [1321]Perhaps the failure of his friends to appreciate this fear justifiedConkling's interference, but a single word of dissent was sufficientto alarm them, while a less arrogant and dominating spirit mighteasily have avoided making the bitter assault which provoked a stormof hostile criticism. Greeley's stinging retort illuminated theSenator's insincerity. "Conkling declared it right, " said the editor, "to abolish the regular organisation because corrupted and controlledby Tammany money, and then invited its delegates to an equal share inmaking the platform and selecting a ticket. If he believed what hesaid, he was guilty of party treason in the offer; if he did not, headded the folly of insult to the crime of foul slander. "[1322] This wasthe view of the Greeley delegates, and refusing to accept the offeredterms, Moses H. Grinnell, Marshall O. Roberts, and their associates, amid ironical cheers, withdrew from the convention. 

[Footnote 1321: New York _Tribune_, June 1, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1322: New York _Tribune_, September 29, 1871. ]

After this business progressed smoothly and easily. There were nodivisions, no debates, and no questions of importance. Nominationsaroused little enthusiasm, [1323] and the platform which Greeley called"the miracle of clumsiness, "[1324] indorsed the administration ofPresident Grant, denounced the crimes of the Tweed ring, andrecommended local option. Meanwhile the seceders, assembled in Wild'sOpera House, gave vent to bitter criticism and the whispered scandalof hotel lobbies. [1325] When this proceeding finally ended theyseparated with the consciousness that their last performance, atleast, had made them ridiculous. 

[Footnote 1323: The State ticket was as follows: Secretary of State, G. Hilton Scribner, Westchester; Comptroller, Nelson K. Hopkins, Erie;Treasurer, Thomas Raines, Monroe; Attorney-General, Francis C. Barlow, New York; Engineer, William B. Taylor, Oneida; Canal Commissioner, Alexander Barkley, Washington; Prison Inspector, Thomas Kirkpatrick, Cayuga. ]

[Footnote 1324: New York _Tribune_, September 29, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1325: _Ibid. _]

CHAPTER XXI

TILDEN CRUSHES TAMMANY

1871

While Conkling was disposing of Greeley and the Fenton organisation, Samuel J. Tilden prepared to crush Tammany. Tweed had reason to fearTilden. In 1869 he accused the Ring of being "opposed to all goodgovernment. "[1326] Afterward, in 1870, the defeat of the YoungDemocracy's charter added to his bitterness. On the evening of the dayon which that vote occurred, Tweed jeered Tilden as the latter passedthrough the hotel corridor, while Tilden, trembling with suppressedemotion, expressed the belief that the Boss would close his career injail or in exile. [1327] One wonders that Tilden, being a naturaldetective, should have delayed strenuous action until the _Times'_exposure, but when, at last, a knowledge of the colossal fraudssuddenly opened the way to successful battle, he seized the advantagewith the skill and persistency of a master. 

[Footnote 1326: Paine, _Life of Nast_, p. 194. ]

[Footnote 1327: This remark was addressed to Henry Richmond, whosefather, Dean Richmond, died in Tilden's home in Gramercy Park. Richmond succeeded his father as State committeeman. ]

In his crusade he did not unite with Republicans, for whom he had noliking. He was not only an intense partisan, but he had a positivegenius for saying bitter things in the bitterest way. To him thequarter of a century covered by Van Buren, Marcy, and Wright, shone asan era of honour and truth, while the twenty-four years spanned by theRepublicans and the party from whence they sprung brought shame anddisgrace upon the State. "The Republicans made the morals of thelegislative bodies what they have recently become. When Seward andWeed took the place of Wright, Marcy, and Flagg, public and officialmorality fell in the twinkling of an eye. Even our city government, until 1870, was exactly what a Republican legislature made it. Theleague between corrupt Republicans and corrupt Democrats, which wasformed during Republican ascendency, proved too strong for honest men. The charter of 1870 which I denounced in a public speech, had thevotes of nearly all the Republicans and Democrats. "[1328] Still, headmitted that Tammany was synonymous with Democracy, and that itscorruption, especially since its blighting influence had become sonotorious and oppressive, impeded and dishonoured the party. Under itsrule primaries had been absurdities and elections a farce. Withoutbeing thoroughly reorganised, therefore, the party, in his opinion, could not exist. [1329]

[Footnote 1328: Tilden's letter to the Democracy, dated September 11, 1871. --New York _Tribune_, September 22, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1329: Tilden's interview. --_Ibid. _, Sept 23. ]

In this spirit Tilden entered upon the great work of his life. Twoclasses of Democrats faced him--the more clamorous reformers and theenemies of all reform. To the latter reorganisation seemed a recklessstep. It argued that the loss of the Tammany vote meant thedissolution of the party, and that a great organisation ought not tobe destroyed for the wrong of a few individuals, since the party wasnot responsible for them. Besides, the executive power of the State, with its vast official patronage scattered throughout all thecounties, would oppose such a policy. On the other hand, the firstclass, possessing little faith in the party's ability to purge itself, threatened to turn reform into political revolution. It desired a newparty. Nevertheless, Tilden did not hesitate. He issued letters tothousands of Democrats, declaring that "wherever the gangrene ofcorruption has reached the Democratic party we must take a knife andcut it out by the roots;"[1330] he counselled with Horatio Seymour andCharles O'Conor; he originated the movement that ultimately sent areform delegation to the State convention; he consented to stand forthe Assembly; and finally, to secure the fruit of three months' work, he raised one-half the funds expended by the Democratic reformorganisation. 

[Footnote 1330: Tilden's letter, _Ibid. _, Sept. 22. ]

The Ring had not been an indifferent observer of these efforts. Whileit cared little for the control of a State convention without agovernor to nominate, its continued existence absolutely depended upona majority in the Senate. Tweed planned to carry the five senatorialdistricts in the city, and to re-elect if possible the eightRepublican senators whom he had used the year before. [1331] This wouldinsure him control. To achieve his purpose word was sent to Tildenearly in August that he could name the delegates to the Stateconvention and the candidates upon the State ticket if he would notinterfere with Tammany's legislative nominations. If Tilden had notbefore distrusted Tweed, such a proposition must have aroused hissuspicion. But Tilden, conscious of the need of an anti-Tweedlegislature, had surmised the Ring's plan as early as Tweed devisedit, and he replied with firmness that everything beside thelegislative ticket was of minor importance to him. Similarpropositions, presented by powerful men from all parts of the Statewith the plea that a compromise would "save the party, " received thesame answer. [1332] Meanwhile, he laboured to shorten the life of theRing. To him Richard Connolly appealed for protection against Tweed'streachery, and at Tilden's suggestion the comptroller turned over hisoffice to Andrew H. Green, thus assuring the protection of the recordswhich subsequently formed the basis of all civil and criminal actions. Tilden's sagacity in procuring the opinion of Charles O'Conor alsosecured the Mayor's acquiescence in Green's possession of the office, while his patient investigation of the Broadway Bank accountsdiscovered the judicial proofs that opened the prison doors. 

[Footnote 1331: Tilden's Speech. --New York _Times_, November 3, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1332: Tweed's Speech. --_Ibid. _]

These were fatal blows to the Ring. The leading Democratic papers ofthe interior, notably the Buffalo _Courier_ and Albany _Argus_, cameboldly out demanding the dismissal of the shameless robbers who weredisgracing the name and destroying the future of their party. Moreover, Tilden, like an avenging angel, with all the skill andknowledge of his kind, had united into one great reform party the fourDemocratic organisations of the city, pledged to oppose Tammany. [1333]This formidable combination, having complied with every requirement ofthe State committee, selected delegates to the State convention. Thehearts of Tweed and his associates may well have sunk within them asthey studied this list. There were able lawyers like William E. Curtis; powerful merchants like Havermeyer; influential editors likeOttendorfer; solid business men like Schell; and determined members ofthe Committee of Seventy like Roswell D. Hatch, who had beenconspicuous in tracking the thieves. But the name that must have shonemost formidably in the eyes of Tweed was that of Charles O'Conor. Itstood at the head of the list like a threatening cloud in the sky, ready to bring ruin upon the Ring. The moral support of his greatlegal fame, affirming the validity of Andrew H. Green's possession ofthe comptroller's office, had intimidated O'Gorman, Tweed'scorporation counsel, and shattered the plot to forcibly eject Tilden'sfaithful friend under colour of judicial process. Thus the reformparty seemed to be in the ascendant. With confidence Tilden expressedthe belief that the State convention would repudiate Tammany. [1334]

[Footnote 1333: The German Democratic General Committee, with 30, 000votes; the Democratic Union, with 27, 000; the Ledwith party, with10, 000; and the Young Democracy, led by ex-Sheriff O'Brien. For fiveyears Mozart Hall, under Fernando Wood, had not placed a ticket in thefield. ]

[Footnote 1334: Interview, New York _Tribune_, September 23, 1871. ]

Although it had become well known that Tilden would not compromise, Tweed lost none of his former prestige. His control of the Stateconvention which assembled at Rochester on October 4 (1871) seemed asfirm as on that day in 1870 when he renominated John T. Hoffman. Itwas still the fashion to praise all he said and all he did. Before hisarrival the Reformers claimed a majority, but as the up-Statedelegates crowded his rooms to bend the obsequious knee he reducedthese claims to a count, finding only forty-two disobedient members. He was too tactful, however, to appear in the convention hall. Hisduty was to give orders, and like a soldier he pitched hisheadquarters near the scene of action, boasting that his friends wereeverywhere ready for battle. 

In his opening speech Tilden touched the Ring frauds with the delicacyof a surgeon examining an abscess, and the faint response that greetedhis condemnation of corruption satisfied him that the convention didnot appreciate the danger of party blood-poisoning. The truth of thisdiagnosis more fully appeared when Tammany, "in the interest ofharmony, " waived its right to participate in the proceedings. Thewhirlwind of applause which greeted this "unselfish act" had scarcelysubsided when a delegate from Kings county, acting for Tweed, movedthe previous question on a resolution reciting that hereafter, on thecall of the roll, the city of New York be omitted since it presentedno delegation bearing the prestige of regularity. This threw theReformers into an animated counsel. They knew of the proposedwithdrawal of Tammany, which seemed to them to smooth the way for theacceptance of their credentials, but the resolution came withstartling suddenness. It narrowed the question of their admission to amere technicality and cut off debate. Tilden, appreciating theambuscade into which he had fallen, exhausted every expedient tomodify the parliamentary situation, knowing it to be in the power ofthe convention to accept another delegation regardless of itsregularity, as the Republicans had done at Syracuse in the previousweek. But the delegates derisively laughed at his awkward predicamentas they adopted the resolution by a vote of 90 to 4. 

By this act the convention clearly indicated its purpose to treat thefraud issue as a local matter and to keep it out of the Statecampaign. It intended to denounce the crime and the criminals, and toallow no one to become a delegate who had aided or in anywise profitedby the conspiracy, but it would not recognise a delegation whichdesired to reorganise the party in the metropolis by humiliating agreat association whose regularity had been accepted for many years, and which had finally turned the State over to the Democracy. Thisview had the support of every office-holder and of every appointee ofthe Executive, whose great desire to "save the party" had itsinspiration in a greater desire to save themselves. On the other hand, the minority argued that allowing Tammany voluntarily to withdraw fromthe convention was equivalent to its endorsement, thus giving itsnominations regularity. This would compel the Democratic masses, inorder to participate in the primaries, to vote its ticket. Tildensought to avoid this regularity just as Conkling had destroyed theGreeley committee, and if office-holders had supported him as they didthe Senator he must have won as easily. 

The convention's treatment of Horatio Seymour also exhibited itsdislike of the reformer. Seymour came to the convention to be itspresident, and upon his entrance to the hall had been hailed, amidsttumultuous cheers, as "Our future president in 1872. " While waitingthe conclusion of the preliminary proceedings he observed FrancisKernan sitting outside the rail with the rejected Reformers. Hesitatingly, and in the hope, he said, of arousing no unpleasantdiscussion, he moved the admission of the veteran Democrat, whom hedescribed as grown gray in the party harness, and whose very presencewas a sufficient credential to his title to a seat. Kernan, being insympathy with Tilden, was _non persona grata_ to Tammany, and Seymourhad scarcely resumed his seat when the ubiquitous delegate from Kings, with a flourish of rhetoric, promptly substituted another, who, healleged, was the regularly elected delegate as well as "the friend ofthat great Democrat, John T. Hoffman. " The convention, frantic withdelight at the mention of the Governor's name, saw the Oneidan growlividly pale with chagrin at this exhibition of Tammany's manners. Seymour had lived long in years, in fame, and in the esteem of hisparty. He could hardly have had any personal enemies. He possessed nocapricious dislikes, and his kindly heart, in spite of a statelinessof bearing, won all the people who came near him. To be thus opposedand bantered in a Democratic assembly was a deep humiliation, andafter expressing the hope that the Tammany man would fight for theDemocratic party as gallantly in future as he had fought against it inthe past, the illustrious statesman withdrew his motion. When, later, his name was announced as presiding officer of the permanentorganisation, the convention discovered to its dismay that Seymour, feigning sickness, had returned to Utica. [1335]

[Footnote 1335: "Governor Seymour was given to understand that he couldnot be president of the convention unless he would forego hisphilippic against the Tammany thieves. This he declined to do. "--NewYork _Times_ (editorial), October 9, 1871. ]

At the end of the day's work it was plain that Tweed had controlledthe convention. The Reformers had been excluded, the committee oncontested seats had refused them a hearing, Seymour was driven home, and a eulogy of Tammany's political services had been applauded to theecho. The platform did, indeed, express indignation at the "corruptionand extravagance recently brought to light in the municipal affairs ofthe city of New York, " and condemned "as unworthy of countenance ortoleration all who are responsible, " but the contrast between the actsof the convention and the words of its platform made its professionsof indignation seem incongruous if not absolutely empty. When onespeaker, with rhetorical effect, pronounced the frauds in New York"the mere dreams of Republican imagination" delegates sprang to theirfeet amidst ringing cheers. In the joy of victory, Tweed, withgood-natured contempt, characterised Seymour, Tilden, and Kernan as"three troublesome old fools. "[1336]

[Footnote 1336: New York _Tribune_, October 6, 1871. ]

After adjournment the Reformers made no concealment of their bitterdissatisfaction. Oswald Ottendorfer, editor of the most powerfulGerman Democratic organ then in the State, threatened to issue anaddress denouncing their betrayal, and William E. Curtis, referring tothe refusal of the credentials' committee, declared that a voice fromthe Democratic masses of New York, seeking relief from a gang ofthieves, was stronger, higher, and more sublime than mere questions oftechnicality. Under the spur of this threatened revolt, theconvention, when it reconvened the next day, listened to theReformers. Their recital was not a panegyric. Ottendorfer said thatthe operation of the previous question exposed the party to thesuspicion that Tammany's seats would be open for their return afterthe storm of indignation had subsided. O'Conor, in a letter, declaredthat absolute freedom from all complicity in the great official crimeand an utter intolerance of all persons suspected of sympathy with itmust be maintained, otherwise its action would inflict a fatal woundupon the party. Curtis characterised the question as one of life ordeath to a great community weighed down by oppression and crime, andmaintained that the convention, if it sought to avoid its duty by thesubterfuge already enacted, would show both sympathy and complicitywith the oligarchy of terror and infamy. These statements did notplease the Ring men, who, with much noise, passed contemptuously outof the hall. 

Riotous interruption, however, did not begin until Tilden announcedthat the real point of the controversy was to estop Tammany, afternominating five senators and twenty-one assemblymen, from declaringthe Democratic masses out of the party because they refused to votefor its candidates. The whip of party regularity was Tweed's lastreliance, and when Tilden proclaimed absolution to those whodisregarded it, the friends of Tammany drowned his words with loudcalls to order. The excitement threatened to become a riot, butTilden, caring as little for disapprobation as the son of Tisander inthe story told by Herodotus, calmly awaited silence. "I was stating, "he continued, without the slightest tremor of a singularly unmusicalvoice, "what I considered the objection to Tammany Hall, aside fromthe cloud that now covers that concern, and I am free to avow beforethis convention that I shall not vote for any one of Mr. Tweed'smembers of the Legislature. And if that is to be regarded the regularticket, I will resign my place as chairman of the State committee andhelp my people stem the tide of corruption. When I come to do my dutyas an elector, I shall cast my vote for honest men. "[1337] Then, toshow his independence if not his contempt of the Tweed-bound body, Tilden suddenly waived aside the question of the Reformers' admissionand moved to proceed to the nomination of a State ticket. [1338]

[Footnote 1337: New York _Tribune_, October 6, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1338: Except the candidate for Secretary of State, the oldTweed ticket was renominated as follows: Secretary of State, DiedrichWillers, Seneca; Comptroller, Asher P. Nichols, Erie; Treasurer, Wheeler H. Bristol, Tioga; Attorney-General, Marshall B. Champlain, Allegany; Engineer, Van R. Richmond, Wayne; Canal Commissioner, GeorgeW. Chapman; Prison Inspector, David B. McNeil, Cayuga. ]

The convention was stunned. It became dizzy when he denied Tammany'sright to be regarded as the regular organisation, but hisproclamation, defiantly and clearly made, that hereafter he shouldbolt its nominations even if the convention refused to impeach itsregularity, struck a trenchant blow that silenced rather than excited. Such courage, displayed at such a critical moment, was sublime. Anorganised revolt against an association which had for years beenaccepted as regular by State conventions meant the sacrifice of amajority and an invitation to certain defeat, yet he hurled the wordsof defiance into the face of the convention with the energy of the OldGuard when called upon to surrender at Waterloo. The course taken byTilden on this memorable occasion made his own career, and also a newcareer for his party. From that hour he became the real leader of theDemocracy. Although more than a twelvemonth must pass before his voicegave the word of command, his genius as a born master was recognised. 

The attitude of the Reformers strengthened the Republicans, whosedistractions must otherwise have compassed their defeat. Murphyism andTweedism resembled each other so much that a contest against eitherpresented a well-defined issue of political morality. The greaterimportance of the Tammany frauds, however, obscured all other issues. To preserve their organisation in the up-State counties the Democratsmade creditable local nominations and professed support of the Stateticket, but in the city the entire voting population, irrespective offormer party alignments, divided into Tammany and anti-Tammanyfactions. As the crusade progressed the details of the great crime, becoming better understood, made Tammany's position intolerable. Everyrespectable journal opposed it and every organisation crucified it. Ina double-page cartoon, startling in its conception and splendidlypicturesque, Nast represented the Tammany tiger, with glaring eyes anddistended jaws, tearing the vitals from the crushed and robbed city, while Tweed and his associates sat enthroned. [1339] "Let's stop thosedamned pictures, " proposed Tweed when he saw it. "I don't care so muchwhat the papers write about me--my constituents can't read; but theycan see pictures. "[1340]

[Footnote 1339: _Harper's Weekly_, November 4, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1340: Paine, _Life of Nast_, p. 179. ]

On October 26 all doubt as to the result of the election wasdissipated. Until then belief in Tweed's direct profit in the Ring'sovercharges was based upon presumption. No intelligent man having anaccurate knowledge of the facts could doubt his guilt, since everycircumstance plainly pointed to it, but judicial proof did not existuntil furnished by the investigation of the Broadway Bank, whichTilden personally conducted. His analysis of this informationdisclosed the fact that two-thirds of the money paid under thesanction of the Board of Audit had passed into the possession ofpublic officials and their accomplices, some of it being actuallytraced into Tweed's pocket, and upon this evidence, verified byTilden's affidavit, the Attorney-General based an action on which awarrant issued for Tweed's arrest. This announcement flashed over theState eleven days before the election. It was a powerful campaigndocument. People had not realised what an avenging hand pursuedTammany, but they now understood that Tweed was a common thief, andthat Tilden, by reducing strong suspicion to a mathematical certainty, had closed the mouths of eulogists and apologists. 

The result of the election carried dismay and confusion to Tammany. Its register, its judges, its aldermen, a majority of its assistantaldermen, fourteen of its twenty-one assemblymen, and four of its fivesenators were defeated, while Tweed's majority fell from 22, 000 in1869 to 10, 000. As expected the Republicans reaped the benefit of theanti-Tammany vote, carrying the State by 18, 000 majority and theLegislature by 79 on joint ballot. [1341] To obliterate Tweedism, Tildenhad overthrown his party, but he had not fallen, Samson-like, under theruin. 

[Footnote 1341: Scribner, 387, 107; Willers, 368, 204. Legislature:Senate, 24 Republicans, 8 Democrats. Assembly, 97 Republicans, 31Democrats. --New York _Tribune_, November 27, 1871. 

Compared with the returns for 1870, the Democratic vote, outside ofNew York and the six counties in its immediate vicinity, fell off24, 167, while the Republican vote fell off 9, 235. In New York andadjoining counties the Republican vote increased 30, 338. --_Ibid. _

In New York City the majority for the Democratic candidate forsecretary of state was 29, 189, while the majority for the Republicanor Union Reform candidate for register was 28, 117. --_Ibid. _]

CHAPTER XXII

GREELEY NOMINATED FOR PRESIDENT

1872

Although the Tammany exposure had absorbed public attention, theRepublican party did not escape serious criticism. Reconstruction haddisappointed many of its friends. By controlling the negro voteRepublican administrations in several Southern States had wroughtincalculable harm to the cause of free-government and equal suffrage. The State debt of Alabama had increased from six millions in 1860 toforty millions, that of Florida from two hundred thousand to fifteenmillions, and that of Georgia from three millions to forty-fourmillions. "I say to-day, in the face of heaven and before allmankind, " declared Tilden, "that the carpet-bag governments areinfinitely worse than Tweed's government of the city of NewYork. "[1342]

[Footnote 1342: New York _Tribune_, September 5, 1872. ]

Following such gross misgovernment the reactionary outbreaksinfluenced Congress to pass the so-called Ku-Klux Act of April 20, 1871, designed to suppress these outrages. This measure, although notdissimilar to others which protected the negro in his right ofsuffrage, met with stout Republican opposition, the spirited debatesuddenly heralding a serious party division. Trumbull held itunconstitutional, while Schurz, reviewing the wretched Stategovernments of the South, the venal officials who misled the negro, and the riotous corruption of men in possession of great authority, attacked the policy of the law as unwise and unsound. 

Not less disturbing was the failure of Congress to grant universalamnesty. To this more than to all other causes did the critics of theRepublican party ascribe the continuance of the animosities of thewar, since it deprived the South of the assistance of its formerleading men, and turned it over to inexperienced, and, in someinstances, to corrupt men who used political disabilities as so muchcapital upon which to trade. The shocking brazenness of these methodshad been disclosed in Georgia under the administration of GovernorBullock, who secured from Congress amnesty for his legislative friendswhile others were excluded. Schurz declared "When universal suffragewas granted to secure the equal rights of all, universal amnesty oughtto have been granted to make all the resources of politicalintelligence and experience available for the promotion of the welfareof all. "[1343]

[Footnote 1343: _Congressional Globe_, January 30, 1872, p. 699. ]

The South had expected the President to develop a liberal policy. Thespirit displayed at Appomattox, his "Let us have peace" letter ofacceptance, and his intervention in Virginia and Mississippi soonafter his inauguration, encouraged the belief that he would conciliaterather than harass it. His approval of the Ku-Klux law, therefore, intensified a feeling already strained to bitterness, and although headministered the law with prudence, a physical contest occurred in theSouth and a political rupture in the North. The hostility of theAmerican people to the use of troops at elections had once beforeproved a source of angry contention, and the criticism which nowrained upon the Republican party afforded new evidence of the public'sanimosity. 

These strictures would have awakened no unusual solicitude in theminds of Republicans had their inspiration been confined to politicalopponents, but suddenly there came to the aid of the Democrats aformidable array of Republicans. Although the entering wedge was adifference of policy growing out of conditions in the Southern States, other reasons contributed to the rupture. The removal of Motley asminister to England, coming so soon after Sumner's successfulresistance to the San Domingo scheme, was treated as an attempt topunish a senator for the just exercise of his right and the honestperformance of his duty. Nine months later Sumner was discontinued aschairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. If doubt existed as tothe ground of Motley's removal, not a shadow clouded the reason forSumner's deposition. The cause assigned was that he no longermaintained personal and social relations with the President andSecretary of State, but when Schurz stigmatised it as "a flimsypretext" he voiced the opinion of a part of the press which acceptedit as a display of pure vindictiveness. "The indignation over yourremoval, " telegraphed John W. Forney, "extends to men of all parties. I have not heard one Republican approve it. "[1344] Among Sumner'scorrespondents Ira Harris noted the popular disapproval andindignation in New York. "Another term of such arrogant assumption ofpower and wanton acquiescence, " said Schurz, "may furnish the flunkieswith a store of precedents until people cease to look for ordinarymeans of relief. "[1345]

[Footnote 1344: Pierce, _Life of Sumner_, Vol. 4, p. 477. ]

[Footnote 1345: New York _Tribune_, April 13, 1872. ]

More disturbing because more irritating in its effects was theAdministration's disposition to permit the control of its patronage bya coterie of senators, who preferred to strengthen faction regardlessof its influence. Under this policy something had occurred in nearlyevery Northern State to make leading men and newspapers bitter, and asthe years of the Administration multiplied censure became moredrastic. Perhaps the influence of Conkling presented a normal phase ofthis practice. The Senator stood for much that had brought criticismupon the party. He approved the Southern policy and the acquisition ofSan Domingo. He indulged in a personal attack on Sumner, advised hisdeposition from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, commended theremoval of Motley, and voted against the confirmation of E. RockwoodHoar for associate justice of the Supreme Court. [1346] He also opposedcivil service reform. 

[Footnote 1346: George F. Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 306; Vol. 2, p. 77. ]

A statesman so pronounced in his views and in control of abundantpatronage was not likely to change a contest for personal advantageinto a choice of public policies. Such an one appointed men because oftheir influence in controlling political caucuses and conventions. "The last two State conventions were mockeries, " declared Greeley, "some of the delegates having been bought out of our hands and othersdriven out of the convention. . . . I saw numbers, under threats oflosing federal office, dragooned into doing the bidding of oneman. "[1347] The removal of officials whose names stood high in the rollof those who had greatly honoured their State deeply wounded manyardent Republicans, but not until the appointment and retention ofThomas Murphy did criticism scorn the veil of hint and innuendo. Thisact created a corps of journalistic critics whose unflagging satireand unswerving severity entertained the President's opponents andamazed his friends. They spoke for the popular side at the moment of agreat crisis. Almost daily during the eighteen months of Murphy'sadministration the press of the whole country, under the lead of the_Tribune_, pictured the collector as a crafty army contractor and thepartner of Tweed. "I think the warmest friends of Grant, " wroteCurtis, "feel that he has failed terribly as President, not from wantof honesty but from want of tact and great ignorance. It is apolitical position and he knew nothing of politics. "[1348] Thesacrifice of the best men among his cabinet advisers added greatly tothis unrest. In one of his letters, Lowell, unintentionallyoverlooking Hamilton Fish, declared that E. Rockwood Hoar and Jacob D. Cox were "the only really strong men in the Cabinet. "[1349] After thelatter's forced resignation and the former's sudden exit to make roomfor a Southern Republican in order to placate carpet-bag senators forthe removal of Sumner, the great critics of the Administration againcut loose. "How long, " asked Bowles, "does the President suppose thepeople will patiently endure this dealing with high office as if itwere a presidential perquisite, to be given away upon his mere whim, without regard to the claims of the office? It was bad enough when heonly dealt so with consulates and small post-offices; but now that hehas come to foreign ministers and cabinet officers it isintolerable. "[1350]

[Footnote 1347: New York _Tribune_, April 13, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1348: Cary, _Life of Curtis_, p. 213. ]

[Footnote 1349: _Letters of_, Vol. 2, p. 57. 

"There was undoubtedly great corruption and maladministration in thecountry in the time of President Grant. Selfish men and ambitious mengot the ear of that simple man and confiding President. They studiedGrant, some of them, as the shoemaker measures the foot of hiscustomer. "--Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 197. ]

[Footnote 1350: Springfield (Mass. ) _Republican_, November 12, 1870. ]

Under these conditions Republicans had been losing strength. In theelection of 1870 their numbers, for the first time since 1864, hadfallen below a two-thirds majority in the national House, while theDemocrats gained four United States senators. In the same year CarlSchurz, with the assistance of the Democrats, had carried Missouri onthe issue of universal amnesty. As the disaffection with theAdministration became more pronounced, this faction, assuming the nameof Liberal Republicans, met in convention at Jefferson City on January24, 1872, and invited all Republicans who favoured reform to meet innational mass convention at Cincinnati on May 1. This call acted likea lighted match in a pile of shavings, prominent Republicans in everyState, including many leading newspapers, giving it instant and heartyresponse. Among other journals in New York the _Nation_ and the_Evening Post_ guardedly approved the movement, and the _World_, although a Democratic organ, offered conditional support. The_Tribune_ also encouraged the hope that it would eventually swing intoline. 

Horace Greeley's principles were in substantial accord with those ofhis party. He had little liking for civil service reform; theintegrity of the national debt invoked his unflagging support; and thesuppression of the Ku-Klux, although favouring a liberal Southernpolicy, had received his encouragement. [1351] Nor had he said anythingin speech or writing disrespectful of the President. He did not favourhis renomination, but he had faith in the essential honesty andsoundness of Republican voters. Moreover, the demand for "a genuinereform of the tariff" made it impossible to reconcile his policy withthat of the Liberal Republicans of Missouri. 

[Footnote 1351: New York _Tribune_, May 31, 1870; February 27, 1871;May 1, 1872. ]

Nevertheless, Greeley's position in the Republican party had becomeintolerable. Conkling controlled the city and State machines, Fentonbelonged in a hopeless minority, and Grant resented the _Tribune's_opposition to his succession. Besides, the editor's friends had beendeeply humiliated. The appointment of Murphy was accepted as "a plaindeclaration of war. "[1352] The treatment of the Greeley committee, overthrown by the power of patronage, also festered in his heart. "Formore than a year, " he said, "to be an avowed friend of Governor Fentonwas to be marked for proscription at the White House. "[1353] Thus, withthe past unforgiven and the future without hope, the great journalistdeclared that "We propose to endure this for one term only. "[1354]

[Footnote 1352: _Ibid. _, April 25, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1353: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 1354: _Ibid. _]

From the first it was apparent that the Republican schism, to besuccessful, needed the support of the _Tribune_. Although itsinfluence had materially suffered during and since the war, it stillcontrolled a great constituency throughout the North, and the longerits chief hesitated to join the new party the more earnest andeloquent did the appeals of the Liberals become. At last, relying upona compromise of their economic differences, Greeley accepted theinvitation to meet the Missouri reformers in convention. [1355] Hisaction was the occasion for much rejoicing, and on April 13 theLiberals of New York City began their campaign amidst the cheers of anenthusiastic multitude assembled at Cooper Institute. [1356] The Fentonleaders, conspicuously posted on the platform, indicated neither areal love of reform nor an absence of office-seekers, but the presenceamong the vice-presidents of E. L. Godkin of the _Nation_ and ParkeGodwin of the _Post_ removed all doubt as to the sincere desire ofsome of those present to replace Grant with a President who woulddiscourage the use of patronage by enforcing civil service reform, andencourage good government in the South by enacting universal amnesty. To Schurz's charge that the national Republican convention would bemade up of office-holders, Oliver P. Morton declared, three days laterin the same hall, that there would be more office-seekers atCincinnati than office-holders at Philadelphia. [1357]

[Footnote 1355: _Ibid. _, March 30, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1356: New York _Tribune_, April 14, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1357: Dudley Foulke, _Life of Morton_, Vol. 2, p. 255. ]

The managers of the Liberal Republican movement preferred CharlesFrancis Adams for President. Adams' public life encouraged the beliefthat he would practise his professed principles, and although isolatedfrom all political associations it was thought his brilliantchampionship of the North during the temporising of the Englishgovernment would make his nomination welcome. David Davis and LymanTrumbull of Illinois were likewise acceptable, and Salmon P. Chase hadhis admirers. Greeley's availability was also talked of. His signatureto the bail-bond of Jefferson Davis, releasing the ex-president of theConfederacy from prison, attracted attention to his presidentialambition, while his loud declaration for universal amnesty opened theway for a tour of the South. At a brilliant reception in Union Square, given after his return, he described the carpet-bagger as "a worthlessadventurer whom the Southern States hate and ought to hate, " likeninghim to the New York legislator "who goes to Albany nominally tolegislate, but really to plunder and steal. "[1358] His excessive zealfor Democratic support led to the intimation that he had economisedhis epithets in criticising the Tweed ring. [1359] As early as February, Nast, with his usual foresight, pictured "H. G. , the editor" offeringthe nomination to "H. G. , the farmer, " who, rejoicing in the name ofCincinnatus, had turned from the plough toward the dome of the Capitolin the distance. [1360] To the charge that he was a candidate forPresident, Greeley frankly admitted that while he was not an aspirantfor office, he should never decline any duty which his politicalfriends saw fit to devolve upon him. [1361]

[Footnote 1358: New York _Tribune_, June 13, 1871. ]

[Footnote 1359: Paine, _Life of Nast_, p. 162. ]

[Footnote 1360: _Ibid. _, p. 223. ]

[Footnote 1361: New York _Tribune_, May 30, 1871. ]

Nevertheless, the men whose earnest efforts had prepared the way forthe Liberal movement did not encourage Greeley's ambition. Especiallywere his great newspaper associates dumb. A week before the conventionBowles of the Springfield _Republican_ mentioned him with Sumner andTrumbull as a proper person for the nomination, but Godkin of the_Nation_, Halstead of the Cincinnati _Commercial_, and Horace White ofthe Chicago _Tribune_ remained silent. The _Evening Post_ spoke of himas "the simple-minded philanthropist, with his various scraps ofso-called principles. "[1362] Jacob D. Cox, Stanley Matthews, and GeorgeHoadley, the conspicuous Liberal triumvirate of Ohio, repudiated hiscandidacy, and Schurz, in his opening speech as president of theconvention, without mentioning names, plainly designated Adams as themost suitable candidate and Greeley as the weakest. [1363]

[Footnote 1362: New York _Post_, May 2, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1363: New York _Times_, May 3. ]

The first New Yorker to appear at Cincinnati was Reuben E. Fenton, followed by John Cochrane, Waldo M. Hutchins, Sinclair Tousey, andother seceders from the Syracuse convention of 1871. These politicalveterans, with the cunning practised at ward caucuses, quicklyorganised the New York delegation in the interest of Greeley. Onmotion of Cochrane, Hutchins became chairman of a committee to namesixty-eight delegates, the people present being allowed to report twodelegates from their respective congressional districts. These tacticsbecame more offensive when the committee, instead of accepting thedelegates reported, arbitrarily assumed the right to substituteseveral well-known friends of Greeley. Not content with thisadvantage, the majority, on motion of Cochrane, adopted the unit rule, thus silencing one-third of the delegation. [1364] Henry R. Selden, whose reputation for fair dealing had preceded him, characterised thisperformance as "a most infamous outrage, " and upon hearing a protestof the minority, presented by Theodore Bacon of Rochester, Schurzdenounced the proceeding "as extraordinary" and "as indicating thatthe reform movement, so far as it concerned New York, was virtually inthe hands of a set of political tricksters, who came here not forreform, but for plunder. "[1365]

[Footnote 1364: New York _Evening Post_, May 2, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1365: _Ibid. _]

Next to the "tricksters" the platform-makers embarrassed theconvention. It was easy to recognise the equality of all men beforethe law, to pledge fidelity to the Union, to oppose the re-election ofthe President, to denounce repudiation, to demand localself-government for the Southern States, to ask "the immediate andabsolute removal of all disabilities imposed on account of therebellion, " and to favour "a thorough reform of the civil service;"but for a tariff reform assemblage to frame a resolution which theapostle of protection could accept required great patience andpersistence. The vexatious delay became so intolerable that delegatesinsisted upon making a ticket before adopting a platform. Cochranebitterly opposed such a resolution since Greeley's candidacy, if nothis support of the movement, depended upon the convention's attitudeon the tariff. Indeed, not until the committee on resolutions hadaccepted what the editor himself dictated was the knotty point finallysettled. "Recognising, " said the platform, "that there are in ourmidst honest but irreconcilable differences of opinion with regard tothe respective systems of protection and free-trade, we remit thediscussion of the subject to the people in their congressionaldistricts and to the decision of Congress thereon, wholly free fromexecutive interference or dictation. "

Although the resolution was out of keeping with the spirit of themovement, it seemed proper to pay this extortionate price forGreeley's support, since his conspicuous championship of protectionmade it impossible for him to acquiesce in any impairment of thatdoctrine; but the advantage that such a concession gave his candidacyappears not to have occurred to the leaders who embodied whatever ofprinciple and conviction the convention possessed. Indeed, no schemeof the managers contemplated his nomination. To many persons Greeley'saspiration took the form of "a joke. "[1366] Nor was his name seriouslydiscussed until the delegates assembled at Cincinnati. Even then thebelief obtained that after a complimentary vote to him and otherfavourite sons, Adams would become their beneficiary. But the work ofFenton quickly betrayed itself. In obedience to a bargain, Gratz Brownof Missouri, at the end of the first ballot, withdrew in favour ofGreeley, and although Adams held the lead on the next four ballots, the strength of Davis and Trumbull shrivelled while Greeley's keptincreasing. Yet the managers did not suspect a stampede. Eighty percent. Of the New Yorker's votes came from the Middle and SouthernStates. [1367] Moreover, the Trumbull men held the balance of power. After several notable changes Adams still led by half a hundred. Onthe sixth ballot, however, to the surprise and chagrin of the Adamsmanagers, Trumbull's delegates began breaking to Greeley, and in theconfusion which quickly developed into a storm of blended cheers andhisses, Illinois and the Middle West carried the _Tribune's_ chiefbeyond the required number of votes. [1368] Gratz Brown was thennominated for Vice-President. 

[Footnote 1366: New York _Evening Post_, May 4, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1367: Southern States, 104; Middle, 96; New England, 15;Western, 19; Pacific, 24. ]

[Footnote 1368:

Whole number of votes 714Necessary to a choice 358

 First Second Third Fourth Fifth SixthAdams 203 243 264 279 309 187Greeley 147 245 258 251 258 482Trumbull 110 148 156 141 91 10Davis 92-1/2 75 44 51 30 6Brown 95 2 2 2Curtin 62Chase 2-1/2 1 2 29]

Greeley's nomination astounded the general public as much as itdisappointed the Liberal leaders. Bowles called the result "a fateabove logic and superior to reason, "[1369] but the _Evening Post_thought it due to "commonplace chicanery, intrigue, bargaining, andcompromise. "[1370] Stanley Matthews, who was temporary chairman of theconvention, declared himself greatly chagrined at the whole matter. "Ihave concluded, " he said, "that as a politician and a President maker, I am not a success. "[1371] Hoadly published a card calling the result"the alliance of Tammany and Blair, " and William Cullen Bryant, OswaldOttendorfer of the _Staats-Zeitung_, and other anti-protectionists ofNew York, made a fruitless effort to put another candidate before thecountry. [1372] In the end the _Nation_ and the _Evening Post_ supportedPresident Grant. 

[Footnote 1369: Merriam, _Life of Bowles_, Vol. 2, p. 210. ]

[Footnote 1370: New York _Evening Post_, May 4, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1371: Warden, _Life of Chase_, p. 732. ]

[Footnote 1372: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1872, p. 779. ]

The nomination deeply mortified the Democrats. They had encouraged therevolt, expecting the selection of Adams, or Trumbull, or David Davis, whom they could readily adopt, but Greeley, a lifelong antagonist, plunged them into trouble. No other Republican had so continuouslyvilified them. From his introduction to political life in 1840 he hadwaged a constant and personal warfare, often using his strong, idiomatic English with the ferocity of a Wilkes. A caricature byGreeley was as much feared as a cartoon by Nast. He spared no one. Hehad assailed Seymour with a violence that might well seem to have madeany form of political reconciliation impossible. With equal skill hehad aimed his epithets at every Democratic statesman and politicianfrom Van Buren to Fernando Wood, the sting of his relentless andmerciless criticism goading each one into frenzy. For them now toassume to overlook such treatment and accept its author as a politicalassociate and exemplar seemed a mockery. Several Democratic journals, following the lead of the _World_, refused to do so, while others, shrouding their disinclination in a non-committal tone, awaited theassembling of the State convention which met at Rochester on May 15. Seymour did not attend this meeting, and although Tilden carefullyavoided an expression of opinion, the delegates, after approving theCincinnati platform, insisted upon referring the choice of candidatesto the national convention, sending John T. Hoffman as adelegate-at-large to represent them. 

One month later the Democratic national convention met atBaltimore. [1373] Although the delegates, especially those from theSouth, indicated a growing sentiment in favour of Greeley, the absenceof veteran leaders from the North created much comment. Hendricks ofIndiana sent his regrets; Seymour also remained at home; and Tilden, Kernan, and Sanford E. Church found it convenient to be otherwiseengaged. But August Belmont appeared, and for the last time, aftertwelve years of service and defeat as chairman of the nationalcommittee, called the convention to order. John T. Hoffman alsoappeared. He was the best known if not the wisest delegate in theconvention, and as he actively joined the Southern leaders inencouraging the new order of things, it was easy to understand how hisstar might still have been in the ascendant had his politicalassociates been content with power without plunder. Samuel S. Cox, recently characterised by Greeley as "our carpet-bag representativein Congress" who had "cast in his lot with thieves, "[1374] alsosmoothed the way for his critic's nomination. He could forgive if hedid not forget. 

[Footnote 1373: July 9, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1374: New York _Tribune_, November 1, 1871. Cox's election toCongress from New York occurred in 1870, three years after he became aresident of the State. ]

Next to Cox sat John Kelly, the new boss of Tammany. The combativenessindicated by the form of the head was accentuated by the conspicuousjaw, the firm, thin-lipped mouth, and the closely cropped hair andbeard, already fading into white; but there was nothing rough orrowdyish in his manner or appearance. He dressed neatly, listenedrespectfully, and spoke in low, gentle tones, an Irish sense of humourfrequently illuminating a square, kindly face. It was noticeable, too, that although he began life as a mason and had handled his fists likea professional, his hands were small and shapely. Kelly had served twoyears as alderman, four years in Congress, and six years as sheriff. He had also represented his county in the national conventions of 1864and 1868. His character for honesty had not been above suspicion. Mencharged that he was "counted in" as congressman, and that whilesheriff he had obtained a large sum of money by illegal methods. [1375]In 1868 he suddenly sailed for Europe because of alleged ill-health, where he remained until late in 1871. He was a rich man then. [1376]Now, at the age of fifty-one, he was destined to make himself not lesspowerful or widely known than the great criminal whom hesucceeded. [1377] With the aid of Tilden, O'Conor, and other menconspicuous in the reform movement, he had reorganised Tammany in thepreceding April, increasing a new general committee to five hundredmembers, and with great shrewdness causing the appointment ofcommittees to coöperate with the Bar Association, with the Committeeof Seventy, and with the Municipal Taxpayers' Association. Theserepresented regenerated Tammany. Kelly affected extreme modesty, butas he moved about the hall of the national convention, urging thenomination of Greeley, the delegates recognised a master in the art ofcontrolling men. 

[Footnote 1375: Myers, _History of Tammany_, pp. 301, 305. ]

[Footnote 1376: _Ibid. _, pp. 261 and note, 300 and 301. ]

[Footnote 1377: "About the same time, and in adjoining city districts, two bosses entered upon public life. While Tweed was learning to makechairs, Kelly was being taught grate-setting. While Tweed was amusinghimself as a runner with a fire engine, Kelly was captain of theCarroll Target Guard. Tweed led fire laddies and Kelly dragged abouttarget-shooters upon the eve of elections. Both entered the Board ofAldermen about the same time. About the same time, too, they went toCongress. Within a few years of each other's candidacy they ran forsheriff. Tweed was defeated. Kelly was elected. While Kelly was makingbills as sheriff, Tweed was auditing them in the Board of Supervisors. Tweed became the Tammany boss, and Kelly succeeded him. Tweed fell avictim to his greed, Kelly escaped by the Statute of Limitations. "--NewYork _Times_, October 30, 1875. ]

If any doubt had existed as to Greeley's treatment at Baltimore, itquickly disappeared on the assembling of the convention, for thequestion of nomination or indorsement alone disturbed it. If itadopted him as its own candidate fear was entertained that Republicanswould forsake him. On the other hand, it was claimed that manyDemocrats who could only be held by party claims would not respect amere indorsement. Southern delegates argued that if Democrats hoped todefeat their opponents they must encourage the revolt by giving itprestige and power rather than smother it by compelling Liberals tochoose between Grant and a Democrat. The wisdom of this view could notbe avoided, and after adopting the Cincinnati platform without change, the convention, by a vote of 686 to 46, stamped the Cincinnati ticketwith the highest Democratic authority. [1378] Little heartiness, however, characterised the proceedings. Hoffman, in casting New York'svote, aroused much enthusiasm, but the response to the announcementof Greeley's nomination was disappointing. The _Tribune_ attributed itto the intense heat and the exhaustion of the delegates, [1379] but the_Nation_ probably came nearer the truth in ascribing it to "boiledcrow. "[1380] This gave rise to the expression "to eat crow, " meaning"to do what one vehemently dislikes and has before defiantly declaredhe would not do. "[1381]

[Footnote 1378: Of the 46 opposition votes, James A. Bayard received 6from Delaware and 9 from New Jersey; Jeremiah S. Black 21 fromPennsylvania; William S. Groesbeck 2 from Ohio. There were 8 blanks. ]

[Footnote 1379: New York _Tribune_, July 11, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1380: July 11. ]

[Footnote 1381: Century Dictionary. ]

CHAPTER XXIII

DEFEAT AND DEATH OF GREELEY

1872

The Republicans of New York welcomed the outcome of the Democraticnational convention. There was a time in its preliminary stages whenthe Liberal movement, blending principle and resentment, had assumedalarming proportions. Discontent with the Administration, stimulatedby powerful journals, seemed to permeate the whole Republican party, and the haste of prominent men to declare themselves Liberals, recalling the unhappy division in the last State convention and theconsequent falling off in the Republican vote, added to thesolicitude. Moreover, the readiness of the Democrats to approve theprinciples of the Missouri reformers suggested a coalition far moreformidable than the Philadelphia schism of 1866. That movement was toresist untried Reconstruction, while the Missouri division was anorganised protest against practices in the North as well as in theSouth which had become intolerable to men in all parties. Gradually, however, the Republican revolt in New York disclosed limitations whichthe slim attendance at Cincinnati accentuated. Several congressionaldistricts had been wholly unrepresented, and few prominent men hadappeared at Cincinnati other than free-traders and Fenton leaders. Such an exhibition of weakness had an exhilarating effect uponRepublicans, who received the nomination of Greeley with derision. 

In this frame of mind the friends of the Administration, meeting inState convention at Elmira on May 15, sent a delegation toPhiladelphia, headed by the venerable Gerrit Smith, which boasted thatit was without an office-holder. Three weeks later the Republicannational convention, amidst great enthusiasm, unanimously renominatedGrant for President. A single ballot sufficed also for the selectionof Henry Wilson of Massachusetts for Vice-President. [1382] Theplatform, to offset the Liberals' arraignment, favoured civil servicereform, the abolition of the franking privilege, the prohibition offurther land grants to corporations, an increase in pensions, and "thesuppression of violent and treasonable organisations" in the South. 

[Footnote 1382: Wilson received 364-1/2 votes to 321-1/2 for Colfax ofIndiana, who had declared his intention to retire from public life. When, later, he changed his mind, Wilson possessed the advantage. ]

At their State convention, held in Utica on August 21, Republicansfelt no fear of factional feuds since the aggressive Fenton leadershad passed into the Liberal camp. But reasons for alarm existed. Theelection in 1871, carried by the inspiration of a great popularuprising in the interest of reform, had given them control of theLegislature, and when it assembled honest men rejoiced, roguestrembled, and Tweed failed to take his seat. The people expected theshameless Erie ring and its legislation to be wiped out, corruptjudges to be impeached, a new charter for New York City created, thepurity of the ballot-box better protected, canal management reformed, and a variety of changes in criminal practice. But it proved timid anddilatory. At the end of the session the Tweed charter still governed, the machinery of the courts remained unchanged, and reforms in canalmanagement, in elections, and in the city government had beensparingly granted. In cases of proven dishonesty its action was noless disappointing. It allowed a faithless clerk of the Senate toresign without punishment;[1383] it permitted the leaders of theTammany ring to continue in office; it decided that a man did notdisqualify himself for a seat in the Senate by taking bribes;[1384] andit failed to attack the Erie ring until the reign of Jay Gould wasdestroyed by the bold action of Daniel E. Sickles. [1385] Never did aparty more shamelessly fail in its duty. Even credit for theimpeachment of the Tweed judges belonged to Samuel J. Tilden. "Thatwas all Tilden's work, and no one's else, " said Charles O'Conor. "Hewent to the Legislature and forced the impeachment against everyimaginable obstacle, open and covert, political and personal. "[1386]

[Footnote 1383: New York _Tribune_, February 15, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1384: _Ibid. _, April 11. ]

[Footnote 1385: For narration of this _coup de main_, see Morgan Dix, _Life of John A. Dix_, Vol. 2, pp. 163-167. ]

[Footnote 1386: _The Century_, March, 1885, p. 734. ]

Such a record did not inspire the party with confidence, and itsrepresentatives looked for a head to its State ticket who couldovercome its shortcomings. Of the names canvassed a majority seemedinclined to William H. Robertson of Westchester. He had been anassemblyman, a representative in Congress, a judge of his county fortwelve years, and a State senator of distinguished service. Althoughprudent in utterance and somewhat cautious in entering upon a courseof action, his indefatigable pursuit of an object, coupled withconspicuous ability and long experience, marked him as one of thestrong men of New York, destined for many years to direct the politicsof his locality. 

Nevertheless, a feeling existed that his course in the Senate hadlacked force. The New York _Times_ severely criticised it, regardinghim too much of a tenderfoot in pushing the reform movement, and onthe eve of the convention it opposed his candidacy. [1387] The _Times_, then the only paper in New York City upon which the party relied withconfidence to fight its battles, exerted an influence which couldscarcely be overrated. However, it is doubtful if its opposition couldhave avoided Robertson's nomination had not the name of John A. Dixbeen sprung upon the convention. It came with great suddenness. Noopen canvass preceded it. Thurlow Weed, who had proposed it to nearlyevery convention since 1861, was in Utica, but to Henry Clews, thewell-known banker, belonged the credit of presenting it "on behalf ofthe business men of New York. " The captivating suggestion quicklycaught the delegates, who felt the alarming need of such a candidate, and the audience, rising to its feet, broke into cheers, while countyafter county seconded the nomination. One excited delegate, withstentorian voice, moved that it be made by acclamation, and althoughthe Chair ruled the motion out of order, the withdrawal of Robertson'sname quickly opened a way for its passage. 

[Footnote 1387: August 21, 1872; New York _Tribune_, August 22. 

"Senator Robertson failed to be governor only from lack ofboldness. "--_Ibid. _, May 8, 1880. ]

This incident produced a crop of trouble. Because Clews happened to bethe guest of Conkling, Robertson, grievously disappointed, assumedthat the Senator had inspired the _coup d'état_, and from that momentbegan the dislike which subsequently ripened into open enmity. "As amatter of fact, " wrote Clews, "Conkling knew nothing of my intention, but he was either too proud or too indifferent to public sentiment toexplain. "[1388]

[Footnote 1388: Henry Clews, _Fifty Years in Wall Street_, pp. 307-309;New York _Herald_, August 22. ]

Dix's political course had been a tortuous one. He followed the VanBurens in 1848, becoming the Barnburners' candidate for governor, andimmediately preceding the reduction of Fort Sumter advocated therestoration of the Missouri compromise, perpetuating slavery in allterritory south of 36° 30´. After the war he joined President Johnson, presided at the famous Philadelphia convention in 1866, and in returnreceived appointments as minister to The Hague and later to France. For several years, under the changing conditions of Weed's leadership, he figured as a possible candidate for governor, first of one partyand then of the other, but the Republicans declined to accept him in1862 and 1864, and the Democrats refused to take him in 1866. AfterPresident Grant had relieved him of the French mission by theappointment of Elihu B. Washburne, he inclined like Weed himself tothe Liberal movement until the nomination of Greeley, whom they bothdespised. 

Seymour charged Dix with being "a mercenary man, " who "rented out hisinfluence gained from political positions to companies of doubtfulcharacter for large pay. "[1389] At a later day he sketched hisreadiness "to change his politics" for "a large consideration and paydown. " It was a drastic arraignment. "Starting out with a view ofbeing an Anti-Mason, " wrote Seymour, "he shifted to the Democraticparty for the office of adjutant-general. He hesitated between Cassand Van Buren until he was nominated for governor by the Free-Soilers. He went back to the Democratic party for the New York post-officeunder Pierce. He went over to Buchanan for a place in the cabinet; andfrom his Free-Soil views he became so violent for the South that hewould not vote for Douglas, but supported Breckinridge. Afterpresiding at an anti-war meeting he went over to Lincoln, when he wasmade a major-general. To get a nomination for the French mission hetook part with President Johnson. To get confirmed he left him forGrant. In 1868 he intrigued for a presidential nomination from theDemocratic party; as in 1866 he had tried to be nominated by the sameparty for the office of governor. I think this history shows that hevalued his political principles at a high rate, and never sold themunless he got a round price and pay down. "[1390]

[Footnote 1389: Bigelow's _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 228. ]

[Footnote 1390: _Ibid. _, p. 232. ]

Of the same age as Dix, Weed knew his history perfectly, which duringand after the war resembled his own. But he had faith that Dix's warrecord would more than offset his political vagaries. "When there wasdanger that Washington would fall into the hands of the rebels, " hesaid, "Dix severed his relations with the Democratic administration, and in concert with Secretary Holt, Mr. Stanton, and Mr. Seward, rendered services which saved the nation's capital. A few weeksafterward, when in command of Fort McHenry, by a prompt movementagainst a treasonable design of members of the Legislature, heprevented Maryland from joining the Secessionists. "[1391] Moreover, Weed insisted that conservative Democrats and business men, havingconfidence in his integrity, would vote for him regardless of party. 

[Footnote 1391: Barnes' _Life of Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 485. ]

The platform, endorsing the National Administration, failed to mentionthe record of the Legislature. Praise for members of Congressaccentuated this omission. To enlarge the canal for steam navigationit favoured an appropriation by the general government. [1392]

[Footnote 1392: The ticket was as follows: Governor, John A. Dix of NewYork; Lieutenant-Governor, John C. Robinson of Broome; CanalCommissioner, Reuben W. Stroud of Onondaga; Prison Inspector, EzraGraves of Herkimer; Congressman-at-large, Lyman Tremaine of Albany;Thurlow Weed declined to head the electoral ticket, but suggested thename of Frederick Douglass, who was nominated by acclamation. --Barnes, _Life of Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 486. ]

The Democrats and Liberals met in separate State conventions atSyracuse on September 4. In numbers and enthusiasm the Liberals made acreditable showing. Many Republicans who had assisted at the birth oftheir party and aided in achieving its victories, adorned the platformand filled the seats of delegates. John Cochrane called the conventionto order, Truman G. Younglove, speaker of the Assembly in 1869, actedas temporary chairman, Chauncey M. Depew became its president, andReuben E. Fenton, with Waldo M. Hutchins, Archibald M. Bliss, Edwin A. Merritt, D. D. S. Brown, and Frank Hiscock, served upon the committee ofconference. Among others present were Sinclair Tousey, WilliamDorsheimer, George P. Bradford, and Horatio N. Twombly. In his speechon taking the chair, Depew, who had attended every Republican Stateconvention since 1858, declared that he saw before him the men whom hehad learned to recognise as the trusted exponents of party policy intheir several localities. [1393]

[Footnote 1393: New York _Tribune_, September 6. ]

In apportioning the State offices the Democrats, after much wrangling, conceded to the Liberals the lieutenant-governor, prison inspector, and fifteen of the thirty-four electors. This settlement resulted, amidst much enthusiasm, in the nomination of Depew for lieutenant-governor. 

The Democrats experienced more difficulty in selecting a candidate forgovernor. The withdrawal of Hoffman, who "usually made hisappointments to office, " said John Kelly, "on the recommendation ofthe Tammany ring and at the solicitation of the Canal ring, " wasinevitable, [1394] and long before he declined several aspirants hadbetrayed their ambition. [1395] But a decided majority of the delegates, "fully four-fifths" declared the New York _Times_, [1396] preferredSanford E. Church, then chief judge of the Court of Appeals, whobecame known as the "ring candidate. "[1397] On the other hand, Kernanhad the support of Tilden, against whom the same combination arrayeditself that controlled at Rochester in 1871. Although the Tweed ringhad practically ceased to exist, its friendships, rooted in the ruralpress and in the active young men whom it had assisted to positions inAlbany and New York, blocked the way. Besides, Kernan himself hadinvited open hostility by vigorously supporting Tilden in his crusadeagainst Tammany. Thus the contest became complicated and bitter. 

[Footnote 1394: New York _Tribune_, August 23, 1872; New York _World_, September 10, 1874; _Times_, September 11. ]

[Footnote 1395: Among them were Augustus Schell of New York, FrancisKernan of Oneida, Allen C. Beach of Jefferson, then lieutenant-governor, Homer A. Nelson of Dutchess, formerly secretary of state, and LuciusRobinson of Chemung, the distinguished comptroller. ]

[Footnote 1396: September 6, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1397: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 226. ]

It was an anxious moment for Tilden. Kelly stood for Schell, KingsCounty presented Church, and Robinson and Beach held their friendsfirmly in hand. With the skill of an astute leader, however, Tildenweakened the support of Church by publishing his letters declining tobe a candidate, and by invoking the influences which emphasised thedivision between Beach and Schell, gained Robinson for Kernan. Theaudacity of such tactics staggered the opposition, and when Beachsurrendered, Tammany and Kings hastened into line. This led toKernan's nomination by acclamation. [1398] As further evidence ofharmony Kelly moved the appointment of Tilden as a Statecommitteeman-at-large, and subsequently, on the organisation of thecommittee, continued him as its chairman. 

[Footnote 1398: The first ballot resulted as follows: Kernan, 42-1/2;Beach, 32; Schell, 24-1/2; Nelson, 10; Church, 11; Robinson, 6;necessary to a choice, 64. 

The ticket nominated by the two conventions was as follows: Governor, Francis Kernan of Oneida, Democrat; Lieutenant-Governor, Chauncey M. Depew of Westchester, Liberal; Canal Commissioner, John Hubbard ofChenango, Democrat; Prison Inspector, Enos C. Brooks of Cattaraugus, Liberal; 1 Congressman-at-large, Samuel S. Cox of New York, Democrat. ]

Both conventions endorsed the Cincinnati platform, denounced theLegislature for its failure to expel dishonest members, and chargedthe National Administration with corruption and favoritism. As afarewell to the Governor, the Democrats resolved that "the generaladministration of John T. Hoffman meets the approbation of thisconvention. "[1399]

[Footnote 1399: New York _Tribune_, September 6, 1872. ]

Hoffman's political career closed under circumstances that a moreheroic soul might have avoided. In his last message he had repudiatedthe Ring. He had also made some atonement by authorising such suitsagainst it as Charles O'Conor might advise, [1400] and by vetoing theCode Amendment Bill, devised by Cardozo and designed to conferauthority upon the judges to punish the press for attacking the Ring;but the facts inspiring Nast's cartoon, which pictured him as theTammany wooden Indian on wheels, pushed and pulled by the Erie andTweed combination, had fixed the Governor in the popular mind as theblind tool of rings. "I saw him in 1885, " says Rhodes, "at theSchweizerhof in Lucerne. Accompanied by his wife he was drivingthrough Switzerland; and in this hotel, full of his own countrymen, hesat neglected, probably shunned by many. The light was gone from hiseyes, the vigour from his body, the confidence from his manner;consciousness of failure brooded in their stead. He had not becomedissipated. Great opportunities missed; this was the memory thatracked him, body and spirit, and left him nerveless and decrepit, inviting death. "[1401] He died in Germany in 1888. 

[Footnote 1400: Attorney-General Champlain had publicly announced hispurpose to authorise O'Conor to bring such suits before the Committeeof Seventy had had its interview with the Governor. --Tilden's _PublicWritings and Speeches_, Vol. 1, p. 590. ]

[Footnote 1401: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 6, p. 401, note. ]

For mayor of New York, John Kelly nominated Abram R. Lawrence, alawyer of ability and integrity, whom the Liberals endorsed. Theanti-Tammany forces, not yet willing to surrender to the new Boss, divided their strength, the Apollo Hall Democracy nominating JamesO'Brien, its founder, while the associations centring about theCommittee of Seventy supported William F. Havermeyer, whom theRepublicans endorsed. Havermeyer had twice been mayor. [1402] Hebelonged among the enemies of jobbery, and although sixty-seven yearsof age his mental and physical powers remained unimpaired. Thecontest, thus narrowed to Lawrence and Havermeyer, assured a goodmayor. 

[Footnote 1402: Elected in 1844 and 1847. Declined a renomination in1849. ]

The campaign opened encouragingly for Democrats and Liberals. "Theantagonisms which civil war has created between the kindredpopulations of our country, " declared Tilden, in his speech at theSyracuse convention, "must be closed up now and forever. "[1403] Thiswas the keynote of his party, and, apart from the personal questionof candidates, was the only serious issue of the campaign. In hisletter of acceptance Greeley added a new phrase to the vocabulary ofthe common people: "I accept your nomination, " he said, "in theconfident trust that the masses of our countrymen North and South areeager to clasp hands across the bloody chasm. "[1404]

[Footnote 1403: New York _Tribune_, September 5, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1404: _Ibid. _, May 22, 1872. ]

This was a taking cry, and as the great editor moved acrossPennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, the general demonstration of interestcreated considerable uneasiness at Republican headquarters. "His namehad been honoured for so many years in every Republican household, "says Blaine, "that the desire to see and hear him was universal, andsecured to him the majesty of numbers at every meeting. "[1405]Greeley's friends interpreted these vast audiences as indications of agreat tidal wave which would sweep Grant and his party from power. Inthe latter part of September they confidently counted upon carryingthe October States. The South's endorsement of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, its declaration that the publiccredit must be sacredly maintained, and its denunciation ofrepudiation in every form and guise, created the belief that the Northand South would, indeed, "clasp hands across the bloody chasm. "

[Footnote 1405: _Twenty Years in Congress_, Vol. 2, p. 534. ]

In New York, however, although the Democratic leaders stood loyally bytheir candidate, pushing Kernan boldly to the front wherever Greeleyseemed weak, the inequality of the fight was apparent. Tammany andold-time Democrats could not forget that the _Tribune's_ editor hadclassed them with blacklegs, thieves, burglars, gamblers, and keepersof dens of prostitution. [1406] Moreover, only three Republicannewspapers had declared for Greeley, [1407] while many leaders likeLyman Tremaine and James W. Husted, whose criticism of the Presidenthad encouraged the belief that they would favour the Cincinnatinominee, preferred Grant. [1408] Besides, the business men of thecountry thought the Republican party without Greeley safer than theDemocratic party with Greeley. 

[Footnote 1406: "We asked our contemporary [_World_] to state franklywhether the pugilists, blacklegs, thieves, burglars, keepers of densof prostitution, etc. , etc. , who make up so large a share of ourcity's inhabitants, were not almost unanimously Democrats. "--_Tribune_, January 4, 1868. 

"So every one who chooses to live by pugilism, or gambling, orharlotry, with nearly every keeper of a tippling house, is politicallya Democrat. . . . A purely selfish interest attaches the lewd, ruffianly, criminal and dangerous class to the Democratic party by the instinctof self-preservation. "--_Ibid. _, January 7. Conkling quoted theseextracts in his Cooper Institute speech of July 23. --New York _Times_, July 24, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1407: New York _Tribune_, Syracuse _Herald_, and Watertown_Times_. ]

[Footnote 1408: New York _Tribune_, August 22. ]

After the Cincinnati convention a Republican Congress passed a GeneralAmnesty Act, approved May 22, and in the interest of "a free breakfasttable" placed tea and coffee on the free list. The reduction of thepublic debt at the rate of one hundred millions a year, as well aslarge annual reductions in the rate of taxation, also inspiredconfidence, while to the President and his Secretary of State belongedgreat credit for the Geneva arbitration. This amicable and dignifiedadjustment of differences between England and the United States, leading to new rules for the future government of Anglo-Americanrelations, and making impossible other than a friendly rivalry betweenthe two nations, sent a thrill of satisfaction through the Americanpeople. Until then the settlement of such irritating questions had notcome by the peaceful process of law. 

As the campaign progressed both sides indulged in bitterpersonalities. In his Cooper Institute speech, an address of greatpower, Conkling's invective and sarcasm cut as deeply as Nast'scartoons. [1409] Greeley's face, dress, and manners readily lentthemselves to caricature. "I have been assailed so bitterly, " wroteGreeley, "that I hardly knew whether I was running for President orthe Penitentiary. "[1410] The _Tribune_ told of a negro woman who washeard cursing him in the streets of an Ohio river town because he had"sold her baby down South before the war. "[1411] Grant did not escape. Indeed, he was lampooned until he declared that "I have been thesubject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equalled in politicalhistory. "[1412]

[Footnote 1409: New York _Times_, July 24. "The longest and greatestcampaign speech of his life. "--Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 436. ]

[Footnote 1410: Hollister's _Life of Colfax_, p. 387, note. ]

[Footnote 1411: The same article enumerates some of the chargespublished against him: "In Washington he was a briber. In Albany hewas the head of the lobby. In New York he was a partner in the Ringfrauds. He defended the rascalities of Tweed. He sold the influence ofhis paper to Tammany Hall. He intrigued to restore the thieves topower. He was involved in schemes for robbing the national treasury. He was plotting the payment of the Confederate debt. He had promisedpensions to Rebel soldiers. He was an original Secessionist. He wasonce a slave-trader in Memphis. He was the friend of the Ku-Klux andballot-box stuffers. . . . Dix blamed him for expressing ten or twelveyears ago sentiments identical with those of Dix himself. "--New York_Tribune_, November 22, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1412: _Messages and Papers of the Presidents_, Richardson, Vol. 7, p. 223. ]

Early elections increased Republican confidence. North Carolina, thena doubtful State, gave a Republican majority in August. [1413] Vermontand Maine followed in September, and Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indianapractically settled the question in October. Finally, the election onNovember 5 gave Greeley, by small majorities, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas, or sixty-six electoral votesto two hundred and seventy-two for Grant, whose popular majorityexceeded three-quarters of a million. Dix carried New York by 55, 451majority. [1414] Of thirty-two congressmen the Republicans electedtwenty-three, with a legislative majority of seventy on joint ballot. To the surprise of Tammany, Havermeyer was elected mayor by over 8, 000plurality, although Greeley carried the city by 23, 000 majority. [1415]A comparison of the vote with that cast for Seymour in 1868 showedthat a marked percentage of Democrats refused to support Greeley, andthat a larger percentage did not vote at all. [1416] Other slightsadded to his disappointment. "I was an Abolitionist for years, " hesaid, "when to be one was as much as one's life was worth even here inNew York, and the negroes have all voted against me. Whatever oftalents and energy I have possessed, I have freely contributed all mylife long to Protection; to the cause of our manufactures. And themanufacturers have expended millions to defeat me. I even made myselfridiculous in the opinion of many whose good wishes I desired, byshowing fair play and giving a fair field in the _Tribune_ to Woman'sRights; and the women have all gone against me. "[1417]

[Footnote 1413: After the North Carolina election would-be Liberalsrejoined the Republican party in great numbers. ]

[Footnote 1414: Grant, 440, 759; Greeley, 387, 279; majority, 53, 480. Dix, 447, 801; Kernan, 392, 350; majority, 55, 451. Robinson, 442, 297;Depew, 397, 754; majority, 44, 543. Tremaine, 438, 456; Cox, 400, 697;majority, 37, 759. ]

[Footnote 1415: Havermeyer, 53, 806; Lawrence, 45, 398; O'Brien, 31, 121. ]

[Footnote 1416: Seymour (1868), 429, 883. Greeley (1872), 387, 279. Kernan (1872), 392, 350. Cox (1872), 400, 697. ]

[Footnote 1417: George W. Julian, _Political Recollections_, p. 348. ]

Before the vote of the State was officially canvassed Greeley had goneto his rest. [1418] The campaign had overtaxed his strength, and uponhis return from the western speaking tour he watched at the bedside ofhis wife until her decease on October 30. After the election heresumed editorial charge of the _Tribune_, which he formallyrelinquished on the 15th of the preceding May, but it was plain thatthe robust animal spirits which characterised his former days weregone. [1419] The loss of his wife, the mortification of defeat, thefinancial embarrassment of his paper, and the exhaustion of hisphysical powers had broken him. The announcement of his death, however, although the public got an early intimation of the cruel workwhich his troubles were making upon a frame that once seemed to be ofiron, came with the shock of sudden calamity. The whole countryrecognised that in the field of his real conquests the most remarkableman in American history had fallen, and it buried him with theappreciation that attends a conqueror. At the funeral President Grant, Vice-President Colfax, and the Vice-President-elect, Henry Wilson, rode in the same carriage. [1420]

[Footnote 1418: He died November 29, 1872. ]

[Footnote 1419: "In the darkest hour my suffering wife left me, nonetoo soon for she had suffered too deeply and too long. I laid her inthe ground with hard dry eyes. Well, I am used up. I cannot see beforeme. I have slept little for weeks and my eyes are still hard to close, while they soon open again. " Letter to his friend, Mason W. Tappan ofNew Hampshire. --Hollister's _Life of Colfax_, p. 387, note. ]

[Footnote 1420: New York _Tribune_, December 5, 1872. ]

CHAPTER XXIV

TILDEN DESTROYS HIS OPPONENTS

1873-4

The Legislature which convened January 6, 1873, re-elected RoscoeConkling to the United States Senate. There was no delay and noopposition. Cornell was in the watch-tower as speaker of the Assemblyand other lieutenants kept guard in the lobbies. [1421] The Republicancaucus nominated on the 8th and the election occurred on the21st. [1422] A few months later (November 8) the President, incomplimentary and generous terms, offered Conkling the place madevacant by the death of Chief Justice Chase (May 7). His industry andlegal training admirably fitted him for the position, but for reasonsnot specified he declined the distinguished preferment just as he hadrefused in December, 1870, the offer of a law partnership with anannual compensation of fifty thousand dollars. Probably the suggestionthat he become a presidential candidate influenced his decision, especially as the President favoured his succession. [1423]

[Footnote 1421: Cornell resigned as surveyor of the port and waselected to the Assembly. ]

[Footnote 1422: The Democrats voted for Charles Wheaton of Dutchess, distinguished locally as a county judge. ]

[Footnote 1423: Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 451. ]

At this time Conkling, then forty-four years old, may be said to havereached the height of his power, if not of his fame. His opponentswere under his feet. Greeley was dead, Fenton's long and successfulcareer had closed in the gloom of defeat and the permanent eclipse ofhis influence in public affairs, and others were weakened if notdestroyed by their party desertion. Moreover, the re-election of aPresident whom he had supported and defended with an opulentvocabulary that made his studied addresses models of speech, continuedhis political control. About half a dozen able lieutenants, holdingfat offices in the great patronage centres, revolved with the fidelityof planets, while in every custom-house and federal office in theState trained politicians performed the function of satellites. Toharness the party more securely hundreds of young men, selected fromthe various counties because of their partisan zeal, filled the greatdepartments at Washington. "In obedience to this system, " said GeorgeWilliam Curtis, "the whole machinery of the government is pulled topieces every four years. Political caucuses, primary meetings, andconventions are controlled by the promise and expectation ofpatronage. Political candidates for the lowest or highest positionsare directly or indirectly pledged. The pledge is the price of thenomination, and when the election is determined, the pledges must beredeemed. The business of the nation, the legislation of Congress, theduties of the departments, are all subordinated to the distribution ofwhat is well called spoils. "[1424]

[Footnote 1424: Report of Civil Service Commission, 1871, p. 18. ]

President Grant is quoted as declaring that the Senator never soughtan appointment from him. [1425] This statement is probably true, but noton the theory of the Latin maxim, _Qui facit per alium, facit perse_. [1426] No occasion existed for him to make requests since hisagents, well known to the President, cabinet, and collectors, couldobtain the necessary appointments without the Senator's participationor even knowledge. Nevertheless, he relied upon public patronage as aninstrument of party and factional success, and uniformly employed itthroughout his career. The principal objection of the independentpress to his appointment as chief justice implied his devotion topractical politics and an absence of the quality of truestatesmanship. [1427] Indeed, in spite of his transcendent gifts, hishold upon party and people was never stronger than the machine's, since the influence of his control tended to transform politicalaction into such subserviency that men of spirit, though loving theirparty, frequently held aloof from its service. 

[Footnote 1425: Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 656. ]

[Footnote 1426: "He who does a thing by the agency of another, does ithimself. "]

[Footnote 1427: The _Nation_, December 4, 1873. ]

But Conkling used only the methods inherited with his leadership, andto all appearances the grasp of the Republican party in New York inJanuary, 1873, was as firm as the most ardent partisan could desire. This feeling controlled the State convention at Utica on September 24to such a degree that its action resembled the partisan narrowness ofa ward caucus. Conkling did not attend, but his lieutenants, evidentlyconsidering the party vote as a force which only needed exhortation orintimidation to bring out, dropped Barlow, the attorney-general, without the slightest regard to public sentiment, and visited thepenalty of party treason upon Thomas Raines, the State treasurer, forhis support of Greeley. From a party viewpoint perhaps Raines deservedsuch treatment, but Francis C. Barlow's conduct of his office had beencharacterised by the superb daring with which he met the dangers anddifficulties of many battlefields, making him the connecting linkbetween his party and the Reform movement. He had prosecuted the Eriespoilers, and was then engaged in securing the punishment of theTammany ring. O'Conor spoke of his "austere integrity" in refusing toaccept millions as a compromise. [1428] Moreover it was conceded thatBarlow, with the possible exception of Tilden and O'Conor, knew moreof the canal frauds than any one in the State. The list of suitsbrought by him showed the rottenness of the whole system of canalmanagement, while a recent letter, denouncing a leader of the Ring, did not veil his hostility to its individual members. [1429] Thisattack, boldly directed against a prominent Republican, aroused thefierce opposition of the contract manipulators, whose influencesufficed not only to defeat him, but to nominate the very man he hadaccused. 

[Footnote 1428: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 245. ]

[Footnote 1429: This letter, dated September 14, 1874, is published innearly all the State papers of September 18. It is given in full inthe New York _Herald_ and _Times_. 

Sanford E. Church, in a published interview, charged that the story ofhis connection with the ring originated with Barlow. --New York_Tribune_, April 2, 1875. ]

To add to its shame the party in New York City made a bargain withApollo Hall, an organisation gotten up by James O'Brien, theex-sheriff, for the purpose of selling to the highest bidder. In 1871by skilful manoeuvres the party freed itself from any suspicion ofan alliance with this faction, and had thus to a very great extentobtained the direction of the Reform movement; but now, by droppingBarlow, ignoring his disclosures, and accepting O'Brien's offer, already rejected by Tammany with contempt, it sacrificed its hold uponthe solid part of the community which had been taught that a vote forthe Republican ticket was the only way to obtain the fruits ofreform. [1430]

[Footnote 1430: The ticket presented was as follows: Secretary ofState, Francis S. Thayer, Rensselaer; Comptroller, Nelson K. Hopkins, Erie; Treasurer, Daniel G. Fort, Oswego; Attorney-General, Benj. D. Silliman, Kings; Canal Commissioner, Sidney Mead, Cayuga; StateEngineer, William B. Taylor, Oneida; Prison Inspector, Moss K. Platt, Essex. ]

At the Democratic convention which met in Utica on October 1, ThomasRaines, whose adhesion to Greeley had made him a martyr, was nominatedby acclamation. Here, however, the enthusiasm ended. The overwhelmingdefeat of the previous year had sapped the party of confidence, andcandidates whom the convention desired refused to accept, while thoseit nominated brought neither prominence nor strength. [1431] Theplatform denounced the "salary grab, " passed in the closing hours ofthe last Congress, and condemned the Crédit Mobilier disclosures whichhad recently startled the country and disgraced Congress. [1432] Throughits executive committee the Liberal party indorsed the Democraticnominees except for comptroller and prison inspector. For theseoffices it preferred the Republicans' choice of Hopkins and Platt. 

[Footnote 1431: The following ticket was nominated: Secretary of State, Diedrich Willers, Seneca; Comptroller, Asher P. Nichols, Erie;Treasurer, Thomas Raines, Monroe; Attorney-General, Daniel Pratt, Onondaga; Canal Commissioner, James Jackson, Niagara; State Engineer, Sylvanus H. Sweet, Albany; Prison Inspector, George W. Mellspaugh, Orange. ]

[Footnote 1432: James Brooks was the only New York congressmanimplicated. The committee, finding him guilty of corruption as amember of the House and as a government director of the Union PacificRailroad, recommended his expulsion, but on February 27, 1873, theHouse, by a vote of 174 to 32 (34 not voting) changed the sentence toone of censure. Brooks died on April 30 following. ]

Meanwhile the financial crash which began on September 18 by thefailure of Jay Cooke & Co. , spread an intense gloom over the State aswell as the country, and although by the middle of October the panic, properly defined, had ended, a commercial crisis continued. ByNovember 1 several railroads had defaulted in the payment of intereston their bonds, cotton and iron mills had closed, and many labourerswere thrown out of employment. Criticism of the Administration'sfinancial policy naturally followed, and men whose purchasing powerhad ceased turned against the Republicans, giving the State to theDemocrats by 10, 000 majority. With the aid of the Liberals, Hopkinsand Platt received about 4, 000 majority. On the question of electingor appointing judges, the people by an overwhelming vote pronounced infavour of election. 

As in other "off years" the result of this contest indicated a generaldrift of political opinion. Ever since the Republican party came intopower ebbs and flows had occurred at alternating biennial periods. ADemocratic revival in 1862 followed Lincoln's election in 1860; hisre-election in 1864 saw a similar revival in 1865; and Grant'sdecisive vote in 1868 brought a conservative reaction in 1870. It wasperhaps natural to expect that after the President's re-election in1872 something of the kind would happen in 1873. Nevertheless, SamuelJ. Tilden saw in the result something more than the usual reaction. Hebelieved the failure of the Republicans to associate themselvesintimately with reformers and to manifest a loathing for all corruptalliances, had added greatly to their burden, and early in the summerof 1874 he determined to run for governor. 

On his return from Europe in the early fall of 1873 Tilden had foundthoughtful men of both parties talking of him as a successor to Dix. To them the trials of Tweed and his confederates made it plain thatsubstantial reform must begin at Albany, and they wanted a man whoseexperience and success in dealing with one Ring rendered it certainthat he would assault and carry the works of the other. But Tilden wascunning. He betrayed no evidence of his desire until others confessedtheir unwillingness to take the nomination. To the averageoffice-seeker running against Dix and his plurality of 55, 000 was notan attractive race. Meanwhile John Kelly, realising the value ofappearing honest, indicated a preference for Tilden. 

There was something magnetic about the suggestion. Tilden was able, rich, and known to everybody as the foe of the Tweed ring. Besides hewas capable, notwithstanding his infirmity, of making a forcefulspeech, full of fire, logic and facts, his quick, retentive memoryenabling him to enter easily into political controversy. As a powerfulreasoner it was admitted that he had few equals at the bar. Indeed, the press, crediting him with courage, perseverance, and indomitableindustry, had pictured him as a successful leader and an idealreformer. Tilden himself believed in his destiny, and when, at last, the time seemed ripe to avow his candidacy he carried on a canvasswhich for skill, knowledge of human nature, and of the ins and outs ofpolitics, had rarely been approached by any preceding master. Thepress of the State soon reflected the growing sentiment in his favour. "In selecting him, " said George William Curtis, "the party willdesignate one of its most reputable members. "[1433] The New York_Times_ spoke of him as a "man of unsullied honour, "[1434] and the_Tribune_ declared that "his career in office, should he be elected, would be distinguished alike by integrity, decorum, administrativeability, and shrewd political management. "[1435]

[Footnote 1433: _Harper's Weekly_, September 10, 1874. ]

[Footnote 1434: July 24. ]

[Footnote 1435: September 18. ]

As one county after another instructed its delegates for Tilden, professional politicians exhibited much astonishment. To the Canalring the trend of public sentiment toward a man of his record andindependence was especially ominous. Suddenly, such violent oppositionappeared that the New York _Herald_, studying the Democratic papers inthe State, declared that outside of New York City only the Utica_Observer_, which was influenced by Kernan, favoured hisnomination. [1436] It was openly charged that selfish ambition promptedhis prosecution of the Tweed frauds, and that he was a cunningschemer, cold, reticent, and severe. Then men began to dissuade him. Friends counselled him not to take the risk of a nominatingconvention. Even Seymour, moved perhaps by ambitions of his own, discouraged him. If nominated, he wrote, you must expect the martyr'scrown. "There has been a widespread plan to carry the conventionagainst you. It was started last winter, and it shaped laws andappointments. The State officers are against you. . . . You will find thesame combination at Syracuse that controlled at Rochester in 1871. . . . Our people want men in office who will not steal, but who will notinterfere with those who do. "[1437] Coupled with this opposition wasthe suggestion that Sanford E. Church, being in no wise identifiedwith the Ring prosecutions, would make a more available candidate. 

[Footnote 1436: New York _Herald_, September 7, 1874. See also Buffalo_Courier_, September 14. ]

[Footnote 1437: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, pp. 221-222. ]

Earlier in the year Church, in an interview with Tilden, had declinedto become a candidate, but afterward, as in 1872, he grew anxious forthe honour, and finally gave Joseph Warren of the Buffalo _Courier_ awritten consent to accept if nominated with the concurrence of othercandidates. [1438] Armed with this statement and with letters ofwithdrawal from others associated with the gubernatorial nomination, Warren sought Tilden with confidence. By prearrangement their meetingoccurred on September 8 at the Delavan House in Albany. Several werepresent--Jarvis Lord, a senator from Rochester and an extensive canalcontractor, DeWolf of Oswego, and other canal men. In the roomadjoining Reuben E. Fenton waited. 

[Footnote 1438: For copy of this statement see New York _World_, September 10, 1874. ]

Tilden was not surprised at the latter's presence. He knew that in theevent of his withdrawal, Fenton intended that the Liberals shouldnominate Church at their convention which assembled in Albany two dayslater. [1439] But Tilden, long familiar with the Ring's methods, refusedto withdraw. On no theory could they make it appear to be his duty, and the longer they talked the more determined he became. Then JohnKelly, in a published interview, gave Church's aspiration its deathblow. "DeWolf of Oswego, Warren of Erie, and Senator Lord of Monroe, "he said, "belong to what is called the Canal ring. . . . It has beentheir policy to control a majority of the canal board to enable themto control the canal contracts. . . . They have always been very friendlyto Judge Church and of great assistance to him personally. . . . Therewas friendship existing between the old Tammany ring and this Canalring. "[1440] John Bigelow, the friend of Tilden, subsequently usedstronger phrases. "Tilden knew the Canal ring had no more servileinstrument in the State than the candidate they were urging. Churchwas poor; he was ambitious; he was not content with his place on thebench, and was only too ready at all times to combine with anybody onany terms to secure wealth and power. "[1441] To Kelly's charges theBuffalo _Courier_ retorted that "Tammany Hall under honest John Kellyis exactly the same as Tammany Hall under dishonest William M. Tweed. "[1442]

[Footnote 1439: Buffalo _Courier_, September 11; New York _Herald_, September 9. ]

[Footnote 1440: New York _World_, September 10, 1874. ]

[Footnote 1441: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 226. See also the_Nation_, September 10, 1874. ]

[Footnote 1442: September 11. Reprinted from the Rochester _Union_ ofSeptember 4. ]

When the Democratic State convention met a week later war existedbetween Kelly and the Canal ring. [1443] Warren intensified it by givingthe Syracuse _Standard_ a despatch declaring that Kelly's robberieswhile sheriff were as criminal as those of Garvey's and Ingersoll's ofthe Tweed ring. [1444] In the furious assault upon Tilden no reasonsappeared other than the fear of the Canal ring that his administrationwould lead to its discomfiture. Indeed, the flankers of the reformmovement found it difficult to agree upon a candidate, and when AmasaJ. Parker finally consented to stand he did so to gratify Church'sfriends in the middle and western portions of the State, who resentedthe Kelly interview. That the bad blood between the Warren and Kellyfactions did not break out in the convention was probably due toSeymour's conciliatory, tactful remarks. A single ballot, however, banished the thought of setting Tilden aside for some man lessobnoxious to the Ring. [1445]

[Footnote 1443: September 16 and 17, at Syracuse. ]

[Footnote 1444: New York _World_, September 17. ]

[Footnote 1445: Tilden, 252; Parker, 126; Robinson, 6. ]

The convention was not less fortunate in its selection of WilliamDorsheimer of Buffalo for lieutenant-governor. Many delegates, desiring a Democrat who would inspire enthusiasm among the youngermen, preferred Smith M. Weed of Clinton, resourceful and brilliant, ifunembarrassed by methods; but he succumbed to the earnest appeals ofDeWitt C. Littlejohn in behalf of Liberal recognition. [1446] Dorsheimerpossessed almost all the qualities that go to make up success inpolitics. He had courage and tact, fascination and audacity, rareskill on the platform, creditable associations, and marked literaryattainments. Moreover, he had given up a United States attorneyship tofollow Greeley. [1447] Not less helpful was the platform, drafted bySeymour, which abounded in short, clear, compact statements, withoutbuncombe or the least equivocation. It demanded the payment of thepublic debt in coin, the resumption of specie payment, taxation forrevenue only, local self-government, and State supervision ofcorporations. It also denounced sumptuary laws and the third term. 

[Footnote 1446: William Dorsheimer, 193; Weed, 155; Stephen T. Hoyt ofAllegany (Liberal), 34; Edward F. Jones of Broome (Liberal), 15. ]

[Footnote 1447: He was appointed U. S. Attorney for the NorthernDistrict of New York on March 28, 1867. His successor's commission wasdated March 23, 1871. --_State Department Records. _

The ticket nominated was as follows: Governor, Samuel J. Tilden, NewYork; Lieutenant-Governor, William Dorsheimer, Erie; Court of Appeals, Theodore Miller, Columbia; Canal Commissioner, Adin Thayer, Rensselaer; Prison Inspector, George Wagner, Yates. ]

Although John Kelly aided in nominating Tilden, his desire foranti-ring candidates did not extend to the metropolis. William F. Havermeyer's sudden death in November made necessary the election of amayor, and Kelly, to keep up appearances, selected William H. Wickham, his neighbour, an easy-going diamond merchant, whose membership on theCommittee of Seventy constituted his only claim to suchpreferment. [1448] But here all semblance of reform disappeared. JamesHayes, charged with making half a million dollars during the Tweedrégime, became the candidate for register, and of fifteen personsselected for aldermen nine belonged to the old Ring, two of whom wereunder indictment for fraud. [1449] Evidently Warren did not betrayignorance when he pronounced the new Tammany no better than the old. The Republicans presented Salem H. Wales for mayor, while theGermans, declining to act with Kelly, selected Oswald Ottendorfer, theeditor, a most able and upright citizen who had proven his fidelity tothe reform movement. 

[Footnote 1448: "Wickham has no conception beyond making a pleasantthing for himself and our friends out of the seat which he occupies. "Letter of Charles O'Conor. --Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 245. ]

[Footnote 1449: Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 307. ]

The Republicans renominated John A. Dix with other State officialselected in 1872, [1450] and had the Custom-house sincerely desired theGovernor's re-election, the expediency of a coalition withOttendorfer's supporters must have appealed to it as highly important. Dix had made an admirable executive. His decisions of questionsregardless of men and of the next election excited popular confidence, and the power of public opinion had forced his renomination byacclamation. But his independence could not be forgiven. Moreover, theplatform gave him little assistance. It neither denounced corruption, demanded relief from predatory rings, nor disapproved a third term. Except as to resumption and the payment of the public debt in coin, itfollowed the beaten track of its predecessors, spending itself overSouthern outrages. Although several delegates had prepared resolutionsin opposition to a third term, no one dared present them afterConkling had finished his eulogy of the President. 

[Footnote 1450: The convention met at Utica on September 23. The ticketwas as follows: Governor, John A. Dix, New York; Lieutenant-Governor, John C. Robinson, Broome; Court of Appeals, Alexander S. Johnson, Oneida; Canal Commissioner, Reuben W. Stroud, Onondaga; PrisonInspector, Ezra Graves, Herkimer. ]

The Liberals who assembled at Albany on September 10 had aboutfinished their course as a separate party. Their creed, so far as itrepresented practical, well-meditated reform, was a respectable, healthy faith, but the magnet which attracted the coterie ofRepublicans whose leadership gave it whatever influence it exerted inthe Empire State was Horace Greeley. When he died their activityceased. Besides, the renomination of Dix, who had little liking forthe organisation and no sympathy with a third term, now afforded themgood opportunity to return to the fold. The Albany convention, therefore, represented only a small fraction of the originaldissenters, and these adjourned without action until the 29th. Onreconvening a long, acrimonious discussion indicated a strongdisposition to run to cover. Some favoured Tilden, others Dix, butfinally, under the lead of George W. Palmer, the convention, decidingto endorse no one, resolved to support men of approved honesty, whorepresented the principles of the Cincinnati convention and opposed athird term. [1451]

[Footnote 1451: On June 23 the friends of total abstinence, resentingDix's veto of a local option measure passed by the Legislature of1873, assembled at Auburn, approved the organisation of a Prohibitionparty, and nominated a State ticket with Myron H. Clark for governor. About 350 delegates from twenty-five counties were present. ]

As the days shortened the campaign became more spirited. Tilden, putting himself in close relation with every school district in theState, introduced the clever device of mailing a fac-simile of one ofhis communications, thus flattering the receiver with the belief thathe possessed an autograph letter. His genius for detail kept a corpsof assistants busy, and the effort to inspire his desponding partisanswith hope of success made each correspondent the centre of an earnestband of endeavourers. Meanwhile the Democratic press kept up a gallingfire of criticism. Dix had escaped in 1872, but now the newspaperscharged him with nepotism and extravagance. "Governor Morgan had twoaides in time of war, " wrote Seymour, "while Dix has six in time ofpeace. Morgan had one messenger, Dix has two. Morgan had a secretaryat $2, 000; Dix had the pay put up to $3, 500--and then appointed hisson. . . . The people think the Governor gets $4, 000; in fact, underdifferent pretexts it is made $14, 000. "[1452] An attempt was also madeto connect him with the Crédit Mobilier scandal because of hispresidency of the Union Pacific road at the time of the considerationof the Oakes Ames contract. [1453] That the Governor had no interest inor connection with the construction company availed him little. Othermen of approved honesty had become involved in the back-salary grab, the Sanborn claims, and the Crédit Mobilier, and the people, quicklydistrusting any one accused, classed him with the wrong-doers. 

[Footnote 1452: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 233. ]

[Footnote 1453: Morgan A. Dix, _Life of Dix_, Vol. 2, pp. 128, 149. ]

Moreover, Dix laboured under the disadvantage of having apatheticparty managers. "They deliberately refused to support him, " said hisson, "preferring defeat to the re-election of one whom they desired tobe rid of. "[1454] Conkling, in his speech at Brooklyn, [1455] rebuked thespirit of calumny that assails the character of public men, but heneglected to extol the record of a patriotic Governor, or to speak theword against a third term which would have materially lightened theparty burden. 

[Footnote 1454: Morgan A. Dix, _Life of Dix_, Vol. 2, pp. 195-196. ]

[Footnote 1455: October 30, 1874. ]

When the opposition press began its agitation of a third term, charging that the country was "drifting upon the rock ofCæsarism, "[1456] few men believed such an idea sincerely entertained. Nevertheless, as the election approached it aroused popularsolicitude. Congressmen who hurried to Washington in the hope of beingauthorised to contradict the accusation, returned without an utteranceto disarm their opponents, while the Democrats not only maintainedthat Grant himself was not averse to using his official position tosecure the nomination, but that eighty thousand office-holders wereplotting for this end. [1457] As the idea had its inception largely inthe talk of a coterie of Grant's political and personal friends, Conkling's eulogies of the President seemed to corroborate the claim. So plainly did the _Times_ stagger under the load that rumours of the_Tribune's_ becoming a Conkling organ reached the _Nation_. [1458] Itcould not be denied that next to the commercial depression and theinsolence of the Canal ring, the deep-seated dissatisfaction withGrant's administration influenced public sentiment. Excluding theinflation veto the record of his second term had not improved upon thefirst, while to many his refusal to disclaim the third-term accusationbecame intolerable. 

[Footnote 1456: New York _Herald_, July 7, 1873. ]

[Footnote 1457: The _Nation_, October 29, 1874. ]

[Footnote 1458: April 16, 1874. ]

The municipal contest in New York City also developed embarrassments. Barring a few appointments Havermeyer had made a fair record, havingimproved the public school system, kept clean streets, and paid muchattention to sanitary conditions. Moreover, he distributed the revenuewith care, and by the practice of economy in the public works reducedexpenses nearly eight millions. The winter of 1873-4 proved a severeone for the unemployed, however, and to catch their votes Kelly, withgreat adroitness, favoured giving them public employment. This was apowerful appeal. Fifteen thousand idle mechanics in the city wantedwork more than public economy, while thousands in the poorerdistricts, seeking and receiving food from Tammany, cheered theturbulent orator as he pictured the suffering due to Havermeyer'spolicy and the hope inspired by Kelly's promises. 

Havermeyer's accusations against Kelly also recoiled upon his party. In the course of a bitter quarrel growing out of Kelly's appointmentof Richard Croker as marshal, [1459] the Mayor publicly charged "HonestJohn" with obtaining while sheriff $84, 482 by other than legalmethods. [1460] "I think, " said Havermeyer, "you were worse than Tweedwho made no pretensions to purity, while you avow your honesty andwrap yourself in the mantle of purity. "[1461] Kelly's prompt denial, followed by a suit for criminal libel, showed a willingness to try theissue, but Havermeyer's sudden death from apoplexy on the morning ofthe trial (November 30), leaving his proofs unpublished, strengthenedKelly's claim that "Tammany is the only reform party in existence hereto-day. "[1462]

[Footnote 1459: Until then Croker had been an attaché of Connolly'soffice. ]

[Footnote 1460: "No law authorised Kelly to include convictions in thePolice Courts, yet he did include them, thereby robbing the city ofover thirty thousand dollars. He charged, at one time, double therates for conveying prisoners to and from the Island; at another, 133per cent. More. He charged for 11, 000 vagrants committed to thework-house, a clear fraud upon the treasury. "--New York _Times_, October 20, 1875. ]

[Footnote 1461: New York papers of September 18, 1874. ]

[Footnote 1462: New York _World_, September 10, 1874. ]

The Republican press, apparently with effect, enlarged upon thegeneral excellence of Dix's administration, but early in the campaignthe people showed greater liking for reform at home than abhorrence ofoutrages in the South, and the result proved a political revolution, Tilden receiving a plurality of 50, 317 and Dorsheimer 51, 488. [1463]Besides the State ticket the Democrats carried the Assembly andeighteen of the thirty-three congressional districts. With theexception of James Hayes, who was defeated for register by over 10, 000majority, Tammany likewise elected its entire ticket. [1464]

[Footnote 1463: In 1872 Dix had 55, 451. ]

[Footnote 1464: Tilden, 416, 391; Dix, 366, 074; Clark, 11, 768;Dorsheimer, 416, 714; Robinson, 365, 226; Bagg, 11, 310. 

New York City: Tilden, 87, 623; Dix, 44, 871; Clark, 160; Wickham, 70, 071; Wales, 36, 953; Ottendorfer, 24, 226. Legislature: Assembly, Democrats, 75; Republicans, 53. Senate, Democrats, 12; Republicans, 18; Independents, 2. The Senators were elected in 1873. ]

Democratic success was not confined to New York. Small majorities wereobtained in Ohio and Indiana as well as in Pennsylvania andMassachusetts, and for the first time since 1861 the House ofRepresentatives passed into the control of that party. The financialdepression plainly operated to the great advantage of the Democrats, but in allowing Tilden to pre-empt the reform issue when men wereintent upon smashing rings, the Republicans opened the door for theirdestruction. "They [the Republican leaders] have apparently believedthe people would submit to anything and everything, " said the _Times_, "and that the party was indestructible. If a newspaper warned them ina friendly but firm spirit against the policy of blundering, it wastreated with a mixture of the insolence and arrogance which theyexhibited toward all opposition. "[1465]

[Footnote 1465: New York _Times_, November 4, 1874. 

Eleven amendments to the Constitution were ratified at this election. Those relating to political matters required thirty days' residence inan election district; abolished property qualification, thus removingall distinction between white and coloured voters; fixed the pay oflegislators at $1500 per year, without limiting the length of asession; changed the terms of governor and lieutenant-governor fromtwo to three years, with salaries of $10, 000 and $5, 000, respectively;required two-thirds of all the members elected to each house tooverride the governor's veto; authorised the veto of individual itemsin an appropriation act; and prohibited extra compensation being paidto a canal contractor. ]

CHAPTER XXV

RIVALRY OF TILDEN AND CONKLING

1875

If further evidence of Tilden's supremacy in his party were needed, the election of Francis Kernan to the United States Senate furnishedit. It had been nearly thirty years since the Democrats of New Yorkwere represented in the Senate, and Tilden sent his staunchestsupporter to take the place of Fenton. [1466] This fidelity disturbedthe members of the Canal ring, who now anxiously awaited thedevelopment of the Governor's policy. The overthrow of the Tammanyring and the memory of Tweed's fate hung about them like the shadow ofa great fear. 

[Footnote 1466: The Republicans voted for ex-Governor Edwin D. Morgan, the vote standing: Kernan, 87; Morgan, 68; Hoffman, 1. ]

Tilden did not strike at once. Treating the matter as he did the Tweeddisclosures, he secretly studied the methods of the Ring, examinedmore than one hundred contracts, and employed a civil engineer toverify work paid for with that actually done. So severe was the strainof this labour that in February he suffered a cerebral attack nearlyakin to paralysis. [1467] Of the character or purpose of his work no onehad any intimation, and guilty men who obsequiously complimented himthought him weak and without the nerve to harm them. But on the 18thof March (1875) he thrilled the State and chilled the Ring with aspecial message to the Legislature, showing that for the five yearsending September 30, 1874, millions had been wasted because ofunnecessary repairs and corrupt contracts. Upon ten of thesefraudulent contracts the State, it appeared, had paid more than amillion and a half, while the proposals at contract prices called forless than half a million. This result, he said in substance, wasbrought about by a unique contrivance. The engineer designated thequantity and kinds of work to be done, and when these estimates werepublished by the commissioners, the favoured contractor, learningthrough collusion what materials would actually be required, bidabsurdly low prices for some and unreasonably high rates for others. After the contract was let, changes made in accordance with theprevious secret understanding required only the higher pricedmaterials. Thus the contractor secured the work without competition orreal public letting. [1468]

[Footnote 1467: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 285. ]

[Footnote 1468: The Governor plainly illustrated this device. Theengineer having estimated the amount of work and materials, thebidders added their prices. 

A bid as follows:

100 cubic yards of vertical wall, at $3 $ 300. 003, 855 cubic yards of slope wall, at $1. 50 5, 782. 502, 400 feet B. M. White oak, at $50 120. 0060, 000 feet B. M. Hemlock, at $15 900. 00 ------------Total estimate of A $ 7, 102. 50

B bid as follows:

100 cubic yards of vertical wall, at $6 $ 600. 003, 855 cubic yards of slope wall, at 30 cents 1, 156. 502, 400 feet B. M. White oak, at $70 168. 0060, 000 feet B. M. Hemlock, at $3 180. 00 ------------Total estimate of B $ 2, 104. 50

B was given the contract as the lowest bidder, after which the workwas changed as follows:

3, 955 cubic yards of vertical wall, at $6 $ 23, 730. 0062, 400 feet B. M. White oak, at $70 4, 368. 00 ------------Actually paid B by the State $ 28, 098. 00

On ten of these contracts, originally amounting to $424, 735. 90 theState paid $1, 560, 769. 84. --Tilden's _Public Writings and Speeches_, Vol. 2, pp. 106-108. ]

The Governor recommended various measures of reform, notably a newletting after any change in the proposals for bids. He also suggestedan investigation of the frauds already perpetrated, and for thispurpose the Senate confirmed a non-partisan commission, [1469] whoquickly reported that the work of one contractor showed fraudulentestimates, false measurements, and a charge of $150, 337. 02 forexcavations and embankments that were never made. Neither surveys norestimates preceded the letting of the contract, while in everyinstance he appeared as the lowest bidder. Eleven additional reportsmade during the year showed that similar frauds were repeatedlypractised by him and other contractors. In each case arrests, indictments, and suits for restitution promptly followed. [1470] It alsoappeared that the auditor of the canal department, a former Republicancandidate for secretary of state, had made use of his office tospeculate in canal drafts and certificates. 

[Footnote 1469: This commission was composed of John Bigelow, DanielMagone of Ogdensburg, Alexander E. Orr of Brooklyn, and John D. VanBuren of New York. ]

[Footnote 1470: Indictments were found against the son of a Statesenator, a member of the board of canal appraisers, an ex-canalcommissioner, two ex-superintendents of canals and one divisionengineer, besides numerous subordinates and contractors. --SeeBigelow's _Life of Tilden_, pp. 262-263; for names of the parties, seeAppleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1875, p. 558. ]

The excitement over these revelations recalled the indignationfollowing the Tweed disclosures. Every voter in every corner of theState knew of them. Furthermore, the arrests of contractors andofficials along the line of the canal multiplied evidence of theGovernor's courage. He spared no one. Of the principal officials andex-officials indicted all save two were Democrats, [1471] but hisadministration knew no party and expressed no concern. Such creditablepublic service made a profound impression, and during a visit to thewestern part of the State in August, the people accorded him theattention given to a conqueror. From Albany to Buffalo crowdseverywhere saluted him with bands of music and salvos of artillery, while his addresses, characterised by plainness of speech, deprecateda reactionary policy. 

[Footnote 1471: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 263. ]

These demonstrations alarmed Republican leaders. They appreciated thathis adroitness and energy in accumulating proof of Tweed's guilt hadfixed the attention of the country upon him as a presidentialcandidate, and that the assault on the canal spoilers made hispretensions more formidable. Moreover, they realised that their ownfailure to lead in canal reform in 1873, evidenced by ignoring Barlowand his incriminating disclosures, yielded Tilden a decided advantageof which he must be dispossessed. To accomplish this two ways openedto them. Regarding the canal scandal as not a party question theycould heartily join him in the crusade, thus dividing whateverpolitical capital might be made out of it; or they could disparage hiseffort and belittle his character as a reformer. The latter being theeasier because the more tolerable, many Republican papers begancharging him with insincerity, with trickery, and with being whollyinfluenced by political aspirations. His methods, too, were criticisedas undiplomatic, hasty, and often harsh. Of this policy _Harper'sWeekly_ said: "Those who say that the Governor's action is a merepolitical trick, and that he means nothing, evidently forget that theyare speaking of the man who, when he once took hold of the Tweedprosecution, joined in pushing it relentlessly to the end. "[1472]

[Footnote 1472: _Harper's Weekly_, August 28, 1875. ]

This was the sentiment of George William Curtis, who presided at theRepublican State convention. [1473] It also became the policy of themanagers whom defeat had chastened. They discerned the signs of thetimes, and instead of repressing hostility to a third term anddissatisfaction with certain tendencies of the Nationaladministration, as had been done in 1874, they deemed it wiser to swimwith the current, meeting new influences and conditions by discardingold policies that had brought their party into peril. The delegates, therefore, by a great majority, favoured "a just, generous, andforbearing national policy in the South, " and "a firm refusal to usemilitary power, except for purposes clearly defined in theConstitution. " They also commended "honest efforts for the correctionof public abuses, " pledged coöperation "in every honourable way tosecure pure government and to bring offenders to justice, " anddeclared "unalterable opposition to the election of any President fora third term. "[1474] Furthermore, the convention sought candidates ofprominence and approved integrity. In the presence of threateneddefeat such men were shy. William H. Robertson of Westchester thricedeclined the comptrollership, and insistence upon his acceptance didnot cease until James W. Husted, springing to his feet, declared thatsuch demands were evidently intended as an insult. Then Edwin D. Morgan proposed George R. Babcock, a distinguished lawyer of Buffalo, who likewise declined. In a short, crisp letter, John Bigelow, chairman of the canal investigating committee, rejected the profferedhonour. Finally, the choice fell upon Francis E. Spinner, formerlyUnited States treasurer, and although he sent two unconsentingtelegrams, the convention refused to revoke its action. Despite suchembarrassments, however, it secured an array of strong, cleanmen. [1475]

[Footnote 1473: Held at Saratoga on September 8, 1875. ]

[Footnote 1474: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1875, p. 560. ]

[Footnote 1475: The ticket was as follows: Secretary of State, Frederick W. Seward, New York; Comptroller, Francis E. Spinner, Herkimer; Treasurer, Edwin A. Merritt, St. Lawrence; Attorney-General, George F. Danforth, Monroe; Engineer, Oliver H. P. Cornell, Tompkins;Canal Commissioner, William F. Tinsley, Wayne; Prison Inspector, Benoni J. Ives, Cayuga. ]

A week later the Democrats assembled at Syracuse. They quickly retiredan anti-Tammany delegation led by John Morrissey, [1476] reaffirmed theplatforms of 1872 and 1874, and nominated John Bigelow for secretaryof state. Bigelow, well known as a former editor of the _Evening Post_and more recently minister to France, had always been a Republican. Indeed, Tilden named and a Republican Senate confirmed him as one oftwo Republicans on a non-partisan board; but for reasons best known tohimself Bigelow changed his party in the twinkling of an eye. Associated with him were John D. Van Buren, also upon the canalcommission; Lucius Robinson, who won, when comptroller in 1862, greathonour in the teeth of much obloquy by paying the State interest incoin; and Charles S. Fairchild, then a young lawyer earningsubstantial credit, like Bigelow and Van Buren, in the prosecution ofthe Canal ring. [1477] In naming this ticket Tilden had exhibited hischaracteristic shrewdness. He exaggerated the partisan aspect ofadministrative reform, and strengthened his candidacy for President byappropriating the glory. 

[Footnote 1476: After James Hayes' defeat for register in 1874, Kellydeprived Morrissey of his district leadership because he stirred updisaffection among the working men and sowed seeds of disloyalty. Intheir contest the Morrissey and Kelly factions were known as"Swallow-tails" and "Short-hairs, " Morrissey, to rebuke Wickham'scustom of requiring cards of callers in advance of admission to hisoffice, having called upon the Mayor during business hours in eveningdress, with white kids and patent-leather pumps. ]

[Footnote 1477: The ticket was as follows: Secretary of State, JohnBigelow, Ulster; Comptroller, Lucius Robinson, Chemung;Attorney-General, Charles S. Fairchild, New York; Treasurer, CharlesN. Ross, Cayuga; Engineer, John D. Van Buren, New York; CanalCommissioner, Christopher A. Walruth, Oneida; Prison Inspector, RodneyR. Crowley, Cattaraugus. 

On September 22 the Liberals met at Albany. They eulogised Tilden byname, favored the Greeley doctrine of a single term for President, arraigned the Federal administration, and recommended the support ofcandidates who would coöperate with the Executive in his work ofreform. 

For governor the Prohibitionists nominated George H. Dusenberre. ]

The Republican press, quickly interpreting his purpose, now changedfrom praise to censure, scrutinising and criticising every act in hislong public career. It reviewed his war record, disclosed his part inthe convention of 1864, and hinted at uncanny financial transactions. His service as the figurehead of Tweed's conventions, and hispassiveness after possessing knowledge of the infamous circular of1868 to which his name had been forged, also became the subject ofsevere censure. Though he neither shared Tweed's corrupt counsels norsanctioned his audacious schemes, Tilden's abhorrence of wrong, it wasargued, seemed insufficient to break his silence. But the accusationthat cut the deepest, because without palliation, illuminated hisdeclination to attend the great indignation meeting that appointed theCommittee of Seventy. This fact, established by abundant proof as wellas by his conspicuous absence, created the belief that had the_Times'_ exposure failed fatally to wound the Ring, he would haveshrunk from defying Tweed. 

In the presence of such a record it was ludicrous to deny that Tilden, although resembling a reformer, was simply an adroit politician, whohad cultivated some queer political associates and had countenancedsome very shady transactions. Nevertheless, Tilden would not bediverted from the singleness of his purpose. To make the issue apersonal one he took the stump and traversed the State from one end tothe other, always addressing immense crowds. At Utica the contemporarypress estimated the throng at twenty-five thousand persons. Withdirectness and business brevity he sought to arouse the people to theimportance and gravity of the issues at stake. "To-day about one-halfof the tax contributed by the farmer, " he said, "goes to the State tocarry on public affairs. . . . It is in the power of the Legislature andthe Executive at Albany to reduce this State tax one-half if you sendthe right men. . . . We began this work last winter. It made greatconflict and turmoil, the attempt to remove the fungus-growths whichhad sprung up all over our State institutions, and which weresmothering their vitality. . . . It is not alone the saving of dollarsand cents, for you cannot preserve your present system of governmentunless you purify administration and purify legislation. "[1478]

[Footnote 1478: Address at Utica Fair, September 30, 1875. --Tilden's_Public Writings and Speeches_, Vol. 2, pp. 229-233. ]

During the anti-slavery struggle Tilden's incapacity to measure themoral force of public sentiment had undoubtedly kept him in error. Hefailed entirely to appreciate the close connection between rebellionand slavery, and in finally yielding to the war-failure resolution atChicago in 1864 he did not realise how completely abolition and arestoration of the Union were associated in the hearts of the people. But with the advent of the business period, although his bodilypresence was weak and the external elements of popularity werewanting, his subtle, strong mind and great administrative capacitybrought him irresistibly to the front, and his shrewd, homely appeals, without mixed metaphors or partisan allusions, reduced the issue ofthe campaign to the attractive one of saving dollars and cents byprotecting the treasury against the raid of canal spoilers. 

Conkling did not attend the Saratoga convention. [1479] But he did notremain silent during the campaign. The Democratic and independentpress, illuminating the story of Louisiana under carpet-bag-negro rulewhich culminated in the ejection of members of the Legislature by afile of soldiers under command of General Sheridan, had greatlyincreased the disfavour of the Administration's policy toward theSouth. [1480] So intense had been the excitement following thepublication of Sheridan's despatches that a great indignation meetingcalled out William Cullen Bryant, then past eighty, who addressed it"with the vehemence and fire of a man of thirty. "[1481] Moreover, theexposure of the Whiskey ring which began under Bristow, then secretaryof the treasury, added to the advantage of the Democrats. The chiefconspirator figured as Grant's most generous gift-giver, who claimedcollusion with the President's private secretary. The Executive'sevident displeasure with Bristow also increased the unrest. Indeed, itseemed a period of exposure. Public opinion had become aroused andinflamed. "Great as are the frauds of Tammany, " said Charles A. Dana, "they sink into insignificance not only beside those of the carpet-baggovernments of the South, but still more beside those committed by theRepublican Administration at Washington. "[1482]

[Footnote 1479: In the summer of 1875 he made a brief visit toEurope. --Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 490. ]

[Footnote 1480: See Rhodes' _History of the United States_, Vol. 7, pp. 104-127. Also, Tilden's message to the Legislature, January 12, 1875, _Public Writings and Speeches_, Vol. 2, pp. 75-84. ]

[Footnote 1481: Godwin, _Life of Bryant_, p. 357. This meeting was heldJanuary 11. ]

[Footnote 1482: New York _Sun_, February 17. ]

These revelations, however, did not call more loudly for Conkling'sdefence of his party than did the popular applause which everywheregreeted the reform Governor. The work and rising fame of Tildenalarmed the Senator if it did not irritate him. He saw the tremendousthrong at Utica; he had read the plain, brief, unadorned statementabout dividing the State-tax by two; and he recognised a rival who hadleaped into the political arena full-armed and eager. Moreover, Conkling was himself a candidate for President. Grant's letter of May29, [1483] interpreted as a declination to be a candidate for a thirdterm, set him free to enter the lists, and the argument of hisavailability, based upon his power to carry the pivotal State, made aRepublican victory in 1875 of the highest importance. For him to takepart in the campaign, therefore, was imperative, and he selectedAlbany as the place and October 13 as the day to begin. Otherengagements followed at Buffalo, Utica, New York, and elsewhere. [1484]

[Footnote 1483: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1875, p. 743. ]

[Footnote 1484: See remarks of Forster of Westchester, a delegate tothe Republican State convention of March 22, 1876. --New York_Tribune_, March 23, 1876. ]

Attracted by the critical situation and an intense curiosity greataudiences greeted him, and hundreds of friends cheered an address, which, as usual, contained from his point of view the whole Republicancase. He recited the Democratic party's history during the war;described reformers as selfish, hypocritical, and pure, placingRepublicans in the last category; claimed that the canal fraudsoriginated under Democratic rule and were connived at by DemocraticState officials; and proved that Republicans had administered thecanals and the State's finances more economically than the Democrats. He also admitted reform to be the principal issue, thanked Tilden forthe little he had accomplished, severely castigated Bigelow foraccepting place on the canal commission as a Republican and on theState ticket as a Democrat, and drew attention to Kelly as a bad manand to the extravagance of Democratic rule in New York City. Throughout it all his treatment was characteristically bold, brilliant, and aggressive. "The bright blade of his eloquence with itskeen satiric edge flashed defiantly before the eyes of the applaudingaudience, "[1485] and every period exhibited his profound sense of theduty of maintaining the ascendency of a party which to him promisedbest for the public. 

[Footnote 1485: The _Nation_, October 28. ]

With wisdom and sound argument Conkling had opposed inflation, andafter the passage of the bill on April 14, 1874, he had encouraged thePresident's veto. He had likewise advocated with no less fervour andsagacity the resumption of specie payment, which became a law onJanuary 14, 1875. This service justly entitled him to the highestpraise. Nevertheless, in his speech at Albany he failed to show thatRepublican success in 1875 would not mean a continuation of thosethings which helped a Republican defeat in 1874. Hostility to a thirdterm and sympathy with a generous Southern policy were the conspicuousfeatures of the Saratoga platform, and upon these issues he maintaineda notable silence. His address was rather an appeal to the past--notan inspiring assurance for the future, seeking pure administration. Ofhis personal honesty no one entertained a doubt, but for party ends hehad failed to use his opportunities in exposing and correcting abuses. To him the country under Republican rule, whatever its shortcomings, was in the safest hands, and he exhibited no sympathy with thosewhose great love for their party made them long to have it stand forcivic righteousness, regardless of whom it might destroy. 

As the campaign grew older Republicans cherished the hope of victory. The break between Kelly and Morrissey had led to the formation of theIrving Hall Democracy. In this organisation all anti-Tammany elementsfound a home, and to test its strength Morrissey declared himself acandidate for the Senate in the fourth or old Tweed district, whichusually recorded eleven thousand majority for Tammany. The Republicanspromptly endorsed the nomination. This challenge had turned the wholecity into turmoil. Morrissey's audacity in selecting the invinciblestronghold of Tammany for his field of battle, throwing the glamour ofa gloveless ring-contest over the struggle, brought into life all theconcomitants of such a bout. Kelly, leaving his uptown home, personally led the Tammany forces, and on election day the paralytic, the maimed, and men feeble from sickness were brought to the polls. 

Nevertheless, when the votes were counted Morrissey proved the winner. Indeed, to the chagrin of Kelly and the alarm of the Democrats, Tammany candidates had fallen in every part of the city, theiroverthrow encouraging the belief that the State had been carried bythe Republicans. Subsequently, when Bigelow's plurality of nearlyfifteen thousand was established, it made defeat doublydisheartening. [1486] It put Tilden on a pinnacle. It left Conkling onthe ground. 

[Footnote 1486: Bigelow, 390, 211; Seward, 375, 401. Robinson, 389, 699;Spinner, 376, 150. Legislature: Senate: 20 Republicans, 12 Democrats. Assembly: 71 Republicans, 57 Democrats. Morrissey's majority, 3, 377. Dusenberre, Prohibitionist, total vote, 11, 103. --Appleton's_Cyclopædia_, 1875, p. 564. 

Bigelow's majority in New York City was 17, 013. --New York _World_, November 7, 1875. ]

CHAPTER XXVI

DEFEAT OF THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE

1876

Much discussion of Conkling's candidacy for President followed thedefeat of his party in 1875. The Union League Club, a body of earnestRepublicans and generous campaign givers, declared for pure governmentand a reforming Executive. Several county conventions voiced a protestagainst pledged delegations, and _Harper's Weekly_, in order to divideRepublicans more sharply into Conkling and anti-Conkling advocates, suggested, in a series of aggressive editorials, that a reformDemocrat might be preferable to a Republican who represented the lowtone of political honour and morality which exposed itself in officiallife. On the assembling of the State convention (March 22) to selectdelegates to Cincinnati, Curtis opened the way wider for a determinedstruggle. "The unceasing disposition of the officers and agents of theAdministration to prostitute the party organisations relentlessly andat all costs to personal ends, " he said, "has everywhere aroused theapprehension of the friends of free government, and has startled andalarmed the honest masses of the Republican party. "[1487] This shotfired across the bow of the organisation brought its head into thewind. 

[Footnote 1487: New York _Tribune_, March 23, 1876. ]

The Conkling managers had secured a majority of the delegates, whosedesire to advertise an undivided sentiment for the Senator in New Yorkmanifested itself by a willingness to yield in the interest ofharmony. Finally, their resolution to instruct the delegation to voteas a unit took the more modest form of simply presenting "RoscoeConkling as our choice for the nomination of President. " Curtis, refusing his assent, moved a substitute that left the selection of acandidate to the patriotic wisdom of the National convention "in fullconfidence that it will present the name of some tried and trueRepublican whose character and career are the pledge of a pure, economical, and vigorous administration of the government. " This wasan issue--not a compromise. It practically put Conkling out of therace, and after its presentation nothing remained to be done except tocall the roll. At its completion the startling discovery was made thatof the 432 delegates present only 363 had answered, and that of these113 had boldly stood with Curtis. Equally impressive, too, was thesilence of the 69 who refrained from voting. Thus it appeared that, after the whole office-holding power had worked for weeks to securedelegates, only 33 more than a majority favoured even the presentationof Conkling's name. It was recalled by way of contrast that in 1860, Seward, without an office at his command, had led the unitedRepublican enthusiasm of the State. 

Following the example of Seward's supporters at Chicago, the friendsof Conkling at Cincinnati occupied an entire hotel, distributed withlavishness the handsome State badge of blue, entertained theirvisitors with a great orchestra, paraded in light silk hats, and swungacross the street an immense banner predicting that "Roscoe Conkling'snomination assures the thirty-five electoral votes of New York. " Theseheadquarters were in marked contrast to the modest rooms of otherStates having favourite sons. No Blaine flag appeared, and only an oilportrait of Hayes adorned the Ohio parlours. A Philadelphia delegate, after surveying the Grand Hotel and the marchers, ironically remarkedthat "it was a mystery to him where the Custom-house got bail for allthose fellows. "[1488]

[Footnote 1488: New York _Tribune_, June 15, 1876. ]

The appearance of Edwin D. Morgan, who called the convention to order, evoked long-continued applause. It recalled two decades of stirringnational life since he had performed a like duty in 1856. Theodore M. Pomeroy's selection as temporary chairman likewise honoured New York, and his address, although read from manuscript, added to his fame asan orator. In seconding the nomination of Bristow, George WilliamCurtis, speaking "for that vast body of Republicans in New York whohave seen that reform is possible within the Republican party, " wonhis way to the convention's heart as quickly as he did in 1860, although each person present avowed, after Robert G. Ingersoll hadspoken, that for the first time he understood the possible compass ofhuman eloquence. [1489]

[Footnote 1489: _Official Proceedings of National RepublicanConventions_, p. 292. ]

Until the deciding ballot New York's part in the convention provedperfunctory. Beyond the sound of its music and the tread of itsmarchers neither applause nor good will encouraged its candidate. Reformers regarded Conkling as the antithesis of Bristow, supportersof Morton jealously scowled at his rivalry, and the friends of Blaineresented his attitude toward their favourite. Only Hayes's little bandof expectant backers, hoping eventually to capture the New Yorkdelegation, gracefully accorded him generous recognition. [1490]Conkling's support, beginning with ninety-nine votes, gradually felloff to eighty-one, when the delegation, without formally withdrawinghis name, dropped him with not a word and divided between Blaine andHayes, giving the former nine votes and the latter sixty-one. [1491] Infact, Morton and Conkling, the two political legatees of Grant, faredabout alike, their strength in the North outside their respectiveStates aggregating only six votes. The President, believing a "darkhorse" inevitable, wrote a letter favouring Hamilton Fish. [1492]

[Footnote 1490: New York _Commercial Advertiser_, September 28, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1491: Conkling's votes came from the following States:California, 1; Florida, 3; Georgia, 8; Michigan, 1; Mississippi, 1;Missouri, 1; Nevada, 2; New York, 69; North Carolina, 7; Texas, 3;Virginia, 3. Total, 99. George William Curtis refused to vote forConkling. 

Seven ballots were taken, as follows:

Blaine 285 296 293 286 308 351Bristow 113 114 121 126 111 21Morton 124 120 113 108 85Conkling 99 93 90 84 81Hayes 61 64 67 68 113 384Hartranft 58 63 68 71 50Jewell 11Wheeler 3 3 2 2 2 2

On the final ballot the following New York delegates voted for Blaine:William H. Robertson, Westchester; James W. Husted, Westchester; JacobWorth, Kings; John H. Ketcham, Dutchess; Jacob W. Haysradt, Columbia;James M. Marvin, Saratoga; Stephen Sanford, Montgomery; Amos V. Smiley, Lewis, and James C. Feeter, Herkimer. ]

[Footnote 1492: John Russell Young, _Around the World with GeneralGrant_, Vol. 2, p. 275. ]

For Vice-President the convention turned to New York. Stewart L. Woodford was the choice of the delegation. In presenting Conkling'sname his oratorical power had won admiration, while delegates fromOhio, Indiana, and other Western States, where his voice had beenheard in opposition to Greenbackism, did not forget his unselfishdevotion, nor the brilliant rhetoric that clothed his unanswerablearguments. But the Blaine States manifested genuine enthusiasm forWilliam A. Wheeler, a man of pure life, simple habits, ripe culture, and sincere and practical principles, who had won the esteem of allhis associates in Congress. To add to his charm he had a good presenceand warm family affections. He possessed, too, a well-earnedreputation for ability, having served with credit in the Legislature, in Congress, and as president of the constitutional convention of1866-7. Conkling thought him "not very well known. "[1493] Nevertheless, he had been mentioned for President, and throughout the long andexciting contest two delegates from Massachusetts kept his name beforethe convention. George F. Hoar, afterward the distinguishedMassachusetts senator, became especially active in his behalf, andJames Russell Lowell called him "a very sensible man. "[1494] Outsidedelegations, therefore, without waiting for New York to act, quicklyexhibited their partiality by putting him in nomination. [1495] Later, when the Empire State named Stewart L. Woodford, the situation becameembarrassing. Finally, as the Wheeler vote rapidly approached amajority, the Empire delegation, to escape being run over again, reluctantly withdrew its candidate. [1496] The roll call, thus abruptlydiscontinued, showed Wheeler far ahead of the aggregate vote of allcompetitors, and on motion his nomination was made unanimous. [1497]

[Footnote 1493: New York _Herald_, June 17, 1876. ]

[Footnote 1494: Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 244. ]

[Footnote 1495: Wheeler's name was presented by Luke P. Poland ofVermont, and seconded by S. H. Russell of Texas, and Henry R. James ofNew York (Ogdensburg). Thomas C. Platt presented Woodford. 

"Wheeler very much disliked Roscoe Conkling and all his ways. Conklingonce said to him: 'If you will join us and act with us, there isnothing in the gift of the State of New York to which you may notreasonably aspire. ' To which Wheeler replied: 'Mr. Conkling, there isnothing in the gift of the State which will compensate me for theforfeiture of my own self-respect. '"--Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 243. ]

[Footnote 1496: "It was not to the credit of the New York delegationthat Wheeler was obliged to look to other States for his presentationand support. "--Utica _Herald_, June 17. ]

[Footnote 1497: With fifteen States and Territories to be called, thevote stood as follows: Wheeler, 366; all others, 245. ]

The rank and file of the party, exhibiting no discouragement becauseof the outcome at Cincinnati, sought a strong candidate to head theirState ticket. [1498] To those possessing the reform spirit William M. Evarts appealed as a representative leader. He had indicated no desireto hold public office. Indeed, it may be said that he always seemeddisinterested in political conditions so far as they affected himpersonally. Although his friends thought the old supporters of Seward, if not Seward himself, had failed to sustain him for the United StatesSenate in 1861 as faithfully as he would have supported the Secretaryof State under like conditions, there is no evidence that he everfound fault. When in Hayes' Cabinet and afterwards in the Senate(1885-91), he did not take or attempt to take, either in the counselsof his party or of his colleagues, the leadership for which he wasadmirably fitted. It is doubtful, in fact, if he ever realised thestrong hold he had upon the respect and admiration of the country. Butthe people knew that his high personal character, his delightfuloratory, his unfailing wit and good-nature, and his great prestige asa famous lawyer of almost unexampled success commended him as an idealcandidate. Conspicuously among those urging his candidacy for governorin 1876 appeared a body of influential leaders from the Union Leagueand Reform clubs of the metropolis, calling themselves Independents. The Liberals, too, added voice to this sentiment. [1499]

[Footnote 1498: The Republican State convention met at Saratoga onAugust 23. ]

[Footnote 1499: Although many prominent Republicans who voted forGreeley in 1872 had previously renewed their allegiance, the Liberalsas an organisation did not formally coalesce with the Republican partyuntil August 23, 1876. On that day about 200 delegates, headed by JohnCochrane and Benjamin F. Manierre, met in convention at Saratoga, andafter accepting Hayes and Wheeler as the exponents of their reformprinciples, were invited amidst loud applause to seats in theRepublican State convention. ]

If the candidate could not be Evarts, the same elements evidenced adisposition to support Edwin D. Morgan, who had shown of late adisturbing independence of the machine. Of the other aspirants WilliamH. Robertson presented his usual strength in the Hudson Rivercounties. 

Alonzo B. Cornell was the candidate of the organisation. Evarts hadillustrated his independence in accepting office under PresidentJohnson, in criticising the Grant administration, and in protestingagainst the Louisiana incident. Robertson, in voting for Blaine, hadlikewise gone to the outer edge of disloyalty. Nor did Morgan'sattitude at Cincinnati commend him. His ambition, which centred in thevice-presidency, left the impression that he had cared more forhimself than for Conkling. Under these circumstances the Senatornaturally turned to Cornell, an efficient lieutenant, who, havingencountered heavy seas and a head wind, hoisted the signal of distressand waited for Conkling's coming. The Senator, however, did notappear. His rooms were engaged, his name was added to the hotelregister, and Cornell's expectant friends declared that he would againcapture the convention with his oratory; but Conkling, knowing that inpolitical conventions the power of oratory depended largely uponpledged delegations, prudently stayed away. Besides, he was not adelegate, his partisans in Oneida having been put to rout. This forcedthe withdrawal of Cornell, whose delegates, drifting to Morgan as thelesser of two evils, nominated him on the first ballot. [1500] Evartswas too great a man to be lifted into national prominence. 

[Footnote 1500: Whole number of votes cast, 410. Necessary to a choice, 206. Morgan received 242; Evarts, 126; Robertson, 24; Martin, 1;Townsend, 18. ]

For lieutenant-governor, Sherman S. Rogers of Erie and Theodore M. Pomeroy of Cayuga entered the lists. Encouraged by the folly of a fewrash friends, Cornell also allowed his name to be presented, "since hehad been grievously wronged, " said his eulogist, "in the dishonestcount of 1868. "[1501] Cornell had adroitly extricated himself fromhumiliating defeat in the morning by a timely withdrawal, but notuntil George William Curtis declared his nomination "the mostdangerous that could be made, " and William B. Woodin of Cayuga hadstigmatised him, did he fully appreciate his unpopularity as therepresentative of machine methods. Woodin's attack upon Cornellundoubtedly weakened Pomeroy. It possessed the delectable acidity, soreckless in spirit, but so delightful in form, that always made thedistinguished State senator's remarks attractive and diverting. Although whatever weakened Pomeroy naturally strengthened Rogers, itadded greatly to the latter's influence that he represented the homeof William Dorsheimer, whom the Democrats would renominate, and in theend the Buffalonian won by a handsome majority. [1502]

[Footnote 1501: New York _Tribune_, August 24. ]

[Footnote 1502: The ballot resulted: Rogers, 240; Pomeroy, 178. Necessary to a choice, 210. 

The ticket was as follows: Governor, Edwin D. Morgan, New York;Lieutenant-Governor, Sherman S. Rogers, Erie; Court of Appeals, GeorgeF. Danforth, Monroe; Canal Commissioner, Daniel C. Spencer, Livingston; Prison Inspector, Charles W. Trowbridge, Kings. ]

The day's work, however, left bitter thoughts. Conkling's absenceexaggerated Arthur's poor generalship and George H. Sharpe's failureto support Cornell. Sharpe was one of the organisation's cleverestleaders, and his indifference to Cornell's interests left a jaggedwound that was not soon to heal. Moreover, it could not be concealedthat Morgan's nomination was a Pyrrhic victory. In fact, theconventions at Cincinnati and Saratoga had thrown the Conkling machineout of gear, and while the repair shop kept it running several yearslonger, it was destined never again to make the speed it had formerlyattained. 

CHAPTER XXVII

TILDEN ONE VOTE SHORT

1876

After the election in 1875 the eyes of the national Democracy turnedtoward Tilden as its inevitable candidate for President. He had notonly beaten a Canal ring, strengthened by remnants of the old Tweedring, but he had carried the State against the energies of a fairlyunited Republican party. Moreover, he had become, in the opinion ofhis friends, the embodiment of administrative reform, although hesuffered the embarrassment of a statesman who is suspected, rightly orwrongly, of a willingness to purchase reform at any price. [1503] Toprove his right to be transferred from Albany to Washington he nowmade his message to the Legislature a treatise upon national affairs. 

[Footnote 1503: Tilden's policy of pardoning members of the Tweed ringhad become intolerable. "On an average about nine out of ten men whowere confessedly guilty of stealing were accepted as witnesses againstthe other one man, until the time came when there was but one managainst whom any testimony could be used, and it was not consideredwise to try him. It was a shameful condition of affairs. "--John D. Townsend, _New York in Bondage_, p. 141. ]

Dwelling at length upon the financiering of the Federal Government, Tilden sought to account for the financial depression, and in pointingto a remedy he advocated the prompt resumption of specie payment, criticised the dread of imaginary evils, encouraged economy inlegislation, and analysed the federal system of taxation andexpenditure. Furthermore, he sought to cut loose from the discreditedpast of his party, and in paying high tribute to the patriotism of theSouth, he expressed the hope that its acceptance of the results of thewar might end forever the retribution visited upon it by the standingmenace of military force. [1504]

[Footnote 1504: Tilden's _Public Writings and Speeches_, Vol. 2, pp. 237-295. ]

The result at Cincinnati increased the necessity for nominating Tildenat St. Louis, since Wheeler's popularity would materially assist inreplacing New York among reliable Republican States. Nevertheless, thepredatory class who had felt the weight of Tilden's heavy handfomented a most formidable opposition at the State convention. [1505]John Kelly deeply sympathised with the movement. He resented therivalry and independence of the Sage of Gramercy Park, and he did notdisguise his hostility. But Kelly's immediate need centred in theexclusion of the Morrissey delegation, and when the Tilden lieutenantsproscribed it, the way was smoothed for the Governor's unanimousendorsement with the gag of unit rule. 

[Footnote 1505: The Democratic State convention was held at Utica, April 26, 1876. ]

The admission of Kelly's delegates, however, did not close the mouthsof Tilden's opponents. [1506]. Organs of the Canal ring continued tourge Seymour or Church for President, maintaining that theconvention's action did not bind the delegation. Church supported thisinterpretation of the declaration. [1507] But it remained for the_Express_, the authorised organ of Tammany, to stigmatise Tilden. Withcruel particularity it referred to his many-sided conduct as counseland director in connection with the foreclosure and reorganisation ofcertain railroads in Illinois, reciting details of the affair in amanner highly prejudicial to his integrity as a lawyer and hisreputation as a man of wealth. "Of the weak points in Mr. Tilden'srailroad record, " the editor suggestively added, "we know more than wecare to publish. "[1508] It doubled the severity of the blow becausesuit had been instituted to compel Tilden to account for the proceedsof large amounts of bonds and stock, and instead of meeting theallegations promptly he had sought and obtained delay. This seemed togive colour to the indictment. 

[Footnote 1506: "It is natural enough that the canal ring and itsfollowers, Tammany and its adherents, and that sort of Democrats whoare commonly called Bourbons, should labour to defeat the nominationfor high office of the man who represents everything that they oppose, and opposes everything that they represent; but it will be a mostdiscouraging thing to every person who hopes for good at the hands ofthe Democratic party if such opposition is permitted to prevail in itscouncils. He has put his principles in practice in the most fearlessand resolute manner, and has made himself especially obnoxious to hisopponents as their hostility to him clearly shows. "--New York _EveningPost_ (editorial by William Cullen Bryant), May 26, 1876. ]

[Footnote 1507: New York _Tribune_, June 17. ]

[Footnote 1508: New York _Evening Express_, June 23, 1876. ]

At St. Louis Tilden's opponents, headed by John Kelly, AugustusSchell, and Erastus Corning, soon wore these insinuationsthreadbare. [1509] To their further declaration that in order to succeedin November the Democracy must have one October State and that Tildencould not carry Indiana, Dorsheimer and Bigelow, the Governor'sspokesmen, replied that New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut couldelect Tilden without Indiana. The colossal assurance of this answercharacterised the convention's confidence in Tilden's strength. Itpossessed the South, the East, and the West. Hancock might be thefavourite in Pennsylvania, Parker in New Jersey, Bayard in Delaware, Allen in Ohio, and Hendricks in Indiana, but as delegates entered theconvention city the dense Tilden sentiment smothered them. Evenscandal did not appreciably weaken it. 

[Footnote 1509: The National Democratic convention assembled on June 27and 28. ]

There was nothing mysterious about this strength. Tilden representedsuccess. Without him disaster threatened--with him victory seemedcertain. His achievement in administrative reform exaggeratedRepublican failure; his grasp upon New York, the most vital State ofthe North, magnified Democratic strength; his leadership, based uponideas and organisation, dwarfed political rivals; his acute legalmind, leading to the largest rewards in the realm of law, captivatedbusiness men; and his wealth, amassed in the field of railroadorganisation and litigation, could fill Democracy's exchequer. ThusTilden, standing less on the Democratic platform than on his ownrecord, held the commanding position in his party, and the talk of hisunpopularity or how he obtained wealth seemed to make as littleimpression as his professed devotion to the Wilmot Proviso in 1847, orhis departure for a season from a lifelong pro-slavery record to beara prominent part in the Barnburners' revolt of 1848. Indeed, socertain was Tilden of success that he did not ask for advices untilafter the nomination. James C. Carter of the New York bar, whohappened at the time to be with him respecting legal matters, wonderedat his unconcern. On their return from an evening drive Carterventured to suggest that he would find telegrams announcing hisnomination. "Not until half-past nine, " Tilden replied. [1510]

[Footnote 1510: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 308. ]

Nevertheless, the first call of States made the Tilden managersshiver. [1511] Alabama divided its vote, Colorado caused a murmur ofdisappointment, and the slump of Georgia and Illinois, with Missouri'sdivision, threatened them with heart-failure. The South wabbled, andpromised votes in the North found their way elsewhere. At the close ofthe first roll-call Missouri asked if its vote could be changed, andon receiving an affirmative answer, the Tilden men, pale with worriedexcitement, awaited the result. A change to Hancock at that momentwould have been a serious calamity, for nearly one hundred votesseparated Tilden from the necessary two-thirds. When Missouri declaredfor the New Yorker, however, the opportunity to turn the tide againsthim was lost forever. The second ballot undoubtedly represented hisreal strength. [1512] For second place Thomas A. Hendricks had noopposition. 

[Footnote 1511: Francis Kernan presented Tilden's name veryeffectively. ]

[Footnote 1512: First ballot. Necessary two-thirds, 492. Samuel J. Tilden of New York, 404-1/2; Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana, 133-1/2;Winfield Scott Hancock of Pennsylvania, 75; William Allen of Ohio, 56;Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware, 27; Joel Parker of New Jersey, 18. 

Second ballot: Tilden, 535; Hendricks, 60; Hancock, 59; Allen, 54;Bayard, 11; Parker, 18; Thurman of Ohio, 2. ]

The platform, prepared under the eye of Tilden by Manton Marble, theaccomplished editor of the _World_, advocated reform as its keynoteand made historic its vituperative arraignment of the party in power. On the vital question of the currency it demanded the repeal of theresumption clause of the Act of 1875, denouncing it as an hindrance tothe resumption of specie payment. The Republicans, wishing to avoidtoo sharp a conflict with the soft money sentiment of the West, hadpledged the fulfilment of the Public Credit Act, [1513] approved March18, 1869, "by a continuous and steady progress to specie payments. "Both declarations savoured of indefiniteness, but Hayes, in his letterof acceptance (July 8), added greatly to his reputation for firmnessand decision of character in supplying the needed directness bydemanding the resumption of specie payment. On the other hand, Tilden's letter (July 31) weakened the country's respect for him. [1514]He had no sympathy for soft money, but in supporting the demand for arepeal of the resumption clause he urged, in a long, indefinitecommunication, the importance of preparation for resumption, ignoringthe fact that the Act of 1875 anticipated such precaution. Althoughless prolix in his treatment of civil service reform, he was no lessindefinite. After describing recognised evils he failed to indicateany practical remedy beyond the "conviction that no reform will becomplete and permanent until the Chief Executive is constitutionallydisqualified for re-election. "[1515] Speaking of the character of themen holding office his use of the word "usufruct" led to the derisiveappellation of "Old Usufruct Tilden. "[1516] On civil service reformHayes was more specific. He declared against the use of officialpatronage in elections and pledged himself not to be a candidate for asecond term. [1517]

[Footnote 1513: This act terminates as follows: "And the United Statesalso solemnly pledges its faith to make provision at the earliestpracticable period for the redemption of the United States notes incoin. "]

[Footnote 1514: "Tilden's letter was a disappointment to those who hadstudied his words and acts as Governor. "--Rhodes, _History of theUnited States_, Vol. 7, p. 216. ]

[Footnote 1515: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1876, p. 790. ]

[Footnote 1516: "The public interest in an honest, skilful performanceof official trust must not be sacrificed to the usufruct of theincumbents. "--Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1876, p. 790. ]

[Footnote 1517: _Ibid. _, p. 783. ]

If Conkling had been balked in his desire to nominate Cornell, Tildenwas not less baffled a week later in his effort to promote WilliamDorsheimer, his special friend. His genius for organisation hadsmoothed the way for harmony at Saratoga. [1518] Kelly and Morrisseysettled their differences in advance, the platform created nodiscussion, and the appointment of electors-at-large provoked littlecriticism; but when Tilden's lieutenants proposed Dorsheimer forgovernor the convention revolted. It noisily demanded a Democrat, andin the stampede that followed Clarkson N. Potter, backed by Tammanyand the Canal ring, rapidly accumulated strength despite Tilden'spersonal opposition. To all of Tilden's friends vital objectionsseemed to be raised. Dorsheimer could not command a solid Democraticvote; Robinson favoured high canal tolls and cultivated Republicanaffiliations; Manton Marble remained unpopular because the _World_changed front in 1868; and Starbuck of Jefferson did not attractIndependents. For once Tilden had plainly been deceived as to hisstrength. Furthermore, the convention, divided in its attentionbetween speeches for Potter and demands for Seymour, was beyond hiscontrol. Nevertheless, as the delegates in their stentorian insistenceupon a "Democrat" became more and more furious for Seymour, the Tildenmanagers, to head off the alarming sentiment for Potter, adroitlyincreased the volume of the demand for the Oneidan. It was known thatSeymour had refused the use of his name. Telegrams to Kernan andletters to the president of the convention alleged indisposition and"obstacles which I cannot overcome. "[1519] But the convention, conscious that the former governor had before changed his mind undersimilar circumstances, closed its ears to his entreaties, and amidstthe most vociferous cheering nominated him by acclamation. The nextmorning, with equal unanimity, it renominated Dorsheimer forlieutenant-governor. 

[Footnote 1518: The Democratic State convention convened on August 30. ]

[Footnote 1519: Utica _Herald_, August 31, 1876. ]

A few days later Seymour, pleading mental inability to perform theduties of the office, put himself out of the race. [1520] This gaveTilden opportunity to re-form his lines, and upon the convention'sreassembling (September 13) Robinson easily won. [1521]

[Footnote 1520: For Seymour's letter, see New York papers of September5. ]

[Footnote 1521: The ballot stood: Potter, 106-1/2; Robinson, 192-1/2;scattering, 59. Necessary to a choice, 191. Before its announcementchanges gave Robinson 243-1/2. 

The ticket was as follows: Governor, Lucius Robinson, Chemung;Lieutenant-Governor, William Dorsheimer, Erie; Court of Appeals, Robert Earl, Herkimer; Canal Commissioner, Darius A. Ogden, Yates;Prison Inspector, Robert H. Anderson, Kings. ]

Democratic factions likewise buried their differences in New YorkCity, Kelly and Morrissey uniting upon Smith Ely for mayor. TheRepublicans nominated John A. Dix. Thus was the municipal struggle inthe metropolis, for the first time in many years, confined withinstrict party lines. [1522]

[Footnote 1522: On March 15, several disaffected Democrats met atSyracuse and organised a Greenback party, which opposed the resumptionof specie payment and favoured legal tender notes as the standard ofvalue. A second convention, held in New York City on June 1, selectedfour delegates-at-large to the Democratic national convention, and athird, meeting at Albany on September 26, nominated Richard M. Griffinfor governor. Other State nominations were made by the Prohibitionists, Albert J. Groo being selected for governor. ]

The campaign, although a prolonged and intensely exciting one, developed no striking incidents. Democratic orators repeated Marble'srhetorical arraignment of the Republican party, and the Democraticpress iterated and reiterated its symmetrical, burning sentences. Marble's platform, besides being the most vitriolic, had thedistinction of being the longest in the history of nationalconventions. Copies of it printed in half a dozen languages seemed tospring up as plentifully as weeds in a wheatfield. Every cross-roadsin the State became a centre for its distribution. It pilloriedGrant's administration, giving in chronological order a list of hisunwise acts, the names and sins of his unfaithful appointees, and aseries of reasons why Tilden, the Reformer, could alone restore theRepublic to its pristine purity. It was a dangerous document becausehistory substantially affirmed its statement of facts, while therhythm of its periods and the attractiveness of its typography invitedthe reader. [1523]

[Footnote 1523: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1876, pp. 785, 786. ]

Conkling, because of ill-health, limited his activity in the canvassto one address. [1524] It was calmer than usual, but it shone withsparkles of sarcasm and bristled with covert allusions readilyunderstood. It was noticeable, too, that he made no reference to Hayesor to Wheeler. Nevertheless, party associates from whom he hadradically differed pronounced it a model of partisan oratory and themost conclusive review of the political situation. He admitted thecorruption indicated by Marble, attributing it chiefly to the warwhich incited speculative passion in all the activities of life, itsill consequences not being confined exclusively to public affairs. Incontrasting the management of the two parties, he disclosed underBuchanan a loss on each thousand dollars collected and disbursed ofsix dollars and ninety-eight cents against forty cents during Grant'sfirst term and twenty-six cents during the three years of his second, while current expenses under Buchanan amounted to one dollar andninety cents per capita to one dollar and seventy cents under Grant. In ten years, he added, $800, 000, 000 of the debt had been paid, nearly $50, 000, 000 of interest saved yearly, and the taxes reduced$262, 000, 000 per annum. 

[Footnote 1524: Delivered at Utica, October 3. See New York papers, October 4. ]

Of civil service reform Conkling said nothing. He made a clear, sharpissue on the resumption of specie payment, however, showing that thedemand for a repeal of the Act's most important feature was a bid forthe votes of soft-money advocates. The Southern question assumed evengreater importance. Tilden depended for success upon the SouthernStates plus New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. This wasDorsheimer's argument, put with characteristic grace and force at St. Louis. The North had cause to fear, it was argued, if a solid South, strengthened by States controlled by the great majorities in and aboutNew York City, could elect a President. The charge that Tildenintended indemnifying the South and assuming the Confederate debtincreased the anxiety. Conkling's reference to the repayment of directtaxes, the refund of the cotton tax, and the liquidation of Southernclaims mounted so high into the hundreds of millions that Tildendeemed it prudent to issue a letter pledging an enforcement of theConstitutional Amendments and resistance to such monetary demands. 

Personal criticism of Tilden exploited his war record, his reputationas a railroad wrecker, and his evasion of the income tax. [1525] Theaccusation of "railroad wrecking" was scarcely sustained, but hisincome tax was destined to bring him trouble. Nast kept his pencilbusy. One cartoon, displaying Tilden emptying a large barrel ofgreenbacks into the ballot box, summed up the issues as follows: "Theshot-gun policy South, the barrel policy North;" "The solid South andthe solid Tammany;" "Tilden's war record--defeating the taxcollector. " George William Curtis asserted that the Democrats of SouthCarolina meant to carry the State for Tilden by means of "the shotgun, " declaring that "Jefferson Davis and the secessionists merelyendeavoured to enforce with bayonets the doctrines of Mr. Tilden. "[1526]

[Footnote 1525: It was claimed that in 1862 Tilden had a net income of$89, 000. He made oath to $7, 118, and afterward acknowledged receiving$20, 000 in the Terre Haute Railroad case. He alleged that this coveredthe work of several years. Moreover, that his income-producingproperty was largely in railroad stocks, bonds, and other securitieson which the tax was deducted by the companies before the interest anddividends were paid. --Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 232; seealso, _Nation_, September 22, 1876. ]

[Footnote 1526: _Harper's Weekly_, 1876, pp. 828, 885, 906, 907. ]

Tilden displayed a stoical indifference to these personal attacks. Hemade no speeches, he rarely exhibited himself to the public, and hekept his own counsels. His adroit, mysterious movements recalled themethods but not the conceit of Aaron Burr. Although Abram S. Hewitt, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, managed the campaignwith skill, Tilden relied largely upon his own shrewdness, displacingold leaders for new ones, and making it clear to the country that heranked with Martin Van Buren as a great political manager. As he sweptonward like a conquering Marlborough, inspiring his party withconfidence and his opponents with fear, events favoured his designs. The Belknap exposures, the Whiskey ring suits, the Babcock trial, alarming and disgusting the country, inclined public opinion toward achange which was expressed in the word "reform. " A combination ofpropitious circumstances within the State, in nowise indebted to hissagacity or assistance, also increased his strength. The collapse ofthe Tweed and Canal rings justly gave him great prestige, but noreason existed why the extinguishment of the State war debt and thelimitations of canal expenditures to canal revenues should add to hislaurels, for the canal amendment to the Constitution was passed andthe payment of the war debt practically accomplished before he tookoffice. Nevertheless, the resulting decrease of the State budget bynearly one-half, being coincident with his term of office, addedprodigiously to his fame. [1527] Indeed, he seemed to be the darling ofFortune, and on November 7, exactly according to his calculation, hecarried New York, [1528] New Jersey, Connecticut, and Indiana. ButRepublicans claimed South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. 

[Footnote 1527: "The amount of the State tax for 1876 was$8, 529, 174. 32, against $14, 206, 680. 61 in 1875, and $15, 727, 482. 08 in1874. " Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1876, p. 598. ]

[Footnote 1528: Tilden, plurality, 32, 742; Robinson, 30, 460. Groo, total vote, 3, 412 (Prohibitionist); Griffin, 1, 436 (Greenback). Congress, 17 Republicans, 16 Democrats. Assembly, 71 Republicans, 57Democrats. Ely's majority for mayor of New York City, 53, 517. Tilden'smajority in New York City, 53, 682. 

Republican losses occurred chiefly in the Hudson River and westerncounties. Elbridge G. Spaulding of Buffalo, and Levi P. Morton of NewYork, were defeated for Congress. ]

In the historic dispute which led to a division of the solid South, partisan papers revelled in threats, and rumours indicated danger ofmob violence. To prevent fraud prominent citizens in the North, appointed to represent each political party, watched the canvassingboards in the three disputed States, and although it subsequentlydeveloped that distinguished New Yorkers resorted to bribery, [1529] thelegal canvassing boards finally certified the electoral votes to Hayesand Wheeler. On December 6 the official count in all the States gaveHayes 185 votes and Tilden 184. The Democrats, deeply disturbed by theaction of the Returning Boards, now displayed a temper that resembledthe spirit preceding the civil war. Threats were openly made thatHayes should never be inaugurated. The Louisville _Courier Journal_announced that "if they (our people) will rise in their might, andwill send 100, 000 petitioners to Washington to present their memorialin person, there will be no usurpation and no civil war. "[1530] Aprominent ex-Confederate in Congress talked of 145, 000 welldisciplined Southern troops who were ready to fight. [1531] Because thePresident prudently strengthened the military forces about Washingtonhe was charged with the design of installing Hayes with the aid of thearmy. 

[Footnote 1529: Manton Marble visited Florida. On November 22, underthe _sobriquet_ "Moses, " he telegraphed in cipher to William T. Pelton, Tilden's nephew, then domiciled in Tilden's home at 15Gramercy Park: "Have just received proposition to hand over a Tildendecision of Board and certificate of Governor for $200, 000. " Peltonthought it too much, and Marble again telegraphed that one Electorcould be secured for $50, 000. Pelton replied that he "could not drawuntil the vote of the Elector was received. " On December 5, Marblewired: "Proposition failed. . . . Tell Tilden to saddle Blackstone. "

Smith M. Weed visited South Carolina. On November 16, without the useof cipher or _sobriquet_, he telegraphed Henry Havermeyer: "Boarddemand $75, 000 for two or three electors. " Later in the day he added:"Looks now as though $75, 000 would secure all seven votes. " The nextday he wired: "Press everywhere. No certainty here. Simply a hope. " OnNovember 18, he announced: "Majority of Board secured. Cost $80, 000. Send one parcel of $65, 000; one of $10, 000; one of $5, 000. All to bein $1000 or $500 bills. Have cash ready to reach Baltimore Sundaynight. " Pelton met Weed at Baltimore without the money and both wentto New York to secure it. Meantime, the canvassing board reported infavour of Hayes. 

Pelton also corresponded with one J. N. H. Patrick, who telegraphed fromOregon: "Must purchase Republican elector to recognise and act withthe Democrat, and secure vote to prevent trouble. Deposit $10, 000 tomy credit. " Pelton replied: "If you will make obligation contingent onresult in March it will be done. " Patrick said fee could not be madecontingent, whereupon $8, 000 was deposited on January 1, 1877, to hiscredit, but too late to complete the transaction. 

When these telegrams, translated by the New York _Tribune_, wereinvestigated by the Potter Congressional committee in January, 1879, Marble testified that he transmitted them simply "as danger signals";Weed admitted and attempted to justify; Pelton accepted the fullresponsibility, intending, he said, to get the money of Edward Cooper;Cooper testified that the telegram requesting $80, 000 sent toBaltimore was his first knowledge of Pelton's activity; that heimmediately informed Tilden, who recalled his nephew and put a stop tonegotiations. Tilden swore that "no offer, no negotiation in behalf ofany member of any Returning Board was ever entertained by me, or by myauthority, or with my sanction. . . . There never was a moment in which Iever entertained any idea of seeking to obtain those certificates byany venal inducement, any promise of money or office, to the men whohad them to grant or dispose of. My purpose on that subject wasperfectly distinct, invariable, and it was generally assumed by all myfriends without discussion. It may have sometimes been expressed andwhenever the slightest occasion arose for it to be discussed, it wasexpressed. It was never deviated from in word or act. "--Testimony inrelation to Cipher Telegraphic Dispatches, pp. 200-274; see also, Bigelow's _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, pp. 180-223. ]

[Footnote 1530: From an editorial signed by Henry Watterson, January 8, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1531: Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 7, p. 243. ]

On the other hand, Republicans believed Tilden endeavoured to buy thepresidency. Although nothing was then known of Marble's and Weed'sefforts to tamper with the canvassing boards of South Carolina andFlorida, the disposition to "steal" a vote in Oregon, which clearlybelonged to Hayes, deprived Tilden's cause of its moral weight. Indeed, so strongly did sentiment run against him that the _Nation_"lost nearly three thousand subscribers for refusing to believe thatMr. Hayes could honourably accept the presidency. "[1532]

[Footnote 1532: The _Nation_, June 25, 1885. ]

When Congress opened the Democrats, being in control of the House, desired to continue the joint rule of February, 1865, directing that"no electoral vote objected to shall be counted except by theconcurrent votes of the two Houses. " This would elect Tilden. On theother hand, the Republicans, holding that the joint rule expired withthe Congress adopting it, insisted that, inasmuch as the canvass byCongress at all previous elections had been confined exclusively toopening the certificates of each State, sent to Washington under theofficial seal of the respective governors, the Vice-President shouldopen and count the electoral votes and declare the result, the membersof the two Houses acting simply as witnesses. This would elect Hayes. To many and especially to President Grant this controversy seemed fullof danger, to avert which if possible Congress adopted a resolutionproviding for a committee of fourteen, equally divided between theSenate and House, "to report without delay such a measure as may intheir judgment be best calculated to accomplish the desiredend. "[1533] On January 18 (1877) this committee reported a billproviding that where two or more returns had been received from aState such returns should be referred to an Electoral Commissioncomposed of five senators, five members of the House, and fivejustices of the Supreme Court, who should decide any questionsubmitted to it touching the return from any State, and that suchdecision should stand unless rejected by the concurrent votes of thetwo Houses. By tacit agreement the Senate was to name threeRepublicans and two Democrats, and the House three Democrats and twoRepublicans, while the Bill itself appointed Justices Clifford, Miller, Field, and Strong, a majority of whom were authorised toselect a fifth justice. [1534]

[Footnote 1533: Upon this committee Conkling was substituted in placeof Logan, detained at home. Abram S. Hewitt was one of the Houseappointees. ]

[Footnote 1534: Clifford and Field were accounted Democrats, and Millerand Strong, Republicans. ]

When doubt as to the three Southern States precipitated itself intothe result of the election, Tilden exhibited characteristic diligenceand secrecy. He avoided public statements, but he scrutinised thereturns with the acumen exhibited in securing the Tweed evidence, andleft no flaw unchallenged in the title of his opponent. After theaction of the canvassing boards he contended that the joint rule of1865 must govern, and in the study of the subject he devoted more thana month to the preparation of a complete history of electoral counts, showing it to have been the unbroken usage for Congress and not thePresident of the Senate to count the vote. [1535] Moreover, early in thesession of Congress he prepared two resolutions which raised theissue, and urged his friends in the leadership of the House to take nofurther step until the great constitutional battle had been foughtalong that line, assuring them of his readiness to accept all theresponsibility of the outcome. To appraise the country of thestrength of this position he also prepared an extended brief whichGovernor Robinson incorporated as a part of his inaugural message onJanuary 1, 1877. [1536]

[Footnote 1535: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 60. ]

[Footnote 1536: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, pp. 67-74. ]

Tilden first learned of the proposed Electoral Commission Bill onJanuary 14. Abram S. Hewitt brought the information, saying thatBayard and Thurman of the Senate, being absolutely committed to it, would concur in reporting it whatever Tilden's action. [1537] Tilden, resenting the secrecy of its preparation as unwise and essentiallyundemocratic, declined to give it his approval. [1538] In his latertelegrams to Hewitt he expressed the belief that "We should stand onthe Constitution and the settled practice;" that "the other side, having no way but by usurpation, will have greater troubles than we, unless relieved by some agreement;" that "the only way of gettingaccessions in the Senate is by the House standing firm;" that "we areover-pressed by exaggerated fears;" and that "no information is herewhich could justify an abandonment of the Constitution and practice ofthe government, and of the rights of the two Houses and of thepeople. " To his friends who urged that time pressed, he exclaimed:"There is time enough. It is a month before the count. "Representations of the danger of a collision with the Executive methis scorn. "It is a panic of pacificators, " he said. "Why surrenderbefore the battle for fear of having to surrender after thebattle?"[1539]

[Footnote 1537: Manton Marble to the New York _Sun_, August 5, 1878. ]

[Footnote 1538: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 76. ]

[Footnote 1539: _Ibid. _, pp. 76, 79, 80. ]

In view of his resentment of the secrecy which characterised thepreparation of the Electoral Commission Bill, one wonders that Tildenmade no appeal directly to the people, demanding that his party standfirm to "the settled practice" and allow Republicans peaceably toinaugurate Hayes "by usurpation" rather than "relieve them by someagreement. " His telegrams to congressmen could not be published, andfew if any one knew him as the author of the discussion in Robinson'sinaugural. The _Times_ thought "the old Governor's hand is to be seenin the new Governor's message, "[1540] but the _Nation_ expressed doubtabout it. [1541] A ringing proclamation over his own signature, however, would have been known before sunset to every Democratic voter in theland. Blaine told Bigelow a year or two later that if the Democratshad been firm, the Republicans would have backed down. [1542] Tilden'ssilence certainly dampened his party's enthusiasm. It recalled, too, his failure to assail the Tweed ring until the _Times'_ disclosuremade its destruction inevitable. 

[Footnote 1540: New York _Times_, January 2, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1541: January 4. ]

[Footnote 1542: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 74, note. ]

Bigelow, reflecting Tilden's thought, charged that in accepting theplan of an Electoral Commission Thurman and Bayard were influenced bypresidential ambition, and that prominent congressmen could not regardwith satisfaction the triumph of a candidate who had been in nowiseindebted to them for his nomination or success at the polls. [1543] Onthe other hand, Blaine says the Democrats favoured the Commissionbecause Davis, who affiliated with the Democratic party and hadpreferred Tilden to Hayes, was to be chosen for the fifth justice. TheMaine statesman adds, without giving his authority, that Hewittadvanced this as one of the arguments to induce Tilden to approve thebill. [1544] In his history of the Hewitt-Tilden interview Marble makesno mention of Davis' selection, nor does Bigelow refer to Tilden'sknowledge of it. Nevertheless, the strength disclosed for the billsustains Blaine's suggestion, since every Democrat of nationalreputation in both Houses supported it. The measure passed the Senateon January 24 and the House on the 26th, [1545] but an unlooked-forevent quickly destroyed Democratic calculations and expectations, foron January 25, too late for the party to recede with dignity or withhonour, the Democrats of the Illinois Legislature elected Davis by twomajority to the United States Senate in place of John A. Logan. Probably a greater surprise never occurred in American politicalhistory. It gave Davis an opportunity, on the ground of obviousimpropriety, to avoid what he neither sought nor desired, and narrowedthe choice of a fifth justice to out-and-out Republicans, thussettling the election of Hayes. "The drop in the countenance of AbramS. Hewitt, " said a writer who informed Tilden's representative ofDavis' transfer from the Supreme Court to the Senate, "made it plainthat he appreciated its full significance. "[1546] Bigelow could notunderstand why Davis did not serve on the Commission unless his"declination was one of the conditions of his election, " adding that"it was supposed by many that Morton and others engineered theagreement of Davis' appointment with full knowledge that he would notserve. "[1547] This cynical comment betrayed Tilden's knowledge of"things hoped for, " and accounts for his final acquiescence in theCommission, since Davis and a certainty were far better than a fightand possible failure. 

[Footnote 1543: _Ibid. _, p. 63. ]

[Footnote 1544: Blaine, _Twenty Tears of Congress_, Vol. 2, p. 584. Morrison of Illinois declared that Davis' "most intimate friends, among whom I may count myself, don't know to-day whether he favoredTilden or Hayes. He didn't vote at all. "--_Century Magazine_, October, 1901, p. 928. ]

[Footnote 1545: Senate: For, 26 Democrats, 21 Republicans; against, 16Republicans, 1 Democrat. House: For, 160 Democrats, 31 Republicans;against, 69 Republicans, 17 Democrats. ]

[Footnote 1546: _Century Magazine_, October, 1901, p. 933. ]

[Footnote 1547: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 64, note. ]

Another dagger-thrust that penetrated the home in Gramercy Park wasConkling's exclusion from the Electoral Commission. Of all the membersof the famous committee the Senator had borne the most useful part inframing the measure, and his appointment to the Commission wasnaturally expected to follow. [1548] His biographer states that hedeclined to serve. [1549] "If this be correct, " says Rhodes, "he shirkeda grave duty. "[1550] Bigelow charges the omission to the Senator'sbelief "that the vote of Louisiana rightfully belonged to Mr. Tilden, "and volunteers the information "that Conkling had agreed to addressthe Commission in opposition to its counting Louisiana forHayes. "[1551] Conkling's absence from the Senate when the Louisianavote was taken corroborates Bigelow, [1552] and supports the generalopinion which obtained at the time, that the Republicans, suspectingConkling of believing Tilden entitled to the presidency, intentionallyignored him in the make-up of the Commission. [1553] The reason forConkling's failure subsequently to address the Commission inopposition to counting Louisiana for Hayes nowhere explicitly appears. "Various explanations are in circulation, " writes Bigelow, "but I havenot been able to determine which of them all had the demerit ofsecuring his silence. "[1554]

[Footnote 1548: "General Grant sent for Senator Conkling, and said withdeep earnestness: 'This matter is a serious one, and the people feelit very deeply. I think this Electoral Commission ought to beappointed. ' Conkling answered: 'Mr. President, Senator Morton' (whowas then the acknowledged leader of the Senate), 'is opposed to it andopposed to your efforts; but if you wish the Commission carried, I canhelp do it. ' Grant said: 'I wish it done. '"--George W. Childs, _Recollections_, pp. 79, 80. ]

[Footnote 1549: Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 521. ]

[Footnote 1550: Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 7, p. 263. ]

[Footnote 1551: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 84. ]

[Footnote 1552: "In all his political official life the most importantvote which he [Conkling] has been or can be called upon to give--thatupon the Louisiana electoral question--he evaded. "--_Harper's Weekly_, February 8, 1879. ]

[Footnote 1553: "He [Conkling] was at the time most suspected by theRepublicans, who feared that his admitted dislike to Hayes would causehim to favour a bill which would secure the return of Tilden. "--ThomasV. Cooper and Hector T. Fenton, _American Politics_, p. 230; see also, Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 7, p. 263. ]

[Footnote 1554: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 84. 

"Mr. Conkling felt that neither Mr. Tilden nor Mr. Hayes should beinaugurated. "--Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 528. ]

CHAPTER XXVIII

CONKLING AND CURTIS AT ROCHESTER

1877

Two State governments in Louisiana, one under Packard, a Republican, the other under Nicholls, a Democrat, confronted Hayes upon the day ofhis inauguration. The canvassing boards which returned the Hayeselectors also declared the election of Packard as governor, and itwould impeach his own title, it was said, if the President refusedrecognition to Packard, who had received the larger popular majority. 

It was not unknown that the President contemplated adopting a newSouthern policy. His letter of acceptance presupposed it, and beforethe completion of the Electoral Commission's work political andpersonal friends had given assurance in a published letter that Hayeswould not continue military intervention in the South. [1555] Moreover, the President's inaugural address plainly indicated such a purpose. Toinform himself of the extent to which the troops intervened, therefore, and to harmonise if possible the opposing governments, hesent a commission to New Orleans, [1556] who reported (April 21) areturning board quorum in both branches of the Nicholls Legislatureand recommended the withdrawal of the army from the immediate vicinityof the State House. This was done on April 24 and thenceforward theNicholls government controlled in State affairs. [1557]

[Footnote 1555: Letter of Stanley Matthews and Charles Foster, datedFebruary 17, 1877. --Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1877, p. 459. ]

[Footnote 1556: This commission consisted of Charles B. Lawrence, Joseph B. Hawley, John M. Harlan, John C. Brown, and WayneMcVeigh. --_Ibid. _, p. 465. ]

[Footnote 1557: _Ibid. _, pp. 456-465. Packard became consul toLiverpool. ]

The President's policy quickly created discontent within the ranks ofthe Republican party. Many violently resented his action, declaringhis refusal to sustain a governor whose election rested substantiallyupon the same foundation as his own as a cowardly surrender to theSouth in fulfillment of a bargain between his friends and someSouthern leaders. [1558] Others disclaimed the President's obligation tocontinue the military, declaring that it fostered hate, drew thecolour line more deeply, promoted monstrous local misgovernment, andprotected venal adventurers whose system practically amounted tohighway robbery. Furthermore, it did not keep the States underRepublican control, while it identified the Republican name withvindictive as well as venal power, as illustrated by the LouisianaDurrell affair in 1872, [1559] in the elections of 1874, and at theorganisation of the Louisiana Legislature early in 1875. [1560]Notwithstanding these potent reasons for the President's action thejudgment of a majority of his party deemed it an unwise andunwarranted act, although Grant spoke approvingly of it. [1561]

[Footnote 1558: The commission reported the Packard government'sinsistence that the Legislature of 1870 had the power to create aReturning Board with all the authority with which the Act clothed it, and that the Supreme Court of the State had affirmed itsconstitutionality. On the other hand, the Nichols government admittedthe Legislature's right to confide to a Returning Board theappointment of electors for President and Vice-President, but deniedits power to modify the constitutional provision for counting the votefor governor without first amending the State Constitution, declaring the Supreme Court's decision to the contrary not to beauthoritative. --Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1877, pp. 403-404. ]

[Footnote 1559: Durrell, a United States Circuit judge, sustainedKellogg in his contest with McEnery. ]

[Footnote 1560: "The President directs me to say that he does notbelieve public opinion will longer support the maintenance of theState government in Louisiana by the use of the military, and he mustconcur in this manifest feeling. " Grant's telegram to Packard, datedMar. 1, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1561: New York _Tribune_, July 10, 1877. ]

Similar judgment was pronounced upon the President's attempt toreform the civil service by directing competitive examinations forcertain positions and by forbidding office-holders actively toparticipate in political campaigns. [1562] "No officer should berequired or permitted to take part in the management of politicalorganisations, caucuses, conventions, or election campaigns, " he wroteto the Secretary of the Treasury. "Their right to vote and to expresstheir views on public questions, either orally or through the press, is not denied, provided it does not interfere with the discharge oftheir official duties. No assessments for political purposes should beallowed. " In a public order dated June 22 he made this rule applicableto all departments of the civil service. "It should be understood byevery officer of the government that he is expected to conform hisconduct to its requirements. "[1563] To show his sincerity thePresident also appointed a new Civil Service Commission, with DormanB. Eaton at its head, who adopted the rules formulated under Curtisduring the Grant administration, and which were applied with a measureof thoroughness, especially in the Interior Department under CarlSchurz, and in the New York post-office, then in charge of Thomas L. James. 

[Footnote 1562: The first step towards a change in the manner ofappointments and removals was a bill introduced in Congress onDecember 20, 1865, by Thomas A. Jenckes of Rhode Island "to regulatethe civil service of the United States. " A few months later Senator B. Gratz Brown of Missouri submitted a resolution for "such change in thecivil service as shall secure appointments to the same after previousexaminations by proper Boards, and as shall provide for promotions onthe score of merit or seniority. " On March 3, 1871, Congress appendeda section to an appropriation bill, authorising the President to"prescribe such regulations for the admission of persons into thecivil service as may best promote efficiency therein and ascertain thefitness of each candidate in respect to age, health, character, knowledge and ability for the branch of service in which he seeks toenter; and for this purpose he may employ suitable persons to conductsuch inquiries, prescribe their duties, and establish regulations forthe conduct of persons who may receive appointments. " Under thisauthority President Grant organised a commission composed of GeorgeWilliam Curtis, Joseph Medill, Alexander C. Cattell, Davidson A. Walker, E. B. Ellicott, Joseph H. Blackfan, and David C. Cox. Thiscommission soon found that Congress was indisposed to clothe them withthe requisite power, and although in the three years from 1872 to1875, they had established the entire soundness of the reform, anappropriation to continue the work was refused and the labours of thecommission came to an end. ]

[Footnote 1563: New York _Tribune_, June 25, 1877. ]

This firm and aggressive stand against the so-called spoils systemvery naturally aroused the fears of many veteran Republicans ofsincere and unselfish motives, who had used offices to build up andmaintain party organisation, while the order restricting freedom ofpolitical action provoked bitter antagonism, especially among membersof the New York Republican State Committee, several of whom heldimportant Federal positions. To add to the resentment an officialinvestigation of the New York custom-house was ordered, whichdisclosed "irregularities, " said the report, "that indicate the perilto which government and merchants are exposed by a system ofappointments in which political influence dispenses with fitness forthe work. "[1564] The President concurred. "Party leaders should have nomore influence in appointments than other equally respectablecitizens, " he said. "It is my wish that the collection of the revenueshould be organised on a strictly business basis, with the sameguarantees for efficiency and fidelity in the selection of the chiefand subordinate officers that would be required by a prudentmerchant. "[1565]

[Footnote 1564: New York _Tribune_, July 28, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1565: _Ibid. _]

The Republican press, in large part, deplored the President's action, and while managing politicians smothered their real grievance underattacks upon the Southern policy, they generally assumed an attitudeof armed neutrality and observation. [1566] No doubt the President wasmuch to blame for this discontent. He tolerated the abuses disclosedby the investigation in New York, continued a disreputable régime inBoston, and installed a faction in Baltimore no better than the oneturned out. Besides, the appointment to lucrative offices of theRepublican politicians who took active part in the Louisiana ReturningBoard had closely associated him with the spoils system. [1567]Moreover, his failure to remove offending officials discredited hisown rule and created an unfavourable sentiment, because afterprovoking the animosity of office-holders and arousing the public heleft the order to execute itself. Yet the people plainly believed inthe President's policy of conciliation, sympathised with his desire toreform abuses in the civil service, and honoured him for hisfrankness, his patriotism, and his integrity. During the months ofAugust and September several Republican State conventions, notablythose in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and New Jerseycommended him, while Maine, under the leadership of Blaine, althoughrefusing to indorse unqualifiedly the policy and acts of theAdministration, refrained from giving any expression ofdisapproval. [1568]

[Footnote 1566: In his speech at Woodstock, Conn. , on July 4, Blainedisapproved the President's action; a gathering of Republicans in NewJersey, celebrating the return of Robeson from a foreign tour, indicated an unfriendly disposition; the Camerons of Pennsylvania, father and son, exhibited dissent; one branch of the New HampshireLegislature tabled a resolution approving the President's course; andan early Republican State convention in Iowa indirectly condemned it. ]

[Footnote 1567: In H. R. 45th Cong. , 3d Sess. , No. 140, p. 48 (Potterreport) is a list of those connected with the Louisiana count"subsequently appointed to or retained in office. "]

[Footnote 1568: These conventions occurred as follows: Ohio, August 2;Maine, August 9; Pennsylvania, September 6; Wisconsin, September 12;Massachusetts, September 20; New Jersey, September 25. See New Yorkpapers on the day following each. ]

New York's Republican convention assembled at Rochester on September26. The notable absence of Federal office-holders who had resignedcommitteeships and declined political preferment attracted attention, otherwise the membership of the assembly, composed largely of theusual array of politicians, provoked no comment. Conkling and Cornellarrived early and took possession. In 1874 and in 1875 the Senator'sfriends fought vigorously for control, but in 1877 the dividedsentiment as to the President's policies and the usual indifferencethat follows a Presidential struggle inured to their benefit, givingthem a sufficient majority to do as they pleased. 

Thus far Conkling had not betrayed his attitude toward theAdministration. At the time of his departure for Europe in search ofhealth, when surrounded by the chief Federal officials of the city, hesignificantly omitted words of approbation or criticism, and withequal dexterity avoided the expression of an opinion in the manywelcoming and serenade speeches amidst which his vacation ended inAugust. No doubt existed, however, as to his personal feeling. Theselection of Evarts for secretary of state in place of Thomas C. Plattfor postmaster general did not make him happy. [1569] George WilliamCurtis's ardent support of the President likewise aided in separatinghim from the White House. Nevertheless, Conkling's attitude remained aprofound secret until Thomas C. Platt, as temporary chairman, beganthe delivery of a carefully prepared speech. 

[Footnote 1569: New York _Tribune_, February 28, 1877. ]

Platt was then forty-four years old. He was born in Owego, educated atYale, and as a man of affairs had already laid the foundation for thesuccess and deserved prominence that crowned his subsequent businesscareer. Ambition also took him early into the activities of publicpolitical life, his party having elected him county clerk at the ageof twenty-six and a member of Congress while yet in his thirties. Hisfriends, attracted by his promise-keeping and truth-telling, includedmost of the people of the vicinage. He was not an orator, but hepossessed the resources of tact, simplicity, and bonhomie, which areserviceable in the management of men. [1570] Moreover, as an organiserhe developed in politics the same capacity for control that heexhibited in business. He had quickness of decision and flexibility ofmind. There was no vacillation of will, no suspension of judgment, noprocrastination that led to harassing controversy over minor details. He seemed also as systematic in his political purposes as he wasorderly in his business methods. These characteristic traits, wellmarked in 1877, were destined to be magnified in the next two decadeswhen local leaders recognised that his judgment, his capacity, and hisskill largely contributed to extricate the party from the chaoticconditions into which continued defeat had plunged it. 

[Footnote 1570: "Platt and I imbibed politics with our earliestnutriment. I was on the stump the year I became a voter, and so washe. I was doing the part of a campaign orator and he was chief of thecampaign glee club. The speech amounted to little in those days unlessit was assisted by the glee club. In fact the glee club largely drewthe audience and held it. The favorite song of that day was 'JohnBrown's Body, ' and the very heights of ecstatic applause were reachedwhen Brother Platt's fine tenor voice rang through the arches of thebuilding or the trees of the woodland, carrying the refrain, 'We'llhang Jeff Davis on a sour apple tree, while John Brown's soul goesmarching on. '"--Chauncey M. Depew, _Speeches_, 1896 to 1902, p. 237. ]

Conkling early recognised Platt's executive ability, and theirfriendship, cemented by likeness of views and an absence of rivalry, kept them sympathetically together in clearly defined fields ofactivity. In a way each supplemented the other. Platt was neitherself-opinionated nor overbearing. He dealt with matters political withthe light touch of a man of affairs, and although without sentiment orideals, he worked incessantly, listened attentively, and was anxiousto be useful, without taking the centre of the stage, or repellingsupport by affectations of manner. But like Conkling he relied uponthe use of patronage and the iron rule of organisation, and too littleupon the betterment of existing political conditions. 

This became apparent when, as temporary chairman, he began to addressthe convention. He startled the delegates by calling the distinguishedSecretary of State a "demagogue, " and other Republicans who differedwith him "Pecksniffs and tricksters. " As he proceeded dissent blendedwith applause, and at the conclusion of his speech prudent friendsregretted its questionable taste. In declining to become permanentpresident Conkling moved that "the gentleman who has occupied thechair thus far with the acceptance of us all" be continued. Thisaroused the Administration's backers, of whom a roll-call disclosed110 present. [1571]

[Footnote 1571: The vote stood 311 to 110 in favour of the motion. ]

The platform neither approved nor criticised the President's Southernpolicy, but expressed the hope that the exercise of his constitutionaldiscretion to protect a State government against domestic violencewould result in peace, tranquillity, and justice. Civil service reformwas more artfully presented. It favoured fit men, fixed tenure, faircompensation, faithful performance of duty, frugality in the number ofemployés, freedom of political action, and no political assessments. Moreover, it commended Hayes's declaration in his letter of acceptancethat "the officer should be secure in his tenure so long as hispersonal character remained untarnished and the performance of hisduty satisfactory, " and recommended "as worthy of consideration, legislation making officers secure in a limited fixed tenure andsubject to removal only as officers under State laws are removed inthis State on charges to be openly preferred and adjudged. "[1572] Thisparalleled the President's reform except as to freedom of politicalaction, and in support of that provision it arrayed a profoundlyimpressive statement, showing by statistics that Hayes's order, ifapplied to all State, county, and town officials in New York, wouldexclude from political action one voter out of every eight andone-half. If this practical illustration exhibited the weakness of thePresident's order it also anticipated what the country afterwardsrecognised, that true reform must rest upon competitive examinationfor which the Act of March 3, 1871 opened the way, and which PresidentHayes had directed for certain positions. 

[Footnote 1572: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1877, pp. 562-563. ]

But despite the platform's good points, George William Curtis, construing its failure to endorse the Administration into censure ofthe President, quickly offered a resolution declaring Hayes's title tothe presidency as clear and perfect as that of George Washington, andcommending his efforts in the permanent pacification of the South andfor the correction of abuses in the civil service. [1573] Curtis hadnever sought political advantage for personal purposes. The day hedrifted away from a clerkship in a business firm and landed among thephilosophers of Brook Farm he became an idealist, whom a Germanuniversity and years of leisure travel easily strengthened. So fixedwas his belief of moral responsibility that he preferred, after hisunfortunate connection with _Putnam's Magazine_, to lose his wholefortune and drudge patiently for sixteen years to pay a debt of$60, 000 rather than invoke the law and escape legal liability. He wasan Abolitionist when abolitionism meant martyrdom; he became aRepublican when others continued Whigs; and he stood for Lincoln andemancipation in the months of dreadful discouragement precedingSheridan's victories in the Shenandoah. He was likewise a civilservice reformer long in advance of a public belief, or any belief atall, that the custom of changing non-political officers on merelypolitical grounds impaired the efficiency of the public service, lowered the standard of political contests, and brought reproach uponthe government and the people. It is not surprising, therefore, thathe stood for a President who sought to re-establish a reform that hadbroken down under Grant, and although the effort rested upon anExecutive order, without the permanency of law, he believed that anyattempt to inaugurate a new system should have the undivided supportof the party which had demanded it in convention and had elected aPresident pledged to establish it. Moreover, the President had offeredCurtis his choice of the chief missions, expecting him to choose theEnglish. Remembering Irving in Spain, Bancroft in Germany, Motley inEngland, and Marsh in Italy, it was a great temptation. But Curtis, appreciating his "civic duty, " remained at home, and now took thisoccasion to voice his support of the Executive who had honouredhim. [1574]

[Footnote 1573: New York _Tribune_, September 27. ]

[Footnote 1574: Curtis declined chiefly from the motive ascribed inLowell's lines:

 "At courts, in senates, who so fit to serve? And both invited, but you would not swerve, All meaner prizes waiving that you might In civic duty spend your heat and light, Unpaid, untrammelled, with a sweet disdain. Refusing posts men grovel to attain. " --_Lowell's Poems_, Vol. 4, pp. 138-139. ]

His speech, pitched in an exalted key, sparkled with patrioticutterances and eloquent periods, with an occasional keen allusion toConkling. He skilfully contrasted the majority's demand for harmonywith Platt's reference to Evarts as a "demagogue" and to civil servicereform as a "nauseating shibboleth. " He declared it would shake theconfidence of the country in the party if, after announcing itsprinciples, it failed to commend the agent who was carrying them out. Approval of details was unnecessary. Republicans did not endorseLincoln's methods, but they upheld him until the great work of themartyr was done. In the same spirit they ought to support PresidentHayes, who, in obedience to many State and two or three Nationalconventions, had taken up the war against abuses of the civil service. If the convention did not concur in all his acts, it should show theDemocratic party that Republicans know what they want and the man bywhom to secure such results. 

In speaking of abuses in the civil service he told the story ofLincoln looking under the bed before retiring to see if adistinguished senator was waiting to get an office, [1575] referred tothe efforts of Federal officials to defeat his own election to theconvention, and declared that the President, by his order, intendedthat a delegate like himself, having only one vote, should not meetanother with one hundred votes in his pocket obtained by means ofpolitical patronage. Instead of the order invading one's rights it wasintended to restore them to the great body of the Republicans of NewYork, who now "refuse to enter a convention to be met--not by brains, not always by mere intelligence, not always by convictions, or byrepresentative men, but by the forms of power which federal patriotsassume. " He did "not believe any eminent Republican, however high hisambition, however sore his discontent, hoped to carry the Republicanparty of the United States against Rutherford B. Hayes. Aye, sir, nosuch Republican, unless intoxicated with the flattery of parasites, orblinded by his own ambition. " He spoke of Conkling's interest inpublic affairs as beginning contemporaneously with his own, of theirwork side by side in 1867, and of their sustaining a RepublicanPresident without agreement in the details of his policy, and heclosed with the prayer that they might yet see the Republican partyfulfilling the hope of true men everywhere, who look to it forhonesty, for reform, and for pacification. [1576]

[Footnote 1575: See Chapter XII. , p. 166. ]

[Footnote 1576: New York _Tribune_, September 27, 1877. ]

Conkling had been waiting for Curtis as the American fleet waited forthe Spanish at Santiago. Curtis had adorned the centre of oppositionuntil he seemed most to desire what would most disappoint Conkling. For months prior to the Cincinnati convention _Harper's Weekly_bristled with reasons that in its opinion unfitted the Senator forPresident, and advertised to the country the desire at least of alarge minority of the party in New York to be rid of him. Withconsummate skill he unfolded Conkling's record, and emphasised hisdefence of the questionable acts that led to a deep distrust ofRepublican tendencies. To him the question was not whether a Nationalconvention could be persuaded to adopt the Senator as its candidate, but whether, "being one of the leaders that had imperilled the party, it was the true policy for those who patriotically desired Republicansuccess. " Furthermore, Curtis had a habit of asking questions. "Withwhat great measure of statesmanship is his name conspicuouslyidentified?"[1577] and, as if this admitted of no reply, he followed itwith more specific inquiries demanding to know "why the Senator hadled a successful opposition to Judge Hoar for the Supreme Bench, " andbecome "the ardent supporter of Caleb Cushing for chief justice, andof Alexander Shepherd for commissioner of the District of Columbia?"These interrogatories seemed to separate him from statesmen of highdegree and to place him among associates for whom upright citizensshould have little respect. 

[Footnote 1577: "He [Conkling] never linked his name with any importantprinciple or policy. "--_Political Recollections_, George W. Julian, p. 359. 

"Strictly speaking Senator Conkling was not an originator oflegislative measures. He introduced few bills which became laws. Hewas not an originator, but a moulder of legislation. . . . It may be saidthat during his last seven years in the Senate, no other member ofthat body has, since the time of Webster and Clay, exercised so muchinfluence on legislation. "--Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, pp. 645-649. ]

Nor was this all. The part Greeley took at Chicago to defeat Seward, Curtis played at Cincinnati to defeat Conkling. He declared him theespecial representative of methods which the best sentiment of theparty repudiated, and asserted that his nomination would chillenthusiasm, convince men of the hopelessness of reform within theparty, and lose the vote indispensable for the election of theRepublican candidate. If his words were parliamentary, they were notless offensive. Once only did he strike below the belt. In the eventof the Senator's nomination he said "a searching light would be turnedupon Mr. Conkling's professional relations to causes in which he wasopposed to attorneys virtually named by himself, before judges whoseselection was due to his favour. "[1578]

[Footnote 1578: _Harper's Weekly_, March 11, 1876. For other editorialsreferred to, see February 5; April 8, 15, 29; May 20; June 3, 17, 1876; March 24; April 21; July 21; August 11; September 22, 1877. ]

This thrust penetrated the realm of personal integrity, acharacteristic in which Conkling took great pride. Perhaps the hostileinsinuation attracted more attention because it prompted the public, already familiar with the occult influences that persuaded Tweed'sjudges, to ask why men who become United States judges upon therequest of a political boss should not be tempted into favourabledecisions for the benefactor who practises in their courts? Curtisimplied that something of the kind had happened in Conkling'sprofessional career. Disappointment at Cincinnati may have made thepresidential candidate sore, but this innuendo rankled, and when herose to oppose Curtis's resolution his powerful frame seemed in athrill of delight as he began the speech which had been laboriouslywrought out in the stillness of his study. 

The contrast in the appearance of the two speakers was most striking. Curtis, short, compact, punctilious in attire, and exquisitelycultured, with a soft, musical voice, was capable of the noblesttenderness. Conkling, tall, erect, muscular, was the very embodimentof physical vigour, while his large, well-poised head, his strongnose, handsome eyes, well-cut mouth, and prominent chin, wereexpressive of the utmost resolution. The two men also differed as muchin mind as in appearance. Curtis stood for all the force and feelingthat make for liberal progressive principles; Conkling, the product ofa war age, of masterly audacity and inflexible determination, represented the conservative impulse, with a cynical indifference tocriticism and opposition. 

The preface to his attack was brief. This was a State convention tonominate candidates, he said in substance, and the NationalAdministration was not a candidate or in question. He repelled theidea that it suggested or sanctioned such a proceeding, and althoughbroad hints had been heard that retribution would follow silence, anyone volunteering for such a purpose lacked discretion if notsincerity. "Who are these men who, in newspapers or elsewhere, arecracking their whips over me and playing schoolmaster to the party?They are of various sorts and conditions. Some of them are theman-milliners, the dilettante and carpet knights of politics, whoseefforts have been expended in denouncing and ridiculing and accusinghonest men. . . . Some of them are men who, when they could workthemselves into conventions, have attempted to belittle and befoulRepublican administrations and to parade their own thin veneering ofsuperior purity. Some of them are men who, by insisting that it iscorrupt and bad for men in office to take part in politics, arestriving now to prove that the Republican party has been unclean andvicious all its life. . . . Some of these worthies masquerade asreformers. Their vocation and ministry is to lament the sins of otherpeople. Their stock in trade is rancid, canting self-righteousness. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. Their real object is office andplunder. When Dr. Johnson defined patriotism as the last refuge of ascoundrel, he was unconscious of the then undeveloped capabilities anduses of the word reform. . . . Some of these new-found party overseerswho are at this moment laying down new and strange tenets forRepublicans, have deemed it their duty heretofore, upon noprovocation, to make conventions and all else the vehicle ofdisparaging Republican administrations. Some of them sat but yesterdayin Democratic conventions, some have sought nominations at the handsof Democrats in recent years, and some, with the zeal of neophytes andbitterness of apostates, have done more than self-respecting Democratswould do to vilify and slander their government and theircountrymen. . . . They forget that parties are not built up bydeportment, or by ladies' magazines, or gush. . . . The grasshoppers inthe corner of a fence, even without a newspaper to be heard in, sometimes make more noise than the flocks and herds that graze upon athousand hills. . . . For extreme license in criticism of administrationsand of everybody connected with them, broad arguments can no doubt befound in the files of the journal made famous by the pencil of Nast. But a convention may not deem itself a chartered libertine oforacular and pedantic conceits. "

Conkling could not comprehend why Republicans of New York should bethought predisposed to find fault with Hayes. Without their votes hecould not have become the candidate. "Even the member from Richmondwas, I believe, in the end prevailed upon, after much difficulty, toconfer his unique and delicate vote also. " New York congressmen, withfew exceptions, heartily supported the measure without which Hayeswould never have been effectually inaugurated. No opposition had comefrom New York. What, then, is the meaning and purpose of constantlyaccusing Republicans of this State of unfriendly bias? Wanton assaultshad been made upon Republicans, supposed to be inspired by thechampions and advisers of the President. For not doing more in thecampaign of 1876, he, an office-holder, had been denounced by the samemen who now insist that an office-holder may not sign even a noticefor a convention. No utterance hostile to men or measures hadproceeded from him. Not a straw had been laid in the way of any man. Still he had been persistently assaulted and misrepresented by thoseclaiming to speak specially for the Administration. A word of greetingto his neighbours had drawn down bitter and scornful denunciationsbecause it did not endorse the Administration. 

"These anxious and super-serviceable charioteers seem determined toknow nothing but the President and his policy and them crucified. . . . The meaning of all this is not obscured by the fact that the newPresident has been surrounded and courted by men who have long purredabout every new Administration. . . . Some of these disinterestedpatriots and reformers have been since the days of Pierce the friendsand suitors of all Administrations and betrayers of all. The assaultsthey incite are somewhat annoying. It would have been a luxury tounfrock some of them, but it has seemed to me the duty of everysincere Republican to endure a great deal rather than say anything tointroduce division or controversy into party ranks. . . . I am forpeace. . . . I am for everything tending to that end. . . . I am for onething more--the success of the Administration in everything that isjust and wise and real. "

The Senator thought Hayes deserved the same support other Republicanadministrations had received. Whenever he is right he should besustained; whenever misled by unwise or sinister advice, dissentshould be expressed. This right of judgment is the right of everycitizen. He exercised it in Congress under Lincoln and Grant, whonever deemed an honest difference of opinion cause for war or quarrel, "nor were they afflicted by having men long around them engaged insetting on newspapers to hound every man who was not officious orabject in fulsomely bepraising them. The matters suggested by thepending amendment, " he continued, "are not pertinent to this day'sduties, and obviously they are matters of difference. They may promotepersonal and selfish aims, but they are hostile to concord and goodunderstanding between Republicans at a time when they should all beunited everywhere, in purpose and action. Let us agree to putcontentions aside and complete our task. Let us declare the purposesand methods which should guide the government of our great State. "

After this plea for harmony, the Senator commented briefly upon theremarks of other delegates, complimented Platt, and then turned againupon Curtis. Being assured that the latter did not refer to him as theSenator for whom Lincoln looked under the bed, he concluded: "Then Iwithhold a statement I intended to make, and I substitute for it aremark which I hope will not transgress the proprieties or libertiesof this occasion. It is this: If a doubt arose in my mind whether themember from Richmond intended a covert shot at me, that doubt sprangfrom the fact that that member has published, in a newspaper, touchingme, not matters political--political assaults fairly conducted no manever heard me complain of--but imputations upon my personal integrityso injurious and groundless, that as I think of them now, nothing butthe proprieties of the occasion restrain me from denouncing them andtheir author as I feel at liberty to do in the walks of private life. Mr. President, according to that Christian code which I have beentaught, there is no atonement in the thin lacquer of public courtesy, or of private ceremonial observance, for the offence one man doesanother when he violates that provision of the Decalogue, which, speaking to him, says, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thyneighbour, ' and which means thou shalt not do it, whatever thypersonal or political pique or animosity may be. The member fromRichmond did me honour overmuch in an individual if not personalexhortation wherein he was pleased to run some parallel betweenhimself and me. . . . Let me supplement the parallel by recalling aremark of a great Crusader when Richard of England and Leopold ofAustria had held dispute over the preliminaries of battle: 'Let thefuture decide between you, and let it declare for him who carriesfurthest into the ranks of the enemy the sword of the cross. '"[1579]

[Footnote 1579: Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, pp. 538-549; New York_Tribune_, October 1, 1877. ]

From a mere reading of this speech it is difficult, if not impossible, to realise its effect upon those who heard it. [1580] As an oratoricalexhibition the testimony of friends and of foes is alike offered inits unqualified praise. He spoke distinctly and with characteristicdeliberation, his stateliness of manner and captivating audacityinvesting each sentence with an importance that only attaches to theutterances of a great orator. The withering sneer and the look ofcontempt gave character to the sarcasms and bitter invectives which hescattered with the prodigality of a seed-sower. When he declaredCurtis a "man-milliner, " his long, flexible index finger and eyesablaze with resentment pointed out the editor as distinctly as if hehad transfixed him with an arrow, while the slowly pronouncedsyllables, voiced in a sliding, descending key, gave the title acartoon effect. Referring to the parallel in Curtis's peroration, helaid his hand on his heart, bowed toward his antagonist with mockreverence, and distorted his face with an expression of ludicrousscorn. In repelling the innuendo as to his "personal integrity, " thesuppressed anger and slowly spoken words seemed to preface a challengeto mortal combat, and men held their breath until his purpose cleared. The striking delivery of several keen thrusts fixed them in thememory. Given in his deep, sonorous tones, one of these ran much asfollows: "When Doc-tor-r-r Ja-a-awnson said that patr-r-riotism-m wasthe l-a-w-s-t r-r-refuge of a scoundr-r-rel he ignor-r-red theenor-r-rmous possibilities of the word r-refa-awr-rm. "[1581] Othersentences, now historic, pleased opponents not less than friends. Thatparties are not upheld by "deportment, ladies' magazines, or gush"instantly caught the audience, as did "the journal made famous by thepencil of Nast, " and the comparison suggested by Edmund Burke of thenoise of "grasshoppers in the corner of a fence even without anewspaper to be heard in. "[1582]

[Footnote 1580: After the death of Thomas B. Reed of Maine, this speechwas found in his scrap-book among the masterpieces of sarcasm andinvective. ]

[Footnote 1581: White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 171. ]

[Footnote 1582: "Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern makethe field ring with their importunate chink, while thousands of greatcattle beneath the shadow of the British oak chew the cud and aresilent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the onlyinhabitants of the field, that of course they are many in number, orthat, after all, they are other than the little, shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour. "--EdmundBurke. George H. Jennings, _Anecdotal History of the BritishParliament_, p. 159. ]

Nevertheless, these moments of accord between speaker and hearersdeepened by contrast the depth of bitterness existing between him andthe friends of the President. His denunciation of Curtis had includedEvarts if not other members of the Administration, and during therecital of the rhythmical sentences of arraignment dissent mingledwith applause. "He was hissed, " said a reporter of long experience, "as I have never heard any speaker hissed at a conventionbefore. "[1583] A friend to whom Conkling read the speech on thepreceding Sunday pronounced it "too severe, " and the nephew excludedthe epithet "man-milliner" from the address as published in hisuncle's biography. [1584] The contemporary press, reflecting the injurywhich Conkling's exuberance of denunciation did his cause, told howits effect withered as soon as oratory and acting had ceased. Withinan hour after its delivery Charles E. Fitch of the Rochester_Democrat-Chronicle_, voicing the sentiment of the Senator's bestfriends, deprecated the attack. Reading the article at the breakfasttable on the following morning, Conkling exclaimed, "the man who wroteit is a traitor!" It was "the man" not less than the criticism thatstaggered him. Fitch was a sincere friend and a writer with a purpose. His clear, incisive English, often forcible and at times eloquent, hadwon him a distinct place in New York journalism, not more by hiseditorials than by his work in various fields of literature, and histhought usually reflected the opinion of the better element of theparty. To Conkling it conveyed the first intimation that manyRepublican papers were to pronounce his address unfortunate, since itexhorted to peace and fomented bitter strife. 

[Footnote 1583: New York _Tribune_ (correspondence), September 28. ]

[Footnote 1584: Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 540. ]

Curtis refused to make public comment, but to Charles Eliot Norton, his intimate friend, he wrote: "It was the saddest sight I ever knew, that man glaring at me in a fury of hate, and storming out his foolishblackguardism. I was all pity. I had not thought him great, but I hadnot suspected how small he was. His friends, the best, wereconfounded. One of them said to me the next day, 'It was not amazementthat I felt, but consternation. ' I spoke offhand and the report ishorrible. Conkling's speech was carefully written out, and thereforeyou do not get all the venom, and no one can imagine theMephistophelean leer and spite. "[1585]

[Footnote 1585: Edward Cary, _Life of Curtis_, p. 258. ]

Conkling closed his speech too late at night for other business, [1586]and in the morning one-half of the delegates had disappeared. Thoseremaining occupied less than an hour in the nomination ofcandidates. [1587]

[Footnote 1586: Curtis's amendment was defeated by 311 to 110. ]

[Footnote 1587: The candidates were: Secretary of State, John C. Churchill, Oswego; Comptroller, Francis Sylvester, Columbia;Treasurer, William L. Bostwick, Ithaca; Attorney-General, GrenvilleTremaine, Albany; Engineer, Howard Soule, Onondaga. ]

CHAPTER XXIX

THE TILDEN RÉGIME ROUTED

1877

The result at Rochester, so unsatisfactory to a large body ofinfluential men to whom the President represented the most patrioticRepublicanism, was followed at Albany by a movement no lessdisappointing to a large element of the Democratic party. [1588] Intheir zeal to punish crime Secretary of State Bigelow andAttorney-General Fairchild had made themselves excessively obnoxiousto the predatory statesmen of the canal ring, who now proposed todestroy the Tilden régime. Back of them stood John Kelly, eager tobecome the master, and determined to accomplish what he had failed todo at St. Louis. 

[Footnote 1588: The Democratic State convention met at Albany onOctober 3, 1877. ]

As if indifferent to the contest Bigelow had remained in Europe withTilden, and Fairchild, weary of the nervous strain of office-holding, refused to make an open canvass for the extension of his officiallife. Nevertheless, the friends of reform understood the importance ofrenominating the old ticket. It had stood for the interest of thepeople. Whatever doubt might have clouded the public mind as toTilden's sincerity as an ardent, unselfish reformer, Republicans aswell as Democrats knew that Bigelow and Fairchild represented anuncompromising hostility to public plunderers, and that their work, ifthen discontinued, must be shorn of much of its utility. Their friendsunderstood, also, the importance of controlling the temporaryorganisation of the convention, otherwise all would be lost. 

The result of the Presidential struggle had seriously weakened Tilden. In the larger field of action he had displayed a timid, vacillatingcharacter, and the boldest leaders of his party felt that in the finaltest as a candidate he lost because he hesitated. Besides, theimmediate prospect of power had disappeared. Although Democrats talkedof "the great Presidential crime, " and seemed to have their eyes andminds fastened on offices and other evidences of victory, theyrealised deep in their hearts that Hayes was President for four years, and that new conditions and new men might be existent in 1880. Moreover, many Democratic leaders who could not be classed as selfish, felt that Tilden, in securing the advantageous position of a reformer, had misrepresented the real Democratic spirit and purpose in theState. They deeply resented his course in calling about him, to theexclusion of recognised and experienced party advisers, men whom hecould influence, who owed their distinction to his favour, and whowere consequently devoted to his fortunes. Upon some of these herelied to secure Republican sympathy, while he depended uponDemocratic discipline to gain the full support of his party. If eventsfavoured his designs and the exigencies of an exciting Presidentialelection concealed hostility, these conditions did not placate hisopponents, who began plotting his downfall the moment the greathistoric contest ended. This opposition could be approximatelymeasured by the fact that the entire party press of the State, withthree exceptions, disclosed a distinct dislike of his methods. [1589]

[Footnote 1589: New York _Tribune_, September 1, 1877. ]

Nevertheless, Tilden's friends held control. Governor Robinson, anexecutive of remarkable force, sensitively obedient to principles ofhonest government and bold in his utterances, remained at the head ofa devoted band which had hitherto found its career marked by triumphafter triumph, and whose influence was still powerful enough to rallyto its standard new men of strength as well as old leaders flushedwith recent victories. Robinson's courageous words especially engagedthe attention of thoughtful Democrats. He did not need to give reasonsfor the opposition to John Bigelow, or the grievance against CharlesS. Fairchild, whose court docket sufficiently exposed the antagonismbetween canal contractors and the faithful prosecutor. But in hisfascinating manner he told the story of the Attorney-General's heroicfirmness in refusing to release Tweed. [1590] In Robinson's opinion thevicious classes, whose purposes discovered themselves in thedepredations of rings and weakness for plunder, were arrayed againstthe better element of the party which had temporarily deprived thewrong-doers of power, and he appealed to his friends to rescueadministrative reform from threatened defeat. 

[Footnote 1590: "The man who has been the most effective organiser ofcorruption strikes boldly for release. He is arrayed as an element inthe combination which attacks the Governor and Democratic Stateofficers, and which seeks to reverse their policy. "--Albany _Argus_, October 4, 1877. ]

The Governor was not unmindful of his weakness. Besides Tilden's lossof prestige, the renomination of the old ticket encountered theobjection of a third term, aroused the personal antagonism of hundredsof men who had suffered because of its zeal, and arrayed against itall other influences that had become hostile to Tilden through envy orotherwise during his active management of the party. Moreover, heunderstood the cunning of John Kelly and the intrigue of hislieutenants. Knowing that contesting delegations excluded precinctsfrom taking part in the temporary organisation, these men had soughtto weaken Tilden by creating fictitious contests in counties loyal tohim, thus offsetting John Morrissey's contest against Tammany. It wasa desperate struggle, and the only gleam of light that opened a way toTilden's continued success came from the action of the StateCommittee, which gave David B. Hill of Chemung 19 votes for temporarychairman to 14 for Clarkson N. Potter of New York. The victory, ordinarily meaning the control of the Committee on Credentials, restored hope if not confidence. 

Hill was the friend of Robinson. Although his name had not then becomea household word, he was by no means unknown throughout the State. Hehad come into public life as city attorney in 1864 at the age oftwenty-one, and had shown political instincts for the most partadmirable. Of those to go to the Assembly in 1871 to aid in the workof judicial purification, Hill was suggested by O'Conor and Tilden asone of the trustworthy lawyers, and in February, 1872, when thelegislative committee began its investigation into the chargespresented by the Bar Association against Judges Barnard, Cardozo, Ingraham, and McCunn with a view to their impeachment, Hill sat by theside of Tilden. It was recognised that he belonged to the coterie ofable men who stood at the front of the reform movement. 

His personal habits, too, commended him. He seems to have beenabsolved from the love of wine, and if the love of a good woman didnot win him, he created a substantial home among his books, and workedwhile others feasted. He talked easily, he learned readily, and withthe earnestness of one who inherited an ambition for public life hecarefully equipped himself for a political as well as a professionalcareer. He had a robust, straightforward nature. Men liked hiscourage, his earnestness, his effectiveness as a debater, and hisdeclared purposes which were thoroughly in unison with the spirit ofhis party. But it was his boldness, tempered with firmness, whichjustified Robinson in singling him out for chairman. Still, thecourage exhibited as a presiding officer in one of the stormiestconventions that ever assembled in the Empire State did not win himdistinction. 

The Kelly opposition raised no question of principle. The platformdenounced the defeat of Tilden as due to fraud, applauded Hayes forhis Southern policy, declared for reapportionment of the State, andbitterly assailed railroad subsidies. But it had no words ofunkindness for Tilden and Robinson. Indeed, with a most sublimedisplay of hypocrisy, Kelly pointed with pride to the fruits of theiradministrations, made illustrious by canal reforms, economy, and therelentless prosecution of profligate boards and swindling contractors, and vied with the apostles of administrative reform in calling them"fearless" and "honest, " and in repudiating the suggestion of desiringother directing spirits. His only issue involved candidates. Should itbe the old ticket or a new one? Should it be Bigelow for a third term, or Beach, the choice of the ring? In opposing the old ticket severaldelegates extended their hostility only to Bigelow; others includedthe attorney-general. Only a few demanded an entire change. ButTammany and the Canal ring tactfully combined these various elementswith a skill never before excelled in a State convention. Theirprogramme, sugar-coated with an alleged affection for Tilden, wasarranged to satisfy the whim of each delegate, while Robinson'spolicy, heavily freighted with well doing, encountered the odium of athird-term ticket. 

Nevertheless, the Governor's control of the chairmanship assured himvictory unless Hill yielded too much. But Kelly was cunning and quick. After accepting Hill without dissent, he introduced a resolutionproviding that the convention select the committee on contested seats. To appoint this committee was the prerogative of the chairman, andHill, following Cornell's bold ruling in 1871, could have refused toput the motion. When he hesitated delegates sprang to their feet andenthroned pandemonium. [1591] During the cyclone of epithets andinvective John Morrissey for the last time opposed John Kelly in aState convention. His shattered health, which had already changedevery lineament of a face that successfully resisted the blows ofYankee Sullivan and John C. Heenan, poorly equipped him for theprolonged strain of such an encounter, but he threw his envenomedadjectives with the skill of a quoit-pitcher. 

[Footnote 1591: "How the Kelly faction got control of the Democraticconvention and used it for the supposed benefit of Kelly is hardlyworth trying to tell. A description of the intrigues of a parcel ofvulgar tricksters is neither edifying nor entertaining reading. "--The_Nation_, October 11, 1877. ]

Distributed about the hall were William Purcell, DeWitt C. West, George M. Beebe, John D. Townsend, and other Tammany talkers, who hada special aptitude for knockdown personalities which the metropolitanside of a Democratic convention never failed to understand. Their loudvoices, elementary arguments, and simple quotations neither strainedthe ears nor puzzled the heads of the audience, while their jibes andjokes, unmistakable in meaning, sounded familiar and friendly. Townsend, a lawyer of some prominence and counsel for Kelly, was aneffective and somewhat overbearing speaker, who had the advantage ofbeing sure of everything, and as he poured out his eloquence inlanguage of unmeasured condemnation of Morrissey, he held attention ifhe did not enlighten with distracting novelty. 

Morrissey admitted he was wild in his youth, adding in a tone ofsincere penitence that if he could live his life over he would changemany things for which he was very sorry. "But no one, not even Tweedwho hates me, " he exclaimed, pointing his finger across the aisle inthe direction of Kelly, "ever accused me of being a thief. "Morrissey's grammar was a failure. He clipped his words, repeated hisphrases, and lacked the poise of a public speaker, but his opponentsdid not fail to understand what he meant. His eloquence was like thatof an Indian, its power being in its sententiousness, which probablycame from a limited vocabulary. 

At the opening of the convention Robinson's forces had a clearmajority, [1592] but in the presence of superior generalship, whichforced a roll-call before the settlement of contests, Tammany and theCanal ring, by a vote of 169 to 114, passed into control. To Tilden'sfriends it came as the death knell of hope, while their opponents, wild with delight, turned the convention into a jubilee. "This is thefirst Democratic triumph in the Democratic party since 1873, " saidJarvis Lord of Monroe. "It lets in the old set. "[1593]

[Footnote 1592: New York _Tribune_, October 4, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1593: New York _Tribune_, October 4. 

"The defeat of Bigelow and Fairchild will be the triumph of thereactionists who think that the golden era of the State was in thedays before thieves were chastised and driven out of the Capital andState House. "--Albany _Argus_, October 4, 1877. ]

The adoption of the Credentials Committee's report seated Tammany, made Clarkson N. Potter permanent chairman, and turned over the partymachine. Pursuing their victory the conquerors likewise nominated anew ticket. [1594] Quarter was neither asked nor offered. Robinson hadsquarely raised the issue that refusal to continue the old officialswould be repudiation of reform, and his friends, as firmly united indefeat as in victory, voted with a calm indifference to the threats ofthe allied power of canal ring and municipal corruptionists. Indeed, their boast of going down with colours flying supplemented thevigorous remark of the Governor that there could be no compromise withTweed and canal thieves. [1595]

[Footnote 1594: Secretary of State, Allen C. Beach, Jefferson;Comptroller, Frederick P. Olcott, Albany; Treasurer, James Mackin, Dutchess; Attorney-General, Augustus Schoonmaker, Jr. , Ulster;Engineer, Horatio Seymour, Jr. , Oneida. 

On October 6, a convention of Labor Reformers, held at Troy, nominateda State ticket with John J. Junio for Secretary of State. TheProhibition and Greenback parties also nominated State officers, HenryHagner and Francis E. Spinner being their candidates for secretary ofstate. The Social Democrats likewise presented a ticket with JamesMcIntosh at its head. ]

[Footnote 1595: New York _Tribune_, October 4. ]

This apparently disastrous result encouraged the hope thatRepublicans, in spite of Conkling's indiscretion at Rochester, mightprofit by it as they did in 1871. Upon the surface Republicandifferences did not indicate bitterness. Except in the newspapers noorganised opposition to the Senator had appeared, and the only massmeeting called to protest against the action of the Rochesterconvention appealed for harmony and endorsed the Republicancandidates. [1596] Even Curtis, the principal speaker, althoughindulging in some trenchant criticism, limited his remarks to adefence of the Administration. Nevertheless, the presence of WilliamJ. Bacon, congressman from the Oneida district, who voiced an intenseadmiration for the President and his policies, emphasised the factthat the Senator's home people had elected a Hayes Republican. Indeed, the Senator deemed it essential to establish an organ, and in October(1877) the publication of the Utica _Republican_ began under theguidance of Lewis Lawrence, an intimate friend. It lived less than twoyears, but while it survived it reflected the thoughts and feelings ofits sponsor. [1597]

[Footnote 1596: This meeting was held in New York City on October 10. See New York papers of the 11th. ]

[Footnote 1597: "The Utica _Republican_ is an aggressive sheet. Itcalls George William Curtis 'the Apostle of Swash. '"--New York_Tribune_, October 27. ]

The campaign presented several confusing peculiarities. GovernorRobinson in his letter to a Tammany meeting refused to mention theDemocratic candidates, and Tilden, after returning from Europe, expressed the belief in his serenade speech that "any nominations thatdid not promise coöperation in the reform policy which I had thehonour to inaugurate and which Governor Robinson is consummating willbe disowned by the Democratic masses. "[1598] This was a body-blow tothe Ring. Its well-directed aim also struck the ticket with tellingeffect, for its election involved the discontinuance of Fairchild'sspirited canal prosecutions. On the other hand, the adoption of therecent amendment, substituting for the canal commission asuperintendent of public works to be appointed by the Governor, madethe election of Olcott and Seymour especially desirable, since itwould give Robinson and his reforms stronger support than Tilden hadin the State board. Yet it could not be denied that the success of theAlbany ticket would be construed as a defeat of Tilden's ascendency. 

[Footnote 1598: _Ibid. _, November 2. ]

Similar confusion possessed the Republican mind. A large body of men, resenting the Rochester convention's covert condemnation of thePresident's policies, hesitated to vote for candidates whose victorywould be attributed to Republican opposition to the Administration. This singular political situation made a very languid State campaign. An extra session of Congress called Conkling to Washington, Tildenretired to Gramercy Park, the German-Independent organisation limitedits canvass to the metropolis, and the candidates of neither ticketgot a patient hearing. Other causes contributed to the Republicandulness. Old leaders became inactive and government officials refusedto give money because of their interpretation of the President's civilservice order, while rawness and indifference made newer leadersinefficient. After the October collapse in Ohio conditions becamehopelessly discouraging. [1599] The tide set more heavily in favour ofthe Democracy, and each discordant Republican element, increasing itsdistrust, practically ceased work lest the other profit by it. 

[Footnote 1599: Democrats elected a governor by 22, 520 plurality andcarried the Legislature by forty on joint ballot. --Appleton's_Cyclopædia_, 1877, p. 621. ]

Nevertheless, the hunt for State senators, involving the election of aUnited States Senator in 1879, provoked animated contests whichcentred about the candidacy of John Morrissey, whom Republicans andthe combined anti-Tammany factions backed with spirit. Morrissey hadcarried the Tweed district for senator in 1874, and the taunt that noother neighbourhood would elect a notorious gambler and graduate ofthe prize-ring goaded him into opposing Augustus Schell in one of thefashionable districts of the metropolis. Schell had the advantage ofwealth, influence, long residence in the precinct, and theenthusiastic support of Kelly, who turned the contest into a battlefor the prestige of victory. For the moment the fierceness of thefight excited the hopes of Republicans that the State might becarried, and to spread the influence of the warring Democraticfactions into all sections of the commonwealth, Republican journalsmade a combined attack upon Allen C. Beach. 

Like Sanford E. Church, Beach was a courteous, good-naturedpolitician, who tried to keep company with a canal ring and keep hisreputation above reproach. But his character did not refine under thetests imposed upon it. His policy of seeming to know nothing hadresulted in doubling the cost of canal repairs during his four yearsin office. A careful analysis of his record showed that only once didhe vote against the most extravagant demands of the predatorycontractors. This did not prove him guilty of corruption, "but when asthe steady servant of the canal ring, " it was asked, "he votedthousands and thousands of dollars, sometimes at the rate of a hundredthousand a day, into the pockets of men whom he knew to be thieves, and on claims which he must have known were full of fraud, was he notlending himself to corruption?"[1600] This charge his opponentscirculated through many daily and scores of weekly papers, making theweakness of his character appear more objectionable. 

[Footnote 1600: New York _Tribune_, November 3, 1877. ]

To these attacks Beach affected an indifference which he did notreally feel, for the pride of a candidate who desires the respect ofhis neighbours is not flattered by their distrust of his integrity. Church had felt the iron enter his soul, and had Tilden and thereformers rearoused the moral awakening that refused to tolerate theChief Justice in 1874, Beach must have fallen the victim of hispartiality to a coterie of political associates willing to benefit atthe expense of his ruin. As it was he received a plurality of 11, 000, while Seymour and Olcott, his associates upon the ticket, obtained35, 000 and 36, 000 respectively. [1601]

[Footnote 1601: Total vote of John J. Junio (Labour Reformer), 20, 282;Henry Hagner (Prohibitionist), 7, 230; John McIntosh (Social Democrat), 1, 799; Francis E. Spinner (Greenback), 997. --Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1877, p. 566. ]

The election of State senators in which Conkling had so vital aninterest exhibited the work of influential Hayes Republicans, who, openly desiring his destruction, defeated his candidates in Brooklyn, Rochester, and Utica. [1602] Nevertheless, by carrying eighteen of thethirty-two districts he saved fighting ground for himself in thesucceeding year. [1603] Indeed, he was able to point to the popular voteand declare that he was as strong in New York as the President was inOhio. It was known, too, that if Morrissey survived, the Senator wouldprofit by the prize-fighter's remarkable majority of nearly 4, 000 overAugustus Schell, a victory which ranked as the crowning achievement ofthe senatorial campaign. [1604] But Morrissey, prostrated by hisexertions, did not live to reciprocate. He spent the winter in Floridaand the early spring in Saratoga. Finally, after the loss of speech, his right arm, which had so severely punished Yankee Sullivan, becameparalysed, and on May 1 (1878) Lieutenant-governor Dorsheimerannounced his death to the Senate. "It is doubtful, " added a colleaguein eulogy, "if such boldness and daring in political annals were evershown as he displayed in his last canvass. "[1605]

[Footnote 1602: "We elected our district attorney by 2, 336 majority, but the candidate for State senator, who was known to representSenator Conkling, although personally popular and most deserving, wasbeaten by 1, 133. . . . It is fair to say that the unpopularity of thefederal office-holders, who are Mr. Conkling's most zealoussupporters, is in part the cause of this remarkable result. " Interviewof Ellis H. Roberts. --New York _Tribune_, November 10, 1877. 

"The energies of all the opposition to me were concentrated upon thatdistrict. I believe Tammany and the lofty coterie of Republicangentlemen in this city (New York) threw money into my district tocarry it against me. . . . Had we been sufficiently aroused and sagaciouswe could have defeated this manoeuvre, but we found out too late. Wesent the tickets to the polls, in the ward in which I live, atdaylight, as did the Democrats. Not one of our tickets was found atthe polls. They were all thrown into the canal. " Interview withConkling. --New York _Herald_, November 9, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1603: The Legislature of 1878 had in the Senate: 18Republicans, 13 Democrats, 1 Independent; in the Assembly: 66Republicans, 61 Democrats, 1 Independent. ]

[Footnote 1604: Tammany elected its entire county ticket. Its majorityfor the State ticket was 30, 520. ]

[Footnote 1605: New York _Times_, May 2, 1878. ]

CHAPTER XXX

GREENBACKERS SERVE REPUBLICANS

1878

While Democrats rejoiced over their victory in 1877, a newcombination, the elements of which had attracted little or noattention, was destined to cause serious disturbance. Greenbackism hadnot invaded New York in 1874-5, when it flourished so luxuriantly inOhio, Indiana, and other Western States. Even after the party hadnominated Peter Cooper for President in 1876, it polled in the EmpireState less than 1, 500 votes for its candidate for governor, and in1877, having put Francis E. Spinner, the well-known treasurer of theUnited States, at the head of its ticket, its vote fell off to lessthan 1, 000. 

Meantime the labour organisations, discontented because of longindustrial inaction, had formed a Labour Reform party. Thisorganisation gradually increased its strength, until, in 1877, itpolled over 20, 000 votes. Encouraged by success its leaders held aconvention at Toledo, Ohio, on February 22 (1878), and resolved tocontinue the Cooper movement. It resented the resumption of speciepayment, favoured absolute paper money, and demanded payment of thepublic debt in greenbacks. On May 10 the executive council, callingthemselves Nationalists, coalesced with the Greenbackers, and issued acall for a National Greenback Labour Reform convention to assemble atSyracuse on July 25. This sudden extension of the movement attractedwidespread attention, and although the convention was marked by greatturbulence and guided by inconspicuous leaders, it seemed as if bymagic to take possession of a popular issue which gathered about itsstandard thousands of earnest men. Gideon J. Tucker, a formerDemocratic secretary of state, who had led the Americans in 1859, wasnominated for judge of the Court of Appeals. To its platform it addeddeclarations favouring a protective tariff and excluding the Chinese. 

The treatment of the Greenback question earlier in the year by theolder parties had materially strengthened the Nationalists. Democraticconventions distinctly favoured their chief issue, and Republicansemployed loose and vague expressions. So accomplished and experienceda politician as Thurlow Weed complimented the bold declarations ofBenjamin Butler of Massachusetts, who had left the Republicans tobecome the independent leader of a vast mass of voters that acceptedhis Greenback theories and joined in his sneers at honest money. Republican congressmen, returning from Washington, told how theirparty held Greenback views and why Greenbackers ought to support it. The Secretary of the Republican Congressional Committee practicallyannounced himself a Greenback Republican, and Blaine's position seemedequivocal. During the entire financial debate in Congress, Conklingsaid nothing to mould public opinion upon the question of sound money, while the Utica _Republican_, his organ, thought it a "mistake toarray the Republican party, which originated the Greenback, as anexclusively hard-money party. . . . It is not safe or wise to make thefinances a party question. "[1606] As late as July 30, the eveningpreceding the Maine convention, Blaine objected to the phrase "gold orits equivalent, " preferring the word "coin, " which subsequentlyappeared in the platform. 

[Footnote 1606: The Utica _Republican_, July 1, 1878. ]

The election in Maine, hailed with joy by every organ of the Greenbackmovement, showed how profound was the political disturbance. Theresult made it plain that the chief political issue was one of commonhonesty, and that an alliance of Democratic and Greenback intereststhreatened Republican ascendency. In the presence of such dangerRepublican leaders, recognising that harmony could alone securevictory, called a State convention to meet at Saratoga on September26. As the time for this important event approached the impressiondeepened that real harmony must rest upon an acceptance of thePresident's plea for honest money and the honest payment of thenation's bonds. The word "coin" seemed insufficient, since both coinand currency should be kept at par with gold, and although this wouldmake Republicans "an exclusively hard-money party, " which Conkling'sorgan characterised as a "mistake, " the common danger proved asufficient magnet to unite the two factions on a platform declaringthat national pledges should be redeemed in letter and spirit, thatthere should be no postponement of resumption, and that permanentprosperity could rest alone on the fixed monetary standard of thecommercial world. 

To further exclude just cause of offence Conkling, in accepting thechairmanship of the convention, broke his long silence upon thecurrency question, and without sarcasm or innuendo honoured thePresident by closely following the latter's clear, compact, andconvincing speeches on hard money. George William Curtis led in thefrequent applause. Speaking of convention harmony the _Times_ declaredthat during the address "there seemed to be something in the air whichmade children of strong men. Many of the delegates were affected totears. "[1607] Curtis also stirred genuine enthusiasm. He had not beencaptious as to the form of the platform. To him it sufficed if theconvention keyed its resolutions to the President's note for soundmoney, which had become the Administration's chief work, and althoughthe spectacle of Curtis applauding and supplementing Conkling's speechseemed as marvellous as it was unexpected, it did not appear out ofplace. Indeed, the environment at Saratoga differed so radically fromconditions at Rochester that it required a vivid fancy to picturethese men as the hot combatants of the year before. The brilliant, closely packed Rochester audience, the glare of a hundred gas jets, and an atmosphere surcharged with intense hostility, had given placeto gray daylight, a sullen sky, and a morning assemblage tempered intoharmony by threatened danger. The absence of the picturesque greatlydisappointed the audience. The labour of reading a speech from printedproofs marred Conkling's oratory, and Curtis' effort to compliment thePresident without arousing resentment spoiled the rhetorical finishthat usually made his speeches enjoyable. But the prudence of thespeakers and the cordial reception of the platform proved thoroughlyacceptable to the delegates, who nominated George F. Danforth for theCourt of Appeals and then separated with the feeling that the Statemight be redeemed. [1608]

[Footnote 1607: New York _Times_ (correspondence), September 27. ]

[Footnote 1608: A single roll-call resulted as follows: George F. Danforth, Monroe, 226; Joshua M. Van Cott, Kings, 99; George Parsons, Westchester, 79. The Prohibition State convention, which assembled atAlbany on April 24, had nominated Van Cott. ]

Meanwhile the Democratic State convention which assembled at Syracuseon September 25 became more violent and boisterous than itspredecessor. Confident of defeat unless Tammany participated in thepreliminary organisation, John Kelly, through his control of the StateCommittee, secured Albert P. Laning of Erie for temporary chairman. Laning ruled that the roll of delegates as made up by the Statecommittee should be called except those from New York and Kings, andas to these he reserved his decision. In obedience thereto the vote ofuncontested delegations stood 132 to 154 in favour of Tilden andRobinson, whereas the admission of Tammany and Kings would make it 181to 195 in favour of Kelly. Would the chair include these contesteddelegations in the roll-call? To admit one side and exclude the otherbefore the settlement of a contest was a monstrous proposition. Thehistory of conventions did not furnish a supporting precedent. Nevertheless, Laning, wishing to succeed Dorsheimer as lieutenant-governorin 1879 and relying upon Tammany to nominate and elect him, hadevidenced a disposition to rule in the Boss's favour, and when, atlast, he did so, the angry convention sprang to its feet. For threehours it acted like wild men. [1609] Under a demand for the previousquestion Laning refused to recognise the Tilden delegates, and thelatter's tumult drowned the voice of the chair. Finally, physicalexhaustion having restored quiet, Kings County declined to vote andTammany was added without being called. This left the result 154 to195 in favour of John Kelly. An hour later Laning, hissed andlampooned, left the convention unthanked and unhonoured. 

[Footnote 1609: "The Democratic convention at Syracuse was perhaps thenoisiest, most rowdy, ill-natured, and riotous body of men which everrepresented the ruling party of a great Commonwealth. "--The _Nation_, October 3. ]

But having gotten into the convention Tammany found it had not gotteninto power. The Tilden forces endorsed Robinson's administration, refused to dicker with Greenbackers, whom Kelly was suspected offavouring, and assuaged their passion by nominating George B. Bradleyof Steuben for the Court of Appeals. While Tammany was looking forvotes to get in on, it bargained with St. Lawrence to support WilliamH. Sawyer, whose success seemed certain. On the second ballot, however, Bradley's vote ran up to 194, while Sawyer's stopped at 183. This left Kelly nothing but a majority of the State committee, whichwas destined, in the hour of great need, to be of little service. 

Throughout the State the several parties put local candidates in thefield. The Greenbackers, exhibiting the activity of a young andconfident organisation, uniformly made congressional and legislativenominations. In one congressional district they openly combined withthe Democrats, and in several localities their candidates announced anintention of coöperating with the Democratic party. In the metropolisthe various anti-Tammany factions supported independent candidates forCongress and combined with Republicans in nominating a city ticketwith Edward Cooper for mayor. [1610] Kelly, acting for Tammany, selected Augustus Schell. This alignment made the leaders of thecombined opposition sanguine of victory. It added also to theconfidence of Republicans that the Greenbackers were certain to drawmore largely from the ranks of the Democrats. 

[Footnote 1610: Cooper had resigned from Tammany in 1877. ]

The difference between the Syracuse and Saratoga platforms wassignificant. Democrats declared "gold and silver, and paperconvertible into coin at the will of the holder, the only currency ofthe country. "[1611] Convertible into what kind of coin? it was asked. Coin of depreciated value, or the fixed monetary standard of thecommercial world? The _Nation_ thought "this platform not noticeablefor strength or directness of statement. "[1612] The Republican plankwas clearer. "We insist that the greenback shall be made as good ashonest coin . . . That our currency shall be made the best currency, bymaking all parts of it, whether paper or coin, equivalent, convertible, secure, and steady. "[1613] As the campaign advanced aresistless tendency to force the older parties into the open made itplain that if the Democrats did not say just what they meant, theRepublicans meant more than they said, for their speakers and thepress uniformly declared that the greenback, which had carried thecountry triumphantly through the war, must be made as good as gold. Meantime the Democratic leaders realised that "fiat" money had astrange fascination for many of their party. 

[Footnote 1611: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1878, p. 624. ]

[Footnote 1612: The _Nation_, October 3. ]

[Footnote 1613: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1878, p. 623. ]

To add to Democratic embarrassment the _Tribune_, in the midst of thecanvass, began its publication of the cipher despatches which hadpassed between Tilden's personal friends and trusted associates duringthe closing and exciting months of 1876. [1614] The shameful story, revealed by the _Tribune's_ discovered key to the cipher, made aprofound impression. As shown elsewhere the important telegrams passedbetween Manton Marble and Smith M. Weed on one side, and HenryHavermeyer and William T. Pelton, Tilden's nephew, on the other. [1615]Marble had called McLin of the Florida board an "ague-smitten pariah"for having charged him with attempted bribery, but these translatedtelegrams corroborated McLin. Moreover, notwithstanding Tilden'scomprehensive and explicit denial, it sorely taxed the people's faithto believe him disconnected with the correspondence, since the corruptbargaining by which he was to profit was carried on in his own houseby a nephew, who, it was said, would scarcely have ventured on atransaction so seriously affecting his uncle's reputation without thelatter's knowledge. "Of their [telegrams] effect in ruining Mr. Tilden's fortunes, or what was left of them, " said the _Nation_, "there seems no doubt. "[1616] Whatever of truth this prophecycontained, the revelation of the cipher despatches greatlystrengthened the Republican party and brought to a tragic end ClarksonN. Potter's conspicuous failure to stain the President. [1617]

[Footnote 1614: New York _Tribune_, October 8 and 16. ]

[Footnote 1615: See Chapter XXVII. , pp. 350, 351, note. ]

[Footnote 1616: October 24, 1878. ]

[Footnote 1617: On May 13, 1878, Congressman Potter of New York securedthe appointment of a committee of eleven to investigate alleged fraudsin the Florida and Louisiana Returning Boards, with authority to sendfor persons and papers. He refused to widen the scope of theinvestigation to include all the States, presumably to avoid thedamaging evidence already known relating to Pelton's effort to securea presidential elector in Oregon. The _Tribune's_ timely exposure ofthe telegrams turned the investigation into a Democratic boomerang. ]

The result of the October elections likewise encouraged Republicans. It indicated that the Greenback movement, which threatened to sweepthe country as with a tornado, had been stayed if not finallyarrested, and thenceforth greater activity characterised the canvass. Conkling spoke often; Woodford, who had done yeoman service in theWest, repeated his happily illustrated arguments; and Evarts crowdedCooper Union. In the same hall Edwards Pierrepont, fresh from theCourt of St. James, made a strenuous though belated appeal. Speakingfor the Democrats, Kernan advocated the gold standard, declaring itessential to commercial and the workingmen's prosperity. ErastusBrooks shared the same view, and Dorsheimer, with his exquisite choiceof words, endeavoured to explain it to a Tammany mass meeting. JohnKelly, cold, unyielding, precise, likewise talked. There was littleelasticity about him. He dominated Tammany like a martinet, naming itstickets, selecting its appointees, and outlining its policies. Indeed, his rule had developed so distinctly into a one-man power that fouranti-Tammany organisations had at last combined with the Republicansin one supreme effort to crush him, and with closed ranks and firmpurpose this coalition exhibited an unwavering earnestness seldompresented in a local campaign. [1618] It was intimated that Kelly havingin mind his reappointment as city comptroller in 1880, soughtsurreptitiously to aid Cooper. [1619] Kelly saw his danger. Herecognised the power of his opponents, the weakness of Schell whom hehad himself named for mayor, and the strength of Cooper, a son of thedistinguished philanthropist, whose independence of character hadbrought an honourable career; but the assertion that the Boss, bowingto the general public sentiment, gave Cooper support must be dismissedwith the apocryphal story that Conkling was in close alliance withTammany. Doubtless Kelly's disturbed mind saw clearly that he musteventually divide his foes to recover lost prestige. Nevertheless, itwas after November 5, the day of Tammany's blighting overthrow, thathe shaped his next political move. 

[Footnote 1618: In reference to Kelly's despotic rule see speeches ofAnti-Tammany opponents in New York _Tribune_ (first page), October 31, 1878. ]

[Footnote 1619: Myers, _History of Tammany_, p. 310. ]

The election returns disclosed that the greatly increasedGreenback-Labour vote, aggregating 75, 000, had correspondinglyweakened the Democratic party, especially in the metropolis, thuselecting Danforth to the Court of Appeals, Cooper as mayor, the entireanti-Tammany-Republican ticket, a large majority of Republicanassemblymen, and twenty-six Republican congressmen, being a net gainof eight. [1620] Indeed, the divisive Greenback vote had produced aphenomenal crop of Republican assemblymen. After the crushing defeatof the Liberal movement in 1872 the Republicans obtained theunprecedented number of ninety-one. Now they had ninety-eight, withnineteen hold-over senators, giving them a safe working majority ineach body and seventy-six on joint ballot. This insured there-election of Senator Conkling, which occurred without Republicanopposition on January 21, 1879. One month later the Utica _Republican_closed its career. While its existence probably gratified the founder, it had done little more than furnish opponents with material foreffective criticism. 

[Footnote 1620: Danforth, Republican, 391, 112; Bradley, Democrat, 356, 451; Tucker, National, 75, 133; Van Cott, Prohibitionist, 4, 294. Assembly: Republicans, 98; Democrats, 28; Nationals, 2. Congress:Republicans, 26; Democrats, 7. Cooper over Schell, 19, 361. ]

The Democrats, who supported Lieutenant-governor Dorsheimer for UnitedStates senator, protested against granting Conkling a certificate ofelection because no alteration of senate or assembly districts hadoccurred since the enumeration of 1875, as required by theconstitution, making the existing legislature, it was claimed, alegislature _de facto_ and not _de jure_. This was a new way ofpresenting an old grievance. For years unjust inequality ofrepresentation had fomented strife, but more recently the rapid growthof New York and Brooklyn had made the disparity more conspicuous, while continued Republican control of the Senate had created intensebitterness. In fact, a tabulated statement of the inequality betweensenatorial districts enraged a Democrat as quickly as a red flaginfuriated the proverbial bull. [1621] Although the caucus refused toadopt the protest, it issued an address showing that New York andKings were entitled to ten senators instead of seven and forty-oneassemblymen instead of thirty-one. These additional members, allbelonging to Democratic districts, said the address, are now awardedto twelve counties represented by Republicans. The deep indignationexcited throughout the State by such manifest injustice resulted in anew apportionment which transferred one assemblyman from each of sixRepublican counties to New York and Kings. This did not correct thegreater injustice in the senatorial districts, however, and inpermitting the measure to become a law without his signature GovernorRobinson declared that the "deprivation of 150, 000 inhabitants in NewYork and Kings of their proper representation admits of no apology orexcuse. "[1622]

[Footnote 1621: The following table gave great offense:

+------------+-----------+-------------+| Democratic | | || Districts. | Counties. | Population. |+------------+-----------+-------------+| 3d | Kings | 292, 258 || 8th | New York | 235, 482 || 7th | New York | 173, 225 || 2d | Kings | 172, 725 || 9th | New York | 167, 530 |+------------+-----------+-------------+

+------------+------------------------+-------------+| Republican | | || Districts. | Counties. | Population. |+------------+------------------------+-------------+| 20th | Herkimer, Otsego | 89, 338 || 18th | Jefferson, Lewis | 90, 596 || 26th | Ontario, Yates, Seneca | 91, 064 || 16th | Clinton, Essex, Warren | 101, 327 || 27th | Cayuga, Wayne | 106, 120 |+------------+------------------------+-------------+]

[Footnote 1622: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1879, p. 672. ]

CHAPTER XXXI

REMOVAL OF ARTHUR AND CORNELL

1878-9

One week before the election of 1877 President Hayes nominatedTheodore Roosevelt for collector of customs, L. Bradford Prince fornaval officer, and Edwin A. Merritt for surveyor, in place of ChesterA. Arthur, Alonzo B. Cornell, and George H. Sharpe. [1623] The terms ofArthur and Cornell had not expired, and although their removal hadbeen canvassed and expected for several months, its coming shocked theparty and increased the disgust of the organisation. George WilliamCurtis, with the approval of Evarts, urged the promotion of James L. Benedict for collector, a suggestion which the Secretary of theTreasury stoutly opposed. If Arthur, the latter argued, was to beremoved because of his identification with a system of administrationwhich the President desired to abolish, no reason existed forpromoting one who had made no effort to reform that system. No onequestioned Roosevelt's ability, high character, and fitness for theplace, but to those who resented the removal of Arthur his nominationwas an offence. 

[Footnote 1623: Sharpe's term having expired he had withdrawn hisapplication for reappointment. ]

Chester A. Arthur had succeeded Thomas Murphy as collector of the portin November, 1871. He was then forty-seven years old, a lawyer of fairstanding and a citizen of good repute. He had studied under thetuition of his clergyman father, graduated at Union College, taughtschool in his native Vermont, cast a first vote for Winfield Scott, and joined the Republican party at its organisation. At the outbreakof the rebellion Governor Morgan appointed him quartermaster-general, his important duties, limited to the preparation and forwarding oftroops to the seat of war, being performed with great credit. WhenSeymour succeeded Morgan in 1863 Arthur resumed his law practice, securing some years later profitable employment as counsel for thedepartment of city assessments and taxes. 

From the first Arthur showed a liking for public life. He was thegentleman in politics. The skill of an artist tailor exhibited histall, graceful figure at its best, and his shapely hands wereimmaculately gloved. His hat advertised the latest fashion just as hisexquisite necktie indicated the proper colour. [1624] He was equallyparticular about his conduct. Whatever his environment he observed thedetails of court etiquette. His stately elegance of manner easilyunbent without loss of dignity, and although his volatile spirits andmanner of living gave him the appearance of a _bon vivant_, lively andjocose, with less devotion to work than to society, it was noticeablethat he attracted men of severer mould as easily as those vivaciousand light-hearted associates who called him "Chet. " While Fenton, after Greeley's failure as a leader, was gathering the broken threadsof party management into a compact and aggressive organisation, Arthurenjoyed the respect and confidence of every local leader, whoappreciated his wise reticence and perennial courtesy, blended with anability to control restless and suspicious politicians by timely hintsand judicious suggestions. Indeed, people generally, irrespective ofparty, esteemed him highly because of his kindness of heart, hisconciliatory disposition, his lively sense of humour, and hissympathetic attention to the interests of those about him. He wasneither self-opinionated, argumentative, nor domineering, but tactful, considerate, and persuasive. There was also freedom from prejudice, quickness of decision, a precise knowledge of details, and aflexibility of mind that enabled him to adapt himself easily tochanging conditions. 

[Footnote 1624: "You remember, don't you, what Orville Baker told usabout Arthur's two passions, as he heard them discussed at Sam Ward'sdinner in New York? New coats being one, he then having orderedtwenty-five from his tailor since the New Year came in. "--Mrs. JamesG. Blaine, _Letters_ (January 28, 1882), Vol. 1, p. 294. ]

When Conkling finally wrested the Federal patronage from Fenton andsecured to himself the favour and confidence of the Grantadministration, Arthur bivouacked with the senior Senator so quietlyand discreetly that Greeley accepted his appointment as collectorwithout criticism. "He is a young man of fair abilities, " said theeditor, "and of unimpeached private character. He has filled no suchrôle in public affairs as should entitle him to so important andresponsible a part, but as things go, his is an appointment of fullyaverage fitness and acceptability. With the man we have no difference;with the system that made him collector we have a deadly quarrel. Hewas Mr. Murphy's personal choice, and he was chosen because it isbelieved he can run the machine of party politics better than any ofour great merchants. "[1625]

[Footnote 1625: New York _Tribune_, November 22, 1871. See also, _Ibid. _, November 21. ]

In party initiative Arthur's judgment and modesty aided him inavoiding the repellent methods of Murphy. He did not wait foremergencies to arise, but considering them in advance as possiblecontingencies, he exercised an unobtrusive but masterful authoritywhen the necessity for action came. He played an honest game ofdiplomacy. What others did with Machiavellian intrigue or a cynicalindifference to ways and means, he accomplished with the cards on thetable in plain view, and with motives and objects frankly disclosed. No one ever thought his straightforward methods clumsy, orunbusinesslike, or deficient in cleverness. In like manner he studiedthe business needs of the customs service, indicating to the Secretaryof the Treasury the flagrant use of backstair wiles, and pointing outto him ways of reform. [1626] He sought in good faith to secureefficiency and honesty, and if he had not been pinioned as with balland chain to a system as old as the custom-house itself, and uponwhich every political boss from DeWitt Clinton to Roscoe Conkling hadrelied for advantage, he would doubtless have reformed existingpeculation and irregularities among inspectors, weighers, gaugers, examiners, samplers, and appraisers. [1627] Until this army of placemencould be taken out of politics Secretary Sherman refused to believe itpossible to make the custom-house "the best managed business agency ofthe government, " and as Arthur seemed an inherent part of the systemitself, the President wished to try Theodore Roosevelt. [1628] It issafe to conclude, judging the father's work by the later achievementsof his illustrious son, that the Chief Executive's choice would haveaccomplished the result had Conkling allowed him to undertake it. 

[Footnote 1626: See his letters to the Secretary of the Treasury, NewYork _Tribune_, January 28, 1879. ]

[Footnote 1627: In his testimony before the Jay Commission, Arthurspoke of "10, 000 applicants, " backed and pressed upon him withunabated energy by the most prominent men "all over the country. "--NewYork _Tribune_, July 28, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1628: Arthur was offered an appointment as consul-general toParis. --See Theodore E. Burton, _Life of John Sherman_, p. 294. ]

When Conkling felt himself at ease, in congenial society, he displayedhis mastery of irony and banter, neither hesitating to air his opinionof persons nor shrinking from admissions which were candid to theverge of cynicism. At such times he had not veiled his intense dislikeof the Administration. After Hayes's election his conversationdiscovered as aggressive a spirit as he had exhibited at Rochester, speaking of the Secretary of State as "little Evarts, " and chargingthe President with appointing "a Democratic cabinet, " whose principallabour had been "to withdraw Republican support from me. " Apropos ofSchurz, he told a story of the man who disbelieved the Bible becausehe didn't write it. He criticised the Republican press for praisingTilden as governor and "lampooning" him as a candidate for thepresidency, pronounced Packard's title as good as Hayes's, anddeclared the President's "objectionable and dishonourable" recordconsisted not in the withdrawal of the troops but in bargaining withSoutherners. "Every man knows, " he said, "that on the face of thereturns Packard was more elected than Hayes. You cannot present thosereturns in any form that will not give more legality to Packard asGovernor than to Hayes as President. People say this man assumes allthe virtues of reform in an office which he has gained by the simplerepudiation of the ladder that lifted him. It is the general record ofusurpers that though sustained they do their favours to the otherside. . . . I have no faith in a President whose only distinct act isingratitude to the men who voted for him and to the party which gavehim its fealty. In the domain and forum of honour that sense of Mr. Hayes's infidelity stands forward and challenges him. It is felt byhonest men all over the country. He smiles and showers on theopposition the proofs of a disturbed mind. "

Speaking of the civil service order the Senator was no less severe. "That celebrated reformatory order was factional in its intent, madein the interests of envious and presuming little men. Sherman(secretary of the treasury) goes out to Ohio and makes speeches indefiance of it; McCrary (secretary of war) goes to Iowa and manages aconvention in spite of it; and Devens (attorney-general) says theorder meant itself to be disobeyed, and that the way to obey it was toviolate it. "[1629]

[Footnote 1629: New York _Herald_, November 9, 1877. Respecting thisinterview Conkling made a personal explanation in the Senate, in whichhe said: "Though some of the remarks in question may at some time havebeen made in private casual conversations, others of them neverproceeded from me at any time. "--New York _Tribune_, November 13. Itis assumed that the portions quoted above, taken from a three-columninterview, are substantially correct, since they are corroborated byseveral persons now living (1908) who heard the Senator's expressions. See, also, Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, pp. 552-554. 

"Mr. Conkling, in all his conversations, seemed to consider men whodiffered from him as enemies of the human race. "--White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 188. 

"Conkling spoke with great severity of President Hayes, and said hehoped it would be the last time that any man would attempt to stealthe presidency. "--Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 2, p. 44. ]

Conkling's criticism of the fitful execution of the civil serviceorder was not too severe. Instead of justifying the expectations hehad aroused by vigorously enforcing the principles of his letter ofacceptance and inaugural address, the President, as if inthralled bysome mysterious spell, had discredited his professions by hisperformances. The establishment of a real change in the system ofappointments and of office-holding control invited a severe contest, and success depended upon the courage and conviction of theAdministration itself. For firmness, however, Hayes substitutedhesitation, compromise, and in some instances surrender. Numerouscases were cited in proof of this criticism, notably the reappointmentof Chauncey I. Filley, postmaster at St. Louis, whom George WilliamCurtis pronounced the most conspicuous office-holder in the countryfor his active manipulation of politics. "He is a shining example of'the thing to be reformed. '"[1630]

[Footnote 1630: _Harper's Weekly_, December 8, 1877. ]

The President's removal of Arthur and Cornell, it was argued, was noless irrational. In failing to charge them with inefficiency hesubjected himself to the graver charge of inconsistency, since hisletter of acceptance and inaugural address declared in substance thatefficient officers would be retained. The President meant, his friendsassumed, that political activity nullified efficiency, to whichopponents replied that the President, after inviting Arthur to carryout the recommendations of the Jay Commission, had condoned thecollector's wrong-doing if any existed, making him an agent forreform, and that his subsequent removal was simply in the interest offaction. Cornell's case likewise presented a peg upon which to hangsevere criticism, since the Administration, when asked for the reasonof his removal, dodged the decisive one. Such inconsistency showedtimidity and confusion instead of courage and conviction, disappointing to friends and ridiculous to opponents. 

Conkling made use of these and other points. Indeed, for more than sixweeks after Congress convened he bent all his energies and diplomacyto defeat the confirmation of Roosevelt and Prince. That a Republicansenator might be substituted for a Democrat on the commerce committee, of which he was chairman and to which the nominations were referred, he delayed action until a reorganisation of the Senate. Finally, in aforceful and pathetic speech, regarded by colleagues as his mostimpressive address, [1631] he illuminated what he deemed an act ofinjustice to Arthur and Cornell. It was less bitter perhaps than thatin the contest with Fenton over the confirmation of Thomas Murphy, butno less carefully worked up and quite as successful. To theconsternation of the Administration, which relied upon a solidDemocratic party, the Senator won by a decisive vote, having thesupport of several Democrats and of all the Republicans except five. 

[Footnote 1631: Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 373. ]

It was an important victory for Conkling, who must soon begin anothercanvass for members of the Legislature. It sent a thrill of joythrough the ranks of his friends, renewed the courage ofoffice-holding lieutenants, and compelled the Administration'ssupporters to admit that the President was "chiefly to blame. "[1632]Moreover, the cordial support given Conkling by Blaine created theimpression that it had led to their complete reconciliation, a beliefstrengthened by a conversation that subsequently occurred between themon the floor of the Senate Chamber in full view of crowded galleries. David Davis had added to the tableau by putting an arm around each, thus giving the meeting the appearance of an unusually friendlyone. [1633]

[Footnote 1632: _Harper's Weekly_, December 22, 1877. ]

[Footnote 1633: New York _Tribune_, December 17, 1878. ]

But the President, if he had previously omitted to say what he meant, determined not to surrender, and on July 11 (1878), after theadjournment of Congress, he suspended Arthur and Cornell and appointedEdwin A. Merritt and Silas W. Burt. Arthur's suspension did notinvolve his integrity. Nor was any distinct charge lodged againstCornell. Their removal rested simply upon the plea that the interestsof the public service demanded it, and the death of Roosevelt verynaturally opened the way for Merritt. [1634]

[Footnote 1634: Theodore Roosevelt died on February 9. ]

All his life Merritt had been serviceable and handy in politics. Afterholding successively several local offices in St. Lawrence, the peoplesent him to the Assembly in 1859 and in 1860. When the rebellion beganhe entered the quartermaster's and commissary departments, and at itsclose served as quartermaster-general of the State until appointednaval officer in 1869, an office which he lost in 1870 when Conklinggot control of the patronage. Then he followed Fenton and Greeley intothe Liberal party, but returning with other leaders in 1874, heaccepted the nomination for State treasurer in 1875, the year whenadministrative reform accelerated Tilden's run for the White House. This made him eligible for surveyor, an office to which he had beenconfirmed in December, 1877. His unsought promotion to thecollectorship, however, was a testimonial to his ability. WhateverMerritt touched he improved. Whether quartermaster, naval officer, orsurveyor, he attended rigorously to duty, enforcing the law fairly andwithout favour, and disciplining his force into a high state ofefficiency, so that revenues increased, expenses diminished, andcorruption talk ceased. In selecting him for collector, therefore, thePresident had secured the right type of man. 

Nevertheless, Hayes's action roiled the political waters. Conkling'sfriends accused the President of violating his own principles, ofendeavouring to set up a new machine, and of grossly insulting theSenator. On the other hand, Administration supporters maintained thatthe law authorising removals was as obligatory as that empowering asenator to advise and consent to appointments, and that in removingArthur the President did not insult Conkling any more than Conklinginsulted the President by rejecting the nomination of Roosevelt. Thisrenewal of an ugly quarrel was auguring ill for the Republicans, whenthe organisation of the National Greenback-Labour-Reform party, suddenly presenting a question which involved the integrity andwelfare of the country, put factional quarrels and personal politicsinto eclipse. 

Conkling had exhibited both tact and skill in that campaign. He didnot lead the gold column. In fact, it was not until the last momentthat the Saratoga committee on resolutions which he dominated, substituted "the fixed monetary standard of the commercial world" forthe word "coin. " But after the guide-boards pointed the way he becamea powerful champion of hard money. Besides, the moderation and goodtemper with which he discussed the doctrine of the inflationists didmuch to hold dissenters within the party and justly entitled him tohigh praise. His unanimous re-election to the Senate followed as amatter of course. Not that unanimity of action implied unanimity offeeling. It was rather, perhaps, a yielding to the necessity of thesituation. [1635]

[Footnote 1635: The strength of the anti-Conkling sentiment was clearlyshown in the contest for speaker of the Assembly. Thomas G. Alvordreceived 52 votes to 43 for George B. Sloan of Oswego. Although Sloanand his supporters declared for Conkling, Alvord was confessedly theConkling candidate. ]

Nevertheless, to all appearances Conkling had recovered the prestigelost at Rochester. His conduct at the convention and in the campaignexcited the hope, also, that he would drop his opposition to Merrittand Burt. Such a course commended itself to the judgment of a largemajority of the New York delegation in Congress as well as to manystout legislative friends; but re-election seemed to have hardened hisheart, and when, ten days after that event, he rose in the Senate todefeat confirmation he exhibited the confidence of the man ofGath. [1636]

[Footnote 1636: New York _Tribune_ (correspondence), February 1, 1879. ]

Prior to his re-election Conkling had not voluntarily moved in thematter. To him the settlement of one thing at a time sufficed. Earlyin January, however, the Secretary of the Treasury, on his owninitiative and with the skill of a veteran legislator, had addressedthe President of the Senate, setting forth that Arthur's conduct ofthe custom-house was neither efficient nor economical. To this Arthuranswered, denying inattention to business or loss of revenue, andaffirming that he had recommended a system of reform upon which theSecretary had not acted. [1637] After the reception of this letterConkling demanded immediate action. But the Senate, by two majority, preferred to wait for Sherman's replication, and when that statementcame the Senate again, by a vote of 35 to 26, put off action until thedocument, with its many exhibits, could be carefully examined. [1638]These delays augured ill for the Senator. It appeared that aDemocratic member of his own committee had left him, and on the dayfixed for consideration other Democrats, while calmly discussing thematter, disclosed a disposition to desert. Alarmed at their lossConkling suddenly moved to recommit, which was carried by a _vivavoce_ vote amidst shouts of approval and whispered assurances thatfurther action should be deferred until a Democratic Senate convenedon March 4. Then some one demanded the yeas and nays. 

[Footnote 1637: _Ibid. _, January 28. ]

[Footnote 1638: These exhibits made a document of 423 pages, of which308 were extracts from the testimony taken by the Jay Commission, thenpublished for the first time. ]

Believing the matter practically settled, Conkling, to improve thelast chance "of freeing his mind, " he said, unexpectedly took thefloor, and for more than an hour, with a bitterness and eloquence notexcelled at Rochester, assailed the President and those associatedwith him. To illustrate the insincerity of the Administration's desireto reform the civil service he read several place-seeking lettersaddressed to Arthur while collector and written by the President'sprivate secretary, by a member of the Cabinet, and other reformers. One letter sought a position for the son of Justice Bradley, who hadfigured conspicuously on the Electoral Commission. Such a scene hadnever before been witnessed in the Senate. Exclamations of mocksurprise followed by fun-making questions and loud laughter added tothe grotesque exhibition. It was so ludicrous as to become pitiful andpainful. Although no particular harm was done to anybody, theGovernment for the moment was made ridiculous. 

At times Conkling was blessed with the gift of offence, and on thisoccasion he seems to have exercised it to its full capacity. Before hebegan speaking the Senate exhibited a readiness to recommit thenominations, but as he proceeded he lost ground, and when he finishedseveral Republican senators, unwilling to afford another opportunityfor such a scene, demanded that the matter be disposed of at once andforever. Each succeeding name, as the roll-call proceeded on themotion to recommit, showed more and more the change that had takenplace in senators' feelings. Failure to recommit turned defeat intoconfusion, and confusion into disaster. When the three roll-calls wereover it was found that Merritt had been confirmed by 33 to 24 and Burtby 31 to 19. An analysis of the "pairs" increased the rout, since itdisclosed that twenty-five Democrats and fifteen Republicans favouredconfirmation, while only seven Democrats and twenty-three Republicansopposed it. In other words, the Administration required only fiveDemocratic votes to match the strength of the dissatisfiedRepublicans. Kernan, although he had spoken slightingly of Merritt, refused to vote, but Blaine, who had joined heartily in the laughterprovoked by Conkling's thrusts as he read the letters, antagonised thePresident. This noticeable desire of the Maine statesman to attach hisfortunes to those of the New York Senator neither escaped theattention nor faded from the memory of Secretary Sherman. 

The next morning everybody knew what had happened. Although secrecywas removed only from the vote, nothing of the seven hours' conflictremained untold, the result of which to all New Yorkers proved a greatsurprise. They had supposed Conkling invincible in the Senate. Nevertheless, to most Republicans, whether friends or foes, his defeaton February 3 was a great relief. Merritt had made an excellentcollector, and a feeling existed, which had crystallised into a strongpublic sentiment, that it was unwise to force into his place anofficial unsatisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

CHAPTER XXXII

JOHN KELLY ELECTS CORNELL

1879

If threatened danger had bred an artificial harmony among theRepublican factions of the State in 1878, the presence of a realperil, growing out of the control of both branches of Congress by theDemocrats, tended to bring them closer together in 1879. During aspecial session of the Forty-sixth Congress the Democratic majorityhad sought, by a political rider attached to the army appropriationbill, to repeal objectionable election laws, which provided amongother things for the appointment of supervisors and deputy marshals atcongressional elections. This law had materially lessened cheating inNew York City, and no one doubted that its repeal would be followed in1880 by scenes similar to those which had disgraced the metropolisprior to its enactment in 1870. 

But the attempt to get rid of the objectionable Act by a rider on asupply bill meant more than repeal. It implied a threat. In effect theDemocrats declared that if the Executive did not yield his veto powerto a bare majority, the needed appropriations for carrying on thegovernment would be stopped. This practically amounted to revolution, and the debate that followed reawakened bitter partisan and sectionalanimosities. "Suppose in a separate bill, " said Conkling, "themajority had, in advance of appropriations, repealed the national bankact and the resumption act, and had declared that unless the Executivesurrendered his convictions and yielded up his approval of therepealing act, no appropriations should be made; would the separationof the bills have palliated or condoned the revolutionary purpose?When it is intended that, unless another species of legislation isagreed to, the money of the people, paid for that purpose, shall notbe used to maintain their government, the threat is revolution and itsexecution is treasonable. " Then he gave the mortal stab. Of theninety-three senators and representatives from the eleven disloyalStates, he said, eighty-five were soldiers in the armies of therebellion, and their support of these "revolutionary measures is afight for empire. It is a contrivance to clutch the nationalgovernment. That we believe; that I believe. "[1639] The President, byadvising the country through his spirited veto messages of thedesperate tactics invoked by the majority, added to Northernindignation. 

[Footnote 1639: Cooper, _American Politics_, Book 3, pp. 176-186. ]

It was a losing battle to the Democrats. The longer they insisted themore the Southern brigadiers were held up to public scorn as if theyhad again betrayed their country, and when, finally, the appropriationbills were passed without riders, it left Republicans more firmlyunited than at the beginning of the Hayes administration. [1640]

[Footnote 1640: The extra session of Congress adjourned July 1, 1879. ]

Two months later the Republican State convention, held at Saratoga(September 3), evidenced this union. [1641] Every distinguishedRepublican of the State was present save Thurlow Weed, whosefeebleness kept him at home. Conkling presided. With fine humour, George William Curtis, the sound of whose flute-like voice brought aburst of applause, asked that the crowded aisles be cleared that hemight see the chairman. Conkling's speech excited close attention. Itwas freer and more vivid because of more human interest than hisaddress of the year before, and his appeal for harmony, hisdenunciation of revolutionary methods in Congress, and his demand thatfreedmen be protected in their rights, brought strenuous, purposefulapplause from determined men. The principles thus felicitously andrhetorically stated formed the basis of the platform, which pledgedthe party anew to national supremacy, equal rights, free elections, and honest money. It also thanked the President for his recentattitude. 

[Footnote 1641: On August 29, the State convention of Nationalsassembled at Utica, and nominated Harris Lewis of Herkimer, forgovernor. The platform opposed National banks and demanded an issue ofgreenbacks at the rate of $50 per capita, at least. Lewis, who hadbeen a member of the Assembly twenty years before, was president ofthe Farmers' Alliance. 

The State Prohibition convention met at Syracuse, September 3, andnominated a full State ticket, with John W. Mears of Oneida, forgovernor. The platform declared the license system the cornerstone ofthe liquor traffic and favoured woman suffrage. ]

Nevertheless, a disposition to contest the strength of theorganisation and its methods boldly asserted itself. For monthsCornell had been Conkling's candidate for governor. A searchingcanvass, extended into all sections of the State and penetrating thesecrets of men, had been noiselessly and ceaselessly carried on. Indeed, a more inquisitorial pursuit had never before been attempted, since the slightest chance, the merest accident, might result, as itdid in 1876, in defeating Cornell. 

So much depended upon the control of the temporary organisation thatthe anti-Conkling forces begged the Vice-President to stand fortemporary chairman. They could easily unite upon him, and the beliefobtained that he could defeat the Senator. But Wheeler, a mild andamiable gentleman, whose honours had come without personal contests, was timid and unyielding. [1642] What the opposition needed was a realState leader. It had within its ranks brilliant editors, [1643]excellent lawyers, and with few exceptions the best speakers in theparty, but since Fenton lost control of the organisation no man hadarisen capable of crossing swords with its great chieftain. 

[Footnote 1642: "The only complaint that his friends have ever made ofMr. Wheeler is that his generous nature forbids him, politically, tofight. Had he been willing to lead in the State convention in 1879, itwould have had a different result. "--_Harper's Weekly_, March 26, 1881. ]

[Footnote 1643: Among the more influential Republican editors, whowrote with rare intelligence, representing both factions of the party, may be mentioned Charles E. Smith, Albany _Journal_; Carroll E. Smith, Syracuse _Journal_; Ellis H. Roberts, Utica _Herald_; James N. Matthews, Buffalo _Express_; S. Newton Dexter North, Albany _Express_;Whitelaw Reid, New York _Tribune_; John H. Selkreg, Ithaca _Journal_;John M. Francis, Troy _Times_; Beman Brockway, Watertown _Times_;Charles E. Fitch, Rochester _Democrat-Chronicle_; George WilliamCurtis, _Harper's Weekly_; Charles G. Fairman, Elmira _Advertiser_;William Edward Foster, Buffalo _Commercial_; George Dawson, Albany_Journal_; Lewis J. Jennings, New York _Times_. ]

Of the four pronounced candidates for governor Frank Hiscock ofSyracuse divided the support of the central counties with Theodore M. Pomeroy of Cayuga, while William H. Robertson of Westchester and JohnH. Starin of New York claimed whatever delegates Cornell did notcontrol in the metropolis and its vicinity. Among them and theirlieutenants, however, none could dispute leadership with Conkling andhis corps of able managers. Starin had pluck and energy, but two termsin Congress and popularity with the labouring classes, to whom he paidlarge wages and generously contributed fresh-air enjoyments, summed uphis strength. [1644] Pomeroy was better known. His public record, datingfrom the famous speech made in the Whig convention of 1855, had kepthim prominently before the people, and had he continued in Congress hemust have made an exalted national reputation. But the day of youngermen had come. Besides, his recent vote for John F. Smyth, the head ofthe Insurance Department, injured him. [1645] Robertson, as usual, hadstrong support. His long public career left a clear imprint of hishigh character, and his attractive personality, with its restrainedforce, made him a central figure in the politics of the State. 

[Footnote 1644: The sale of a condition powder for cattle startedStarin on the road to wealth, which soon discovered itself in theownership of canal, river, and harbour boats, until he became known asHigh Admiral of the Commerce of New York. Like success attended hisrailroad operations. ]

[Footnote 1645: Pomeroy was district-attorney of his County, 1851-56;in the Assembly, 1857; in Congress, 1861-69, being elected speaker inplace of Colfax on the day the latter retired to be sworn in asVice-President; mayor of Auburn, 1875-76; State Senate, 1878-79. ]

Hiscock was then on the threshold of his public career. He began lifeas the law partner and political lieutenant of his brother, Harris, anadroit politician, whose violent death in 1867, while a member of theconstitutional convention, left to the former the Republicanleadership of Onondaga County. If his diversion as a Liberaltemporarily crippled him, it did not prevent his going to Congress in1876, where he was destined to remain for sixteen years and to achievehigh rank as a debater on financial questions. He was without a senseof humour and possessed rather an austere manner, but as a highlysuccessful lawyer he exhibited traits of character that strengthenedhim with the people. He was also an eminently wary and cautious man, alive to the necessity of watching the changeful phases of publicopinion, and slow to propound a plan until he had satisfied himselfthat it could be carried out in practice. It increased his influence, too, that he was content with a stroke of practical business here andthere in the interest of party peace without claiming credit for anybrilliant or deep diplomacy. 

It is doubtful, however, if the genius of a Weed could have inducedthe disorganised forces, representing the four candidates, to put up asingle opponent to Cornell. Such a course, in the opinion of theleaders, would release delegates to the latter without compensatingadvantage. It was decided, therefore, to hold the field intact withthe hope of preventing a nomination on the first ballot, and to letthe result determine the next step. In their endeavour to accomplishthis they stoutly maintained that Cornell, inheriting the unpopularityof the machine, could not carry the State. To win New York and thushave its position defined for 1880 was the one great desire ofRepublicans, and the visible effect of the fusionists' attack, concededly made with great tact and cleverness, if without much effortat organisation, turned Conkling's confidence into doubt. Then he puton more pressure. In the preceding winter Pomeroy's vote and speechin the State Senate had saved John F. Smyth from deserved impeachment, and he now counted confidently upon the Commissioner's promisedsupport of his candidacy. But Conkling demanded it for Cornell, andSmyth left Pomeroy to care for himself. 

It is seldom that a roll-call ever proceeded under such tension. Nominating speeches were abandoned, cheers for the platform faded intoan ominous silence, and every response sounded like the night-step ofa watchful sentinel. Only when some conspicuous leader voted was thestillness broken. A score of men were keeping count, and halfway downthe roll the fusionists tied their opponents. When, at last, the callclosed with nine majority for Cornell, the result, save a spasm ofthroat-splitting yells, was received with little enthusiasm. [1646] Onthe motion to make the nomination unanimous George William Curtisvoted "No" distinctly. [1647]

[Footnote 1646: Whole number of votes cast, 450. Necessary to a choice, 226. Cornell received 234; Robertson, 106; Starin, 40; Pomeroy, 35;Hiscock, 34; Sloan, 1. ]

[Footnote 1647: _Harper's Weekly_, October 25, 1879. ]

It was a Conkling victory. For three days delegates had crowded theSenator's headquarters, while in an inner room he strengthened theweak, won the doubtful, and directed his forces with remarkable skill. He asked no quarter, and after his triumph every candidate selectedfor a State office was an avowed friend of Cornell. "It would havebeen poor policy, " said one of the Senator's lieutenants, "toapologise for what he had done by seeming to strengthen the ticketwith open enemies of the chief candidate. "[1648]

[Footnote 1648: New York _Sun_, September 8. 

The following candidates were nominated: Governor, Alonzo B. Cornell, New York; Lieutenant-Governor, George G. Hoskins, Wyoming; Secretaryof State, Joseph B. Carr, Rensselaer; Comptroller, James W. Wadsworth, Livingston; Attorney-General, Hamilton Ward, Allegany; Treasurer, Nathan D. Wendell, Albany; Engineer, Howard Soule, Onondaga. ]

The aftermath multiplied reasons for the coalition's downfall. Somethought the defeat of Cornell in 1876 deceived the opposition as tohis strength; others, that a single candidate should have opposed him;others, again, that the work of securing delegates did not begin earlyenough. But all agreed that the action of George B. Sloan of Oswegoseriously weakened them. Since 1874 Sloan had been prominentlyidentified with the unfettered wing of the party. Indeed, his activityalong lines of reform had placed him at the head and front ofeverything that made for civic betterment. In character he resembledRobertson. His high qualities and flexibility of mind gave himunrivalled distinction. He possessed a charm which suffused hispersonality as a smile softens and irradiates a face, and although itwas a winsome rather than a commanding personality, it lacked neitherfirmness nor power. Moreover, he was a resourceful business man, keen, active, and honest--characteristics which he carried with him intopublic life. His great popularity made him speaker of the Assembly inthe third year of his service (1877), and his ability to worktactfully and effectively had suggested his name to the coalition as acompromise candidate for governor. He had never leaned to the side ofthe machine. In fact, his failure to win the speakership in thepreceding January was due to the opposition of Cornell backed by JohnF. Smyth, and his hopes of future State preferment centred in thedefeat of these aggressive men. Yet at the critical moment, whensuccess seemed within the grasp of his old-time friends, he voted forCornell. For this his former associates never wholly forgave him. Norwas his motive ever fully understood. Various reasons foundcurrency--admiration of Conkling, a desire to harmonise his party athome by the nomination of John C. Churchill for State comptroller, andweariness of opposing an apparently invincible organisation. Butwhatever the motive the coalition hissed when he declared his choice, and then turned upon Churchill like a pack of sleuth-hounds, defeatinghim upon the first ballot in spite of Conkling's assistance. 

Tammany's threat to bolt Robinson's renomination may have encouragedCornell's nomination, since such truancy would aid his election. JohnKelly was _in extremis_. Tammany desertions and the election of MayorCooper had shattered his control of the city. To add to hisdiscomfiture the Governor had removed Henry A. Gumbleton, charged withtaking monstrous fees as clerk of New York County, and appointedHubert O. Thompson in his place. Gumbleton was Kelly's pet; Thompsonwas Cooper's lieutenant. Although the Governor sufficiently justifiedhis action, the exercise of this high executive function was generallysupposed to be only a move in the great Presidential game of 1880. Hisfailure to remove the Register, charged with similar misdoings, strengthened the supposition that the Tilden camp fires were burningbrightly. But whatever the Governor's motive, Kelly acceptedGumbleton's removal as an open declaration of war, and on September 6(1879), five days before the Democratic State convention, Tammany'scommittee on organisation secretly declared "that in case theconvention insists upon the renomination of Lucius Robinson forgovernor, the Tammany delegation will leave in a body. "[1649] Inpreparation for this event an agent of Tammany hired Shakespeare Hall, the only room left in Syracuse of sufficient size to accommodate abolting convention. [1650]

[Footnote 1649: New York _Star_, Sept. 17, 1879. ]

[Footnote 1650: New York _Sun_, Sept. 12. ]

The changes visible in the alignment of factions since the Democratshad selected a candidate for governor in Syracuse reflected the fiercestruggle waged in the intervening five years. In 1874 Tweed was injail; Kelly, standing for Tilden, assailed Sanford E. Church as afriend of the canal ring; Dorsheimer, thrust into the Democratic partythrough the Greeley revolt, was harvesting honour in high office;Bigelow, dominated by his admiration of a public servant who concealedan unbridled ambition, gave character to the so-called reform; andCharles S. Fairchild, soon to appreciate the ingratitude of party, wasbuilding a reputation as the undismayed prosecutor of a predatoryring. Now, Tweed was in his grave; Kelly had joined the canal ring insounding the praises of Church; Dorsheimer, having drifted intoTammany and the editorship of the _Star_, disparaged the man whom headored as governor and sought to make President; and Bigelow andFairchild, their eyes opened, perhaps, by cipher telegrams, foundsatisfaction in the practice of their professions. 

But Tilden was not without friends. If some had left him, others hadgrown more potent. For several years Daniel E. Manning, known to hisAlbany neighbours as a youth of promise and a young man of ripeningwisdom, had attracted attention by his genius for politicalleadership. [1651] He seems never to have been rash or misled. Even anexuberance of animal vitality that eagerly sought new outlets for itsenergy did not waste itself in aimless experiments. Althoughpossessing the generosity of a rich nature, he preferred to workwithin lines of purpose without heady enthusiasms or recklessextremes, and his remarkable gifts as an executive, coupled with thestudy of politics as a fine art, soon made him a manager of men. Thiswas demonstrated in his aggressive fight against Tweedism. Manning wasnow (1879) forty-eight years old. It cannot be said that he had thenreached the place filled by Dean Richmond, or that the _Argus_ wieldedthe power exerted in the days of Edwin Croswell; but the anti-ringforces in the interior of the State cheerfully mustered under hisleadership, while the _Argus_, made forceful and attractive by thesingularly brilliant and facile pen of St. Clair McKelway, swayed theminds of its readers to a degree almost unequalled among its partycontemporaries. [1652]

[Footnote 1651: In the early forties Manning began as an office-boy onthe Albany _Atlas_, and in 1865, as associate editor of the _Argus_, he dominated its policy. Upon the death of James Cassidy, in 1873, hesucceeded to the presidency of the company with which he continuedthroughout his life. ]

[Footnote 1652: After service on the New York _World_, and the Brooklyn_Eagle_, McKelway became chief editor of the _Argus_ in 1878. Herejoined the _Eagle_ in 1885. Among other accomplished editors whomade their journals conspicuous in party (Democratic) and State from1865 to 1880, may be mentioned William Cassidy, Albany _Argus_; ThomasKinsella, Brooklyn _Eagle_; Joseph Warren and David Gray, Buffalo_Courier_; Samuel M. Shaw, Cooperstown _Freeman's Journal_; James andErastus Brooks, New York _Express_; Benjamin Wood, New York _News_;Manton Marble and Joseph Pulitzer, New York _World_; William Purcell, Rochester _Union-Advertiser_; Henry A. Reeves, Greenport _RepublicanWatchman_; E. Prentiss Bailey, Utica _Observer_. Although previouslyof Democratic tendencies, the New York _Herald_, by 1865, had becomewholly independent. ]

Manning took charge of the interests of Robinson, who did not attendthe convention, receiving Kelly's tactful and spirited assault withfine courage. The Governor's enemies were more specific thanCornell's. They predicted that Robinson's renomination would losetwenty thousand votes in New York City alone, and an ingenious andextensively circulated table showed that the counties represented byhis delegates had recently exhibited a Democratic loss of thirtythousand and an increased Republican vote of forty thousand, whilelocalities opposed to him revealed encouraging gains. Mindful of thehavoc wrought in 1874 by connecting Church with the canal ring, Kellyalso sought to crush Robinson by charging that corporate rings, notably the New York Mutual Life Insurance Company, had controlled hisadministration, and that although he had resigned from the Eriedirectorate at the time of his election, he still received large feesthrough his son who acted as attorney for the road. Moreover, Kellyintimated, with a dark frown, that he had another stone in his sling. This onslaught, made upon every country delegate in town, seemed toconfuse if not to shake the Tilden men, whose interest centred insuccess as well as in Robinson. The hesitation of the Kings Countydelegation, under the leadership of Hugh McLaughlin, to declarepromptly for the Governor, and the toying of Senator Kernan with thename of Church while talking in the interest of harmony, indicatedirresolution. Even David B. Hill and Edward K. Apgar, who desired toshape affairs for a pledged delegation to the next nationalconvention, evidenced weariness. 

Manning steadied the line. In proclaiming Robinson's nomination on thefirst ballot he anticipated every movement of the enemy. He knew thatHenry W. Slocum's candidacy did not appeal to McLaughlin; that ChiefJustice Church's consent rested upon an impossible condition; and thatKelly's threatened bolt, however disastrously it might end inNovember, would strengthen Robinson in the convention. Nevertheless, unusual concessions showed a desire to proceed on lines of harmony. Tammany's delegation was seated with the consent of Irving Hall; JohnC. Jacobs, a senator from Brooklyn, was made chairman; the fairness ofcommittee appointments allayed suspicion; a platform accepted by ifnot inoffensive to all Democrats set forth the principles of theparty, [1653] and an avoidance of irritating statements characterisedthe speeches placing Robinson's name in nomination. 

[Footnote 1653: The platform, which dealt mainly with State issues, repeated the fraud-cry of 1876, advocated hard money, and upheld theDemocratic programme in Congress. --See Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1879, p. 680. ]

Tammany's part was less cleverly played. Its effort centred inbreaking the solid Brooklyn delegation, and although with much tact itpresented Slocum as its candidate for governor, and cunninglyexpressed confidence in Jacobs by proposing that he select theCommittee on Credentials, two Bowery orators, with a fierceness bornof hate, abused Robinson and pronounced Tilden "the biggest fraud ofthe age. "[1654] Then Dorsheimer took the floor. His purpose was tocapture the Kings and Albany delegations, and walking down the aisleswith stage strides he begged them, in a most impassioned manner, toput themselves in Tammany's place, and to say whether, under likecircumstances, they would not adopt the same course. He did it veryadroitly. His eyes blazed, his choice words blended entreaty withreasoning, and his manner indicated an earnestness that captivated ifit did not convert. His declaration, however, that Tammany would boltRobinson's renomination withered the effect of his rhetoric. Kelly hadinsinuated as much, and Tammany had flouted it for two days; butDorsheimer's announcement was the first authoritative declaration, andit hardened the hearts of men who repudiated such methods. 

[Footnote 1654: See New York papers of September 12, 1879. ]

Then the tricksters had their inning. Pending a motion that acommittee of one from each county be appointed to secure harmony, aSaratoga delegate moved that John C. Jacobs be nominated for governorby acclamation. This turned the convention into a pandemonium. In themidst of the whirlwind of noise a Tammany reading clerk, putting themotion, declared it carried. Similar tactics had won Horatio Seymourthe nomination for President in 1868, and for a time it looked as ifthe Chair might profit by their repetition. Jacobs was a young man. Ambition possessed and high office attracted him. But if a vision ofthe governorship momentarily unsettled his mind, one glance atMcLaughlin and the Brooklyn delegation, sitting like icebergs in themidst of the heated uproar, restored his reason. When a motion torecess increased the tumult, Rufus H. Peckham, a cool Tilden man, called for the ayes and noes. This brought the convention to earthagain, and as the noise subsided Jacobs reproved the clerk for hisunauthorised assumption of the Chair's duties, adding, with a slightshow of resentment, that had he been consulted respecting thenomination he should have respectfully declined. 

At the conclusion of the roll-call the Tammany tellers, adding theaggregate vote to suit the needs of the occasion, pronounced themotion carried, while others declared it lost. A second call defeateda recess by 166 to 217. On a motion to table the appointment of aharmony committee the vote stood 226 to 155. A motion to adjourn alsofailed by 166 to 210. These results indicated that neither tricks nordisorder could shake the Robinson phalanx, and after the call toselect a nominee for governor had begun, Augustus Schell, John Kelly, William Dorsheimer, and other Tammany leaders rose in their places. "Under no circumstances will the Democracy of New York support thenomination of Lucius Robinson, " said Schell; "but the rest of theticket will receive its warm and hearty support. " Then he paused. Kelly, standing in the background of the little group, seemed toshrink from the next step. Regularity was the touchstone of Tammany'screed. Indifference to ways and means gave no offence, butdisobedience to the will of a caucus or convention admitted of noforgiveness. Would Kelly himself be the first to commit thisunpardonable sin? He could invoke no precedent to shield him. In 1847the Wilmot Proviso struck the keynote of popular sentiment, and theBarnburners, leaving the convention the instant the friends of theSouth repudiated the principle, sought to stay the aggressiveness ofslavery. Nor could he appeal to party action in 1853, for the Hunkersrefused to enter the convention after the Barnburners had organisedit. Moreover, he was wholly without excuse. He had accepted theplatform, participated in all proceedings, and exhausted argument, diplomacy, trickery, and deception. Not until certain defeat faced himdid he rise to go, and even then he tarried with the hope thatSchell's words would bring the olive-branch. It was a moment ofintense suspense. The convention, sitting in silence, realised thatthe loss meant probable defeat, and anxious men, unwilling to takechances, looked longingly from one leader to another. But the symbolof peace did not appear, and Schell announced, as he led the way tothe door: "The delegation from New York will now retire from thehall. " Then cheers and hisses deadened the tramp of retreatingfootsteps. 

After the bolters' departure Irving Hall took the seats of Tammany, and the convention quickly closed its work. The roll-call showed 301votes cast, of which Robinson received 243 and Slocum 56. Littleconflict occurred in the selection of other names on the ticket, allthe candidates save the lieutenant-governor being renominated. [1655]

[Footnote 1655: The ticket presented was as follows: Governor, LuciusRobinson, Chemung; Lieutenant-Governor, Clarkson N. Potter, New York;Secretary of State, Allen C. Beach, Jefferson; Comptroller, FrederickP. Olcott, New York; Treasurer, James Mackin, Dutchess;Attorney-General, Augustus Schoonmaker, Ulster; State Engineer, Horatio Seymour, Jr. , Oneida. ]

In the evening Tammany occupied Shakespeare Hall. David Dudley Field, formerly a zealous anti-slavery Republican, and more recently Tilden'scounsel before the Electoral Commission, presided; Dorsheimer, whosegrotesque position must have appealed to his own keen sense of thehumorous, moved the nomination of John Kelly for governor; and Kelly, in his speech of acceptance, prophesied the defeat of GovernorRobinson. This done they went out into darkness. 

Throughout the campaign the staple of Republican exhortations was theSouthern question and the need of a "strong man. " Even Conkling in hisone speech made no reference to State politics or State affairs. WhenCornell's election, midway in the canvass, seemed assured, Curtisargued that his success would defeat the party in 1880, and to avoidsuch a calamity he advocated "scratching the ticket. "[1656] Severalwell-known Republicans, adopting the suggestion, published an address, giving reasons for their refusal to support the head and the tail ofthe ticket. They cited the cause of Cornell's dismissal from thecustom-house; compared the cost of custom-house administration beforeand after his separation from the service; and made unpleasantreference to the complicity of Soule in the canal frauds, as revealedin the eleventh report of the Canal Investigating Committee. [1657]Immediately the signers were dubbed "Scratchers. " The party pressstigmatised them as traitors, and several journals refused to publishtheir address even as an advertisement. So bitterly was Curtisassailed that he thought it necessary to resign the chairmanship ofthe Richmond County convention. Party wits also ridiculed him. HenryWard Beecher said, with irresistible humour, that scratching is goodfor cutaneous affections. Martin I. Townsend declared that noRepublican lived in Troy who had any disease that required scratching. Evarts called it "voting in the air. " To all this Curtis replied thatthe incessant fusillade proved his suggestion not so utterlycontemptible as it was alleged to be. "If the thing be a mosquito, there is too much powder and ball wasted upon it. "[1658]

[Footnote 1656: _Harper's Weekly_, October 4, 1879. ]

[Footnote 1657: New York papers, October 10, 1879. ]

[Footnote 1658: _Harper's Weekly_, November 8, 1879. ]

Nevertheless, the speech of the Secretary of State cut deeply. Evartsrepresented an Administration which had removed Cornell that "theoffice may be properly and efficiently administered. " Now, he endorsedhim for governor, ridiculed Republicans that opposed him, and pointedunmistakably to Grant as the "strong man" who could best maintain thepower of the people. [1659] The _Nation_ spoke of Evarts' appearance as"indecent. "[1660] Curtis was not less severe. "Both his appearance andhis speech are excellent illustrations of the reason why the politicalinfluence of so able and excellent a man is so slight. Mr. Evarts, musing on the folly of voting in the air, may remember the arrow ofwhich the poet sings, which was shot into the air and found in theheart of an oak. It is hearts of oak, not of bending reeds, that makeand save parties. "[1661]

[Footnote 1659: Cooper Union speech, October 21. ]

[Footnote 1660: October 23. ]

[Footnote 1661: _Harper's Weekly_, November 8. ]

Talk of a secret alliance between Tammany and the Cornell managersbegan very early in the campaign. Perhaps the fulsome praise of JohnKelly in Republican journals, the constant support of John F. Smyth byTammany senators, and Kelly's avowed intention to defeat Robinson, were sufficient to arouse suspicion. Conkling's sudden silence as tothe danger threatening free elections, of which he declaimed so warmlyin April, seemed to indicate undue satisfaction with existingconditions. To several newspapers the action of two Republican policecommissioners, who championed Tammany's right to its share of pollinspectors, pointed unmistakably to a bargain, since it gave Tammanyand the Republicans power to select a chairman at each poll. [1662]Evidence of a real alliance, however, was nebulous. The defeat ofRobinson meant the election of Cornell, and Republicans naturallywelcomed any effort to accomplish it. They greeted Kelly, during histour of the State, with noise and music, crowded his meetings, andotherwise sought to dishearten Robinson's friends. Although Kelly'sspeeches did not compare in piquancy with his printed words, hisreferences to Tilden as the "old humbug of Cipher Alley" and toRobinson as having "sore eyes" when signing bills, kept his hearersexpectant and his enemies disturbed. The _World_ followed him, reporting his speeches as "failures" and his audiences as "rushingpell-mell from the building. "[1663]

[Footnote 1662: The _Nation_, September 25 and October 23, 1879; NewYork _Times_, September 19, 20, 24, 25. ]

[Footnote 1663: New York _World_, October 11, 14, 16, 17. 

 "John Kelly. Oh! John Kelly! We read you like a book; We've got plain country common-sense, Though homely we may look; And we know each vote you beg, John, Is only begged to sell; You are but the tool of Conkling, And bargained to Cornell. " --New York _World_, October 17. ]

Kelly did not mean to dish the whole Democratic ticket. He expected toelect the minor State officers. But he learned on the morning afterelection that he had entirely miscalculated the effect of his scheme, since every Democrat except the nephew of Horatio Seymour rested inthe party morgue by the side of Lucius Robinson. [1664] In the cityKelly also disappointed his followers. His own vote ran behindRobinson's, and all his friends were slaughtered. Indeed, when Tammanysurrendered its regularity at Syracuse it lost its voting strength. Even Cornell whom it saved ran 20, 000 behind his ticket. The electionwas, in fact, a triumph for nobody except Conkling. He had put intothe highest State office a personal adherent, whom the Administrationhad stigmatised by dismissal; he had brought to New York his principalopponents in the Cabinet (Evarts and Sherman) to speak for his nomineeand their dismissed servant; and he had induced the Administration tocall for a "strong man" for the Presidency. [1665]

[Footnote 1664: The election held on November 4, resulted as follows:Governor, Cornell, 418, 567; Robinson, 375, 790; Kelly, 77, 566; Lewis(National), 20, 286; Mears (Prohibition), 4, 437. Lieutenant-Governor, Hoskins, 435, 304; Potter, 435, 014. Secretary of State, Carr(Republican), 436, 013; Beach (Democrat), 434, 138. Comptroller, Wadsworth, 438, 253; Olcott, 432, 325. Treasurer, Wendell, 436, 300;Mackin, 433, 485. Attorney-General, Ward, 437, 382; Schoonmaker, 433, 238. Engineer and Surveyor, Soule, 427, 240; Seymour, 439, 681. Legislature: Assembly, Republicans, 92; Democrats, 35; National, 1;Senate (elected the previous year), Republicans, 25; Democrats, 8. ]

[Footnote 1665: To criticisms of his course in taking part in thecampaign, Sherman replied; "We must carry New York next year or seeall the result of the war overthrown and the constitutional amendmentsabsolutely nullified. We cannot do this if our friends defeat aRepublican candidate for governor, fairly nominated, and against whomthere are no substantial charges affecting his integrity. "--Burton, _Life of Sherman_, p. 296. ]

CHAPTER XXXIII

STALWART AND HALF-BREED

1880

While General Grant made his tour around the world there was muchspeculation respecting his renomination for the Presidency. Verycautiously started on the ground of necessity because of the attitudeof the Southerners in Congress, the third-term idea continued tostrengthen until the widespread and deep interest in the greatsoldier's home-coming was used to create the belief that he wasunmistakably the popular choice. Grant himself had said nothingpublicly upon the subject except in China, and his proper and modestallusions to it then added to the people's respect. But during thewelcome extended him at Philadelphia, the Mayor of that city discloseda well-laid plan to make him a candidate. This frank declarationindicated also that Grant expected the nomination, if, indeed, he wasnot a party to the scheme for securing it. 

The question of discrediting the traditions quickly became a seriousone, and its discussion, stimulated by other aspirants for thePresidency, took a wide range. The opponents of a third term did notyield to any in their grateful remembrance and recognition of whatGrant had done for the country, but they deemed it impolitic upon bothpublic and party grounds. If the tradition of two terms be overthrownbecause of his distinguished service, they argued, his election for afourth term, to which the Constitution offered no bar, could be urgedfor the same reason with still more cogency. Such apparently logicalaction would not only necessarily familiarise the public mind, alreadydisturbed by the increasing depression to business caused by theturmoil incident to quadrennial elections, with the idea of aperpetual Presidency, but it would foster confidence in personalgovernment, and encourage the feeling that approved experience, as inthe case of trusted legislators, is necessary to the continuance ofwise administration. 

Party reasons also furnished effective opposition. German voters, especially in New York and Wisconsin, early disclosed an indispositionto accept Grant even if nominated, while the Independent or Scratchervoiced a greater hostility than the Cornell nomination had excited. Never before had so much attention been given to a political questionby persons ordinarily indifferent to such speculation. Anti-Grantclubs, springing up in a night, joined the press in ridiculing thepersistent talk about the need of "a strong man, " and charged that thescheme was conceived by a coterie of United States senators, managedby former office-holders under President Grant, and supported by menwho regarded the Hayes administration as an impertinence. MatthewHale, in accepting the presidency of the Albany Club, declared themovement to be at war with American traditions and with the spirit ofAmerican institutions. [1666]

[Footnote 1666: The Albany Club was organised early in January, 1880. ]

Such acrimonious antagonism quickly uncovered the purpose of theStalwarts, who now sought to control the nomination regardless ofopposition. For this purpose unusually early conventions for theselection of delegates to the National Convention, to be held atChicago on June 2, were called in Pennsylvania, New York, and otherStates. Pennsylvania's was fixed for February 4 at Harrisburg, and NewYork's for the 25th at Utica. Like methods obtained in the selectionof delegates. At Albany John F. Smyth issued a call in the evening forprimaries to be held the next day at noon, and furnished his followerswith pink coloured tickets, headed "Grant. " Smyth was already in badodour. Governor Robinson had accused him of compelling illegalpayments by insurance companies of a large sum of money, to which hereplied that the act making it illegal was unconstitutional, althoughno court had so pronounced. His misdemeanour was confirmed in thepublic mind by the fact, elicited on the impeachment trial, that themoney so obtained had been divided among agents of the Republicanorganisation. Indeed, the _Times_ charged, without reservation, thatin one case the place of division was in none other than the house ofCornell himself. [1667] Although the Senate of 1878 and of 1879 failedto remove Smyth, the Senate of 1880, notwithstanding his reappointmentby Governor Cornell, refused to confirm him. [1668] In the presence ofsuch a sorry record the ostracised Albany Republicans were notsurprised at his attempt to cheat them at the primaries, and theirindignation at the shameless procedure resounded through the State. Atthe end of a week Charles Emory Smith, the gifted editor of the Albany_Journal_, who headed the delegation thus selected, deemed itexpedient to withdraw. Five associates did likewise. Nevertheless, theopponents of a third term refused to participate in a second election, called to fill the vacancies, since it did not remove the taint fromthe majority who refused to resign. 

[Footnote 1667: New York _Times_ (editorial), February 18, 1880. ]

[Footnote 1668: "The Governor showed his contempt for public opinion bynominating John F. Smyth, while the Senate had self-respect enough torefrain from confirming him. "--_Ibid. _, May 28, 1880. ]

In reward for his defence of Smyth, if not to express contempt for theAlbany malcontents, Charles Emory Smith was made chairman of the Uticaconvention. This evidenced Conkling's complete control. Smith hadlived in Albany since early boyhood. He passed from its Academy toUnion College, thence back to the Academy as a teacher, and from thatposition to the editorship of the _Express_. In a few years his clear, incisive English, always forcible, often eloquent, had advanced him tothe editorship of the _Evening Journal_. Singularly attractive inperson, with slender, agile form, sparkling eyes, and ruddy cheeks, he adorned whatever place he held. Indeed, the beauty and strength ofhis character, coupled with the esteem in which Republican leadersheld him as a counsellor, gave him in the seventies a position in thepolitics of the State somewhat akin to that held by Henry J. Raymondin the sixties. He did not then, if ever, belong in Raymond's class asa journalist or as an orator. Nor did he possess the vehement desirefor office that distinguished the brilliant editor of the _Times_. ButSmith's admirable temper, his sweet disposition, and his rare facultyfor saying things without offence, kept him, like Raymond, on friendlyterms with all. His part was not always an easy one. Leaders changedand new issues appeared, yet his pen, though sometimes crafty, wasnever dipped in gall. While acting as secretary for Governor Fenton heenjoyed the esteem of Edwin D. Morgan, and if his change from theAlbany _Express_ to the Albany _Journal_ in 1870, and from the_Journal_ to the Philadelphia _Press_ in 1880, carried him fromFenton's confidence into Conkling's embrace and converted him from anardent third-termer to a champion of Blaine, the bad impression ofthis prestidigitation was relieved, if not excused or forgotten, because of his journalistic promotion. 

In State conventions, too, Smith played the part formerly assigned toRaymond, becoming by common consent chairman of the Committee onResolutions. His ear went instinctively to the ground, and, aided byCarroll E. Smith of the Syracuse _Journal_, he wrote civil servicereform into the platform of 1877, the principle of sound money intothat of 1878, and carefully shaded important parts of other platformsin that eventful decade. [1669] In like manner, although a pronouncedchampion of Conkling and the politics he represented, Smith encouragedmoderate policies, urged frank recognition of the just claims of theminority, and sought to prevent the stalwart managers from too widelybreaching the proprieties that should govern political organisations. If his efforts proved unavailing, it seemed that he had at leastmastered the art of being regular without being bigoted, and of livingon good terms with a machine whose methods he could not whollyapprove. Nevertheless, there came a time when his associations, as inthe career of Raymond, seriously injured him, since his toleration andardent defence of John F. Smyth, besides grieving sincere friends andtemporarily clouding his young life, [1670] dissolved his relations witha journal that he loved, and which, under his direction, had remindedits readers of the forceful days of Thurlow Weed. Fortunately, theoffer of the editorship of the Philadelphia _Press_, comingcontemporaneously with his separation from the Albany _Journal_, gavehim an honourable exit from New York, and opened not only a largersphere of action but a more distinguished career. [1671]

[Footnote 1669: "Mr. Smith is one of the happily diminishing class ofamphibious editors, one-third journalist, two-thirds 'worker, ' whoconsult with the Bosses in hotels all over the State about 'fixingthings, ' draw fustian platforms for State conventions, embody the Bossview of the nation and the world in 'editorials, ' and supply the puremilk of the word to local committees and henchmen, and 'make it hot'for the Democrats during the canvass. "--The _Nation_, March 4, 1880. ]

[Footnote 1670: Smith was then thirty-eight years of age. ]

[Footnote 1671: "Mr. Smith's partners in the _Journal_ had becomeenraged in the course of a factional controversy over publicappointments, in particular that of Smyth to be the InsuranceCommissioner. At a conference Mr. Smith's partners desired to geteditorial control at once and to terminate his connection with the_Journal_. "--Philadelphia _Press_, January 20, 1908. 

"The first response of the conscience and courage of the party was theprompt change of the Albany _Evening Journal_, probably the mostinfluential party paper in the State, from the position of athick-and-thin machine organ to that of an advocate of sound andindependent Republicanism. "--_Harper's Weekly_, March 13, 1880. ]

Having control of the convention Conkling boldly demanded the adoptionof a resolution instructing "the delegates to use their most earnestand united efforts to secure the nomination of Ulysses S. Grant. " Theadmirers of Blaine seemed unprepared for such a contest. The meagremajority given Grant at the Pennsylvania convention had greatlyencouraged them, but the intervening three weeks afforded insufficienttime to gather their strength. Besides, no one then suspected theoverwhelming public sentiment against a third term which was soon tosweep the country. As it was no one seemed to have definite plans or aprecise knowledge of how to proceed or what to do, while local leadersfrittered away their strength in petty quarrels which had littlebearing upon the question of Presidential candidates. Finally, anamendment simply endorsing the nominee of the Chicago convention wasoffered as a substitute for the Grant resolution. 

The Stalwarts, with the steadiness of veterans conscious of theirstrength, deftly, almost delicately, in fact, silenced the minority. Only once, when the reader of the resolutions hesitated over anillegible word, did the dramatic happen. At that moment a thin voicein the gallery exclaimed, "Hurrah for Blaine!" Instantly the audiencewas on fire. The burst of applause brought out by Smith's openingreference to the "never vanquished hero of Appomattox" had beendisappointing because it lacked spontaneity and enthusiasm, but thesound of the magic word "Blaine, " like a spark flying to powder, threwthe galleries into a flame of cheering which was obstinate in dyingout. Conkling, in closing the debate on the resolution, showed hiscustomary audacity by hurling bitter sarcasm at the people who hadpresumed to applaud. It was in this address that he recited Raleigh'sfamous line from _The Silent Lover_: "The shallows murmur but thedeeps are dumb. "[1672]

[Footnote 1672:

 "Passions are likened best to flowers and streams; The shallows murmur but the deeps are dumb. " --_Works of Sir Walter Raleigh_, Vol. 8, p. 716 (Oxford, 1829). ]

Conkling's purpose was to put district delegates upon their honour toobey the convention's instructions regardless of the preference oftheir districts. He did it very adroitly, arguing that a delegate isan agent with a principal behind him, whom he represents if he isfaithful. "For what is this convention held?" he asked. "Is it merelyto listen while the delegates from the several congressional districtsinform the convention who the districts are going to send to thenational convention? Is it for that five hundred men, the selectedpride of the Republican party of this State, have come here to meettogether? I think not. Common sense and the immemorial usages of bothparties answer the question. What is the use of a delegate? Is it aman to go to a convention representing others, and then determine ashe individually prefers what he will do? Let me say frankly that ifany man, however much I respect him, were presented to this conventionwho would prove recreant to its judgment, I would never vote for himas a delegate to any convention. "[1673]

[Footnote 1673: New York _Tribune_, February 26, 1880. ]

Earlier in the day Newton M. Curtis of St. Lawrence, the one-eyed heroof Fort Fisher, had insisted with much vehemence that districtdelegates represented the views of their immediate constituents andnot those of the State convention. Others as stoutly maintained thesame doctrine. But after Conkling had concluded no one ventured torepeat the claim. [1674] Indeed, when the several districts reportedtheir delegates, the Stalwarts openly called upon the suspected onesto say whether they submitted to the instructions. Woodin and Curtisvoluntarily surrendered. Thus the Grant forces accomplished byindirection what prudence deterred them from doing boldly and with astrong hand. [1675]

[Footnote 1674: The vote on the resolution endorsing Grant, stood 216to 183. ]

[Footnote 1675: Roscoe Conkling, Alonzo B. Cornell, Chester A. Arthur, and James D. Warren, were selected as delegates-at-large. ]

What the managers gained by indirection, however, they lost inprestige. If the Harrisburg convention punctured the assumption thatthe people demanded Grant's nomination, the Utica assembly destroyedit, since the majority of thirty-three indicated an entire absence ofspontaneity. Moreover, the convention had scarcely adjourned beforeits work became a target. George William Curtis declared theassertion "audacious" and "ridiculous" that a district delegate was anagent of the State convention, claiming that when the latterrelinquished the right to select it abandoned the right to instruct. Furthermore, the National Convention, the highest tribunal of theparty, had decided, he said, that State instructions did not binddistrict delegates. [1676] The _Tribune_, voicing the sentiment of themajor part of the Republican press, thought the convention had clearlyexceeded its power. "It was the right of the majority to instruct thedelegates-at-large, " it said, "but it had no right to compel districtdelegates to vote against their consciences and the known wishes oftheir constituents. " This led to the more important question whetherdelegates, pledged without authority, ought to observe suchinstructions. "No man chosen to represent a Blaine district can votefor Grant and plead the convention's resolution in justification ofhis course, " continued the _Tribune_, which closed with serving noticeupon delegates to correct their error as speedily as possible, "sincea delegate who disobeys the instructions of his constituents will findhimself instantly retired from public life. "[1677]

[Footnote 1676: _Harper's Weekly_, March 13, 20, April 3, 1880. ]

[Footnote 1677: New York _Tribune_, February 26. ]

As the campaign waxed warmer and the success of Grant seemed morecertain if Pennsylvania and New York voted under the unit rule, thepressure to create a break in those States steadily increased. TheStalwarts rested their case upon the regularity of the procedure andthe delegates' acceptance of the instructions after their election. "They accepted both commissions and instructions, " said the _Times_, "with every protestation that they were bound by their sacred honourto obey the voice of the people as expressed by the traditional andaccepted methods. "[1678] On the other hand, the Blaine delegates reliedupon the decision of the last National Convention, which held thatwhere a State convention had instructed its delegation to vote as aunit, each delegate had the right to vote for his individualpreference. "My selection as a delegate, " said Woodin, "was the act ofthe delegates representing my congressional district, and the Stateconvention has ratified and certified that act to the NationalConvention. Our commissions secure the right to act, and ourconventions guarantee freedom of choice without restraint orfetters. "[1679]

[Footnote 1678: New York _Times_, May 8. ]

[Footnote 1679: From speech made in the Senate on May 7. --New York_Tribune_, May 8. ]

Woodin was the most courageous if not the ablest opponent of Conklingin the convention. He may not have been an organiser of the machinetype, but he was a born ruler of men. Robust, alert, florid, withsquare forehead, heavy brows, and keen blue eyes, he looked determinedand fearless. His courage, however, was not the rashness of animpetuous nature. It was rather the proud self-confidence of a ruggedcharacter which obstacles roused to a higher combative energy. He wasnot eloquent; not even ornate in diction. But his voice, his words, and his delivery were all adequate. Besides, he possessed theincomparable gift of reserved power. During his career of ten years inthe State Senate he was unquestionably the strongest man in theLegislature and the designated as well as the real leader for morethan half a decade. He was not intolerant, seldom disclosing hispowers of sarcasm, or being betrayed, even when excited, into angry orbitter words. Yet he was extremely resolute and tenacious, and musthave been the undisputed leader of the anti-Conkling forces save forthe pitch that many said defiled him. If he yielded it was not proven. Nevertheless, it tended to mildew his influence. 

It was evident from the speech of Woodin that the anti-Grant forceshad the reasonableness of the argument, but the acceptance of theUtica instructions put delegates in a delicate position. To say thatConkling had "tricked" them into a pledge which the convention had noauthority to exact, [1680] did not explain how a personal pledge couldbe avoided. Finally, William H. Robertson, a delegate from theTwelfth District, who had not appeared at Utica, published a letterthat he should vote for Blaine "because he is the choice of theRepublicans of the district which I represent. "[1681] Two daysafterwards John Birdsall of the First District and Loren B. Sessionsof the Thirty-third announced on the floor of the Senate that theyshould do likewise. Woodin said that as he could not reconcile a votefor some candidate other than Grant with his attitude voluntarilytaken at Utica he should let his alternate go to Chicago. [1682] Fromtime to time other delegates followed with declarations similar toRobertson's. 

[Footnote 1680: _Harper's Weekly_, May 29. ]

[Footnote 1681: Letter dated May 6. --See Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1880, p. 575. ]

[Footnote 1682: New York _Tribune_, May 8. ]

As expected, this disobedience drew a volley of anathemas upon theoffending delegates, who became known as "Half-breeds. "[1683] The_Times_ thought Robertson's "tardy revolt" dictated by "self-interest, "because "the pliant politician from Westchester had chafed under asense of disappointed ambition ever since the defeat of his nominationfor governor in 1872. "[1684]

[Footnote 1683: Everit Brown, _A Dictionary of American Politics_, p. 372; _Harper's Weekly_, February 5, 1881. ]

[Footnote 1684: New York _Times_, May 16. ]

Upon Sessions and Woodin it was more severe. "We have never regardedState Senator Sessions as a type of all that is corrupt in politics atAlbany, " it said, "and we have steadily defended Mr. Woodin againstthe attacks made upon him on the testimony of Tweed. But if theserecent accessions to the Blaine camp are half as bad as the _Tribune_has painted them in the past, that journal and its candidate must havetwo as disreputable allies as could be found outside of stateprison. "[1685] Woodin's manner of avoiding his Utica pledge seemed toarouse more indignation than the mere breaking of it. The _Times_called it "a sneaking fashion, "[1686] and charged lack of courage. "Hedoes not believe that he who performs an act through another ishimself responsible for the act. "[1687]

[Footnote 1685: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 1686: _Ibid. _, June 2. ]

[Footnote 1687: _Ibid. _, May 8. ]

At Chicago the principle of district representation became theimportant question. It involved the admission of many delegates, andafter two days of debate the convention sustained it by a vote of 449to 306. [1688] To complete the overthrow of the unit-rule a resolutionwas also adopted providing that when any delegate excepted to thecorrectness of a vote as cast by the chairman of a delegation, thepresident of the convention should direct a roll-call of thedelegation. This practically settled the result. Nevertheless, thebelief obtained, so strong was the Stalwarts' faith in their success, that when the Blaine and Sherman forces broke to a compromisecandidate, Grant would gain the needed additional seventy-four votes. 

[Footnote 1688: The minority, representing fourteen States and ably ledby Benjamin F. Tracy, sustained the authority of State conventions tooverrule the choice of the districts. ]

Conkling had never before attended a national convention. Indeed, hehad never been seen at a great political gathering west of theAlleghanies. But he now became the central figure of the convention, with two-fifths of the delegates rallying under his leadership. Hisreception whenever he entered the hall was the remarkable feature ofthe great gathering. Nothing like it had occurred in previous nationalconventions. Distinguished men representing favourite candidates hadbeen highly honoured, but never before did the people continue, dayafter day, to welcome one with such vociferous acclaim. It was not allfor Grant. The quick spontaneous outburst of applause that shook thebanners hanging from the girders far above, had in it much ofadmiration for the stalwart form, the dominant spirit, the iron-nervedboss, who led his forces with the arrogance of a gifted, courageouschieftain. His coming seemed planned for dramatic effect. He rarelyappeared until the audience, settled into order by the opening prayeror by the transaction of business, might easily catch sight of him, and as he passed down the long aisle, moving steadily on with gracefulstride and immobile face, a flush of pride tinged his cheeks as cheerafter cheer, rolling from one end of the amphitheatre to the other, rent the air. He sat in the front row on the centre aisle, and abouthim clustered Chester A. Arthur, Levi P. Morton, Benjamin F. Tracy, Edwards Pierrepont, George H. Sharpe, and the boyish figure of CharlesE. Cornell, a pale, sandy, undersized youth, the son of the Governor, who was represented by an alternate. [1689]

[Footnote 1689: "Suggestions were made that the substitution of Mr. Conkling for General Grant would give him the nomination, and therewas a moment when General Garfield apprehended such a result. Therewas, however, never a time when it was possible. The 306 would neverhave consented unless Grant's name were first withdrawn by hisauthority. A firmer obstacle would have been Conkling's sturdy refusalto allow the use of his name under any circumstances. "--Boutwell, _Reminiscences_, Vol. 2, p. 269. ]

Conkling's presentation of Grant was largely relied upon to gain theneeded votes. Prior to 1876 little importance attached to suchspeeches, but after the famous oration of Robert G. Ingersoll atCincinnati, which became influential almost to the point of success, the solicitude exhibited in the selection of dominating speakersconstituted a new phase in convention politics and added immeasurablyto the popular interest. By common consent Conkling was named topresent the Stalwarts' choice, and in most of the qualities desirablein such an address his was regarded the best of the day. 

The lines of Private Miles O'Reilly, [1690] suggested to the Senator onthe evening before he spoke, caught the convention as quickly as didIngersoll's opening sentences in 1876, and all that followed, save hissarcasm and flashes of scorn, held the closest attention. "Hisunmatched eloquence, " said Brandegee of Connecticut. [1691] This was thejudgment of an opponent. "It had the warmth of eulogy, the finish ofa poem, the force and fire of a philippic, " said the _Inter-Ocean_. [1692]This was the judgment of a friend. All the art of which he was masterfound expression in every sentence, polished and balanced withrhetorical skill, and delivered with the emphasis and inflection of agreat orator. One critic thought it a revelation to find a man whocould be eloquent with studied composure, who could be fervid withoutwildness, and who could hold imagery and metaphor to the steady placeof relentless logic without detracting from their special and peculiarcharacter. 

[Footnote 1690:

 "When asked what State he hails from, Our sole reply shall be, He comes from Appomattox And its famous apple-tree. "]

[Footnote 1691: From his speech nominating Elihu B. Washburne. --Chicago_Tribune_, June 7, 1880. ]

[Footnote 1692: Chicago _Inter-Ocean_, June 7, 1880. ]

Not content with reciting the achievements of his own candidate, Conkling seriously weakened his oration as a vote-making speech bylaunching shafts of irony first into Sherman and then into Blaine. "Nobody is really worried about a third term, " he said in conclusion, "except those hopelessly longing for a first term. Without patronage, without telegraph wires running from his house to this convention, without election contrivances, his name is on the country's lips. Without bureaus, committees, officers, or emissaries to manufacturesentiment in his favour, without intrigue or effort, Grant is thecandidate whose supporters stand by the creed of the party, holdingthe right of the majority as the very essence of their faith, andmeaning to uphold that faith against the charlatans and guerillas, who, from time to time, deploy and forage between the lines. "[1693] Asthese sabre-cuts, dealt with the emphasis of gesture and inflection, flashed upon the galleries, already charmed with the accomplishment ofhis speech and the grace of his sentiment, loud hisses, mingled withdistracting exclamations of banter and dissent, proclaimed that thespell of his magic was broken. 

[Footnote 1693: New York _Times_, June 7. ]

Balloting for a candidate began on the fifth day. Many rumourspreceded Conkling's method of announcing New York's vote, but when histurn came, he explained that although he possessed full instructionsconcerning the true condition of the vote, he thought it better tocall the roll, since several of the delegates preferred to speak forthemselves. This plan, so adroitly submitted, made it impossible toconceal one's vote behind an anonymous total, and compelled JohnBirdsall, the Queens County senator, to lead in the disagreeable dutyof disobeying the instructions of the State convention. Birdsall rosewith hesitation, and, after voting for Blaine in a subdued voice, dropped quickly into his seat as if anxious to avoid publicity. Thenthe convention, having listened in perfect silence, ratified his workwith a chorus of hisses and applause. Gradually the anti-third termersexhibited more courage, and after Robertson and Husted had called outtheir candidate with an emphasis that indicated pride and defiance, the applause drowned the hisses. Woodin's conduct contrasted sharplywith his usual courage. He was an aggressive member of the opposition, but at this moment, when brave hearts, unflinching resolve, andunruffled temper were needed, he stood at the rear of the hall, whileLeander Fitts, his alternate, upon whom he cast the responsibility ofviolating a solemnly uttered pledge, feebly pronounced the name"Blaine. " The result of the roll-call gave Grant 51, Blaine 17, andSherman 2. [1694] On the seventeenth ballot Dennis McCarthy, a Statesenator from Onondaga, changed his vote from Grant to Blaine. Thusmodified the New York vote continued until the thirty-sixth ballot, when the Blaine and Sherman delegates united, recording twenty votesfor Garfield to fifty for Grant. On this roll-call Grant received 306votes to 399 for Garfield. [1695] Thus by a strange coincidence theStalwarts registered the fateful number that marked their strengthwhen the unit rule was defeated. During the thirty-six roll-callsGrant's vote varied from 302 to 313, but in the stampede, when twohundred and fifteen Blaine men and ninety-six supporters of Shermanrushed into line for Garfield, the faithful 306 went down in defeattogether. These figures justly became an insignia for the heroic. [1696]

[Footnote 1694: The first ballot was as follows: Grant, 304; Blaine, 284; Sherman, 93; Edmunds, 34; Washburne, 30; Windom, 10. Whole numberof votes, 755; necessary to a choice, 378. ]

[Footnote 1695: Thirty-fifth ballot: Grant, 313; Blaine, 257; Sherman, 99; Edmunds, 11; Washburne, 23; Windom, 3; Garfield, 50. Thirty-sixthballot: Grant, 306; Blaine, 42; Sherman, 3; Washburne, 5; Garfield, 399. 

Conkling's peculiar manner of announcing New York's vote excitedcriticism. "Two delegates, " he declared, "are said to be for Sherman, eighteen for Blaine, and fifty are for Grant. " The chairman of theWest Virginia delegation, whom the Senator had sought to unseat, mimicking the latter's emphasis, announced: "One delegate is said tobe for Grant, and eight are known to be for Blaine. "]

[Footnote 1696: Some months later Chauncey I. Filley, a delegate fromSt. Louis, caused the Grant medals to be struck for the 306, on whichwas emblazoned "The Old Guard. "]

After Garfield's nomination the Stalwarts of the New York delegationdid not conceal their disappointment. When everybody else was cheeringthey kept their seats, and while others displayed Garfield badges, they sullenly sought their headquarters to arrange for theVice-Presidency. Leaders of the Garfield movement, now eager tostrengthen the ticket, looked to them for a candidate. New Yorkbelonged in the list of doubtful States, and to enlist the men whoseemed to control its destiny they instinctively turned to thedefeated faction. William M. Dennison, a former governor of Ohio, promptly made their wishes known, confidently counting upon Conkling'scoöperation, since the Senator had been the first on his feet to makeGarfield's nomination unanimous. In doing so he expressed the hopethat the zeal and fervour of the convention would characterise itsmembers "in bearing the banner and carrying the lances of theRepublican party into the ranks of the enemy. "

Conkling's treatment of Dennison's request has been variouslyreported. One version is that he demanded the nomination of Chester A. Arthur; another, that he sternly refused to make any suggestion. Contemporary press reports confirm the first, basing it upon hisdesire to vindicate Arthur and humiliate Sherman; the second issupported by Alfred R. Conkling's biography of his uncle. [1697] Butneither report is correct. Conkling bitterly resented Garfield'snomination, predicted his defeat at the polls, and did not hesitate todissuade friends from accepting the nomination for Vice-President. "The convention has nominated a candidate, but not a President, " hesaid to Stewart L. Woodford. "Since the nomination I have heard froman influential friend at Albany, who declares that Garfield cannotcarry New York. Now, the question is, whom shall we place upon thealtar as a vicarious sacrifice? Mr. Morton has declined. Perhaps youwould like the nomination for Vice-President?" Being assured thatWoodford would accept it if tendered to him, Conkling added: "I hopeno sincere friend of mine will accept it. "[1698]

[Footnote 1697: "It has been asserted that this nomination was a boon toRoscoe Conkling to secure his support of Garfield. To deny this is almostsupererogatory. He sternly refused to make any suggestion. "--Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 607-608. ]

[Footnote 1698: Woodford's interview with the writer, October 4, 1908. ]

In the event of Grant's nomination Levi P. Morton had been prominentlymentioned as a proper candidate for Vice-President. He was thenfifty-six years of age, and had achieved high reputation in bankingand financial circles. Though not eloquent according to the canons oforatory, he spoke with clearness, was widely intelligent, and hadgiven careful attention to public questions. Conservative in hisnature and sturdy in his principles, he always advised againstrashness and counselled firmness. A single session in Congress hadproven his zeal in the performance of public duty, and his fitness forVice-President was recognised then as it was eight years later when hebecame the running mate of Benjamin Harrison. Upon his nomination, therefore, Garfield, before the convention had recessed, sent word byDennison that he desired Morton nominated for second place. Morton, answering that his nomination must not be made without previousconsultation with his associates, immediately informed Conkling ofGarfield's desire. Conkling replied, "If you think the ticket will beelected; if you think you will be happy in the association, accept. "To this Morton answered, "I have more confidence in your judgment thanin my own. " Conkling then added: "Governor Boutwell of Massachusettsis a great friend of yours. Why don't you talk with him?" Acting uponthis suggestion Morton sought Boutwell, who advised against it. Mortonacquiesced and refused the use of his name. [1699]

[Footnote 1699: Mr. Morton's letter to the author, dated September 14, 1908. ]

After returning to their headquarters at the hotel the Stalwarts, uponthe suggestion and insistence of George H. Sharpe, quickly agreed uponChester A. Arthur, who gave an affirmative response to their appeal. Conkling was not present at the time, but subsequently in Arthur'sroom, where Howard Carroll and several other delegates lingered, hebitterly opposed placing a Stalwart upon the ticket and expressed inunmeasured terms his disapprobation of Arthur's acceptance. [1700] Ontheir way to the convention Sharpe told Woodford of the pungentflavour of Conkling's invective, and of Arthur's calm assertion of thepropriety of his action. At the wigwam Conkling refused Sharpe'srequest to place Arthur in nomination. [1701]

[Footnote 1700: Letter of Howard Carroll to the author, dated October15, 1908. ]

[Footnote 1701: Interview of author with General Woodford. ]

Upon the reassembling of the convention California presented Elihu B. Washburne for Vice-President, a nomination which Dennis McCarthy ofNew York, amidst cordial and hearty applause from the galleries, seconded in a forceful speech. This indicated that Arthur was _personanon grata_ to the anti-Grant delegates of the Empire State. Jewell ofConnecticut, Ferry of Michigan, Settle of North Carolina, and Maynardof Tennessee, were likewise presented. As the call of States proceededNew York made no response in its turn, but when Woodford subsequentlyproposed the name of Arthur, Dennison responded with a spiritedsecond, followed by delegates from New Jersey, Illinois, Mississippi, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. This array of backingbrought McCarthy to his feet, who withdrew his second to Washburne andmoved that Arthur's nomination, under a suspension of the rules, bemade by acclamation. This required a two-thirds vote and was lost. Then Campbell of West Virginia, amidst the loudest cheers of theevening, seconded the nomination of Washburne. "Let us not do a rashthing. " he said. "The convention has passed a resolution favouringcivil service reform. Let us not stultify ourselves before thecountry. "[1702]

[Footnote 1702: New York _Tribune_, June 9. ]

At first Arthur's strength was confined to the Grant delegation, twenty-five States showing an increase of only seventy votes, thirtyof which came from the South. But as the roll-call proceeded New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania brought other States into line, the ballotgiving Arthur 468, Washburne 193, and other favourite sons 90. 

Arthur's nomination was a distinct disappointment. To many it was anoffence. Within the State leading Republican journals resented it bysilence, while others were conspicuously cold; without the State itencountered even greater disadvantages, since his dismissal ascollector of customs had advertised him as the enemy of reform, theapostle of bossism, and the friend of whatever was objectionable inpolitics. [1703] Yet his friends found a creditable record. He hadsuccessfully opposed the well-known action of Jonathan Lemmon, whosought to recover eight slaves which he incautiously brought into NewYork on his way from Virginia to Texas; he had established the rightof coloured people to ride in the street-cars; and he had renderedvaluable service in the early years of the war as engineer-in-chiefand quartermaster-general on the staff of Governor Morgan. Hepossessed, too, an inherited instinct for keeping faith with men. Inhis relations with politicians of high or low degree there was not atrace of dissimulation or double-dealing. His career is a study of theevolution of character. It is not strange, perhaps, that in the daysof custom-house investigations and bitter partisan strife, when he wasknown as an henchman of Conkling, there was a lack of publicappreciation of the potentialities of a unique personality, but theArthur heritage included then as afterward absolute truthfulness, shrewdness of judgment, high-minded patriotism, and consciousness ofmoral obligation. [1704]

[Footnote 1703: After the nomination John Sherman wrote to a personalfriend: "The nomination of Arthur is a ridiculous burlesque, inspired, I fear, by a desire to defeat the ticket. His nomination attaches tothe ticket all the odium of machine politics, and will greatlyendanger the success of Garfield. I cannot but wonder how aconvention, even in the heat and hurry of closing scenes, could makesuch a blunder. "--Burton, _Life of Sherman_, p. 296. ]

[Footnote 1704: "I do not think he [Arthur] knows anything. He canquote a verse of poetry, or a page from Dickens and Thackeray, butthese are only leaves springing from a root out of dry ground. Hisvital forces are not fed, and very soon he has given out his all. "Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_ (February 21, 1882), Vol. 1, p. 309. ]

CHAPTER XXXIV

TILDEN, KELLY, AND DEFEAT

1880

The defeat of Governor Robinson did not apparently change partysentiment respecting Tilden's renomination for the Presidency. Noother candidate was seriously discussed. Indeed, the Democratic presscontinued to treat it as a matter of course, coupling with it thealleged subversion of an election, transcending in importance allquestions of administration, and involving the vital principle ofself-government through elections by the people. This new issue, dwarfing all other policies, had been for three years the cornerstoneof every Democratic platform in state, county, or congressionalconvention. No argument seemed to weaken it, no event could destroyit. The Republican claim that the vote of three Southern States, asdeclared at the polls, was the result of terrorism and did not in anysense represent an honest expression of the popular will, made noimpression upon it. The well-known fact that Congress, because of theconfusion of the situation, had wisely sought a remedy in theElectoral Commission, which was passed by Democratic rather thanRepublican votes, in nowise weakened the force of its appeal. Not evendid the disclosure that Tilden's house had become the headquarter ofconfidential agents, who sought to corrupt the electors, produce anychange in it. The one declaration, patiently and persistently keptbefore the people, was that Tilden had been elected by the popularvote and defrauded by a false count of the electoral vote, and thatthe supreme issue in 1880 must be whether "this shall be a governmentby the sovereign people through elections, or a government bydiscarded servants holding over by force and fraud. "[1705] Thereiteration of this proposition made Tilden, it was claimed, thenecessary and inevitable candidate of the Cincinnati convention, called to meet on June 22. The party seemed to believe, what Tildenhimself had announced from his doorstep three years before, that thecountry would "never condone fraud, " and it did not propose tosacrifice a winning issue. [1706]

[Footnote 1705: Tilden's letter of June 18, 1880. --_Public Writings andSpeeches_, Vol. 2, pp. 502-506. ]

[Footnote 1706: "If the Democrats do not nominate Mr. Tilden, they dorelinquish the fraud issue--the strength of their canvass. "--New York_Sun_, June 22, 1880. ]

Nevertheless, many New York Democrats disliked Tilden. Their number, which the cipher disclosures materially increased, grew intothreatening proportions after Kelly's dissatisfaction had settled intoa relentless feud. This condition made Tilden's chances of carryingthe State uncertain if not absolutely nil, and encouraged his criticsto magnify his weaknesses until the belief generally obtained thatserious, perhaps fatal opposition would array itself at the Stateconvention on April 20. Statements as to Tilden's ill-health likewisefound currency. When not displaying evidence of unimpaired mentalvigour in the courtroom, he was said to be on the verge of totalparalysis. [1707] To his burdens the government also added another bypursuing his income tax. This suit, commenced in January, 1877, anddestined to drag through five years until dismissed by the prosecutionwithout costs to either party, was fixed for the April term in 1880, although the United States attorney admitted his unpreparedness fortrial. [1708] "Thus was he persecuted with unrelenting virulence by theAdministration, " says his biographer, "and by the Republican press, which neglected no opportunity of refreshing the memory of its readersin regard to his imputed capacities for wickedness. "[1709]

[Footnote 1707: The _Nation_, April 22. ]

[Footnote 1708: See district attorney's letter, Bigelow, _Life ofTilden_, Vol. 2, pp. 254-259, 264. ]

[Footnote 1709: _Ibid. _]

Meanwhile, to escape interruptions to which Gramercy Park exposed him, Tilden settled in the summer of 1879 at Greystone on the Hudson, threemiles beyond the northernmost limit of the city, on the highest groundsouth of the Highlands. Here he brought a portion of his library; herehe mingled with his flocks and herds; and here in the seclusion of anoble estate, with the comforts of a palatial stone dwelling, hediscoursed with friends, who came from every part of the country toassure him that he alone could keep the party together. Ever silent asto his own intentions Tilden talked of the crime of 1876 until hisvisitors, imbued with his own spirit, left him thoroughly impressedwith the importance of his renomination. 

But Tilden did not trust the result to sentiment. Throughout New YorkDaniel E. Manning and other lieutenants held a tight rein, and whenthe Syracuse convention assembled an early roll-call, on a resolutionto determine the character of the Committee on Credentials, showed 295votes for Tilden to 80 against him. If this overwhelming majorityshocked the dissenters, it was not less a surprise to the regulars. Inthe convention of 1876 Tilden mustered, including Tammany, only 201out of 375; now, after his enemies had exhausted their opposition, heproved stronger than in the closing months of his famous career as areform governor. The result of this vote settled all controversies, leaving the convention free to appoint electors and to selectdelegates to Cincinnati. [1710] It was not to adjourn, however, until ithad shown a serene and polite contempt for John Kelly. During themorning John B. Haskin, on behalf of the Tammany convention, hadpresented a resolution expressing a desire for the union of the partyand asking the appointment of a harmony committee. Ignoring theassembly from which he came, the convention treated the resolution asa personal communication from Haskin, whom it assured, after politelyreciprocating his desire for the union of the Democratic party, "thatthe deliberative wisdom of the national convention will result in suchaction as will secure the triumph of the Democratic party in theensuing election. "[1711] This bitter rebuff, coupled with theoverwhelming majority for Tilden, indicated a conscious strength whichdeeply impressed the party in other States, and greatly aided indemoralising opposition in New York. 

[Footnote 1710: Delegates-at-large: Lucius Robinson, Calvin E. Pratt, Rufus W. Peckham, and Lester B. Faulkner. The last named was chairmanof the Democratic State committee. ]

[Footnote 1711: New York _Tribune_, April 21. ]

Nor did the convention adjourn until its Committee on Resolutionssprung a further surprise. The delegates anticipated and applauded anelaborate statement of the fraud issue, but the presentation of Tildenas a candidate for President came with the suddenness of hisunexpected majority. Manning did not intend to go so far. His couragecame with his strength. Proof of this, if any were needed, existed inthe fact that the endorsement was in manuscript, while the rest of theplatform was read from a printed slip. To define the situation moreclearly the committee submitted a unit rule, declaring "that in caseany attempt is made to dismember or divide the delegation bycontesting the seats of a portion of the delegates, or if delegatescountenance such an attempt by assuming to act separately from themajority, or fail to coöperate with such majority, the seats of suchdelegates shall be deemed to be vacated. "[1712] Never did conventionadopt a more drastic rule. The reading of these ball and chainprovisions provoked hisses and widened the chasm between Tilden'sconvention and John Kelly's side-show. 

[Footnote 1712: New York _Sun_, April 21. ]

Kelly's bolt in 1879 had proved his power to destroy; yet to hisfriends, if not to himself, it must have been deeply humiliating tosee the fierce light of public interest turned entirely on Tilden. Kelly also realised the more poignant fact that jealousy, distrust, and accumulated resentment lined the way he had marked out forhimself. Nevertheless, he walked on apparently heedless of the signsof conflict. Since the regular Democratic convention would not admithim, he threateningly assembled one of his own in Shakespeare Hall, tobe used, if the party did not yield, in knocking at the door of theCincinnati convention. William Dorsheimer acted as its temporarychairman. Dorsheimer had become a political changeling. Within adecade he had been a Republican, a Liberal, and a Democrat, and it waswhispered that he was already tired of being a Kellyite. His appealfor Horatio Seymour indicated his restlessness. The feuds of Tildenand Church and Kernan and Kelly and Robinson had left Seymour the oneDemocrat who received universal homage from his party, and it becamethe fashion of Tilden's enemies to refer to the Oneidan as the onlyone who could unite the party and carry the State. It did not matterto Dorsheimer that Seymour, having retired from active politics in1868, was placidly meditating at Deerfield, devoted to agriculturaland historical interests. Nor did his clamour cease after the bucolicstatesman had declared that if he must choose between a funeral and anomination he would take the first, [1713] since the mention ofSeymour's name always waked an audience into cheers. Later in the dayAmasa J. Parker, on taking the chair as president, artfully made useof the same ruse to arouse interest. 

[Footnote 1713: Letter to Dr. George L. Miller, New York _Tribune_, June 21, 1880. ]

It was not an enthusiastic convention. Many delegates had lost heart. Kelly himself left the train unnoticed, and to some the blue badges, exploiting the purpose of their presence, indicated a fool's errand. In the previous September they had refused to support Robinson, andhaving defeated him they now returned to the same hall to threatenTilden with similar treatment. This was their only mission. Humiliation did not possess them, however, until John B. Haskinreported that the regulars refused to recognise their existence. ThenJohn Kelly threw off his muzzle, and with the Celtic-English of aTammany brave exhibited a violent and revolutionary spirit. "Tildenwas elected by the votes of the people, " said Kelly, "and he had notsufficient courage after he was elected to go forward, as a brave manshould have gone forward, and said to the people of the country, 'Ihave been elected by the votes of the people, and you see to it that Iam inaugurated. ' Nothing of the like did Mr. Tilden. "[1714]

[Footnote 1714: New York _Sun_, April 21, 1880. ]

In other words, Kelly thought Tilden an unfit candidate because he didnot decide for himself that he had been elected and proceed to takehis seat at the cost of a tremendous civil convulsion. Perhaps it wasthis policy more than Kelly's personality which had begun to alienateDorsheimer. One who had been brought up in the bosom of culture andconservatism could have little confidence in such a man. The platform, though bitter, avoided this revolutionary sentiment. It protestedagainst the total surrender of the party to one man, who has "cunning"and "unknown resources of wealth, " and who "attempts to forestallpublic opinion, to preoccupy the situation, to overrule the majority, and to force himself upon the party to its ruin. " It declared that"Tildenism is personalism, which is false to Democracy and dangerousto the Republic, " and it pronounced "Tilden unfit for President"because "his political career has been marked with selfishness, treachery, and dishonour, and his name irretrievably connected withthe scandals brought to light by the cipher despatches. "[1715] Haskinproposed a more compact statement, declaring that "the Democraticparty does not want any such money-grabber, railroad wrecker, andparalytic hypocrite at the helm of State. "[1716]

[Footnote 1715: New York _Times_, April 21. ]

[Footnote 1716: New York _Times_, April 21. 

For delegate-at-large to Cincinnati the convention selected thefollowing: Amasa J. Parker of Albany, William Dorsheimer of New York, Jeremiah McGuire of Chemung, George C. Green of Niagara. ]

After the two conventions adjourned the question of chiefest interestwas, would Tilden seek the nomination at Cincinnati? The action of theconvention demonstrated that the regular party organisation wasunaffected by the Kelly bolt, that Tilden controlled the party in theState, and that his nomination was a part of the programme. Moreover, it showed that the New York Democracy did not intend asking supportupon any principle other than the issue of fraud. But intimations ofTilden's purpose to decline a nomination found expression in thespeech and acts of men presumedly informed. Lester B. Faulkner'sstatement, in calling the convention to order, that he did not knowwhether the Governor would accept a renomination, coupled with theconvention's reply to Haskin, expressing confidence that the action atCincinnati would result in the Democracy's carrying New York, had madea deep impression. To many these insinuations indicated that becauseof his health or for some unknown cause he was not seriously acandidate. Others found reason for similar belief in the indispositionof prominent delegates to resent such a suggestion. One veteranjournalist, skilled in reading the words and actions of politicalleaders, asserted with confidence that he would not be a candidate. Tohim Tilden's name concealed a strategic movement, which, in the end, would enable his friends to control the nomination for another. [1717]

[Footnote 1717: New York _Tribune_ (correspondence), April 21. ]

Such interpretation found hosts of doubters. Without Tilden, it wassaid, the fraud issue would lose its influence. Besides, if heintended to withdraw, why did Kelly assemble his convention? Surelysome one, said they, would have given him an inkling in time to savehim from the contempt and humiliation to which he had subjectedhimself. There was much force in this reasoning, and as the date ofthe national convention approached the mystery deepened. 

Tilden was not a paralytic, as Haskin proclaimed. He could not even becalled an invalid. His attention to vexatious litigation evidencedunimpaired mental power, and his open life at Greystone proved thathis physical condition did not hide him from men. He undoubtedlyrequired regular rest and sleep. His nervous system did not resistexcitement as readily as in the days of his battle with Tweed and theCanal ring. It is possible, too, that early symptoms of a confirmeddisease had then appeared, and that prudence dictated hygienicprecautions. Once, in December, 1879, when contemplating the strain ofthe campaign of 1876, he questioned his ability to go through another. Again, in the early spring of 1880, after prolonged intellectualeffort, he remarked in rather a querulous tone, "If I am no longer fitto prepare a case for trial, I am not fit to be President of theUnited States. " Such casual remarks, usually made to a confidentialfriend, seemed to limit his references to his health. [1718] Hedoubtless felt disinclined, as have many stronger men, to meet thestrain that comes when in pursuit of high public office, but there isno evidence that ill-health, if it really entered into hiscalculations, was the determining factor of his action. Conditions inthe Republican party had changed in the Empire State since thenomination of Garfield. Besides, the cipher disclosures had lost himthe independent vote which he received in 1876. This left only theregulation party strength, minus the Kelly vote. In 1876 Tilden'smajority was 26, 568, and in 1879 Kelly polled 77, 566. If Kelly's boltin 1880, therefore, should carry one-half or only one-quarter of thevotes it did in 1879, Tilden must necessarily lose New York whichmeant the loss of the election. These were conditions, not theories, that confronted this hard-headed man of affairs, who, withoutsentiment, never failed to understand the inexorable logic of facts. Nevertheless, Tilden wanted the endorsement of a renomination. Thiswould open the way for a graceful retreat. Yet, to shield him frompossible defeat, he secretly gave Manning a letter, apparentlydeclining to run again, which could be used if needed. 

[Footnote 1718: John Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, pp. 265, 271. ]

On reaching Cincinnati Manning found that a multiplicity of candidatesmade it difficult to determine Tilden's strength. The ranks of theopposition, based on cipher disclosures and Kelly's threats, rapidlystrengthened, and although many friends of other candidates thought itless hazardous to nominate him than to repudiate him, ominous warningspiled up like thunder clouds on a summer day. Meantime New York'sactive canvass for Henry B. Payne of Ohio seemed to conflict withTilden's candidacy, while Tilden's remarks, spoken in moments ofphysical discouragement, added to the impression that he did not seekthe nomination. But why did he not say so? Manning, supposing he wasthe sole possessor of the letter and believing the time not yet ripefor producing it, kept his own counsels. Tilden, however, had given aduplicate to his brother Henry, who now announced through the pressthat Tilden had forwarded a communication. This reached Cincinnati onthe eve of the convention. 

It was long and characteristic. He recalled his services as a privatecitizen in overthrowing the Tweed ring and purifying the judiciary, and as governor of the State in breaking up the Canal ring, reducingthe taxes, and reforming the administration. He told the familiarstory of the "count out"; maintained that he could, if he pleased, have bought "proof of the fraud" from the Southern returning boards;and accused Congress of "abdicating its duty" in referring the countto the Electoral Commission. Since 1876, he said, he had been "deniedthe immunities of private life without the powers conferred by publicstation, " but he had done all in his power to keep before the people"the supreme issue" raised by the events of that year. Now, however, he felt unequal to "a new engagement which involves four years ofceaseless toil. Such a work of renovation after many years of misrule, such a reform of systems and policies, to which I would cheerfullyhave sacrificed all that remained to me of health and life, is now, Ifear, beyond my strength. "[1719]

[Footnote 1719: Tilden's _Public Writings and Speeches_, Vol. 2, pp. 502-506. ]

Tilden did not intend this to be a letter of withdrawal. With the hopeof stimulating loyalty he sought to impress upon the delegates hisvicarious sacrifice and the need of holding to the fraud issue. Thiswas the interpretation quickly given it by his enemies. Kelly declaredit a direct bid for the nomination. But a majority of the New Yorkdelegation regretfully accepted it as final. Nevertheless, many ardentTilden men, believing the letter had strengthened him, insisted uponhis nomination. The meeting of the delegation proved a stormy one. Bold charges of infidelity to Tilden reacted against Payne, and toescape controversy Manning indiscreetly asked if he might yield to thepressure which his letter had stimulated. To this Tilden could makebut one reply: "My action is irrevocable. No friend must cast a doubton my sincerity. "[1720]

[Footnote 1720: John Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 272. ]

There is something pathetic in this passing of Tilden, but there seemsno reason for surprise. Tilden was essentially an opportunist. Heattacked the Tweed ring after its exposure; he made war upon the Canalring after its record had become notorious; and he reduced the Statetaxes after the war debt had been paid. Upon these reforms he rodeinto power, and upon the cry of fraud he hoped to ride again tosuccess. He was much too acute not to know that the cipher disclosureshad robbed him of the rôle of reformer, but he seems to have beenblind to the obvious fact that every one else was also aware of it. Besides, he lacked boldness and was at times the victim of indecision. He was singularly unfortunate, moreover, in failing to attract acircle of admirers such as usually surround public men of greatprominence. Nevertheless, the opinion then obtained, and a quarter ofa century perhaps has not changed it, that had Manning, when hereached the convention city, boldly and promptly demanded Tilden'snomination it could have been secured. Whether, if tendered him, hewould have accepted it, "no one, " says Bigelow, "is competent toaffirm or deny. He probably did not know himself. "[1721]

[Footnote 1721: _Ibid. _]

Meanwhile, New York lost whatever prestige it had inherited throughhim. Payne had the support of barely a majority of the delegation, [1722]Samuel J. Randall of Pennsylvania, who had relied upon it, was angry, and the first roll-call showed that Winfield S. Hancock and Thomas F. Bayard held the leading places. [1723] This contrasted sharply with itsearly success. George Hoadley of Ohio, Tilden's devoted friend, hadbeen made temporary chairman; Kelly, rising to address the convention, had felt most keenly the absence of a friend in the chair; and atwo-thirds majority excluded the Shakespeare Hall delegation. Suchinfluence, however, was at an end. The delegation affected controlwhen Rufus H. Peckham declared from the platform that as Tilden hadrenounced all claims New York would support Randall; but theconvention failed to join in the excited cheers of the Philadelphians, while the roll-call soon disclosed Hancock as the favourite. Beforethe result was announced officially Wisconsin asked permission tochange its twenty votes to the soldier, and in the twinkling of an eyethe stampede began. At the conclusion of the changes Hancock hadreceived all the votes cast save 33. [1724] William H. English ofIndiana, a rich man, who had served four terms in Congress during theadministrations of Presidents Pierce and Buchanan, was nominated forVice-President. The platform favoured a tariff for revenue only, exploited the election fraud, demanded honest money of coin or paperconvertible into coin, and stoutly opposed Chinese immigration. 

[Footnote 1722: The vote of the delegation stood as follows: Paine, 38;Tilden, 11; English, 11; Bayard, 6; Hancock, 3; Randall, 1. Under theunit rule this gave Payne the entire number, 70. ]

[Footnote 1723: The first ballot gave Hancock, 171; Bayard, 153-1/2;Payne, 81-1/2; Thurman, 68-1/2; Field, 65; Morrison, 62; Hendricks, 49-1/2; Tilden, 38; with a few votes to minor candidates. Whole numberof votes, 728. Necessary to a choice, 486. ]

[Footnote 1724: Before changes were made the second ballot gave Hancock319; Randall, 129-1/2; Bayard, 113; Field, 65-1/2; Thurman, 50;Hendricks, 31; English, 19; Tilden, 6; scattering, 3. After thechanges the result was as follows: Hancock, 705; Hendricks, 30;Tilden, 1; Bayard, 2. ]

After Hancock's nomination Kelly's inning began. The convention hadtreated him coldly. On the first day, when New York was called, desiring to protest against seating a member of the regulardelegation, he sought recognition from a seat among the alternates, but Hoadley, without the slightest sign of seeing or hearing him, ordered the roll-call to proceed. The overwhelming rejection of hisdelegation was not less crushing. The vote combined a compliment toTilden and an official utterance against the action of his greatenemy, and as the States, answering promptly and sharply, dealt deathto bolting and paralysis to Tammany it became evident to the blindestthat Tilden possessed the confidence of his party. In spite of thefriendly relations between Hendricks and Kelly, Indiana voted a solidNo. Nine other States, including Kentucky, Louisiana, and NorthCarolina, did likewise. Indeed, nearly two-thirds of the Southerndelegates ranged themselves against the Boss. To add to the publicproof of Kelly's weakness New York asked to be excused fromvoting. [1725]

[Footnote 1725: The vote stood, without New York, 205 to 457 in favorof rejecting the Shakespeare Hall delegation. With New York it wouldhave been thirty-nine more than a two-thirds majority. ]

Nevertheless, Kelly had his friends. They were not as strong innumbers or in voice as those who cheered Conkling at Chicago, but inthe absence of a master-mind the galleries seized upon the Tammanyleader and cheered whenever he appeared. To give greater spectaculareffect to his first greeting, Wade Hampton of South Carolina got uponhis crutches and stumped down the aisle to shake him solemnly by thehand. Kelly, however, did not reach the culminating point of hispicturesque rôle until Hancock's nomination. After Randall, Hampton, and others had spoken, cries for Kelly brought to the platform adelegation of Tammany leaders walking arm in arm, with John Kelly, Augustus Schell, Amasa J. Parker, and George C. Green in front. Theconvention, save the New York delegation, leaped to its feet, and whenKelly declared that hereafter whoever alluded to the differences whichhad heretofore existed in the New York Democracy should be considereda "traitor to his party, " the great enthusiasm forced cheers fromone-half of the New York delegation. To make the love-feast complete, John R. Fellows, finally responding to impatient calls from all partsof the hall, also took the platform. 

Fellows, still in his forties, had had a varied, perhaps a brilliantcareer. Born in Troy he found his way in early boyhood to Arkansas, joined the Confederate army, fought at Shiloh, escaped from Vicksburg, surrendered at Port Hudson, and remained a prisoner of war until June, 1865. Returning to Arkansas he served in the State Senate, and in 1868came to New York, where he secured an appointment in the office of theDistrict Attorney. Public attention became instantly fixed on theattractive figure of the intrepid young assistant. He leaped intorenown. He soon became the principal Democratic speaker in the city, and from the first followed the fortunes of the pale, eager form ofthe distinguished reform Governor. At Cincinnati he represented theconservative Tilden men, and although upon reaching the platform hefaced a man of greater force, he betrayed no docile character, readyto receive passively whatever the Boss might allot. His speech wascleverly framed. He expressed no desire that Tilden Democrats beforgiven for the political sins which their opponents had committed;neither did he mar the good feeling of the occasion. But when, at theconclusion of his remarks, John Kelly stepped forward, seized hishand, and began working it up and down like a handle, Fellows stoodstiffly and passionlessly as a pump, neither rejecting nor acceptingthe olive branches thrust upon him. Thus ended the great scene of thereconciliation of the New York Democracy. 

When plucked the fruit of this reunion was found not to be verytoothsome. Returning to New York, Tammany held a ratification meeting(July 1) in which the regulars would not unite. Subsequently theregulars held a meeting (July 28) at which Tilden presided, and whichTammany did not attend. Similar discord manifested itself respectingthe choice of a chief judge for the Court of Appeals. The RepublicanState Committee had chosen Charles J. Folger, but when the regularsadvocated the same method of selection Kelly defiantly issued a call(August 14) for a State convention. Such bossism, the product of astrange, fitful career, was only less dramatic than that of Tweed. Ata subsequent conference Kelly submitted a letter stating that if aconvention were regularly summoned and Tammany given its full share ofdelegates and committeemen, his call would be withdrawn. [1726] To thisthe regulars finally yielded, and a State convention, held at Saratogaon September 28, made Kelly its head and front. His advent evoked theloudest cheers, his demand for five members of the State committee metlittle resistance, and Dorsheimer, besides serving as chairman of theCommittee on Resolutions, presented the name of Charles J. Rapallo, who became the nominee for chief judge of Appeals. Thus within a fewmonths Kelly had defeated Robinson for governor, prevented Tilden'snomination for President, and imposed his will upon the regularorganisation. 

[Footnote 1726: For a copy of this letter, see New York _Tribune_, August 28. ]

In the selection of municipal candidates he was not less successful. Irving Hall insisted upon naming the mayor, and for many weeks thebickering and bargaining of conference committees resulted in nothing. Finally, Kelly proposed that the regulars select several satisfactorypersons from whom he would choose. Among those submitted was the nameof William Russell Grace, a respected merchant, a native of Ireland, aRoman Catholic in religion, and a man of large wealth, but withoutofficial experience of any kind. This was better, it was said, thanofficial experience of the wrong kind. Irving Hall included his namewith considerable reluctance. It distrusted his loyalty, since arumour, too well founded not to cause alarm, revealed Kelly's interestin him. But Kelly's cunning equalled his audacity. He had secured thenomination of Rapallo by voting for William C. Ruger of Onondaga, andhe now caused it to be understood that under no circumstances wouldGrace be acceptable. The merchant's name once upon the list, however, the Boss snapped it up with avidity, while the Germans mutteredbecause three of the five city candidates were Irishmen. Thus thecampaign opened badly for the Democrats. 

Nor did it open more auspiciously for the Republicans. Garfield's partin the Crédit Mobilier scandal was reviewed without regard to thevindicatory evidence, while Nast's incriminating cartoon of 1873[1727]emphasised the failure of the great artist to introduce the Republicancandidate into his campaign pictures of 1880. It advertised the factthat Nast retained his early opinion of the nominee's conduct. Furtherto alienate the independent vote it was charged that Garfield, duringthe visit of Grant and Conkling at Mentor (September 28), hadsurrendered to the Stalwarts. Appearances did not discourage such abelief. Conkling's hostility disclosed at Chicago was emphasised byhis withdrawal from New York City on the day that Garfield entered it(August 5). Subsequently, in his initial speech of the campaign(September 17), Conkling's first important words were a sneer at Hayesand an implied threat at Garfield. [1728] Yet two weeks later theSenator, while on a speaking tour through Ohio and Indiana, went outof his way, riding three-fourths of a mile through a heavy rain, tocall upon Garfield. This looked as if somebody had surrendered. As amatter of fact Conkling did not meet Garfield in private, nor did theydiscuss any political topic, [1729] but the apparent sudden collapse ofConkling's dislike supplied Garfield's opponents with abundance ofpowder. Meantime the loss of the September election in Maine crushedRepublican hope. A victory had been confidently expected, and thefailure to secure it, although the adverse majority was less than twohundred, sent a chill to every Republican heart. 

[Footnote 1727: _Harper's Weekly_, May 15, 1873. ]

[Footnote 1728: Conkling's speech is printed in full in the New York_Tribune_ of September 18, 1880. ]

[Footnote 1729: Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Roscoe Conkling_, pp. 623-625. 

"I was informed by Mr. Conkling that he had not been alone one minutewith General Garfield, intending by that care-taking to avoid thesuggestion that his visit was designed to afford an opportunity forany personal or party arrangement. "--Boutwell, _Reminiscences_, Vol. 2, p. 272. ]

Spurred to greater effort by this blighting disappointment, theRepublicans regained courage by a spirited presentation of theindustrial question, which was strongly reinforced by returningactivity in trade and commerce. To offset its effect and to win theindustrial masses to Democratic support, lithographic copies of theso-called "Morey letter, " approving Chinese immigration, whichpurported to be written by Garfield, were spread broadcast (October20) over the country. Garfield promptly branded it a forgery. Thoughthe handwriting and especially the signature resembled his, accumulating evidence and the failure to produce the man to whom theletter purported to be addressed, rapidly made clear its fictitiouscharacter. Nevertheless, many Democratic journals and orators, notablyAbraham S. Hewitt, assuming its genuineness, used it with tremendousforce as favouring Chinese competition with home labour. 

To add to the slanderous character of the closing days of the campaignJohn Kelly, through the New York _Express_, rained fierce personalassaults upon the distinguished editor of the New York _Herald_, whoopposed Grace. In bitterness the mayoralty fight surpassed thepresidential contest. Hints of a division of public money forsectarian purposes had deeply stirred the city and given prominence toWilliam Dowd, the Republican candidate, whose interest in the commonschools characterised his public activities. Dowd had the support ofmany members of Irving Hall, who, as they gnashed their teeth inresentment of Kelly's cunning, became unweariedly active in combiningthe strange and various elements of opposition. Not Daniel himselfwas more uncomfortably encompassed than Grace. 

The October elections in Ohio and Indiana plainly indicated the trendof public opinion, and on November 3 the Republicans carried New Yorkand the country. [1730] The significant point in the State returns, however, was the severe punishment administered to Kelly. Whomsoeverhe supported suffered humiliation. Hancock received 21, 000 votes lessthan Garfield, Rapallo 55, 000 less than Folger, and Grace 38, 000 lessthan Hancock. In the presence of such a showing the Brooklyn _Eagle_, a Democratic journal friendly to Tilden, thus philosophised: "Bossesand thorough organisation are incompatible. The success oforganisation depends upon reason. The success of the boss is due tounderhand arts. No young man can hope for the favour of a boss whodoes not begin by cultivating the temper of a lick-spittle. "[1731]

[Footnote 1730: Garfield, 555, 544; Hancock, 534, 511; Weaver(Greenback), 12, 373. Judge of Appeals: Folger, 562, 821; Rapallo, 517, 661; Armstrong (Greenback), 13, 183. Mayor of New York: Grace, 101, 760; Dowd, 98, 715. Legislature: Assembly, Republicans, 81;Democrats, 47. Senate (hold over): Republicans, 32; Democrats, 18. Republican majority on joint ballot, 52. ]

[Footnote 1731: November 6, 1880. ]

CHAPTER XXXV

CONKLING DOWN AND OUT

1881

In the speakership contest of January, 1881, the anti-Conkling leadersdiscovered a disposition to profit by the election of Garfield. Theywanted to learn their voting strength, and to encourage assemblymen tooppose George H. Sharpe, the Stalwart candidate, the _Tribune_, indouble-leaded type, announced, apparently with authority, that thePresident-elect would not allow them to suffer. [1732] This sounded atrifle warlike. It also quickly enhanced the stress between theopposing factions, for those who are themselves not averse towire-pulling are morbidly suspicious of intrigue in others. 

[Footnote 1732: New York _Tribune_ (editorial), January 3, 1881. ]

But nothing came of the _Tribune's_ announcement. Sharpe's creditableservice on Grant's staff, his cleverness as a Stalwart manager, andhis acceptability as a speaker of the preceding Assembly, brought himtroops of friends. Although making no pretensions to the gift oforatory, he possessed qualities needed for oratorical success. He wasforceful, remarkably clear, with impressive manners and a winningvoice. As a campaign speaker few persons in the State excelled him. Men, too, generally found him easy of approach and ready to listen. Atall events his tactful management won a majority of the Republicanassemblymen before the opposition got a candidate into the field. Under these circumstances members did not fancy staking good committeeappointments against the uncertainty of Presidential favours, and inthe end Sharpe's election followed without dissent. 

In the election of a United States senator to succeed Francis Kernanon March 4, the Stalwarts did not find such smooth sailing. Forseveral years, ever since the gubernatorial nomination in 1876, jealousy, accumulated resentment, and inevitable distrust had dividedthem, but not until Thomas C. Platt of Owego and Richard Crowley ofNiagara announced their candidacy did the smouldering bitterness burstinto a blaze. Cornell and his friends promptly declared for Platt, while Arthur, Sharpe, Thomas Murphy, and John F. Smyth, known as ultraConkling men, wheeled into line for Crowley. Conkling held aloof. Heprobably preferred Levi P. Morton, although each candidate claimed tobe his preference. In the end Morton's name was tangled up in thecontroversy, but he did not really get into it. Besides, a place inthe Cabinet seemed open to him. 

At this time Cornell was at the height of his power. Prior to hisinauguration he had not stood for much in the way of statesmanship. Hewas known principally as the maker and chauffeur of Conkling'smachine, which he subsequently turned over to Arthur, who came laterinto the Conkling connection from the Morgan wing. Moreover, themanner of his election, the loss of many thousand Republican votes, and his reappointment of Smyth seriously discredited him. But friendand foe admitted that he had shown real ability as governor. He hadabout him no angles and no surprises. He exercised authoritycautiously, marshalled facts with skill, and presented clear andenlightened reasons for his action. He seemed to be above rather thanbelow the level of his party, and his official colleagues, working inharmony with his policies, found him honourable, if sometimes stubbornand aggressive. 

But in his relations to men as well as to policies he had betrayed adisposition to change position. He did not attend the Chicagoconvention. Nor did Arthur's nomination, brought about largely bySharpe's activity, particularly please him. While he behaved withdecorum and perhaps with loyalty, it was evident that if he did notraise the standard of revolt, he had chosen to fight for his hand. This became the more apparent as the senatorial contest progressed. Agrim darksomeness about the expression of his countenance showed thathe took a sullen satisfaction in humiliating those who had humiliatedhim. It was deftly done, but in the result it left its impression. 

Crowley, then in his forty-sixth year, was well equipped for theSenate. As a forceful speaker he was an object of respect even by hisopponents. In whatever legislative body he appeared he ranked amongstthe foremost debaters, generally speaking with an enlightenment and amoderation that did credit to his intellect and to the sweetness ofhis nature. He had served four years in the State Senate, one term inCongress, and eight years as United States attorney in the NorthernDistrict, being justly distinguished as one of the able men of WesternNew York. He was sadly handicapped, however, by the infirmity of hisbackers. Sharpe excited the deepest resentment by withholding theappointment of the Assembly committees;[1733] and Smyth and Murphyrepresented all that was undesirable in politics. 

[Footnote 1733: "Senator Woodin spoke of Truman G. Younglove, the onlyspeaker in the history of the State who had dared to hold back thecommittees in order to influence a senatorial caucus, as a 'politicalcorpse, ' and said that Sharpe would share his fate. "--New York_Tribune_, January 13, 1881. ]

Cornell was fortunate in his candidate. Platt's cool, quiet methodshad aroused little antipathy, while around him gathered loyalty andgratitude. Very early in the contest, too, it began to be whisperedthat if elected he might act independently of Conkling. To think of alight-weight sparring up to a recognised champion tickled theimagination of the Independents who numbered about forty, of whomChauncey M. Depew was the choice of a majority. [1734] Ira Davenport ofSteuben, a State senator of decided character and strength, supportedhis brother-in-law, Sherman S. Rogers of Erie, and others talked ofVice-President Wheeler. George William Curtis argued that the aim ofthe Independents should be to vote for the cause even if they votedfor different candidates, and thus show to the country and to Garfieldthat a large and resolute opposition to the ruling organisationexisted in the party. [1735]

[Footnote 1734: "Blaine, representing Garfield, came to New York andasked me to enter the contest for the purpose of securing the electionof a senator who would support the Administration. That was the reasonwhy I became a candidate. "--Interview of Mr. Depew with the author, February 19, 1909. ]

[Footnote 1735: _Harper's Weekly_, February 5, 1881. ]

On the other hand, Depew's friends thought it wiser to "split themachine. " It was a taking proposition. If the two senators, theyargued, differed upon questions of patronage, the one agreeing withthe President would undoubtedly prevail. Thus the Senator and theGovernor, backed by the patronage of the State and Federaladministrations, would control a machine of great possibilities. Conkling appreciated the danger, and Warner Miller and William H. Robertson approved the plan. 

Miller was then in the prime of life. He combined the occupations ofmanufacturer and farmer, evidenced marked capacity for business, andgave substantial promise of growing leadership. From the schools ofOswego he had entered Union College, and after teaching in Fort EdwardCollegiate Institute he became a soldier. Since 1874 he had been inthe Assembly and in Congress. He was fully six feet tall, wellproportioned, with a large head, a noticeably high forehead, a strong, self-reliant, colourless face, and a resolute chin. A blond moustachecovered a firm mouth. He had the appearance of a man of reserve power, and as a speaker, although without the gift of brilliantly phrasedsentences, he made a favourable impression. His easy, simple manneradded to the vigour and clearness of his words. Perhaps in the end hefell short of realising the full measure of strength that his ardentfriends anticipated, for he possessed none of the characteristics ofthe boss and seemed incapable of submitting to the daily drudgery thatpolitical leadership demands. But for several years the reasonablenessof his opinions had an unmistakable influence upon the judgment ofmen. Certainly, in 1881, his opinion greatly strengthened the Depewscheme, and it soon became apparent that a sufficient number ofIndependents could be relied upon to choose Platt. In the conferencethat followed the latter promised to support the Garfieldadministration. "Does that statement cover appointments?" askedWoodin. Platt said it did. "Even if Judge Robertson's name should besent in?" insisted Woodin. Platt replied, "Yes. "[1736] That settled it, and Platt's nomination occurred on the first ballot. [1737] Among theearliest to send him congratulations was Senator Conkling. 

[Footnote 1736: Interview of Mr. Depew with the author, March 28, 1909. See also New York _Tribune_, January 9, 1882. "Among others present atthe conference, " added Depew, "were Webster Wagner, John Birdsall, Dennis McCarthy, and William H. Robertson of the State Senate, JamesW. Husted, and George Dawson of the Albany _Evening Journal_. Woodinremarked, 'We can trust Platt, and when he's elected senator we shallnot need a step-ladder to reach his ear. '"]

[Footnote 1737: Total vote in caucus, 105. Necessary to a choice, 53. Platt, 54; Crowley, 26; Rogers, 10; Wheeler, 10; Lapham, 4; Morton, 1. 

The election, which occurred on January 18, resulted: Senate, Platt, 25; Kernan, 6; Assembly, Platt, 79, Kernan, 44. ]

After the campaign of 1880 Conkling seemed to dismiss the feelingexhibited toward Garfield at Chicago, and in February (1881), at theinvitation of the President-elect, he visited Mentor. The Senatorasked the appointment of Levi P. Morton as secretary of the treasury, and Garfield consented to give him the Navy, or select Thomas L. Jamesfor postmaster-general. "This conference was not whollysatisfactory, "[1738] but Conkling's position at the inaugurationceremonies, voluntarily taken directly behind Garfield while thelatter read his inaugural address, indicated a real friendship. Hismotion in the Senate that James be confirmed as postmaster-generalwithout the usual reference to a committee seemed to support thisbelief, an impression subsequently stimulated by the promptconfirmation of William M. Evarts for commissioner to theInternational Monetary Conference, Henry G. Pearson for postmaster ofNew York, and Levi P. Morton for minister to France. [1739] Two weekslater came a bunch of five Stalwarts. [1740] The next day (March 23)Garfield nominated William H. Robertson for collector of customs atNew York and Edwin A. Merritt for consul-general to London. "Thatevens things up, " said Dennis McCarthy, the well-known Half-breed ofthe State Senate. "This is a complete surprise, " added Robertson. "Tomy knowledge no one has solicited for me any place under Garfield. Itcomes entirely unsought. "[1741] It was no less a surprise to theStalwarts. Not a hint of it had been dropped by the President. "We hadbeen told only a few hours before, " wrote Conkling, "that no removalsin the New York offices were soon to be made or even considered, andhad been requested to withhold the papers and suggestions bearing onthe subject until we had notice from the President of his readiness toreceive them. "[1742] Indeed, the nomination came with such suddennessthat the action seemed to be hasty and ill considered. 

[Footnote 1738: Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 634. ]

[Footnote 1739: Morton declined the navy portfolio, preferring themission to France. ]

[Footnote 1740: Stewart L. Woodford, U. S. Attorney, and Louis F. Payn, U. S. Marshal for the Southern District; Asa W. Tenney, U. S. Attorneyfor the Eastern District; Clinton D. MacDougall, U. S. Marshal for theNorthern District; and John Tyler, collector of customs, Buffalo. These were reappointments. ]

[Footnote 1741: New York _Tribune_, March 24, 1881. ]

[Footnote 1742: From Conkling's letter of resignation. --New York_Tribune_, May 17, 1881. ]

There is much literature on the subject. Reminiscences of public menduring the last decade have opened a flood of memories, some of themgiving specific statements from the principal actors. Blaine assuredGeorge S. Boutwell that he had no knowledge of Robertson's nominationuntil it had been made, and Garfield told Marshall Jewell that Blaine, hearing of the nomination, came in very pale and much astonished. [1743]Garfield wrote (May 29, 1881) Thomas M. Nichols, once his privatesecretary, that "the attempt to shift the fight to Blaine's shouldersis as weak as it is unjust. The fact is, no member of the Cabinetbehaves with more careful respect for the rights of his brother menthan Blaine. It should be understood that the Administration is notmeddling in New York politics. It only defends itself whenassailed. "[1744] The President said to Conkling, declares Hoar, that hedesired to make one conspicuous appointment of a New York man who hadsupported him against Grant, and that thereafter, upon consultationwith the two Senators, appointments should be made of fit men withoutregard to factions. To this Conkling refused his consent, stoutlyobjecting to Robertson's appointment to any important office in thiscountry. "Conkling's behaviour in the interview, " said PresidentGarfield "was so insolent that it was difficult for him to controlhimself and keep from ordering him out of his presence. "[1745] Conklingsays the President, on the Sunday preceding the appointment, informedhim "that the collectorship of New York would be left for anothertime. "[1746] In a statement purporting to come from the President, Jewell relates that when the five Stalwart nominations went to theSenate, Garfield was immediately burdened with letters and despatchesin protest, coupled with the suggestion that everything had beensurrendered to Conkling, and that without delay or consultation hesent in Robertson's name. "It was only an instance, " says Boutwell, "of General Garfield's impulsive and unreasoning submission to anexpression of public opinion, without waiting for evidence of thenature and value of that opinion. "[1747]

[Footnote 1743: Boutwell, _Reminiscences of Sixty Years_, Vol. 2, p. 274. ]

[Footnote 1744: New York _Tribune_, January 7, 1882. ]

[Footnote 1745: Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 2, p. 57. ]

[Footnote 1746: Boutwell, _Reminiscences_, Vol. 2, p. 273. ]

[Footnote 1747: _Ibid. _, p. 274. ]

On the other hand, the country at large accepted it as a Blainetriumph. Senators, especially those who had served in the House withthe President and his Secretary of State, had no doubt of it. Such atremendously bold act was entirely foreign to Garfield's character. Nor could it have but one meaning. The man who had split the New Yorkdelegation for Blaine was to have his reward and to occupy the placeof patronage and of power. More than that it was Blaine's long lookahead. Such action required the highest order of political courage. Itopened an old quarrel, it invited opposition, it challenged to battle. Men like Senator Frye of Maine, who had many times witnessed theresolution and dominating fearlessness of Blaine, knew that it was hisact. "For sixteen years, " said Frye, "the sting of Blaine's attackkept Conkling unfriendly. Besides, he had no confidence in him. Whenever reconciliation seemed imminent, it vanished like acloud-shadow. I could never unite them. Blaine was ready, but Conklingwould accept no advances. When Robertson's appointment came he knew aswell as I that it was the act of Blaine. "[1748] Depew, with whom Blainehad conferred, took the same view. On the day after the nomination wassent in, Mrs. Blaine, rather exultingly and without any expression ofsurprise, wrote her daughter of the incident. "Your father has justgone to the Department. Did you notice the nominations sent inyesterday? They mean business and strength. "[1749]

[Footnote 1748: Conversation with the author, December 7, 1908. ]

[Footnote 1749: Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_ (March 24, 1881), Vol. 1, p. 197. ]

Boutwell illustrates Conkling's lack of confidence in Blaine. Afterthe latter had become secretary of state he said to the MassachusettsSenator that Conkling was the only man who had had three elections tothe Senate, and that he and his friends would be considered fairly inthe New York appointments. "When in conversation with Conkling, Imentioned Blaine's remark, he said, 'Do you believe one word of that?'I said, 'Yes, I believe Mr. Blaine. ' He said with emphasis, 'I don't. 'Subsequent events strengthened Mr. Conkling in his opinion. "[1750]

[Footnote 1750: _Reminiscences_, Vol. 2, p. 273. ]

The cordial relations apparently existing until then between thePresident and the Senator encouraged the hope that confirmation ofthe nomination might not be opposed. Because of this feeling the NewYork Legislature, by a formal resolution, endorsed it, and Republicansgenerally spoke not unkindly of it. But Conkling, knowing that thoughthe voice was Garfield's, the hand was Blaine's, quickly precipitateda contest in which the interest of the whole country centred. Itrecalled the Arthur controversy, renewed the feverish energy ofStalwart and Half-breed, and furnished glimpses of the dramaticdiscord which stirred restlessly behind the curtains of Senatesecrecy. Under the rules of the Senate, Robertson's nomination went tothe Committee on Commerce, of which Conkling was chairman and incontrol. Here the matter could be held in abeyance, at least until theStalwarts marshalled their influence to have it withdrawn. For thispurpose Vice-President Arthur and Postmaster-General James called atthe White House. Governor Cornell, through a personal friend, sent amessage to the President, declaring the nomination a great mistake andurging its withdrawal. [1751] Other distinguished men, including SenatorAllison of Iowa, visited the President on a similar mission. Whenthese overtures failed compromises were suggested, such as makingRobertson a Federal judge, a district attorney, a foreign minister, orthe solicitor general. 

[Footnote 1751: Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 637. ]

Meanwhile assuring messages and comforting letters from Blaine's NewYork friends stimulated Garfield's courage. On March 27, four daysafter the nomination, Whitelaw Reid, the accomplished editor of the_Tribune_, telegraphed John Hay, in part, as follows: "Fromindications here and at Albany we have concluded that the Conklingplan is: First, to make tremendous pressure on the President forwithdrawal of Robertson's name under threats from Conkling andpersuasion from James. Second, if this fail, then to make theirindignation useful by extorting from the President, as a means ofplacating them, the surveyorship and naval office. With these two theythink they could largely neutralise Robertson. Cornell is believedwilling to acquiesce in Robertson, hoping to get other offices. 

"I wish to say to the President in my judgment this is the turningpoint of his whole administration--the crisis of his fate. If hesurrenders now Conkling is president for the rest of the term andGarfield becomes a laughing stock. On the other hand, he has only tostand firm to succeed. With the unanimous action of the New YorkLegislature, Conkling cannot make an effectual fight. That action camesolely from the belief that Garfield, unlike Hayes, meant to defendhis own administration. The Assembly is overwhelmingly Conkling, butthey did not dare go on the record against Robertson so long as theythought the Administration meant business. Robertson should be heldfirm. Boldness and tenacity now insure victory. The least waveringwould be fatal. "[1752]

[Footnote 1752: For full text of telegram see New York _Tribune_, January 7, 1882. This confidential despatch found its way into thepublic press. "It must have been stolen from the wires, " wrote Hay. "Nobody but myself has ever seen it--not even Garfield. I read it tohim. It has been under lock and key ever since. "--Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_, Vol. 1, p. 286. ]

When Hay read this message to Garfield, the latter said, "They maytake him out of the Senate head first or feet first; I will neverwithdraw him. "[1753] That the President might not weaken, Depew andother Independents spent much time in Washington during thecontroversy. "The party standing of Blaine's New York supporters atChicago absolutely depended upon Robertson's confirmation, " declaredDepew. [1754]

[Footnote 1753: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 1754: Conversation with the author, March 28, 1909. ]

Conkling had not been idle. As usual he cast an anchor to the windwardby coquetting with Democratic senators and soothing his Republicancolleagues. [1755] He knew how to control in caucus as well as incommittee, and on May 2, the Republican senators appointed a Committeeof Safety, which recommended that a majority decide the order ofexecutive business including "uncontested nominations. " Thesenominations, it was explained, embraced such as were favourablyreported by a committee or accepted by the Republican senators of theState from which the nominee hailed. In other words, the caucus actionpractically notified the President that no nomination would beconfirmed that did not please a senator, if a Republican. To excludeRobertson under such a rule it was only necessary that the New Yorksenators object to his confirmation. Immediately the press of thecountry teemed with protests. The Constitution, it declared, imposed amoral obligation upon senators to confirm a nomination which was notpersonally unfit or improper, or which did not imperil the publicinterest, and it was puerile for a majority to agree in advance torefuse to consider any nomination to which any member, for any reasonwhatever, saw fit to object. Such a rule substantially transferred theExecutive power to one branch of Congress, making the President theagent of the Senate. It was "senatorial courtesy" run mad. 

[Footnote 1755: "If any Democratic senator is thinking only of New Yorkpolitics, and of the mere party relations of the pending question ofPresidential nominations, the Democrats of New York must frankly tellhim that nothing but injury to the Democracy of New York has come orcan come of coalitions with Senator Conkling. The past is eloquent onthe subject. Whether set on foot by Mr. Tilden in 1873, or by Mr. Kelly at a later date, Democratic coalitions with Mr. Conkling havebenefited only the Republicans. Mr. Tilden finally came to griefthrough them, and so did Mr. Kelly; and, what is more important, sodid the Democratic party. . . . It is high time that the false lightswhich Senator Conkling displayed to certain Democratic senators, andwith the help of whom the nominations of President Hayes werethwarted, should be understood. The chequered career of SenatorConkling should compel cautious people to inquire carefully into theevidence for any declaration which may be made by him as to PresidentGarfield and his undertaking. "--New York _World_, April 1, 1881. ]

As the days passed senators exhibited, under pressure from the countryas well as from the White House, a growing desire to have the mattersettled, and as a final effort in the interest of harmony theCommittee of Safety itself called upon the President, proposing thathe withdraw Robertson's name and have the others confirmed. To thisGarfield emphatically declined to accede. A few days later (May 5)Vice-President Arthur and Senator Platt suggested that he withdraw allthe New York nominations. The President replied that he wouldwillingly withdraw all except Robertson's, and if the latter failed anentire new slate could then be made up. This did not satisfy, butwithin an hour after his visitors had departed, the President, toprevent the confirmation of some while Robertson's was left tied up incommittee, put his suggestion into a message, withdrawing the names ofthe five Stalwarts. This was another surprise, more alarming than thefirst, since it showed the Administration's readiness to fight. 

Meantime the Republican majority exhibited signs of disintegration. The session was running into hot weather, Democrats had demonstratedtheir power to prevent a reorganisation of the Senate, and discord inRepublican States threatened disaster. Until recently Conkling hadfelt sure of victory. But now, appreciating the delicacy of thesituation, he opened the caucus (May 9) with an earnest, conciliatoryspeech. He disclaimed desiring any conflict with the President, against whom he made no accusations of bad faith; described theimpracticability of his sustaining any relations with Robertson, inwhose way, however, he would place no obstacle to any office otherthan that of collector; discussed the danger to which a lack ofpolitical harmony would expose the party in New York; and in almostpathetic tones urged that the courtesy of the Senate be not withheldfrom him in this hour of his extreme need. 

It was plain that he had won the sympathy of his colleagues, butsucceeding caucuses, now held daily, lined his pathway with portentsand warnings. The iron-clad rule ceased to be operative; a resolutionto postpone action until the next session avoided defeat becausehastily withdrawn; and a compromise, the last to be suggested, proposing confirmation on condition that Robertson then decline theoffice, met with no favour. It was plain that at last the stress hadreached a climax. Senators no longer exchanged their impressions, orasked "How long?" or "What next?" In their opinion either Garfield orConkling must recede, and they had learned that the President wouldnot. Moreover, it was rumored, after the caucus of May 13, thatConkling had talked harshly, with much of the temper of a spoiledchild. As senators separated on that eventful Friday they declaredwithout hesitation, though not without misgiving, that the last caucushad been held and the last obstacle to Robertson's confirmationremoved. 

The position of Platt had at last become intolerable. Mindful of thepromise to Depew and his friends he had tactfully and patiently soughtto avoid a contest by satisfactorily arranging matters between thePresident and Conkling. Now the end of compromises had come and a voteimpended. At this critical if not desperate moment he suggestedresignation. [1756] The Legislature that chose him in January was stillin session, and the combined votes of the Stalwarts would besufficient to re-elect them. This would liberate him from a promiseand strengthen both with a legislative endorsement. It was neither anintrepid nor an exalted proposition, but Conkling accepted it. Perhaps his nature required a relief from its high-strungirritability in some sort of violence, and resignation backed by theassurance that he would soon be restored to office and to greaterpower on the shoulders of the party offered the seductive form whichthat violence could take. 

[Footnote 1756: "I walked over to Conkling and said, 'I shall send myresignation to Governor Cornell to-night. ' Conkling turned to me andreplied: 'Don't be too hasty about this matter, young man. ' We thenwent to the rear of the Senate Chamber and talked it over. Conklinginsisted that we should wait, and fight it out in Committee. Ireplied, 'We have been so humiliated that there is but one thing forus to do--rebuke the President by immediately turning in ourresignations and then appeal to the Legislature to sustain us. ' Iinduced Conkling to join me in offering our joint resignations, andthat night the papers were forwarded to Cornell by special messenger. "Platt's Reminiscences. --_Cosmopolitan Magazine_, April, 1909, p. 516. 

It was at this time that Platt's opponents gave him the sobriquet of"Me Too, " meaning that he merely followed Conkling's lead. This wasunjust to the junior Senator, who at least took the lead in suggestingand insisting upon resigning. ]

Before the Senate reconvened on Monday (May 16) the resignation ofConkling and Platt was in the hands of Governor Cornell. It came withthe suddenness of Robertson's nomination. Neither Vice-PresidentArthur shared their intention, nor did Cornell suspect it. The firstintimation came in two brief notes, read by the clerk, informing theSenate of their action. But the crash--the consternation, if any wereanticipated, did not appear. [1757] No doubt many senators sincerelyregretted the manner of Conkling's going, but that all were weary ofhis restless predominance soon became an open secret. [1758] Nor did hisreasons appeal to any one except as regarded his own personality andpower, since the Senator's statement showed a deliberate, personalchoice, not based on a question of public policy. 

[Footnote 1757: "The sensational resignations of Conkling and Plattproduce no excitement here (Washington), and I have yet to hear onecriticism complimentary of Conkling, though I have seen all sorts ofpeople and of every shade of cowardice. "--Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_ (May 17, 1881), Vol. 1, p. 199. 

Robertson and Merritt were promptly and unanimously confirmed on May18. Two days afterward the names of the five Stalwarts, which had beenwithdrawn, were resubmitted, except those of Payn and Tyler. ]

[Footnote 1758: "Conkling was unrelenting in his enmities. He used toget angry with men simply because they voted against him on questionsin which he took an interest. Once he did not for months speak toJustin S. Morrill, one of the wisest and kindliest of men, because ofhis pique at one of Merrill's votes. "--George F. Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 2, p. 55. ]

Stripped of its rhetoric and historicity the letter of Conkling andPlatt presented but two causes of complaint, one that the President, in withdrawing some of the New York nominations, tried to coerce theSenate to vote for Robertson; second, that Robertson, in voting andprocuring others to vote against Grant at Chicago, was guilty of "adishonest and dishonourable act. "[1759] The poverty of these reasonsexcited more surprise than the folly of their resignation. [1760] Everyone knew that in urging senators to say by their vote whether WilliamH. Robertson was a fit person to be collector, the President keptstrictly within his constitutional prerogative, and that inwithdrawing the earlier nominations he exercised his undoubted rightto determine the order in which he should ask the Senate's advice. Moreover, if any doubt ever existed as to Robertson's right torepresent the sentiment of his district instead of the decree of theState convention, the national convention had settled it in hisfavour. 

[Footnote 1759: The full text of the letter is published in the NewYork papers of May 17, 1881. ]

[Footnote 1760: "I was very much surprised at Senator Conkling'saction, " said Senator Frye of Maine, "because of Judge Robertson'spersonal hostility to him and not on account of his lack of fitness. During President Hayes' administration not an important appointmentwas made in Maine to which Senators Blaine and Hamlin were notbitterly opposed. One man was appointed after Mr. Blaine had statedthat he was probably the only prominent Republican in the Statepersonally hostile to him. Yet, with a single exception, all wereconfirmed, notwithstanding the opposition of the Maine Senators. Butneither of them resigned. They were too good Republicans forthat. "--New York _Tribune_, May 17, 1881. ]

Conkling's friends are credited with having overborne his purpose, expressed soon after the election of Garfield, to leave the Senate andengage in the practice of his profession. [1761] But that suchintention did not influence his resignation was evidenced by the factthat immediately afterward he bivouacked at Albany and sought are-election. With his faithful lieutenants he constantly conferred, while the faithless ones, scarcely less conspicuous, who openlyrefused their support, he stigmatised. From the first Cornell was anobject of distrust. He had wired Conkling advising Robertson'sconfirmation, and the Senator crushed the telegram in his hand. Thisput the Governor into the disloyal class. [1762] It added to Conkling'sirritation also that Cornell remained silent. The Governor's friendsexpressed some surprise that the Senator did not suggest an interview. It would have been much more surprising if he had, for it is doubtfulif Conkling ever suggested an interview in his life. On the otherhand, Cornell, unwilling to use the machinery of his great office toforce Conkling's return, did not care to approach the Senator. It wasnot unknown, however, that he refused to become a candidate for UnitedStates senator, and that, although ten or fifteen members continued tovote for him, he steadily encouraged his Stalwart friends not todesert Conkling. 

[Footnote 1761: A. R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 632. ]

[Footnote 1762: Conkling spoke of Cornell as "The lizard on thehill. "]

Although the Legislature which elected Platt on January 18 was stillin session, the sentiment dominating it had radically changed. Theparty was deeply stirred. The Senator's sudden resignation had addedto the indignation aroused by his opposition to the Administration, and members had heard from their constituents. Besides, a oncepowerful Senator was now a private citizen. At the outset Independentsand several Stalwarts refused to enter a caucus, and early in thecontest the Democrats, marshalled by Manning, refused to come to therescue. Thus, without organisation, Republicans began voting on May31. Seven weeks and four days later (July 22), after fifty-sixballots, their work was concluded. The first ballot marked the highestscore for Conkling and Platt, the former receiving 39 and the latter29 out of 105 Republican votes. [1763] This severe comment upon theircourse plainly reflected the general sentiment of the party. It showedespecially the dissatisfaction existing toward Conkling. Yet a fewStalwarts remained steadfast to the end. On the morning of July 1, when Platt, to the surprise of his friends, suddenly withdrew, he had28 votes. On July 22 Conkling had the same. 

[Footnote 1763: The ballot resulted as follows: To succeed Platt (longterm), Thomas C. Platt, 29; Chauncey M. Depew, 21; Alonzo B. Cornell, 12; Elbridge G. Lapham, 8; Warner Miller, 5; Richard Crowley, 3;scattering, 25. Francis Kernan (Dem. ), 54. Total, 157. 

To succeed Conkling (short term), Roscoe Conkling, 39; William A. Wheeler, 19; Alonzo B. Cornell, 9; Richard Crowley, 5; Warner Miller, 1; scattering 37. John C. Jacobs (Dem. ), 53. Total, 159. ]

The act of the assassin of President Garfield on the morning of July 2had a visible effect upon the proceedings at Albany. [1764] Althoughfor a time conditions indicated that the distinguished sufferer mightrecover, legislators evinced a great desire to conclude thedisagreeable work, and on July 5, sixty-six Republicans held aconference. Up to this time Depew had been the favourite for the longterm, registering fifty-five votes on the fourteenth ballot (June 14), but in the interest of harmony he now withdrew his name. [1765]

[Footnote 1764: "Suddenly the adherents of the murdered President sawthe powers of government about to be transferred to the leader oftheir defeated adversaries, and that transfer effected by the act ofan assassin. Many of them could not instantly accept the truth that itwas the act solely of a half-crazed and disappointed seeker foroffice; many of them questioned whether the men who were to profit bythe act were not the instigators of it. "--From address of Elihu Root, delivered at the unveiling of President Arthur's statue in MadisonSquare, New York, June 13, 1899. ]

[Footnote 1765: On June 9, S. H. Bradley of Cattaraugus, made apersonal explanation in the Assembly, charging Loren B. Sessions, ofthe Senate, with offering him $2, 000 to cast his vote for Depew. Sessions denied the charge. Investigation proved nothing, and anindictment, subsequently returned against Sessions, resulted in atrial and an acquittal. ]

This opened the way for Warner Miller, who received in caucus on thefifth ballot sixty-two of the sixty-six votes cast for the long term. By previous agreement a Stalwart was entitled to the short term, andhad Cornell allowed his Stalwart friends to enter the caucus he mighthave had the nomination. But he would not oppose Conkling. Moreover, the belief obtained that the Democrats and Stalwarts would yet uniteand adjourn the session without day, thus giving the Senator time toelect other friends to a new Legislature, and the Governor would notdisturb this hallucination. With Cornell out of the way Elbridge G. Lapham easily won the nomination on the second ballot. Lapham had beenthe first to desert Conkling, who now exclaimed, not without thebitter herb of truth: "That man must not reap the reward of hisperfidy. "[1766]

[Footnote 1766: New York _Tribune_, July 7, 1881. ]

The caucus did not at once bring union, but on July 12 Miller's votereached seventy; on the 15th it registered seventy-four; and on the16th, with the help of Speaker Sharpe, who had encouraged Conkling'sgoing to Albany, Miller was elected. [1767] Lapham's vote, however, hung fire until July 22, when, during a brief and most excitingconference in the Assembly Chamber, State Senator Halbert, theConkling Gibraltar, exclaimed with the suddenness of a squall at sea:"We must come together or the party is divided in the State. I amwilling to vote now. "[1768] Reason and good nature being thusrestored, each Republican present rose and voted his choice, Laphamreceiving sixty-one, Conkling twenty-eight. In the general rejoicingState Senator Pitts, a leader of the Independents, no doubt voiced thefeeling of all at that moment: "I am as happy as Mr. Halbert. Thisnomination has been made good-naturedly. It is an augury of goodfeeling in the future. New York proposes to stand by the Republicanadministration. I hope we shall never hear more the words Stalwart, Featherhead, Half-breed. "[1769] When the joint convention againreassembled the fifty-sixth ballot gave Elbridge G. Lapham ninety-two, and Clarkson N. Potter, the new Democratic nominee, forty-two. [1770]

[Footnote 1767: "At a conference held on May 22, at the house ofChester A. Arthur, No. 123 Lexington Avenue, the following personswere present: Chester A. Arthur, Thomas C. Platt, Louis F. Payn, Charles M. Denison, George H. Sharpe, John F. Smyth, A. B. Johnson, andRoscoe Conkling. Each person was asked to pass judgment upon thefuture course of the two Senators. Each one spoke in turn. The senseof the meeting was that they should proceed to the Statecapital. "--A. R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, pp. 642-643. 

"Payn warned both Conkling and Platt that they would be defeated. Speaker Sharpe admonished Payn that he was wrong. Payn predicted thatwhile he and other friends were still battling for the organisationSharpe would desert them. Payn proved himself a prophet. Sharpe wentover to the opposition. " Platt's Reminiscences. --_CosmopolitanMagazine_, April, 1909, p. 517. ]

[Footnote 1768: New York papers of July 23. ]

[Footnote 1769: New York _Tribune_, July 23. ]

[Footnote 1770: The candidacy of John C. Jacobs had been the subjectof some criticism on the part of the Democrats because he was a memberof the Legislature, and on June 22, after the twenty-third ballot, hewithdrew. A caucus then substituted the name of Potter. ]

For Conkling it was worse than defeat. The humiliation of having goneto Albany, of being deserted by friend after friend, of enduring thetaunts of an inhospitable press, and, finally, of having his placetaken by one, who, in his opinion, had proven most faithless, was likethe torture of an unquenchable fire. Lord Randolph Churchill, afterhis historic resignation as chancellor of the exchequer, declared thathe would not live it over again for a million a year. It is likewise amatter of history that Senator Conkling never ceased to deplore hismistake. [1771]

[Footnote 1771: Conkling at once resumed the practice of law in NewYork City. The strain and exposure of making his way on foot throughthe snowdrifts of the historic blizzard which visited that city in thespring of 1888, resulted in an abscess in the inner ear, from which hedied on April 18. A bronze statue, erected in his memory, is locatedin Madison Square. 

"We have followed poor Conkling down to the gates of death and havebeen truly sorry to see them close upon him. I have never heard yourfather, in all the twenty-two years since he spoke hard words to him, say a syllable which he need regret, but his deathbed seemed hardlyless inaccessible than his life. "--Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_, Vol. 2, p. 203. Dated, San Remo, May 1, 1888. Addressed to WalkerBlaine. ]

CHAPTER XXXVI

CLEVELAND'S ENORMOUS MAJORITY

1881-2

While Conkling was being deposed, John Kelly, to whom responsibilityattached for Hancock's defeat, also suffered the penalty of selfishleadership. [1772] Although his standard of official honesty had alwaysbeen as low as his standard of official responsibility, it neveraroused violent party opposition until his personal resentmentsbrought Democratic defeat. This classified him at once as a commonenemy. In vain did he protest as Tweed had done against being made a"scape-goat. " His sentence was political death, and as a first steptoward its execution, Mayor Cooper refused to reappoint himcomptroller, an office which he had held for four years. Republicanaldermen joined in confirming his successor. Similar treatment, accorded his office-holding associates, stripped him of patronageexcept in the office of register. 

[Footnote 1772: "He wantonly sacrificed the Hancock ticket to hisunscrupulous quest of local power. The Democracy here and elsewhereperfectly understand his perfidy, and they only await an opportunityfor a reckoning. They intend to punish him and make an example of himas a warning to bolting renegades and traitors. "--New York _Herald_, November 5, 1880. ]

Then his Democratic opponents proposed depriving him of control inconventions, and having failed to reorganise him out of Tammany(April, 1881), they founded the County Democracy. William C. Whitney, corporation counsel, Hubert O. Thompson, the young commissioner ofpublic works, and other leaders of similar character, heading aCommittee of One Hundred, became its inspiration. Under the Tammanysystem twenty-four men constituted the Committee on Organisation, while a few persons at any Assembly primary might represent all thevotes of the district. The new organisation proposed to make itsCommittee on Organisation consist of six hundred and seventy-eightmembers and to place the control of all nominations in the hands ofthe people. It was a catchy scheme and quickly became popular. Tocarry it into effect a public enrolment was made of the Democraticvoters in each election district, who had an opportunity, byregistering their names, to join the Election District Committee. Whenthus affiliated each one could vote for a member of the Committee onOrganisation and for delegates to nominating conventions. On October 7(1881) Abram S. Hewitt, chairman of the Committee of One Hundred, issued an address, declaring that the organisation had 26, 500 enrolledmembers, and had elected delegates to attend the State conventionwhich met at Albany on October 11. 

Kelly did not attend the convention. On his way from the depot to thehotel he found the air too chilly and the speech of people far fromcomplimentary. It was plain, also, that the crushing defeat of Hancockhad obliterated factional division in the up-State counties and thatDaniel E. Manning was in control. Nevertheless, Tammany's delegates, without the slightest resemblance to penitents, claimed regularity. The convention answered that the County Democracy appeared upon thepreliminary roll. To make its rebuff more emphatic Rufus W. Peckham, in presenting the report on contested seats, briefly stated that thecommittee, by a unanimous vote, found "the gentlemen now occupyingseats entitled to them by virtue of their regularity. "[1773] Kelly'sconceit did not blind his penetration to the fact that for thepresent, at least, he had reached his end. 

[Footnote 1773: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1881, p. 655. 

The State ticket was as follows: Secretary of State, William Purcell, Monroe; Comptroller, George H. Lapham, Yates; Attorney-General, Roswell A. Parmenter, Rensselaer; Treasurer, Robert A. Maxwell, Genesee; Engineer, Thomas Evershed, Orleans; Judge, Court of Appeals, Augustus Schoonmaker, Ulster. ]

The Republican convention (October 5) proved not less harmonious. Arthur had become President (September 19), [1774] Conkling did notappear, and Warner Miller's surprising vote for temporary chairman(298 to 190), sustaining the verdict of the Legislature in theprolonged senatorial struggle, completely silenced the Stalwarts. Conkling's name, presented as a contesting delegate from Oneida, provoked no support, while Depew, whom the Senator a year earlier hadsneeringly referred to as a "creature of no influence, " becamepermanent chairman without opposition. In the selection of Statecandidates few organization men found favour. [1775] Finally, in theiroverconfidence the Independents carelessly postponed a resolutionreorganising the party in New York City to an hour when their ruralsupport had left the convention, and the most important businessbefore it failed by five majority. "Thus by sheer negligence, " saidGeorge William Curtis, "the convention has left a formidable nucleusfor the reconstruction of the machine which had been overthrown. "[1776]The platform deplored the death of Garfield, expressed confidence inPresident Arthur, praised Cornell's wisdom, prudence, and economy, andinsisted upon equal taxation of corporations and individuals. 

[Footnote 1774: "It was a common saying of that time among those whoknew him best, '"Chet" Arthur, President of the United States! GoodGod!'"--White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 193. ]

[Footnote 1775: The ticket was as follows: Secretary of State, JosephB. Carr, Rensselaer; Comptroller, Ira Davenport, Steuben;Attorney-General, Leslie W. Russell, St. Lawrence; Treasurer, James W. Husted, Westchester; Engineer and Surveyor, Silas Seymour, Saratoga;Judge of the Court of Appeals, Francis M. Finch, Tompkins. ]

[Footnote 1776: _Harper's Weekly_, October 15. ]

Although the deep silence that characterised the October contest inOhio pervaded the campaign in New York, Republicans believed thatPresident Arthur, by the moderation and dignity of his course, hadfavourably impressed the public. [1777] His nomination of PostmasterGeneral James and the tender of the Treasury to Edwin D. Morgancommanded universal approval. When Morgan declined, the nomination ofCharles J. Folger, suggested by Morgan, added to his prestige. Infact, the most ardent champions of Garfield had taken little exceptionto the acts of the new Administration, and although Arthur'ssupporters had suffered defeat in convention, it was inferred that thePresident and his friends sincerely desired the triumph of theirparty. Moreover, the action of Tammany and the County Democracy innominating separate local tickets had stimulated Republicanconfidence. It meant that Kelly, in his inevitable desire to defeathis enemy, would trade, combine, and descend to other underhandjobbery, which usually benefited the opposite party. 

[Footnote 1777: "I dined at the President's on Wednesday. The dinnerwas extremely elegant, hardly a trace of the old White House taintbeing perceptible anywhere, the flowers, the silver, the attendants, all showing the latest style and an abandon in expense andtaste. "--Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_ (March 13, 1882), Vol. 2, pp. 4, 5. ]

However, the harmony blandly predicted did not appear. James W. Hustedwas overwhelmingly defeated, while his party, for the first time intwelve years, lost both branches of the Legislature. [1778] Thisamazing disclosure exhibited the bitter animosity of faction. InAlbany, Erie, Oneida, and Oswego counties, Stalwart and Independentresolutely opposed each other, even to the point in some instances ofsupporting the Democratic ticket. 

[Footnote 1778: Plurality of Carr, secretary of state, 13, 022. OtherRepublicans had about the same, except Husted, whom Maxwell, treasurer, defeated by 20, 943. The Legislature stood: Senate, Democrats, 17; Republicans, 15. Assembly, Democrats, 67; Republicans, 61. ]

On the other hand, the County Democracy was exultant. In spite of thecombined opposition of Tammany and Irving Hall, the Whitneyorganisation carried the county by several thousand majority, securingfour of the seven senators, twelve of the twenty-four assemblymen, andtwelve of the twenty-two aldermen. This left Tammany absolutelywithout patronage. It was not unnatural that many of Kelly'sco-workers should doubt the possibility of longer working harmoniouslyunder his leadership, and the great secession of prominent men fromTammany after the formation of the County Democracy created littlesurprise. But that the movement should include the rank and file wasan astonishing revelation. 

Nevertheless, Kelly, gathering up his three senators and eightassemblymen, carried the war to Albany. Strangely enough Republicandiscord had given him the balance of power in each legislative body, and until the Democrats acceded to his terms (February 2) the Assemblyremained without a speaker. [1779] Two weeks later, upon theannouncement of the Assembly committees, Tammany, declaring itsagreement violated, joined the Republicans in modifying the rules ofthe Senate so as to permit the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint itscommittees and complete its organisation. 

[Footnote 1779: Kelly demanded the chairmanship of cities in bothHouses, a satisfactory composition of the committees on railroads andon commerce and navigation, a share in the subordinate offices, andthe exclusion of John C. Jacobs of Kings from the presidency of theSenate. ]

No one knowing Kelly expected him to act otherwise. Nor can it beseriously doubted that he fully expected the Democracy, at the verynext opportunity, to make substantial concessions. At all events Kellypresented with great confidence Tammany's claims to representation inthe State convention which assembled at Syracuse on September 22(1882). [1780] He knew it was a critical moment for the Democracy. Thepoverty of the Republican majority in the preceding election, and theAdministration's highhanded efforts to defeat Cornell forrenomination, seemed to put the State within the grasp of a unitedparty. Yet the Tilden leaders, although divided among themselves, shrank from giving him power. This feeling was intensified by therenewed activity of the old canal ring. The presence, too, of StephenT. Arnot of Chemung, who served as a member of the Kelly StateCommittee in 1879, added to their hostility. Indeed, so pronounced wasthe resentment that on the first day of the convention Tammany wasrefused tickets of admission. 

[Footnote 1780: The Greenback-Labour party held its convention atAlbany on July 19, nominating Epenetus Howe of Tompkins, for governor. It reaffirmed the principles of the party. 

A labour convention was held at Buffalo on September 12, but nonominations were made. It favored abolition of the contract-laboursystem in prisons; of cigar factories in tenements; of child labourunder fourteen; enforcement of the compulsory education act; reductionof labour to ten hours a day, etc. 

An anti-monopoly convention assembled at Saratoga on September 13. Nonominations were made. It demanded commissioners to supervise andcontrol corporation charges; advocated free canals; governmentownership of the telegraph; postal savings banks; discontinuance ofrailroad grants; prohibition of combinations to control prices, etc. ]

But behind Kelly stood the two leading candidates for governor. [1781]In his canvass of the State Roswell P. Flower, hopeful of Kelly'ssupport, had created a strong sentiment favourable to Tammany'sadmission, while Henry W. Slocum, mindful of Tammany's dislike, hadalso done what he could to smooth its way. Under such pressure theleaders, after recognising the County Democracy as the regularorganisation with thirty-eight votes, gave Tammany twenty-four andIrving Hall ten. 

[Footnote 1781: There were eight candidates for governor: ErastusCorning of Albany, Homer A. Nelson of Dutchess, Grover Cleveland ofErie, Roswell P. Flower of Jefferson, Henry W. Slocum of Kings, andAllan Campbell, Waldo M. Hutchins, and Perry Belmont of New York. ]

Although this preliminary struggle did not clarify the gubernatorialsituation, it had the effect of materially weakening Flower. Of hispopularity no doubt existed. As an industrious young man in Watertownhe had been a general favourite, and in New York, whither he went inearly manhood to take charge of his sister's property, left by hermillionaire husband, he became the head of a prosperous banking houseand the friend of all classes. The liberality of his charitiesequalled the splendour of his social entertainments, while a fewmonths in Congress as the successor of Levi P. Morton and thesuccessful opponent of William W. Astor, had introduced him to thevoters of the metropolis. He was now forty-four years old, with amplewealth, a wide acquaintance, and surrounded by scores of experiencedpolitical diplomats. 

But Manning distrusted Flower. Back of him were Arnot, DeWolf, andother anti-Tilden leaders. He also deeply resented Flower's support ofKelly. It gave the Boss a new lease of power and practically paralysedall efforts to discipline him. Besides, it betrayed an indispositionto seek advice of the organisation and an indifference to politicalmethods. He seemed to be the rich man in politics, relying for controlupon money rather than political wisdom. Nor did it improve Flower'schances among the country delegates that one of the conventionspeakers thought him guided by Jay Gould, in whose questionable dealshe had generously participated. 

Slocum had likewise sinned. Manning thought well of the distinguishedsoldier whom he promised one hundred votes, which he delivered. Buthis support of Kelly had been distasteful to the County Democracy. Besides, he was charged with voting, when in Congress, for the "salarygrab, " and one delegate, speaking on the floor of the convention, declared that as a trustee of the Brooklyn Bridge, "Slocum would beheld responsible for the colossal frauds connected with itserection. "[1782] It added to the chaos of the situation that Flower'ssupporters resented Slocum's activity, while Slocum's friends exceptedto the County Democracy's use of Allan Campbell as a stalking horse. 

[Footnote 1782: New York _Tribune_, September 23. ]

Grover Cleveland's candidacy seemed not very important. He was notwholly unknown throughout the State. Lawyers recognised him as aprominent member of the profession, and politicians knew him assheriff of Erie County in the early seventies and as the recentlyelected mayor of Buffalo. But people outside the Lake city knewnothing of his character for stubborn independence, uncompromisinghonesty, and fearless devotion to duty. His friends tried to tell thedelegates that he insisted upon public officials treating the people'smoney as its trustees, and that he had promptly vetoed every departurefrom this rule. They claimed also that he could neither be coaxed norconstrained into the approval of men or measures that were not honestand proper, citing several illustrations that had greatly gratifiedand aroused his home people. This was the gist of Daniel N. Lockwood'sshort, happy, and forceful speech in presenting his name to theconvention. 

But such recommendations of candidates were not unusual, and althoughErie and the surrounding counties mustered fifty or sixty votes, nomovement toward Cleveland existed other than that growing out of thepeculiar political situation. If Slocum and Flower failed, Nelson orCorning might benefit. Edward Murphy of Rensselaer, then mayor of Troyfor the fourth term and closely associated with Manning in leadership, represented Corning with spirit, while the Dutchess friends of HomerA. Nelson exhibited their devotion by an energetic canvass. YetCleveland possessed one strategic point stronger than either of them. His absolute freedom from the political antagonisms of New York andKing counties commended him to the County Democracy. This organisationof extraordinary leadership had tired of deals and quarrels. Thehammering of Tilden, the sacrifice of Robinson, the defeat of Hancock, and the hold-up in the last Legislature made a new departurenecessary, and it may be said with truth and without injustice thatthe night before the convention opened the nomination of Cleveland, ifit could be accomplished, seemed to the County Democracy the wisestand safest result. 

When the roll-call began Kelly, playing for position, dividedTammany's vote among the possible winners, giving Flower seven, Slocumsix, Cleveland six, and Corning five. The County Democracy voted forCampbell. Corning's withdrawal and large secessions from Nelson andBelmont sent Slocum and Flower far in the lead on the second ballot, while Cleveland moved up five points with the help of Kelly andothers. The County Democracy again voted for Campbell. On the thirdballot a break was inevitable. Hutchins had remained stationary, Nelson and Belmont were practically out of the race, and Slocum andFlower stood even. It was now in the power of the County Democracy tonominate Slocum. Manning approved it and Murphy had already given himthe Corning vote. But the County Democracy, inspired by men ofprescience and of iron nerve, went to Cleveland in a body, making thehall resound with cheers. Had Tammany, the next delegation called, followed suit, Kelly might have divided with his opponents the honourof Cleveland's nomination. Instead, it practically voted as before. But Albany, Rensselaer, and other counties, catching the tide at itsturn, threw the convention into a bedlam. Finally, when Kelly couldsecure recognition, he changed Tammany's vote to Cleveland. 

To the tally-clerks Cleveland's nomination by two majority was knownbefore the completion of the ballot. Yet upon the insistence of theSlocum men, because of confusion in making changes, the conventionrefused to receive the result and ordered another roll-call. This gaveCleveland eighteen votes to spare. [1783]

[Footnote 1783: Whole number of votes, 385; necessary to a choice, 193. First ballot: Slocum, 98; Flower, 97; Cleveland, 66; Corning, 35;Campbell, 37; Nelson, 26; Belmont, 12; Hutchins, 13. Second ballot:Slocum, 123; Flower, 123; Cleveland, 71; Campbell, 33; Nelson, 15;Belmont, 6; Hutchins, 13. Third ballot: Slocum, 156; Flower, 15;Cleveland, 211. ]

The result brought the Democrats into perfect accord for the firsttime in many years. It had come without the exercise of illegitimateinfluences or the incurrence of personal obligation. To no one inparticular did Cleveland owe his nomination. Besides, his success as apolitician, his character as a public official, and his enthusiasticdevotion to the clients whose causes he championed, challenged themost careful scrutiny. He was then unmarried, forty-four years old, tall, stoutly-built, with a large head, dark brown hair, clear keeneyes, and a generous and kindly nature concealed under a slightlybrusque manner. His sturdy old-fashioned rectitude, and the justconviction that by taste and adaptability for public life he hadpeculiar qualifications for the great office of governor, commendedhim to popular confidence. In Buffalo, where he had lived for aquarter of a century, people knew him as a man without guile. 

Two days before Cleveland's nomination (September 20), the Republicanshad selected Charles J. Folger, then secretary of the treasury. Incharacter for honesty and ability the two men were not dissimilar, butthe manner of their selection was antipodal. Of the five candidateswho appealed to the convention, Cornell was the only real opponent ofthe Secretary. [1784] For more than a year, ever since he took office, in fact, Cornell had counted upon a renomination. He cleverlystrengthened the State machine, surrounded himself with ablelieutenants, and never failed to make appointments promotive of hisambition. The confirmation of Isaac V. Baker as superintendent ofprisons with the aid of Tammany's three senators, especiallyillustrated his skill in reaching men. But he had done more thanorganise. His numerous vetoes called attention to his discriminatingwork, indicating honesty, efficiency, activity in promoting thepeople's interests, and fidelity to Republican principles. An honestpublic sentiment recognised these good features of his work. Indeed, his administration admittedly ranked with the best that had adornedthe State for a century, and his friends, including Independents andmany Stalwarts, rallied with energy to his support. It was known, too, that the wisdom of Blaine permeated his councils. 

[Footnote 1784: The candidates were Charles J. Folger, Alonzo B. Cornell, James W. Wadsworth of Genesee, John H. Starin of New York, and John C. Robinson of Broome. ]

Nevertheless, Conkling and the President marked him for defeat. It wasnotorious that their hostility grew out of the Governor's passivity inthe senatorial election, Arthur feeling the humiliation of that defeatscarcely less than Conkling, while memories of Crowley's failure andof the Governor's exultation had not faded. Conkling, not less bitter, had more recent cause for resentment. As the attorney of Jay Gould hehad indicated a willingness to forgive and forget the past if theGovernor would approve legislation favourable to the Gould properties. But Cornell, satisfied of its unfairness, courageously refused. [1785]When he did so he knew and subsequently declared, that if he hadsigned the bill, neither Gould nor Conkling would have opposed hisrenomination. [1786]

[Footnote 1785: The bill provided that the elevated railroad companiesof New York should, in lieu of other public charges, pay a tax of fourper cent. On their gross receipts. As first submitted the bill had theapproval of the mayor and comptroller of the city, but after itsmodification they withdrew their approval and opposed its passage onthe ground that it unjustly discriminated in favour of theseparticular corporations and deprived the city of a large amount ofrevenue. --Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1882, p. 600. ]

[Footnote 1786: Albany _Evening Journal_, August 20, 1882. ]

For these purely personal reasons an extraordinary situation wascreated, revealing the methods of purse and patronage by which theGould-Conkling combine and the Administration got revenge. In theirefforts in Folger's behalf delegates were coerced, and efficientofficials at Albany, Brooklyn, Utica, and Ogdensburg, removed in themiddle of their terms, were replaced by partisans of the President. Even after the patronage packed convention assembled the questionablemethods continued. Gould's agent hovered about Saratoga. To secure theselection of a temporary chairman by the State committee, Stephen B. French, an intimate of Arthur, presented a fraudulent proxy torepresent William H. Robertson. [1787] Had the convention known thisat the moment of voting swift defeat must have come to theAdministration, which barely escaped (251 to 243) by gettingpostmasters into line. [1788]

[Footnote 1787: French presented a telegram to the secretary of theState committee purporting to be sent from New York by Robertson. Aninvestigation made later showed that the message was written in Albanyon a sender's blank and had not been handled by the telegraph company. French explained that he had wired Robertson for a proxy, and whenhanded the message supposed it to be an answer. It was plain, however, that the telegram to Robertson and his alleged answer were parts ofthe same scheme. ]

[Footnote 1788: New York _Times_, September 22; see also the _Nation_, October 5; _Harper's Weekly_, October 14 and 21; New York _Sun_, September 22; Albany _Evening Journal_, September 22. ]

The candidacy of James W. Wadsworth, son of the famous general, andrecently state-comptroller, likewise became a decoy for Folger. Wadsworth himself had no understanding with that wing. He wasabsolutely independent and unpledged. But the Stalwarts, in districtsopposed to them, promoted the choice of such so-called Wadsworthdelegates as could be captured by the persuasive plea for harmony, andunder the stress of the second ballot, when Starin's and Robinson'ssupport broke to Cornell, some of them voted for Folger. This gave theAdministration's candidate eight more than the required number. [1789]

[Footnote 1789: Whole number of votes, 447. Necessary to a choice, 249. First ballot: Folger, 223; Cornell, 180; Wadsworth, 69; Starin, 19; Robinson, 6. Second ballot: Folger, 257; Cornell, 222; Wadsworth, 18. 

The ticket was as follows: Governor, Charles J. Folger, Ontario;Lieutenant-Governor, B. Platt Carpenter, Dutchess; Chief Judge ofAppeals, Charles Andrews, Onondaga; Congressman-at-large, A. BartonHepburn, St. Lawrence. Subsequently, Howard Carroll of New York, wassubstituted for Hepburn. ]

The belated platform, fulsomely eulogistic of Cornell, added to theindignation of the Independents, since it seemed a mockery to presentwhat the Stalwarts did not offer until after a nomination. It gavestill greater offence when the State Committee selected John F. Smythas its chairman to conduct the campaign. [1790]

[Footnote 1790: "Look at John F. Smyth and B. Platt Carpenter. Insteadof being at the head of the whole business, they should be at the tailor out of sight. "--From speech of Theodore F. Pomeroy, the _Nation_, October 5. ]

"It is hardly worth while analysing the influences which havecontributed to this result, " said the New York _Times_. "The fact isplain that the Gould-Conkling combination, backed by the power of theFederal Administration, has accomplished what it set out to do. "[1791]Henry Ward Beecher in a Sunday evening sermon, said that "When Cornellwent out, Avarice and Revenge kissed each other. " Theodore L. Cuyler, then pastor of the Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, declared that he "stood by the cradle of the Republican party, butwhen it shunted off on the wrong track I will not go over theprecipice with it. "[1792] In hastening to deny that _Harper's Weekly_would support Folger, George William Curtis wrote: "Judge Folger'sability and character are not in question, but his nomination is. Thatnomination was procured by the combined power of fraud and patronage, and to support it would be to acquiesce in them as legitimate forcesin a convention. "[1793] The Buffalo _Express_, a vigorous andindependent Republican journal, also bolted the ticket, [1794] anexample followed by several other papers of similar characterthroughout the State. After the lapse of a fortnight, Hepburn, candidate for congressman-at-large, declined to accept because "it isquite apparent that a very large portion of the Republicans, owing tothe unfortunate circumstances which have come to light since theadjournment of the convention, are not disposed to accept itsconclusion as an authoritative utterance of the party. "[1795]

[Footnote 1791: September 23. ]

[Footnote 1792: The _Nation_, October 5. ]

[Footnote 1793: New York _Tribune_, October 4. 

"By one of those curious blunders to which editorial offices areliable in the absence of the responsible head, an article by Mr. Curtis was modified to commit the paper to the support of thecandidate. Curtis resigned the editorship. It was promptly and in themost manly manner disavowed by the house of Harper & Bros. "--EdwardCary, _Life of Curtis_, p. 275. ]

[Footnote 1794: September 22. ]

[Footnote 1795: New York daily papers, October 4. ]

Folger was not suspected of any personal complicity with unfairdealing, but the deep and general Republican dissatisfaction greatlydisturbed him. His friends urged him to withdraw. Stewart L. Woodford, then United States attorney, insisted that fraud and forgery vitiatedall the convention did, and that the "short, direct, and honourableway out of it was to refuse the nomination. "[1796] The Kings Countyexecutive committee assured him that many influential Republicansconsidered this the wisest course. From prominent men in all parts ofthe State came similar advice. This view appealed to his own betterjudgment, and he had decided so to act until persuaded otherwise bythe pleadings of the Stalwarts. [1797] His acceptance, recalling theTilden letter of 1880, was a touching appeal to the voters. Referringto the fraudulent practices, he said: "No one claims, no one believes, that I had lot or part therein, or previous hint or suspicion thereof. I scorn an end to be got by such means. I will not undertake tomeasure the truth of all these reports; that of one is beyonddispute. "[1798] Nevertheless, Folger could not deny that he was awilling recipient of that "one, " through the influence of which, bycreating the impression that Robertson and other anti-Administrationleaders favoured the Stalwart's choice of a temporary chairman, hegained a much greater power in the convention than his eight majorityrepresented. [1799]

[Footnote 1796: New York _Times_, September 29. ]

[Footnote 1797: Albany _Evening Journal_, October 16. ]

[Footnote 1798: Folger's letter is found in the daily papers ofOctober 4. ]

[Footnote 1799: It was generally known that this influence changed thevotes of two acting State committeemen, who had agreed to act with theCornell men. --See the _Nation_ of October 5; also the New York_Tribune_, October 4. ]

In accepting the Democratic nomination Cleveland had the greatadvantage of not being obliged to refer to anything of which he wasashamed. Its tone was simple, sober, and direct, and from theprinciples expressed, the measures advocated, or the languageemployed, the reader could form no idea to what party the writerbelonged. He desired primary elections to be "uncontaminated andfairly conducted"; condemned the interference of "officials of anydegree, State or Federal, for the purpose of thwarting or controllingthe popular wish"; favoured tenure of office in the civil servicebeing dependent upon "ability and merit"; and denounced the levying ofpolitical assessments, declaring "the expenditure of money toinfluence the action of the people at the polls or to securelegislation is calculated to excite the gravest concern. "[1800]

[Footnote 1800: Cleveland's letter appears in the press of October10. ]

The campaign became historic because it revealed the most seriousdisturbance in the Republican party since the war. Little was heardsave apology, indignant protest, and appeal to tradition. WhateverRepublican hope existed was based upon the unworthiness of theDemocratic party. In a letter to an Albany meeting Folger declared, after highly praising his opponent, that "There is one differencewhich goes to the root of the matter when we are brought to view aspublic men and put forward to act in public affairs. He is a Democrat. I am a Republican. " Then, becoming an alarmist, he referred to theshrinkage in the value of stocks on the day after the Democraticvictory in Ohio. "That shrinkage has been going on ever since, " hesaid. "Do the business interests of the country dread a return of theDemocratic party to power? Will the election of Cleveland increase it?These are questions for hesitating Republicans to ponder. "[1801] ThisStock Exchange view of politics, redolent of the operations of brokersin Wall Street, did not help the Republican candidate. Curtis thoughtit, coming from the Secretary of the Treasury, "most extraordinary. "[1802]Besides, the decline in the stock market began before the Ohioelection, when conditions indicated Republican success. 

[Footnote 1801: Albany _Evening Journal_, October 19. ]

[Footnote 1802: _Harper's Weekly_, November 4. ]

The local campaign in the metropolis assumed more life. In spite ofits avowed purpose to rid the city of dishonest political tricksters, the County Democracy made bedfellows of Tammany and Irving Hall, andnominated Franklin Edson for mayor. This union was the more offensivebecause in its accomplishment the Whitney organisation turned its backupon Allan Campbell, its choice for governor, whom a Citizens'Committee, with Republican support, afterwards selected for mayor. Campbell as city-comptroller was familiar with municipal affairs, andof the highest integrity, independence, and courage. His friendsnaturally resented the indignity, and for ten days an effectivecanvass deeply stirred New York. 

Nevertheless, the Republican party was doomed. Managers beckoned hopeby frequent assertions, sometimes in the form of bulletins, that theindignation was subsiding. Smyth and his State Committee disclaimedany part in the wrong-doing by expressing, in the form of aresolution, their "detestation of the forged proxy, and of all themethods and purposes to which such wretched fraud and treacheryapply. "[1803] Even the nominee for lieutenant-governor argued that hewas an honest man. But the people had their own opinion, and a countof the votes showed that Folger, in spite of his pure and very usefullife, had been sacrificed, [1804] while Cleveland had a majoritygreater than was ever known in a contested State election. It was soastounding that Democrats themselves did not claim it, in the usualsense, as a Democratic victory. [1805] Everybody recognised it as arebuke to Executive dictation and corrupt political methods. But noone denied that Cleveland helped swell the majority. He became knownas the "Veto Mayor, " and the history of his brief public life wascommon knowledge. His professional career, unlike Tilden's, disclosedno dark spots. He had been an honest lawyer as well as an uprightpublic official, and the people believed that his stubbornindependence and sturdy integrity would make him a real governor, theenemy of rings and bosses, and the foe of avarice and revenge. 

[Footnote 1803: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1882, p. 608. ]

[Footnote 1804: "It will be two weeks to-morrow since I dined withJudge Howe, the postmaster-general, going out to the table with him, and here he is dead! Poor Arthur, he will find the Presidency moregruesome with a favourite cabinet minister gone! If it were Folgernow, I suppose he would not care, for they really do not know what todo with him. "--Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_, Vol. 2, p. 93. ]

[Footnote 1805: The vote was as follows: Cleveland, 535, 318; Folger, 342, 464; plurality, 192, 854. Hill, 534, 636; Carpenter, 337, 855;plurality, 196, 781. Ruger, 482, 222; Andrews, 409, 423; plurality, 72, 799. Slocum, 503, 954; Carroll, 394, 232; plurality, 109, 722. 

In New York City the vote stood: Cleveland, 124, 914; Folger, 47, 785;plurality, 77, 129. Edson (mayor), 97, 802; Campbell, 76, 385; plurality, 21, 417. Other candidates for governor received: Howe (Greenback), 11, 974; Hopkins (Prohibition), 25, 783. 

Legislature: Senate, Democrats, 18; Republicans, 14. Assembly, Democrats, 84; Republicans, 42; Independents, 2. Congress, Democrats, 19; Republicans, 14. ]

INDEX

Abolitionists, denounced by press, ii. 9; by meetings, 10; influence of, 1838, 25; 1844, 82; rapidly increasing strength, 89; unite with Hunkers and Barnburners, 1849, 150; separate nominations, 1850, 156; election of Smith to Congress, 179; nomination of Douglass for sec. Of state, 216; favour peaceable secession, 336. 

Adams, Charles Francis, choice for President of Lib. Rep. Leaders, iii. 282; defeated, 285. 

Adams-Jackson campaign, resembled that of Blaine-Cleveland, i. 367-8. 

Adams, John, cautioned not to speak of independence, i. 2; on Jay's state constitution, 8; suggests council of appointment, 8; anxiety to have his son President, 240. 

Adams, John Quincy, unpopularity of, i. 358; an anti-mason, 361; scene when elected President, 343; action of Van Rensselaer, 343. 

Administration Whigs, followers of Fillmore, ii. 157; unite with Dems. For Seymour's election, 1850, 157. 

Albany, political centre, i. 375. 

Albany _Argus_, on Clinton's loss of canal patronage, i. 261; paper of Edwin Croswell, 294; Seward's "forty million debt, " ii. 35; on secession, 346. 

Albany _Evening Journal_, established March, 1830, i. 374; Thurlow Weed its first editor, 374; salary of, 374; largest circulation in U. S. , 375. 

Albany Regency, when established, i. 293-4; original members of, 293-4; other members, 294; Thurlow Weed on, 294; supports Crawford, 1824, 324; removes Clinton from canal com. , 328; influence ended, ii. 53. 

Albany _Register_, attacks Burr, i. 123. 

Alberger, Franklin A. , candidate for canal com. , 1861, iii. 23, note; elected, 29; renominated, 1864, 117, note; elected, 125. 

Alien and Sedition Acts, overthrow Federal party, i. 84; approved by Jay, 85; Adams responsible for, 88. 

Allen, Peter, treatment of Fellows, i. 256. 

Allen, William F. , Richmond's choice for gov. , 1864, iii. 117; nominated for comp. , 1869, 226; elected, 227. 

Alvord, Thomas G. , the Onondaga Chief, Speaker of Assembly, iii. 22; ch'm. People's Union con. , 22; elected to Assembly, 29; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1864, 117, note; elected, 125. 

"Amens, " The, cradle of, iii. 58. 

_American Citizen and Watchtower_, controlled by Clinton, i. 122; edited by Cheetham, 122; attack on Burr, 122-3. 

American Colonization Society, history of, ii. 7; forms republic of Liberia, 8. 

American party, see Native American party. 

Anderson, Robert H. , nominated for prison insp. , 1876, iii. 346; defeated, 350. 

Andrew, John A. , gov. Of Massachusetts, i. 274; Tompkins compared to, 274; opinion of Brown, ii. 269. 

Andrews, Charles, nominated for chief judge Court of Appeals, 1882, iii. 494; defeated, 498. 

Anti-Federalists, organisation of, i. 38; in majority, 38; elect gov. , 1789, 44; also, 1792, 56; defeated, 1795, 65; 1798, 82; become known as Republicans, 80. 

"Anti-Jackson, " "Anti-Mortgage, " "Anti-Regency" factions unite as Whigs, i. 399. 

Anti-Masons, bolted Thompson in 1828, i. 363; nominated Granger, 363; substituted Southwick, 364; ticket defeated, 368; issues of, broadened, 376; nominated Granger, 1830, 376; defeat of, 377; nominated Wirt for President, 1832, 392; in accord with National Republicans, 392; nominated Granger, 1832, 393; electoral ticket of, 393; reason for defeat, 396; party dissolved, 398; become Whigs, 399. 

Anti-Masonry, becomes political, i. 360; excitement, 360; confined to western half of state, 360; Van Buren on, 365; semi-religious, 370; sudden reaction, 398; popularity of Free-Masonry, 398. 

Anti-Nebraska convention, ii. 194; prominent men present, 194; reassembles, 201; forerunner of Republican party, 194. 

Anti-Rent party, organisation of, ii. 82-3; contest over constitutional convention, 97; support Young for gov. , 118-9; influence of, 1848, 139. 

Anti-Tammany organisations, 1871, iii. 268; names and strength, 268, note; unwilling to accept Kelly, 299. 

Apollo Hall, organisation of, iii. 308; combination with, rejected by Tam. , 308; accepted by Reps. , 308. 

Arbitrary arrests, opposition to, iii. 19, 20, 47, 58. 

"Aristides, " _nom de plume_ of William P. Van Ness, i. 123-6. 

Armstrong, Cornelius W. , nominated for canal com. , 1865, iii. 129; defeated, 135. 

Armstrong, John, author of Newburgh Letters, i. 89; opposes Alien-Sedition laws, 89; brother-in-law of Chancellor Livingston, 116; elected to U. S. Senate, 116; resigned, 118; minister to France, 150; opposes Clinton, 204; changed views, 204; Tompkins jealous of, 216; character and career of, 216; sec. Of war, 216, 222; Spencer, a friend of, 216; plan of Canada campaign, 222; failure of, 223; puts Wilkinson in command, 223; plans again fail, 224-5; promotes Brown and Scott, 225; resigns in disgrace, 227; Madison's dislike of, 238. 

Arthur, Chester A. , early career and character, iii. 399-402; becomes collector of port, 1871, 399; his successor appointed, 1877, 399; reasons for, 399, 402; successor defeated, 404-5; President suspends him, 1878, 406; reason for, 406, 408; his defence, 408; successor confirmed, 409; name suggested for Vice-President, 1880, 444; will not listen to Conkling's objection, 444; Conkling refuses to present name to Nat. Con. , 444; Woodford presents it, 444; nominated on first ballot, 445; people's reception of nomination, 445; Sherman indignant, 445, note; Mrs. Blaine's opinion of, 446; career a study of evolution of character, 446; supports Crowley for U. S. Senate, 1881, 465; tries to compromise Robertson's appointment, 1881, 472; becomes President, 1881, 485; confidence expressed in, 485; appointments favourably received, 486; defeats Cornell's renomination, 1882, 493; disastrous result, 498. 

Assembly, Provincial, refuses to approve proceedings of Congress, i. 4. 

Assembly, State, original membership of, i. 9; election of, 9; how apportioned, 9; powers of, 9; elected by, 9. 

Astor, John Jacob, approves books of Tammany's city comptroller, 1870, iii. 245. 

Astor, William B. , contribution to fusion ticket, ii. 332. 

Auburn, gloom over Seward's defeat, ii. 290-1, note. 

Babcock, George R. , declines nomination for state comp. , 1875, iii. 325. 

Bacon, Ezekiel, in constitutional convention, 1846, ii. 103. 

Bacon, Theodore, joins Lib. Rep. Movement, iii. 284; attends its Nat. Con. , 284; denounces Fenton's scheme, 284. 

Bacon, William J. , congressman from Oneida district, iii. 385; supports President Hayes, 385; speech for, 385. 

Bailey, B. Prentiss, Utica _Observer_, a leading Dem. Editor, iii. 420. 

Bailey, Theodorus, urged for appointment, i. 121; Clinton's agent, 152; elected to U. S. Senate, 156. 

Balcom, Ransom, reputation as a judge, iii. 166; aspires to U. S. Senate, 1865, 166. 

Ballard, Horatio, nominated for sec. Of state, 1861, iii. 23, note; elected, 29. 

Baltimore convention, 1860, ii. 294-303; Seymour strengthened, 294; New York in control, 294, note; seceding delegations wish to return, 295; bitter debate, 296-7; New York admits contestants, 300; states secede, 300; Soule's speech, 300-1; Douglas nominated, 302; Fitzpatrick nominated for Vice-President, 302; Johnson substituted, 302. 

Baltimore Union Convention, 1864, iii. 93-5; its platform and nominees, 94. 

Banks, Republicans opposed to, i. 186; Hamilton secures charters, 186; clever trick of Burr, 187; State Bank of Albany, 187; Merchants' Bank of New York, 189; Bank of America, 191; charter granted, 197. 

Bank of Albany, incorporation of, i. 186. 

Bank of America of New York, incorporation of, i. 191; inducements for, 191. 

Bank of Columbia at Hudson, incorporation of, i. 186. 

Bank of New York, incorporation of, i. 186. 

Barker, George P. , at. -gen. , ii. 52. 

Barkley, Alexander, nominated for canal com. , 1868, iii. 196; defeated, 215; renominated, 1870, 238; defeated, 244; renominated, 1871, 264; elected, 275. 

Barlow, Francis C. , record as a soldier, iii. 129; nominated for sec. Of state, 1865, 130; elected, 135; not renominated, 1867, 174; nominated for atty. -gen. , 1871, 264; elected, 275; fine record of, 307; dropped as atty. -gen. , 1873, 307. 

Barnard, David, popular anti-masonic preacher, i. 370. 

Barnard, George G. , Tweed's trusted judge, iii. 177; foppish dress, 177; appearance of, 177; begins 1857 as recorder, 177; advanced to Sup. Court, 1860, 177; part in election frauds, 1868, 216; fraudulent naturalisations, 216-8; exposure, 246; impeached, 248; death, 248. 

Barnburners, Dem. Faction, ii. 126; why so called, 126; leaders of, 126-7; hostility to Hunkers, 127; secede from Dem. Con. , 1847, 127; withdraw from Baltimore con. , 130; hold Utica con. , 131; nominate Van Buren for President, 131; two factions of, 131; leading members, 131; Buffalo con. , 1848, 132; indorsed Van Buren for President, 133; Webster's pun, 133; nominated Dix for gov. , 133; Seymour unites them with Hunkers, 149; nominated Seymour for gov. , 1850, 156; defeated, 158; support Marcy for President, 1852, 169-72; support Pierce and Seymour, 1852, 169-78; succeed, 178; Hunkers secede, 1853, 180-5; nominate separate ticket, 184; approved canal amendment, 184; called Softshells or Softs, 185; see Softs. 

Barney, Hiram C. , appointed collector of port of New York, ii. 390; choice of Lincoln, 390-6; mysterious influence in favour of, 393; career of, 395; crippled Weed machine, 395-6; Lincoln plans to transfer him, iii. 85; sustained by Chase, 85; unsatisfactory collector, 85; Lincoln promises Weed to remove him, 87; Draper appointed in his place, 97. 

Barnum, Henry W. , record as a soldier, iii. 129; nominated for prison insp. , 1865, 130; elected, 135; renominated, 1867, 196; defeated, 215. 

Barstow, Gamaliel H. , cand. For lt. -gov. , 1836, ii. 12; career of, 13; defeated, 14; state treas. , 18; withdraws from politics, 38. 

Bascom, Oliver, nominated for canal com. , 1868, iii. 207; elected, 215. 

Bates, James K. , nominated for prison insp. , 1863, iii. 76; elected, 83. 

Bayard, James A. , cand. In opposition to Greeley, 1872, iii. 289, note; attitude toward Tilden, 354. 

Beach, Allen C. , nominated for lt. -gov. , 1868, iii. 207; elected, 215; renominated, 231; elected, 244; aspires to be gov. , 1872, 297; nominated for sec. Of state, 1877, 384; vigorously opposed in campaign, 387; elected, 387; renominated, 1879, 424; defeated, 427. 

Beach, John H. , Seward's reliance upon, ii. 34. 

Beale, Charles L. , in Congress, ii. 339, note; disapproved Weed's compromise, 339, note. 

Beardsley, Samuel, leads Dem. Forces in Congress, ii. 1; heads mob against anti-slavery meeting, 6; character of, 53. 

Beauregard, Pierre T. , at Charleston, S. C. , iii. 2; reduces Fort Sumter, 3; at Bull Run, 11. 

Beebe, George M. , strong supporter of Tammany, iii. 383. 

Beecher's Bibles, Sharpe's rifles, ii. 224. 

Beecher, Henry Ward, active against repeal of Missouri compromise, ii. 193; in campaign, 1860, 240; political sermons of, 329; indifference to secession, 334; peaceable secession, 336. 

 Resents Lincoln's relations with Conservatives, iii. 90; forsakes Johnson, 163; denounces his vicious course, 163; supports Rep. Ticket, 163; on Cornell's defeat, 1882, 495. 

Beekman, John P. , ambitious to be gov. , ii. 172-3. 

Belmont, August, at Charleston convention, ii. 272; approves Weed's compromise, 338, 341; del. To Dem. Nat. Con. , 1864, iii. 101; 1872, 287; Ch'm. Of nat. Ex. Com. , 287. 

Belmont, Perry, presented for gov. , 1882, iii. 488. 

Bemis, Horace, threatens to bolt leg. Caucus, iii. 53, note. 

Bennett, James Gordon, editor of N. Y. _Herald_, iii. 36; contest with Greeley, 36; favours Dix for gov. , 42. 

Benson, Egbert, atty. -gen. , i. 16; at Hartford con. , 28; at Annapolis, 29; in Legislature, 33; action on Federal Constitution, 33; elected to Congress, 44; appointed to Supreme Court, 61. 

Benton, Thomas H. , on Van Buren's conscription law, i. 232; on Van Buren's rejection as minister, 389. 

Betts, Samuel R. , appointed to Supreme Court, i. 322. 

Bigelow, John, ch'm. Of Tilden's canal com. , 1875, iii. 323; declines Rep. Nomination for state comp. , 1874, 325; accepts Dem. Nomination for sec. Of state, 1874, 326; elected, 331; Tilden's spokesman at Nat. Con. , 1876, 342; bitterly opposed for renomination as sec. Of state, 380; defeated, 384. 

Birdsall, John, on Supreme Court, i. 348; induced to leave Anti-Masons, 397. 

Birdsall, John, State senator, iii. 437; declares he will vote for Blaine, 1880, 437. 

Black, Jeremiah S. , cand. In opposition to Greeley, 1872, iii. 289, note. 

Blaine, James G. , oratorical castigation of Conkling, iii. 168; supported by Robertson, 1876, 335; thought Dems. Lacked firmness, 1877, 355; why Dems. Favoured Electoral Com. , 355; supports Conkling in contest to remove Arthur and Cornell, 405; a striking tableau, 405-6; again supports Conkling, 410; name loudly applauded in state con. , 1880, 433; resented by Conkling, 433; gets eighteen votes from N. Y. , 1880, 441; part in Robertson's appointment, 469-71; Conkling's lack of confidence in, 471; influence in Cornell's councils, 1882, 492. 

Blair, Montgomery, letter to Welles, ii. 192. 

Blatchford, Richard M. , approved Weed's compromise, ii. 338; acts as agent for the Government, iii. 7; attends Saratoga con. , 1866, 144; thought Morgan's backbone missing, 222. 

Blatchford, Samuel, law partner of Seward, ii. 165; defeated for Supreme Court, 165. 

Bliss, Archibald M. , attended Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, iii. 296; on com. To confer with Dems. , 296. 

Bostwick, William L. , nominated for state treas. , 1877, iii. 377; defeated, 387. 

Bouck, William C. , compared with Young, ii. 53; named for gov. , 1840, 54; defeated, 54; renominated, 1842, 54; elected, 55; canal policy, 56; nepotism of, 57; defeated for renomination, 77-8; in constitutional con. , 1846, 103; appointed sub-treas. , 119; reasons for it, 119, 123. 

Boutwell, George S. , compliments Weed, iii. 58; about Robertson's election, 1881, 469-70. 

Bowles, Samuel J. , on Weed as a manager, ii. 283. 

Bradford, George P. , delegate to Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, iii. 296. 

Bradish, Luther, speaker of Assembly, ii. 18; defeated for nomination for gov. , 1838, 19-21; nominated for lt. -gov. , 21; nominated for gov. , 1842, 51; defeated, 55. 

Bradley, George B. , nominated for Court of Appeals, 1878, iii. 393; defeated, 397. 

Brady, James T. , in campaign of 1852, ii. 178; nominated for atty. -gen. By Hunkers, 183; nominated for gov. By Hards, 325; popularity of, 325; defeat of, 333; delegate to seceding states, 351-2. 

 Sympathy with the South, iii. 4; tendered nomination for mayor, 1861, 30; refused it, 30; loyalty of, 59; addresses to Union League, 1863, 59; declines state comptrollership, 1863, 74; active in campaign, 1867, 186. 

Bribery, in chartering Albany State Bank, i. 186-7; Purdy charged with, 190; Thomas and Southwick indicted and acquitted, 191-4. 

Bristol, Wheeler H. , nominated for state treas. , 1869, iii. 226; elected, 227; renominated, 1871, 273; defeated, 275. 

Brockway, Beman, Watertown _Times_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 414. 

Bronson, Greene C. , appointed atty. -gen. , i. 383; character and career of, 383-4; ii. 196; declines to support Softs, 186; removed as collector, 187; Greeley on, 187, 189; nominated for gov. By Hards, 196; inconsistency of, 196; at peace congress, 350; stands with Lincoln, iii. 15. 

Brooks, Erastus, nominated for gov. , ii. 238; early career of, 238; N. Y. _Express_, conspicuous as an editor, iii. 420. 

Brooks, James, founded N. Y. _Express_, ii. 238; early career of, 238; forces nomination of Seymour, iii. 38; controls Cons. Union con. , 1863, 79; connection with Crédit Mobilier, 309, note; death, 309, note; a leading Dem. Editor, 420. 

Broome, John, candidate for lt. -gov. , 1804, i. 129; death and career of, 180. 

Brouck, Francis C. , nominated for state treas. , 1861, iii. 21, note; declined to accept, 24. 

Brown, D. D. S. , attended Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, iii. 296; on com. To confer with Dems. , 296. 

Brown, Jacob, valour at Sackett's Harbour, i. 223; promoted, 225; character and career of, 225; on Niagara frontier, 226; brilliant leadership, 227. 

Brown, John, raid of, ii. 259; career of, 259-60; Douglas on, 260; Emerson on, 260; Thoreau on, 260; Longfellow on, 260; Lincoln on, 264; Seward on, 266-7; Andrew on, 269. 

Brown, John W. , nominated for judge Court of Appeals, 1865, iii. 129; defeated, 135. 

Brown University, William L. Marcy, graduate of, i. 292. 

Bruce, Benjamin F. , candidate for canal com. , 1861, iii. 23, note; elected, 29; renominated, 1863, 76; elected, 83. 

Bryant, William Cullen, in campaign of 1844, ii. 84; original Barnburner, 131; supports Pierce and Seymour, 1852, 177; theory of, 177, note; active in campaign of 1856, 240; meets Lincoln, 266; ch'm. Of Lincoln meeting, 263; opposes Seward for President, 285; elector-at-large, 328; opposes Seward for sec. Of state, 394. 

 Favours postponing Nat. Rep. Con. , 1864, iii. 88; resents Lincoln's relations with Seward and Weed, 90; denounces expulsion of Louisiana legislators, 328. 

Buchanan, James, nominated for President, ii. 228; supported by Hards, 227-8; Softs forced to vote for, 227-8; criticised by Southern press, iii. 10. 

Bucktails, followers of Van Buren, i. 251; origin of name, 251. 

Bucktails and Clintonians, 1820, two opposing parties, i. 273. 

Buel, Jesse, cand. For gov. , 1836, ii. 12; career and gifts of, 12; defeated, 13. 

Buffalo, burned by British, i. 224; Clinton predicts its great growth, 243. 

Bull Run, battle of, iii. 11-12; Scott did not approve, 11; Lincoln favoured it, 11; urged by the N. Y. _Tribune_, 11. 

Burr, Aaron, with Arnold at Quebec, i. 5; supports Yates for gov. , 43; atty. -gen. , 45; early career, 45; his character, 45; first meeting with Hamilton, 45-6; opinion of Washington, 46; legend as to Hamilton and, 46; atty. -gen. , 46-7; elected to U. S. Senate, 49; ambitious to be gov. , 50; checked by Clinton and Hamilton, 50; non-attention to public business, 55; referee in Clinton-Jay contest, 57; undertakes to carry New York, 89; skilful methods of, 90; meets Hamilton at the polls, 91; courtesy of, 91; style of speaking, 91; Root's opinion of, 91; party triumphant, 91; cand. For Vice-President, 98; the tie vote, 98; favours Jefferson's election, 98; supported by Federalists, 98-9; silent as to result, 102; Van Ness, as a go-between, 103; deceived by Edward Livingston, 103; defeated for President, 104; elected Vice-President, 104; eulogised by Jefferson, 104; sudden change toward, 105; personal appearance, 106; president constitutional con. , 115; helped Clinton's control, 115-6; Clinton's dislike of, 116; Clinton determines to destroy him, 116; friends without an office, 119; turns against Jefferson and Clinton, 121-2; silence under attack, 123; "Aristides'" defence of, 123; nominated for gov. , 1804, 131; hopeless race from start, 131; Hamilton's reasons for opposing, 133-5; leader of secession, 134-5; Lansing's withdrawal, 136; reasons for election, 137; powerful friends, 138; defeated, 138; challenged Hamilton, 139-40; hostile meeting, 142; death of Hamilton, 142; indicted for murder, 144; later career, 144-5; character, 145; unnatural parent, 146; connection with Tam. , 182; clever trick to charter bank, 187. 

Burrows, Lorenzo, nominated for gov. By Americans, ii. 249; character of, 249; defeated, 255; manager Cons. State con. , 1863, iii. 79, note. 

Burt, James, in Council of Appointment, i. 156. 

Burt, Silas W. , appointed surveyor, port of New York, iii. 406; confirmed, 409. 

Butler, Benjamin F. , district attorney, i. 289; gifts, character, and career of, 289-94; appearance of, 289; relations with Talcott, 291; law partner of Van Buren, 291; member of Albany Regency, 293-4; death of, 294; sent to Assembly, 358. 

 U. S. Atty. -gen. , ii. 1; practising law, 53; at Baltimore con. , 70-3; declines to be sec. Of war, 94; a Barnburner, 120; at Utica con. , 131. 

Butler, William Allen, son of Benjamin F. , eulogy of Van Buren, i. 208. 

Cady, Daniel, gifts and character of, i. 169; career of, 169; father of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 169; assails embargo, 169. 

Cagger, Peter, at Charleston con. , ii. 272; opposes Union State con. , iii. 15; draft-circular, 82. 

Calhoun, John C. , resembled John C. Spencer, i. 264; Clinton on, 386, note; opposes Van Buren, 387. 

Callicot, Timothy, proposition to Depew, iii. 53; elected speaker of Assembly, 54. 

Cambreling, Churchill C. , leads Dem. Forces in Congress, ii. 1; in constitutional con. , 1846, 103; minister to Russia, 103; a Barnburner, 128; at Utica con. , 131; supports Pierce and Seymour, 1852, 177. 

Cameron, Simon, promised place in Lincoln's cabinet, ii. 288. 

Campaign speeches, 1860, ii. 329. 

Campbell, Allan, presented for gov. , 1882, iii. 488, note; ostensible choice of County Democracy, 489; supported by Reps. For mayor of N. Y. , 1882, 498; character and ability, 498; defeated, 498. 

Canadian rebellion, history of, ii. 23-4. 

Canal Ring, defeats Barlow for atty. -gen. , 1873, iii. 307; opposes Tilden for gov. , 1874, 311; members of it, 312; exposed and crushed, 322-4. 

Canal work and fraud, see Erie Canal. 

Cannon, Joseph G. , respecting Greeley and Lincoln, iii. 126, note. 

Cantine, Moses I. , brother-in-law of Van Buren, i. 251; opposed Clinton and Erie canal, 251. 

_Caroline_, steamer in Canadian rebellion, ii. 24. 

Carpenter, B. Platt, nominated for lt. -gov. , 1882, iii. 494; defeated, 498. 

Carr, Joseph B. , nominated for sec. Of state, 1879, iii. 416; elected, 427; renominated for sec. Of state, 1881, 485; elected, 486. 

Carroll, Howard, named for congressman-at-large, 1882, iii. 494; defeated, 498. 

Carter, Luther C. , in Congress, ii. 339, note; disapproves Weed's compromise, 339, note. 

Carver, Joseph, predicts inland waterway in New York, i. 241. 

Cassidy, William, Albany _Argus_, a leading Dem. Editor, iii. 420. 

Castle Garden meeting, to unite Fillmore Whigs and Democrats, ii. 157. 

Champlain, Marshal M. , nominated for atty. -gen. , 1861, iii. 24, note; defeated, 29; renominated, 1869, 226; elected, 227; renominated, 1871, 273; defeated, 275. 

Chandler, Zachariah, resented Lincoln's relations with Seward and Weed, iii. 89. 

Chapin, Edwin H. , political sermons of, ii. 329. 

Chaplin, William L. , nominated for gov. By Abolitionists, 1850, ii. 156. 

Chapman, George W. , nominated for canal com. , 1870, iii. 231; elected, 244; renominated, 273; defeated, 275. 

Charleston convention, 1860, ii. 270-9; Softs admitted, 270; N. Y. Delegation, 271-2; Richmond's leadership, 271-9; struggle over platform, 273-5; bitter debates, 273-6; states secede, 275; South against Douglas and Guthrie, 276; adjourned to Baltimore, 279; see Baltimore convention. 

Charleston _Mercury_, resents action of Northern Dems. , iii. 10. 

Chase, Salmon P. , chief of radicals in cabinet, iii. 14; resigns, 84; consents to remain, 84; threatens to resign, 86; resigns, 1864, 96; Lincoln's tart acceptance, 97; leads movement to substitute another cand. For Lincoln, 103; aspires to be President, 1868, 197; favoured by Seymour, 198; gets few votes, 199; several Lib. Reps. Favour him, 1872, 282; defeated, 286. 

Chatfield, Thomas S. , nominated for state treas. , 1869, iii. 226; defeated, 227. 

Cheetham, James, editor of _American Citizen_, i. 122; attacked Burr, 122-3; assailed by Van Ness, 126; challenged Coleman, 128; assailed Burr, 1804, 137; opposed embargo, 165; expelled from Tam. , 182; death of, 182. 

Cheever, George B. , tours England in behalf of the Union, iii. 90; resents Lincoln's relations with Conservatives, 90; signs call for Cleveland con. , 90; denounces policy of Administration, 90. 

Chicago convention, 1860, ii. 281-93; prototype of modern con. , 281; Greeley on, 281; ch'm. And platform of, 282; influence of cheering, 288; Lincoln nominated on third ballot, 289; Evarts moved to make unanimous, 289; Hamlin nominated for Vice-President, 289. 

Church, Sanford E. , elected to Assembly, 1841, ii. 47; original Barnburner, 131; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1850, 156; at Charleston con. , 272; temp. Ch'm. Dem. State peace con. , 354. 

 Opposes Union State con. , 1861, iii. 15; favoured for gov. , 1862, 39; attends Saratoga con. , 1866, 144; delegate-at-large, 144; adjourns con. To defeat Dix, 158; audacious act, 158; abject apology, 158; elected chief judge Ct. Of Appeals, 234, note; aspires to be gov. , 1872, 297; defeated by Tilden, 298; ambitious to be gov. , 1874, 311; associated with canal ring, 312-3. 

Churchill, John C. , nominated for sec. Of state, 1877, iii. 377; defeated, 387; aspired to be state comp. , 1879, 417; defeated, 417. 

Cipher dispatches, iii. 350-1, note; translated by _Tribune_, 394; publication of, 395; influence on Tilden, 395. 

Cisco, John J. , sympathy with the South, iii. 4. 

Civil service reform, first effort of Fed. Gov. , iii. 360; Curtis heads Com. , 360; Hayes' efforts to establish it, 360; opposition to, 361, 365. 

Civil war, sec. Of treas. Predicts, ii. 332; Reps. Might have prevented, 342; gov. 's message, 348; petitions for peace, 349; action of N. Y. Chamber of Commerce, 349; of Legislature, 349; delegates to peace congress, 350; detention of guns, 351; delegates sent to secession states, 351-2; Dix's dispatch, 352; state con. Of fusionists, 354-8; Conkling on, 357, note. 

Clark, Gaylord J. , nominated for prison insp. , 1862, iii. 41, note; elected, 51. 

Clark, Israel W. , Albany _Register_, i. 262; friend of Erie canal, 262. 

Clark, Myron H. , nom. For gov. , 1854, ii. 199; career and character of, 199; Weed opposed nomination for gov. , 199; elected, 203; not renominated, 234. 

 Temperance cand. For gov. , 1870, iii. 244; defeated, 244, note; renominated, 1874, 316; defeated, 319. 

Clay, Henry, aids in rejection of Van Buren, i. 387; United States Bank, 393; defeat, 1840, ii. 40; anger of friends, 40. 

Clay party, organised, 1831, i. 392; nominated Henry Clay for President, 1832, 392. 

Cleveland convention, 1864, iii. 92. 

Cleveland, Grover, presented for gov. , 1882, iii. 490; career and character, 490; County Democracy's influence, 490; nominated on third ballot, 491; appearance, 492; his sturdy rectitude, 492; letter of acceptance, 497; enormous majority, 498; known as the "Veto Mayor, " 499. 

Clews, Henry, recommends Murphy's appointment, iii. 233; presents Dix for gov. , 1872, 294. 

Clinton, DeWitt, forces election of Council of Appointment, i. 107; controls it, 107; early career of, 108; appearance and character, 108-9; breaks with Jay, 110; adds to authority of Council, 115; prototype of political boss, 115, 119; destroys Burr, 116, 119; patronage to the Livingstons, 115; elected to U. S. Senate, 118; resigns, 119; becomes mayor, 118; with Jefferson against Burr, 121; attacks Burr through press, 122; assailed by Van Ness, 125-6; challenged by Swartwout, 127; wounds him, 127; regrets it was not Burr, 127; too young for gov. , 1804, 136; opposes Lewis' administration, 149-51; bargains with the Burrites, 152; hostility of Martling Men, 152; three offices and salaries, 153; opposed by W. W. Van Ness, 153; removed from mayoralty, 155; selects Tompkins for gov. , 158; contrasted to Tompkins, 160-1; opposes embargo, 165, 168, 171; changes opinion, 165; reappointed mayor, 165; urges uncle for President, 166-7; series of mistakes, 167; approves Madison's and Tompkins' administrations, 168; assails Federalists, 168; removed as mayor, 172-3; reappointed, 179; hostility of Tam. , 180-5; nominated lt. -gov. , 181; lavish style of living, 183; wealth of wife, 183; income as mayor, 183; Irish friends, 183; lack of tact, 184; ready to defeat Tompkins, 184; desertion of friends, 184-5; elected lt. -gov. , 185; opposes charter of Merchants' Bank, 189; silent as to Bank of America, 196; estrangement of Spencer, 197; seeks nomination for President, 199; fitness for, 200; nominated by Legislature, 201; opposition to, 201-2; Granger supports, 202; opposed by Tompkins, 201; by Rufus King, 203-6; supported by Federalists, 204-8; campaign managed by Van Buren, 206-10; defeated for President, 210; reasons for, 210; King's election to U. S. Senate, 211-2; not renominated for lt. -gov. , 212; attacks Tompkins and Taylor, 213; retains mayoralty, 213; Riker his enemy, 218; refused a command in War of 1812, 221; patriotic devotion, 221; removed from the mayoralty, 235; record as mayor, 235; canal com. , 242-3; early efforts as, 243; in retirement, 243; begins correspondence with Post, 243; plan for canal, 244; heads new commission, 245; friendship with Spencer renewed, 245; brother-in-law of Spencer, 245; cand. For gov. , 245; reports on cost of canals, 246-7; supported by Federalists for gov. , 1817, 247-8; pictures Van Buren, 250; nominated for gov. , 1817, 250; elected, 252; inaugurated, 252; began work on canal, 252; at zenith of fame, 253; lacked politician's art, 254, 257; refused reconciliation with Young, 254; believed Republican party would divide, 254-5; refused to appoint Federalists, 255; dismissed Tam. Office holders, 255; rivals of, 255; character of messages, 256; bolts party caucus, 257-60; not a reformer, 260; crippled in power, 261; loss of canal patronage, 261; sly methods of, 268; removes Bucktails from office, 273; calls Van Buren "arch scoundrel, " 273; hesitates to remove him, 274; renominated for gov. , 279; without organisation, 279; confident of election, 281; elected, 281; protests against Federal patronage, 283-4; green-bag message, 285; vituperative allusions to Van Buren, 286, note; fails to defeat Van Buren for U. S. Senator, 287; trapped into opposing the constitutional con. , 1821, 296; friends without influence in con. , 298; not renominated for gov. , 1822, 312; reasons for, 314-5; prophetic letter, 315; deceived as to Yates' popularity, 320; removed as canal com. , 329; great excitement, 329; nominated for gov. , 330-1; stirring campaign against Young, 332; elected, 333; about the Presidency, 334-5; favours Jackson, 334-6; a censorious critic, 334-5, note; likeness to Jackson, 336; opening of Erie canal, 345; ignores old custom, 347; renominated for gov. , 1826, 350; re-elected, 352; death of, 1828, 353; remarks on, 354-5; Van Buren on, 354; Weed on, 355. 

Clinton, George, member first constitutional con. , i. 5; proposed for gov. , 17; manners of, 19; ancestry and career, 20; elected gov. , 21; Schuyler on, 21; Washington on, 22; hatred of Tories, 23; approves revenue going to Congress, 24; insists upon its collection by state, 25; refuses to convene Legislature, 25; Hamilton opposes, 25; not candid, 28; opposes revision of Articles of Confederation, 29; withdrawal of Yates and Lansing, 30; reproves Hamilton, 31; bitterest opponent of Federal Constitution, 32; ignored it in message, 32; proposed another con. , 33; conduct criticised, 36; Washington on, 36; opposed for re-election as gov. , 37; Hamilton's encounter with, 38; re-elected, 1789, 44; a master politician, 45; reasons for appointing Burr, 46-7; helped by the Livingstons, 47-8; renominated for gov. , 1792, 50; abuse and misrepresentation, 54; sales of public lands, 54; elected, 55; known as usurper, 61; refused to nominate Benson, 61; argument of, 61; action of Council of Appointment, 62; not a spoilsman, 62; declined to stand for re-election, 63; renominated for gov. , 1801, 115; elected, 115; opposed methods of Council, 119; declines re-election, 129; elected Vice-President, 147; opposed embargo, 165; urged for President, 1808, 166; re-elected Vice-President, 167; defeats United States Bank, 186; death and character of, 197-8; the great war gov. , 219; plan to connect Hudson with Lake Ontario, 242. 

Clinton, George W. , son of DeWitt Clinton, ii. 183; nominated sec. Of state by Hunkers, 183; Dem. State peace con. , 356; loyal sentiments of, 356-7, note. 

Clintonians, followers of DeWitt Clinton, i. 251. 

Clintonians and Bucktails, 1820, two opposing parties, i. 273. 

Clinton, James, in first constitutional con. , i. 5; brother of George Clinton, 43; father of DeWitt Clinton, 43; his character, 43-4. 

Cobb, Howell, sec. Of treas. , ii. 332; on election of Lincoln, 332; predicts panic, 332. 

Cochrane, John, Barnburners' platform maker, ii. 197; at Charleston con. , 272; career, appearance and ability of, 272. 

 Sympathy with the South, iii. 4; speech at Richmond, Va. , 4; loyal speech at Union Square meeting, 6; enters the army, 9; criticised by Southern press, 10; favours freeing and arming slaves, 25; nominated for atty. -gen. , 1863, 76, note; elected, 83; signs call for Cleveland con. , 1864, 90; resents infringement of rights, 90; president of Cleveland con. , 92; denounces leaders of Rep. Party, 92; nominated for Vice-President, 92; withdraws, 120; at Rep. State con. , 1871, 259; joins Lib. Rep. Movement, 283; organises its con. For Greeley's nomination, 283; calls Lib. Rep. State con. To order, 1872, 296. 

Colden, Cadwallader D. , ancestry and character, i. 56, 117; district atty. , 117, 179; prophecy as to inland navigation in New York, 241; removed as mayor of New York City, 287; an Anti-Mason, 370. 

Coleman, William, editor of _Evening Post_, i. 117; clerk of circuit court, 117; challenged by Cheetham, 128; kills Cheetham's friend, 128. 

Colles, Christopher, navigation of Mohawk River, i. 242. 

Collier, John A. , desired to be gov. , 1842, ii. 51; nominated Fillmore for Vice-President, 137; career of, 138; candidate for U. S. Senate, 145. 

Columbia College, DeWitt Clinton in its first class, i. 108. 

Committee of Fifty, differences with Committee of Fifty-one, i. 2; assumed leadership of, 2. 

Committee of Fifty-one, opposes Committee of Fifty, i. 2. 

Committee of One Hundred, made up of Committees of Fifty and Fifty-one, i. 4. 

Committee of Seventy, charged with investigating Tweed Ring, iii. 247; nominate Havermeyer for mayor, 1872, 299. 

Committee of Sixty, substituted for Committee of Fifty-one, i. 4. 

Compromises of 1850, character of, ii. 151. 

Comstock, George F. , nominated for Court of Appeals, ii. 215; character and ability of, 215-6; elected, 219; nominated for judge, Court of Appeals, 1861, iii. 21, note. 

Confederates, the, resent unanimity of the North, iii. 9. 

Confederation, pitiable condition of, i. 28. 

Confederation, Articles of, impotent to regulate commerce, i. 29; Hamilton on revision, 29; con. Called for revision, 29. 

Congress, Continental, recommends a war government, i. 1. 

Congress, Provincial, takes place of Provincial Assembly, i. 4; meets, 1776, 5; adopts new name, 5; continues common law of England, 5. 

Conkling, Frederick A. , aspires to be gov. , 1868, iii. 193. 

Conkling, Roscoe, ambitious to be atty. -gen. , ii. 187; early career of, 187; defeated by Ogden Hoffman, 188; on Whig con. , 1854, 201; in campaign, 1858, 251; ability as speaker, 251; his muscle, 251; stigmatises Dem. State peace con. , 357, note; commends Clinton's loyalty, 357, note; lack of tact, 389. 

 On battle of Ball's Bluff, iii. 31; opposes legal tender act, 32; character of, 32; defeated for Congress, 1862, 52; refuses to betray Lincoln, 104; re-elected to Congress, 1864, 125; tours state, 1866, 164; cand. For U. S. Senate, 1867, 166; service in House, 167; Blaine's attack, 168; his vanity, 168; strong support by Roberts, 169; declines to use money, 170; wins because of ability, 171; ch'm. Of con. , 1867, 172-3; tolerant of Johnsonised Reps. , 173; Fenton suspicious of, 174; vigorous campaign, 1868, 212; on election frauds, 1868, 215; relations with Grant, 232; secures Murphy's confirmation, 1870, 235; bitter contest with Fenton, 234-5; resumed at Rep. State con. , 1870, 235; hesitates to attend, 236; Grant requests it, 236; defeats Fenton, 236; urges Curtis for gov. , 1870, 238; dodges vote, 238; active in campaign, 241-2; loses, 244; Greeley attacks him, 257; efforts to crush Fenton-Greeley machine, 1871, 250-64; speech at con. , 1871, 261-63; beats Fenton organisation, 263; succeeds at the polls, 275; upholds Grant's administration, 278-9; Robertson's dislike begins, 294; speech in campaign, 1872, 301; re-elected, 1873, 305; offered place on U. S. Sup. Court, 305; declines law partnership, 305; zenith of power, 305; rivalry of Tilden, 1875, 329; speeches in campaign, 330-1; Reps. Defeated, 331; aspires to be President, 1876, 332; Curtis' opposition, 333; mild endorsement, 333; treatment in Rep. Nat. Con. , 333-5; fails to attend Rep. State con. , 338; strong speech in campaign, 347; ignores Hayes and Wheeler, 347; favours Electoral Com. , 356; excluded from it, 356; at Rep. State con. , 1877, 362; Curtis' tart criticism, 369-70; reply to Curtis, 370-7; masterpiece of sarcasm and invective, 374; attack regarded too severe, 376; regretted by Rep. Press, 376; Curtis' opinion of, 376; established newspaper at Utica, 385; reason for defeat, 1877, 388 and note; silent on money question, 390-1; at Rep. State con. , 1878, 391; at peace with Curtis, 391-2; work in campaign, 1878, 395; re-elected to Senate, 1879, 397; successors to Arthur and Cornell nominated, 1877, 399; dislike of President Hayes, 402-3; defeats Roosevelt and Merritt, 404-5; reconciliation with Blaine surmised, 405-6, 410; Arthur and Cornell suspended, 1878, 406; fails to defeat successors, 408-9; opposed adoption of hard-money platform, 407; resists repeal of election laws, 411-2; ch'm. Rep. State con. , 1879, 412; nominates Cornell for gov. , 1879, 414-18; his ticket elected, 427; supports Grant for third term, 428-30; controls Rep. State con. , 1880, 432; his speech, 433-4; at Rep. Nat. Con. , 1880, 438-46; leader of the Stalwarts, 438; remarkable receptions, 439; brilliant speech, 439-40; criticises Blaine, 440; the faithful, 306, 441; opposes Stalwarts accepting Vice-Presidency, 442-4; stoutly objects to Arthur taking it, 444; refuses to present his name, 444; hostility to Garfield, 461; avoids meeting him, 461; a veiled threat, 461; visits Garfield at Mentor, 1880, 461; avoids political topics, 461; congratulates Platt on election to Senate, 1881, 468; visits Mentor, 1881, 468; works in harmony with President, 468; Robertson appointed, Mar. 23, 469; a surprise, 469-70; reports and theories, 469-70; a Blaine triumph, 470-1; fails to defeat it, 473-6; last caucus attended, May 13, 476; resignation forwarded to Cornell, May 13, 476; reasons for it, 477-78; seeks a re-election at Albany, 478; Rep. Caucus refused, 479; first ballot gives highest vote, 479; successor elected, July 22, 482; defeats Cornell's renomination for gov. , 1882, 493; reasons for, 493. 

Connolly, Richard B. , known as "Slippery Dick, " iii. 177; suave and crafty, 177; Tweed's bookkeeper, 177; begins in 1857 as county clerk, 177; made city comp. , 1865, 177; his rake-off on bills, 178; exposure of, 1871, 246; startling crime of, 246; resigns, 247; escapes to Europe with plunder, 248; dies abroad, 248, note. 

Conover, Daniel D. , nominated for prison insp. , 1869, iii. 226; defeated, 227. 

Conservative Democrats, first called Hunkers, ii. 95. 

Conservatives, faction of the Dem. Party, ii. 52, 126; favoured using surplus for canals, 52, 126; leaders of, 53, 126; called Hunkers, 1845, 126; see Hunkers. 

Constitution, Federal, con. Called, i. 29; draft sent to legislatures, 32; riots in New York, 32; Clinton's opposition, 32; Hamilton on, 32; con. To ratify, 33; held at Poughkeepsie, 33; sacrifices of New York, 34; people's dislike of, 34; date of ratification, 35; vote on, 36; officially proclaimed, 36. 

Constitution, State, drafted by Jay, i. 8; in Jay's handwriting, 13; when and how reported, 13-15; approved by New England, 15; conservative, 15; not ratified by people, 15; amended, 1801, 115; new one adopted, 1821, 299-310; broadened suffrage, 299-302; popularised the judiciary, 302-6; elective officers, 307-10; changes made, 311; ratified, 311; new one adopted, 1846, ii. 103-13; known as People's Constitution, 113. 

Constitutional Amendments ratified, 1874, iii. 320, note. 

Constitutional convention, first one, i. 5-14; men composing it, 5; assembles at Kingston, 1777, 5; delegates elected by people, 5; recess, 6; reassembles, 6; Jay drafts constitution, 6; number of members, 13; leader of radicals, 13; hasty adjournment of, 14. 

 Second one, i. 115-6; assembles at Albany, 1801, 115; purpose of, 115; Burr its president, 115. 

 Third one, i. 298-311; assembles, 1821, 298; distinguished delegates, 298; Bucktail body, 298; Tompkins its president, 299; Van Buren its leader, 298; reforms demanded, 299-310; freehold suffrage, 299-302; compromise suffrage, 299-302; negro suffrage, 299-300; suffrage to elect state senators, 300-1; suffrage settled, 301; Van Buren, speech of, 302; sentiment against old judges, 302; bitter words, 303; Van Buren a peacemaker, 304; former judges finally abolished, 306; what con. Substituted, 305; justices of peace, 308-10; constitution ratified, 311; summary of changes made, 311. 

 Fourth one, ii. 103-13; assembles, 103; prominent delegates, 103-4; absence of Seward, 104-5; Greeley failed of election, 105; popular sovereignty in, 105-6; limited power of property, 107; rights of negro, 107; state indebtedness, 107-9; elective judiciary, 109-12; established Court of Appeals, 111; ratified, 113. 

Constitutional convention, 1867, iii. 184; negro suffrage, 185; recesses until after election, 185; result submitted by legislature of 1869, 227; unrestricted negro suffrage, 227; defeated, 227. 

Constitutional Union convention, The, 1863, iii. 79; its platform, 79, note. 

Constitutional Union party, organised, 1860, ii. 326; Bell and Everett, 326; platform of, 326; fuses with Softs, 326; scheme assailed, 327; composition of, iii. 37; opposes emancipation, 37; its con. , 1862, 37; nominated Seymour for gov. , 38. 

Cook, Bates, state comp. , ii. 36. 

Cook, James M. , nominated comp. Of state, ii. 188; ambitious to be gov. , 1858, 247; favours postponing Rep. Nat. Con. , 1864, iii. 88. 

Cooper, Edward, figures in cipher dispatches, iii. 351; asked for money by Pelton, 351; informs Tilden, 351; nominated for mayor of N. Y. , 393-4; elected, 397; strengthened by gov. 's appointments, 418. 

Cooper, Peter, candidate for President, 1876, iii. 389. 

Copeland, William, aids in exposure of Tweed ring, iii. 246. 

"Copperheads, " epithet first used, iii. 58, and note. 

Cornell, Alonzo B. , nom. For lt. -gov. , 1868, iii. 196; defeated, 215; evidences of fraud in election, 215-8; career and character, 251-2; head of Rep. State organisation, 251; efforts to crush Fenton-Greeley machine, 1871, 250-64; bold ruling, 259; defeated for nomination for gov. And lt. -gov. , 1876, 337-8; bitter feeling, 339; his successor as naval officer appointed, 1877, 399; confirmation defeated, 404-5; President suspends him, 1878, 406; reason for, 406; successor confirmed, 409; nominated for gov. , 1879, 416; alleged alliance with Kelly, 425; reasons for the story, 426; aided by Secretary Sherman, 427; Sherman's excuse, 427, note; elected, 427; ran behind the ticket, 427; did not attend Rep. Nat. Con. , 1880, 465; zenith of power, 465; relations to Stalwart leaders, 465; supports Platt for Senate, 1881, 465; asks Garfield to withdraw Robertson's appointment, 472; strained relations with Conkling, 478-9; refused to become cand. Against him, 479; adm. As gov. Approved by state con. , 1881, 485; cand. For renomination, 1882, 492; opposed by Arthur, Conkling, and Jay Gould, 493; coercion and fraud practiced, 493-4; his defeat, 494. 

Cornell, Oliver H. P. , nominated for eng. , 1874, iii. 325; defeated, 331. 

Corning, Erastus, at Charleston con. , ii. 272; at peace congress, 350. 

 Cand. For Senate, 1863, iii. 55; character of, 56; offices held, 56; opposes Vallandigham's arrest, 65; Lincoln's letter to, 66; opposes Tilden, 1876, 342; aspires to be gov. , 1882, 488; defeated, 489. 

Cornwall, George J. , nominated for lt. -gov. , 1850, ii. 154. 

Cotton Whigs, followers of Fillmore, ii. 165; favourable to South, 165. 

Council of Appointment, suggested by Adams, i. 8; how elected, 11; proposed by Jay, 11; account of, 11, note; bungling compromise, 12; a political machine, 61; Jay's interpretation of, 62; offices controlled by, 62; Clinton controls it, 107; modified, 1801, 115-6; reduced gov. To a figurehead, 119; abolished, 1821, 311. 

Council of Revision, created by first Constitution, i. 10; membership of, 10; failure to act, 10; model for, 10. 

Council of Safety, appointed by first constitutional con. , i. 16; orders election of gov. , 17. 

County Democracy, organisation of, iii. 483; delegates admitted to Dem. State con. , 1881, 484; ticket elected, 486; sagacity in Dem. State con. , 1882, 490; ostensibly for Campbell, 490; solid for Cleveland, 491; unites with Tam. On local ticket, 498; elects city and state officials, 498. 

Court of Appeals, established, 1846, ii. 111. 

Court of Errors and Impeachment, created by first Constitution, i. 12; composed of, 12; model for, 12. 

Court, Supreme, judges of, i. 12; members of Council of Revision, 10; how created, 12. 

Cox, Jacob D. , leaves Grant's cabinet, iii. 279-80; joins Lib. Reps. , 283; opposes Greeley, 283. 

Cox, Samuel S. , removes from Ohio to New York, iii. 288, note; elected to Congress, 288; criticised by Greeley, 288; attends Dem. Nat. Con. , 1872, 287; favours Greeley's nomination, 288. 

Crane, William C. , defeated for speaker, ii. 90; contest over constitutional con. , 97-9. 

Crary, John, nominated for lt. -gov. , 1828, i. 363; unfaithful, 363-4; defeated, 368. 

Crawford, William H. , favoured for President, 1816, i. 237; character of, 237. 

Crittenden Compromise, similar to Weed's, ii. 340; not new to Congress, 341; Greeley on, 341; Dix on, 341; Senate Committee of Thirteen, 341-2; Republicans opposed it, 342; its failure led to civil war, 342; Lincoln opposed, 344; majority of voters favour, 347; petitions for, 349. 

Crittenden, John J. , author of compromise, ii. 340; like Weed's, 340; Nestor of U. S. Senate, 340; weeps when Seward speaks, 378. 

Croker, Richard, attaché of Connolly's office, iii. 318; Kelly makes him marshal, 318. 

Croswell, Edwin, editor _Argus_, i. 294; lieutenant of Van Buren, 345; opens the way for Jackson, 357; gifts and career of, 374; ii. 56-7; met Weed in boyhood, i. 374; rival editors estranged, 375; seeks Weed's aid in trouble, 375; associates of, ii. 1; reappointed state printer, 56-7; ability and leadership, 58-9; after Van Buren's defeat, 74, 83; slippery-elm editor, 84; supports Seymour for speaker, 91; defeats Young, 92; election of U. S. Senators, 93; shrewd tactics, 94-5; part in Wright's defeat, 123; retires from active life, 134. 

Crowley, Richard, made U. S. Atty. , iii. 252, note; member of Conkling machine, 252; cand. For U. S. Senate, 1881, 465; Stalwart leaders divide, 465; fitness for position, 466; handicapped by his supporters, 466; defeated in caucus, 468. 

Crowley, Rodney R. , nominated for prison insp. , 1874, iii. 326; elected, 331. 

Curtis, Edward, elected to Congress, ii. 16. 

Curtis, George William, in campaign, 1856, ii. 240; early career of, 240; refined rhetoric, 240; on Kansas struggle, 241; at Chicago con. , 282; eloquence of, 282. 

 Reasons for Rep. Defeat, 1862, iii. 52; campaign of 1864, 121; aspires to U. S. Senate, 1867, 166; not an active cand. , 169; rejects a combination, 169; nominated for sec. Of state, 1869, 225; withdraws from ticket, 225; ch'm. Of Rep. State con. , 1870, 236; name presented for gov. , 1870, 238; defeated, 238; on civil service reform, 306; praises Tilden, 310; ch'm. Rep. State con. , 1875, 324; opposes Conkling for President, 1876, 332-3; also Cornell for gov. And lt. -gov. , 1876, 338; at Rep. State con. , 1877, 366; insists on Hayes' endorsement, 366; character and early career, 366; offered choice of foreign missions, 366; defence of President, 1877, 368; criticism of Conkling, 368-70; Curtis and Conkling contrasted, 370; Conkling's attack upon, 371-4; his opinion of, 376; at Rep. State con. , 1878, 391; at peace with Conkling, 391; votes against Cornell, 1879, 416; called a "scratcher, " 424; sharp retort, 425; answers Conkling's speech, 1880, 434; opposed uniting with Stalwarts, 1881, 467; stigmatises method of Folger's nomination for gov. , 1882, 495; resigns editorship of _Harper's Weekly_, 495, note; mistake disavowed by publishers, 495, note. 

Curtis, Newton M. , at Rep. State con. , 1880, iii. 434; views as to independence of delegates, 434; supports instructions of state con. , 434. 

Curtis, William E. , activity in reform, 1871, iii. 268; at Dem. State con. , 1871, 272. 

Cutting, Francis B. , attends Saratoga con. , 1866, iii. 144. 

Cuyler, Theodore L. , on Cornell's defeat for renomination, 1882, iii. 495. 

Danforth, George F. , nominated for atty. -gen. , 1874, iii. 325; defeated, 331; nominated for judge Court of Appeals, 1876, 339; defeated, 350; renominated, 1878, 392; elected, 397. 

Davenport, Ira, supports Rogers for U. S. Senate, 1881, iii. 466; nominated for state comp. , 1881, 485; elected, 486. 

Davis, David, Lincoln's manager at Chicago con. , ii. 288; on Vallandigham's arrest, iii. 66; favoured for President, 1872, iii. 282; defeated, 286; elected U. S. Senator, 1881, 356; fails to go upon Electoral Com. , 356; blow to the Dems. , 356. 

Davis, Jefferson, sharp controversy with Douglas, ii. 279-80; reasons for secession, 375-6; conditions on which he would accept peace, 1864, iii. 102-3. 

Davis, Matthew L. , urged for appointment by Burr, i. 121; literary executor of Burr, 145; leader of the Burrites, 152; bitter opponent of DeWitt Clinton, 181. 

Davis, Noah, cand. For U. S. Senate, 1867, iii. 166; character and ability, 166; Fenton not helpful, 171; defeated by Conkling, 171. 

Dawson, George, Albany _Journal_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 414. 

Dayton, Jonathan, member Council of Appointment, i. 231. 

Dayton, William L. , nominated for Vice-President, ii. 229. 

Dearborn, Henry, in command on Canadian border, i. 221; career and character of, 221; plan of campaign, 221; failure of, 222; offers to resign, 222; further failures, 223; retires, 223. 

De Lamatyr, Gilbert, nominated for prison inspector, 1867, iii. 174; defeated, 188. 

Delegate conventions, beginning of, i. 250; prototype of modern con. , 327, 331. 

Democratic national conventions, Chicago, 1864, iii. 107-9; New York City, 1868, 196-201; Baltimore, 1872, 287-90; St. Louis, 1876, 342; Cincinnati, 1880, 455-9. 

Democratic party, organised by Van Buren, i. 349, 350, 365; its first national con. , 391; opposes U. S. Bank, 393; triumph of, 396; sweeps state, 1834, 404. 

 Again in 1836, ii. 13-14; first defeat, 29; defeat, 1840, 45; recovers state, 1841, 47; divided into Radicals and Conservatives, 52, 126; leaders of, 53, 126; Radicals called Barnburners, 126; Conservatives called Hunkers, 126; Seymour unites two factions, 149; nominated Seymour for gov. , 1850, 156; defeated, 158; united, 1852, 169-78; carried state, 178; again splits into Hunkers and Barnburners, 180-5; factions called Hards and Softs, 185; defeated by split, 189; split continued by repeal of Missouri Compromise, 195; united again, 232; Wood captures state con. , 257; Hards yield to Softs, 258; indorses Buchanan and popular sovereignty, 258. 

Democratic peace convention, ii. 354-8; met at Albany, 354; Greeley on, 354; utterances of Seymour, Parker, Clinton, and others, 355-8. 

Democratic state conventions, 1861, Syracuse, iii. 16; 1862, Albany, 38; 1863, Albany, 79; 1864, Albany, 101, 117; 1865, Albany, 128; 1866, Albany, 155; 1867, Albany, 178; 1868, Albany, 205; 1869, Syracuse, 226; 1870, Rochester, 230; 1871, Rochester, 269; 1872, Syracuse, 296; 1873, Utica, 308; 1874, Syracuse, 313; 1875, Syracuse, 325-6; 1876, Saratoga, 345-6; 1877, Albany, 378-84; 1878, Syracuse, 392-3; 1879, Syracuse, 418-24; 1880, Syracuse, 449-50; also Saratoga, 460; 1881, Albany, 484-5; 1882, Syracuse, 487-91. 

Denio, Hiram, nominated for Court of Appeals, ii. 184; character of, 184; elected, 189. 

Dennison, Robert, report on canal, ii. 60-1. 

Depew, Chauncey M. , nominated for speaker of Assembly, 1863, iii. 53; withdrawn, 54; nominated for sec. Of state, 1863, 75; character of, 75; elected, 83; beaten for ch'm. Of Rep. State con. , 1864, 91; places Greeley in nomination for gov. , 1868, 195; at Rep. State con. , 1871, 258-9; president Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, 296; nominated for lt. -gov. , 297; defeated, 302; cand. For U. S. Senate, 1881, 466; at Blaine's request, 466, note; choice of majority of Half-breeds, 466; throws his votes to Platt, 468; Platt's promise, 468 and note; sees President about Robertson's appointment, 1881, 473; cand. For U. S. Senate in Platt's place, 479, 480; withdraws, 480; president Rep. State con. , 1881, 485. 

DeWitt, Simeon, surveys route for canal, i. 242; estimated cost, 242; long career as surveyor-general, 321. 

Dickinson, Andrew B. , career of, ii. 399, note; appointed by Seward, 399; reasons for, 400; criticised by Greeley, 401; gratitude to Seward, 401, note. 

Dickinson, Daniel S. , leading Conservative, ii. 53; ability of, 53; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1840, 54; defeated, 54; at Baltimore con. , 72; declined renomination for lt. -gov. , 78; elected to U. S. Senate, 93; approves compromise of 1850, 152; wishes to be President, 1852, 169-72; opposes Seymour's candidacy for gov. , 172-3; afterward supports him, 177; indorsed by Hunkers, 1853, 183; ambitious to be President, 1860, 256; called "Scripture Dick, " 257; character of, 257; yields to the Softs, 258; at Charleston con. , 276 and note, 278; attacks Richmond, 302-3; record as to slavery, 303-4 and note; hallucination, 304; speech at state con. Of Hards, 324-5; opposes fusion with Softs, 331. 

 Sympathy with the South, iii. 4; speech at Pine street meeting, 4; patriotic speech at Union Square meeting, 5; criticised by Southern press, 10; entertaining speaker, 22; nominated for atty. -gen. , 1861, 23; elected, 29; in campaign, 1862, 49; cand. For U. S. Senate, 1863, 54; delegate-at-large to Rep. Nat. Con. , 1864, 92; ambitious to be Vice-President, 94; opposed by Conservatives, 94; prefers another to Lincoln for President, 104 and note; falls into line, 122. 

Dillingham, William H. , classmate of Talcott, i. 290; on Talcott's eloquence, 290. 

Diven, Alexander S. , delegate to People's Union con. , 1861, iii. 22; colonel 107th N. Y. Regiment, 22. 

Dix, John A. , member of Albany Regency, i. 294. 

 Sec. Of state, ii. 1; early career of, 2; in war of 1812, 2; resigns from army, 2; gifts of, 2; writes for _Argus_, 2; his books, 3; where educated, 3; compared with Butler, 3; superintendent of schools, 4; elected to U. S. Senate, 93; a Barnburner, 132; nominated for gov. , 1848, 133, 139; regret of, 133, note; defeated, 144; Seward succeeds him in U. S. Senate, 145; supports Pierce, 1852, 177, 178, note; Pierce offers him secretaryship of state, 181, 352; substitutes it for mission to France, 182, 352; beaten by intrigue, 182, note; favoured Crittenden Compromise, 341; postmaster at New York City, 352; secretary of treasury, 352-3, note; historic despatch, 352; favoured peaceable secession, 353; resided at White House, 354. 

 Sympathy with the South, iii. 4; acts as agent of President, 7; commissioned major-general, 8; criticised by Southern press, 10; suggested for gov. , 1862, 37, 49; one vote for U. S. Senate, 1863, 56, note; suggested for gov. , 1864, 116; ch'm. Philadelphia con. , 1866, 144; defeated for nomination for gov. , 159; nominated for gov. , 1872, 293; tortuous political course, 294; Seymour's criticism, 295; Weed's confidence in, 295; renominated for gov. , 1874, 315; Seymour charges nepotism, 316; apathetic managers, 317; defeated, 319; nominated for mayor of New York, 1876, 346; defeated, 350. 

Dodge, William E. , at peace congress, ii. 350; delivers peace petition, 381. 

Dorn, Robert C. , nominated for canal com. , 1865, iii. 130; elected, 135. 

Dorsheimer, Philip, on Softs' con. , 1854, ii. 198. 

Dorsheimer, William, delegate to Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, iii. 296; nominated for lt. -gov. , 313; character and ability, 314; Tilden's spokesman at Dem. Nat. Con. , 1876, 342; cand. For gov. , 1876, 345; renominated for lt. -gov. , 346; cand. For U. S. Senate, 1879, 397; at Dem. State con. , 1879, 421; begs delegates to reject Robinson, 421; announces Tarn, will bolt, 422; ch'm. Of Kelly's con. , 1879, 424; nominates Kelly for gov. , 424; ch'm. Of Kelly's state con. , 1880, 451; named as del. -at-large to nat. Con. , 452; delegation rejected, 458. 

Douglas-Bell-Breckenridge fusion, ii. 331; aided by money, 331-2. 

Douglas, Stephen A. , denounces Kansas immigrants, ii. 224; Harriet Beecher Stowe on, 224; breaks with Buchanan, 246; Greeley favours him for U. S. Senator, 247; suggested by Republicans for President, 247; sharp controversy with Davis, 279-80; nominated for President, 301; fusion of, 331; defeated, 333; criticised by Southern press, iii. 10. 

Douglass, Frederick, nominated for sec. Of state, ii. 216; career and character of, 216; nominated to head Rep. Electoral ticket, 1872, iii. 296, note; elected, 302. 

Dowd, William, nominated for mayor of N. Y. , 1880, iii. 462; bitter contest, 462; supported by Irving Hall, 462; defeated, 463. 

Draper, Simeon, unavailable to stand for gov. , ii. 247; urges Lincoln's renomination, iii. 88; becomes collector of customs, 1864, 97; successor appointed, 1865, 131. 

Duane, James, in first constitutional con. , i. 5; in Poughkeepsie con. , 33; campaign of 1789, 42; character and career, 42; appointed U. S. Judge, 44. 

Dudley, Charles E. , member of Albany Regency, i. 294; in U. S. Senate, 383; character of, 383. 

Duer, William, in campaign, 1789, i. 42; career and character of, 42; in campaign, 1792, 54. 

Duer, William A. , son of William, i. 42, note

Duer, William A. , son of William A. , friend of President Fillmore, ii. 155. 

Dusenberre, George H. , nominated for gov. , 1875, iii. 326; defeated, 331. 

Earl, Robert, nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1869, iii. 226; elected, 227; renominated, 1876, 346; elected, 350. 

Editors, leading Democratic, 1865-80, iii. 420. 

Editors, leading Republican, 1880, iii. 413-4. 

Edson, Franklin, nominated for mayor of N. Y. , 1882, iii. 498; elected, 498. 

Election frauds, 1866, iii. 175; sudden increase in naturalization, 1866, 175; state carried by fraud, 1868, 215-8; practised in 1867, 187-8; in 1870, 242. 

Election of U. S. Senators, influence of money, iii. 221; Conkling's testimony, 170. 

Electoral Commission, iii. 352; preceded by civil war spirit, 351-2; rule insisted upon by two parties, 352; com. Made up, 353; bill passed by Dem. Votes, 355. 

Ellicott, Joseph, resigns as canal commissioner, i. 261. 

Elmendorff, Lucas, removed Clinton from mayoralty, i. 231. 

Ely, Alfred, in Congress, ii. 339, note; disapproves Weed's compromise, 339, note. 

Ely, Smith, nominated for mayor of N. Y. , 1876, iii. 346; elected, 350. 

Emancipation, opposition to, iii. 17, 18, 34, 37, 76. 

Embargo, ordered by Jefferson, i. 163; opposed by the Clintons, 165, 168, 171; by Van Vechten and Cady, 169; defended by German and Sanford, 170-1, 174; repeal of, 179. 

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, influence of attack on Fort Sumter, iii. 3. 

Emmet, Robert, son of Thomas Addis Emmet, i. 357; sent to Assembly 1827, 357; ch'm. Rep. Nat. Con. , 1856, ii. 232; on Seward, 232. 

Emmet, Thomas Addis, brother of Robert Emmet, i. 183; his coming to America, 183-4; attorney-general, 213; removed, 213; request in Clinton's behalf, 221; resents Clinton's removal as canal commissioner, 329. 

England, cause of trouble with America, i. 2. 

English, William H. , nominated for Vice President, 1880, iii. 457; defeated, 463. 

Equal Rights party, history of, ii. 16. 

Erie canal, early views and surveys of, i. 241-3; discouragements, 242; no help from Congress, 243; Tompkins does not favour, 246; opposed by Tammany, 251; supported by Van Buren, 251; bill passed, 251; sentiment in its favour, 252; work on, began, 252; its progress, 253; Tammany's opposition silenced, 261-2; opened between Utica and Rome, 327; Utica and Montezuma, 327; opening of in 1825, 345. 

 Seward on, ii. 34-5-6; cost of, 1862, 36; policy of enlargement, 49-50; Dems. Divided, 52; stop and tax law of 1842, 54; estimated and actual cost of, 60; Seymour's prophecy, 63-4; how affected by constitution of 1846, 107-9; nine million loan unconstitutional, 163; constitution amended, 183; loan of ten and one-half millions, 183-4; boast of Whigs, 188. 

 Disclosures of fraud, 1867, iii. 174, 182-4; aids defeats of Rep. Party, 182; Tilden's message against canal ring, 321; colossal frauds, 322; investigating com. Appointed, 323; prosecutions, 323. 

Evarts, William M. , at Chicago con. , 1861, ii. 283; presents Seward's name, 288; moved to make Lincoln's nomination unanimous, 289; witty remark to Curtis, 289; letter to Lincoln, 349, note; candidate for U. S. Senate, 361; career and gifts of, 361-2; work at Chicago, 362; contest for senator, 363-5; forces went to Harris, 363-5, note. 

 Acts as agent of the President, iii. 7; proposed for gov. , 1876, 336; in campaign of 1879, 425; criticised, 425. 

Evershed, Thomas, nominated for state eng. , 1881, iii. 484; defeated, 486. 

Fairchild, Charles S. , nominated for atty. -gen. , 1874, iii. 326; elected, 331; fine record, 380; opposed for renomination, 380; defeated, 384. 

Fairman, Charles G. , Elmira _Advertiser_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 414. 

Farrington, Thomas, defeated for atty. -gen. , ii. 92. 

Fay, John D. , nominated for canal com. , 1870, iii. 231; elected, 244. 

"Featherhead, " title applied to Half-breeds, iii. 482. 

Federalists, "high-minded, " who composed them, i. 273; oppose Clinton's re-election, 1820, 279; declared Federal party dissolved, 279. 

_Federalist_, The, written largely by Hamilton, i. 32; its influence, 32. 

Federalists, The, alarmed at delay of ratification of FederalConstitution, i. 35; reasons for, 35; organisation of party, 38; nominate Yates for gov. , 38; counted out, 56; anger of, 59-60; elect Jay gov. , 65; re-elect him, 82; lose New York, 1800, 91; indorse Burr for President, 101; refuse to read the Declaration of Independence, 176; support Clinton for President, 1812, 202-8; oppose war of 1812, 219-30; favour a New England confederacy, 227-8; support Clinton for gov. , 1817, 247, 252; get no appointments, 255; aid Clinton's choice for speaker, 258; King predicts party split, 259; controlled by Clinton, 267; sons of Hamilton and King declare party dissolved, 279-80. 

Fellows, Henry, dishonest treatment of, i. 256. 

Fellows, John R. , early career, iii. 459; eloquent speaker, 459; follower of Tilden, 459; at Dem. Nat. Con. , 1880, 459; part in spectacular reconciliation, 459. 

Fenton, Reuben E. , at birth of Rep. Party, ii. 211; career and character of, 212; re-elected to Congress, 242. 

 Character and appearance, iii. 115-6; record and service, 115-6; nominated for gov. , 1864, 117; conducts strong campaign, 125; elected, 125; renominated, 1866, 151; opposed by formidable combination, 165; Seward predicted his defeat, 166; elected, 165; acceptability of, 192; aspires to vice presidency, 1868, 192; defeated, 193; candidate for U. S. Senate, 1869, 220; strength and popularity, 220; charged with graft, 221; elected, 222; influence with Grant, 232; relations severed, 232; opposes Murphy's confirmation, 1870, 235; contest with Conkling, 234-5; renewed at Rep. State con. , 1870, 235; overconfident, 236; defeated, 236; inactive in campaign, 241; his organisation crushed, 1871, 250-63; its representatives secede from con. , 1871, 264; assemble as a separate body, 264; joins Lib. Rep. Movement, 283; first to appear at nat. Con. , 283; organises for Greeley's nomination, 283; attended Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, 296; on com. To confer with Dems. , 296; ready to support Church for gov. , 1874, 312. 

Field, David D. , a Barnburner, ii. 131; at Utica con. , 131; family of, 244; code of civil procedure, 244; candidate for U. S. Senate, 244; defeated, 244; delegate to peace congress, 350; on com. On res. , 358; opposed change in constitution, 359; controversy over, 359. 

 Support for U. S. Senate, 1863, iii. 55; prefers another candidate than Lincoln for President, 104. 

Field, Maunsell B. , Chase desires him for asst. U. S. Treas. , iii. 95; leads to Chase's resignation, 96. 

Fillmore, Millard, youth and career of, i. 371; a Weed lieutenant, 372; less faithful than Seward to Weed, 379. 

 Defeated for U. S. Senate, ii. 38; nominated for gov. , 1844, 79-80; compared with Wright, 80-1; confident of election, 88; defeated, 89; elected state comp. , 127; nominated for Vice President, 1848, 137-8; elected, 143; breaks with Weed, 148; becomes President, 151; approves the fugitive slave law, 151-2; opposes Seward's indorsement, 153; Fish on, 166; not nominated for President, 166-8; career after defeat, 168-9; nominated for President by Americans, 238; indorsed by old-line Whigs, 238; condemned Rep. Party, 238; defeated, 242; helped Buchanan's election, 242; criticised by Southern press, iii. 10. 

Financial crisis, cause of, 1837, ii. 16-20. 

Finch, Francis M. , nominated judge of Court of Appeals, 1881, iii. 485; elected, 486. 

Fish, Hamilton, nominated for lt. -gov. , 1846, ii. 118; defeated, 120; elected lt. -gov. , 1847, 128; nominated for gov. , 1848, 139; popularity of, 139; career of, 140; elected gov. , 144; elected U. S. Senator, 162; on Fillmore, 166; relations with Conkling, 243; not returned to U. S. Senate, 243; approves Weed's compromise, 338; attends Saratoga con. , 1866, iii. 144. 

Fish, Nicholas, nominated for lt. -gov. , i. 173; father of Hamilton Fish, 173; character of, 173; popularity of, 185; defeated for lt. -gov. , 185. 

Fitch, Charles E. , editor of Rochester _Democrat-Chronicle_, iii. 376; character as a writer, 376; deprecates Conkling's attack on Curtis, 376; Conkling's retort, 376; a leading Rep. Editor, 414. 

Flagg, Azariah, member of Albany Regency, i. 294; member of Assembly, 325; career and character of, 326; appearance, 326; opposes election of presidential electors, 326; insists on Yates' renomination, 326. 

 Comp. Of state, ii. 52; leader of Radicals, 58; against Seymour for speaker, 90; re-elected comp. , 92. 

Flower, Roswell P. , presented for gov. , 1882, iii. 488; early career, 488-9; supported by anti-Tilden leaders, 489; distrusted by Manning, 489; associated with Jay Gould, 489; contest with Slocum, 491; defeated, 496. 

Folger, Charles G. , character of, iii. 77; approves emancipation, 77; favours postponing Rep. Nat. Con. , 1864, 88; aspires to the U. S. Senate, 1867, 166; nominated for chief judge of Court of Appeals, 1880, 460; elected, 463; appointed sec. Of treas. , 1881, 486; nominated for gov. , 1882, 494; bad methods used, 495; not suspected of complicity, 496; advised to decline, 496; dissuaded by Stalwarts, 496; pathetic appeal, 497; pure and useful life crushed by defeat, 498. 

Foote, Ebenezer, resents methods of Council, i. 120-1; character of, 120; Ambrose Spencer on, 120. 

Ford, Elijah, nominated for lt. -gov. By the Hards, ii. 203; ran ahead of ticket, 203. 

Forrest, David P. , nominated for prison insp. , 1864, iii. 117; elected, 125. 

Fort Niagara, captured by British, i. 224; Morgan left in magazine of, 359. 

Fort, Daniel G. , nominated for state treas. , 1873, iii. 308; defeated, 309. 

Fort Sumter, relief of, iii. 1; bombardment, 2; surrender of, 3. 

Foster, Henry A. , character of, ii. 53; leading conservative, 59; president of State Senate, 59; formidable in debate, 63. 

Foster, John W. , opinion of Jay's treaty of 1795, i. 67. 

Foster, William Edward, Buffalo _Commercial_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 414. 

Fowler, Isaac V. , defalcation as postmaster, ii. 352, note. 

Fowler, John Walker, brother of Isaac V. , absconds with trust funds, ii. 352, note. 

France, threatens war, i. 81-2; preparations to resist by the United States, 83-4. 

Francis, John M. , Troy _Times_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 414. 

Franklin, Walter, father of DeWitt Clinton's wife, i. 183. 

Free-soil Movement, principles proclaimed, ii. 127; see Barnburners. 

Fremont, John C. , nominated for President, ii. 228-9; defeated, 241; nominated for President at Cleveland con. , 1864, iii. 92; withdraws, 120. 

French, Stephen B. , a friend of Arthur, iii. 493; efforts to defeat Cornell's renomination, 493; obtains proxy by unmoral methods, 493, note; principal cause of Folger's defeat, 498. 

Fry, James B. , account of New York draft-riot, iii. 69; influence of Seymour, 69; dilatoriness of Seymour, 70; draft completed, 71. 

Frye, William P. , U. S. Senator from Maine, iii. 471; on Robertson's appointment, 471; on Conkling's resignation, 478, note. 

Fuller, Philo C. , career and character of, i. 371; a Weed lieutenant, 371; clerk in Wadsworth's office, 371. 

Fulton, Robert, history of steam navigation, i. 74-7; associated with R. R. Livingston, 77. 

Furman, Gabriel, nominated for lt. -gov. , 1842, ii. 52; character of, 52; defeated, 55. 

Fusion ticket, 1860, ii. 331-2; money given for it, 332-3. 

Gallagher, Frank B. , nominated for prison insp. , 1866, iii. 159; defeated, 165. 

Ganson, John, delegate to Dem. Nat. Con. , 1864, iii. 108. 

Gardiner, Addison, nominated for lt. -gov. , ii. 78; career and character of, 78, 233; Weed's friendship for, 78; elected, 89; renominated for lt. -gov. , 116; elected, 120; on Court of Appeals, 128; gave way to Parker for gov. , 233-4. 

Garfield, James A. , nominated for President, 1880, iii. 441; ignored by Nast, 461; brands "Morey letter" a forgery, 462; elected, 463; invites Conkling to Mentor, 1881, 468; nominates five Stalwarts, 469; also Robertson for collector, Mar. 23, 469; reports and theories, 469-71; efforts to defeat it, 473-6; resignation of Conkling and Platt, May 13, 476; assassin's act, July 2, 480; death deplored, 485. 

Garrison, Cornelius K. , delegate to seceding states, ii. 351-2. 

Garrison, William Lloyd, meets Lundy, ii. 5; early career of, 5-10. 

Gates, Theodore B. , nominated for state treas. , 1867, iii. 174; defeated, 188. 

German, Obadiah, leader of Assembly, i. 149; charges Purdy with bribery, 149, 190; gifts and character of, 170; defends embargo, 170, 174; career of, 170; in U. S. Senate, 170; supports Clinton for President, 202; becomes speaker, 258-9; resents attacks on Clinton, 266; manner of speaking, 266. 

Gerrymander of legislature, iii. 397-8. 

Gettysburg, battle of, iii. 66; Seymour sends troops, 66. 

Godkin, E. L. , a vice president of Lib. Rep. Meeting, iii. 282; opposes Greeley's nomination and supports Grant, 286. 

Godwin, Parke, presents platform to Rep. State con. , 1862, iii. 45; preferred Lincoln's withdrawal, 1864, 104; a vice president at Lib. Rep. Meeting, 1872, 282; opposes Greeley's nomination, 286; supports Grant, 286. 

Goodsell, J. Platt, nominated for State eng. , 1865, iii. 130; elected, 135. 

Gould, Jay, bondsman for Tweed, iii. 247; aids in Cornell's defeat, 1882, 493. 

Governor, candidates for, George Clinton, 1777, i. 21; 1780, 1783, 1786, 37; 1789, 44; 1792, 50; 1801, 115; Robert Yates, 1789, 38; 1795, 64; John Jay, 1792, 50; 1795, 64; 1798, 82; Stephen Van Rensselaer, 1801, 115; Aaron Burr, 1804, 131; Morgan Lewis, 1804, 136; 1807, 161; Daniel D. Tompkins, 1807, 155; 1810, 173; 1813, 223; 1816, 236; 1820, 274; Jonas Platt, 1810, 173; Stephen Van Rensselaer, 1813, 213; Rufus King, 1816, 236; DeWitt Clinton, 1817, 250; 1820, 279; 1824, 330; 1826, 350; Peter B. Porter, 1817, 251; Joseph G. Yates, 1822, 312; Solomon Southwick, 1822, 316; 1828, 364; Samuel Young 1824, 327; William B. Rochester, 1826, 350; Martin Van Buren, 1828, 364; Smith Thompson, 1828, 362; Enos T. Throop, 1830, 376; Francis Granger, 1830, 376; 1832, 393; William L. Marcy, 1832, 394; 1834, 403. 

 William L. Marcy, 1836, ii. 11; 1838, 22; William H. Seward, 1834, i. 402; 1838, ii. 19; 1840, 42; Jesse Buel, 1836, 12; William C. Bouck, 1840, 54; 1842, 54; Luther Bradish, 1842, 51; Silas Wright, 1844, 78; 1846, 115; Millard Fillmore, 1844, 79; Alvan Stewart, 1844, 82; John Young, 1846, 118; Hamilton Fish, 1848, 139; John A. Dix, 1848, 133; Reuben H. Walworth, 1848, 134; William L. Chaplin, 1850, 156; Horatio Seymour, 1850, 156; 1852, 172; 1854, 197; Washington Hunt, 1850, 154; 1852, 173; Myron H. Clark, 1854, 199; Greene C. Bronson, 1854, 196; Daniel Ullman, 1854, 202; Amasa J. Parker, 1856, 232; 1858, 249; Erastus Brooks, 1856, 238; John A. King, 1856, 236; Edwin D. Morgan, 1858, 248; 1860, 328; Lorenzo Burrows, 1858, 249; William Kelley, 1860, 326; James T. Brady, 1860, 325. 

 Horatio Seymour, Dem. , 1862, iii. 38; James S. Wadsworth, Rep. , 1862, 45; Horatio Seymour, Dem. , 1864, 117; Reuben E. Fenton, Rep. , 1864, 116; Reuben E. Fenton, Rep. , 1866, 150; John T. Hoffman, Dem. , 1866, 159; John T. Hoffman, Dem. , 1868, 206; John A. Griswold, Rep. , 1868, 195; John T. Hoffman, Dem. , 1870, 230; Stewart L. Woodford, Rep. , 1870, 238; John A. Dix, Rep. , 1872, 293; Francis Kernan, Dem. , 1872, 297; Samuel J. Tilden, Dem. , 1874, 313; John A. Dix, Rep. , 1874, 315; Myron H. Clark, Pro. , 1874, 316; Lucius Robinson, Dem. , 1876, 346; Edwin D. Morgan, Rep. , 1876, 338; Richard M. Griffin, Greenback, 1876, 346; Albert J. Groo, Pro. , 1876, 346; Harris Lewis, Nat. , 1879, 412; John W. Mears, Pro. , 1879, 412; Alonzo B. Cornell, Rep. , 1879, 416; Lucius Robinson, Dem. , 1879, 424; John Kelly, Tam. , 1879, 424; Grover Cleveland, Dem. , 1882, 491; Charles J. Folger, Rep. , 1882, 494. 

Governor, stepping stone to President, i. 80; compared with United States senator, 364. 

Governor, powers under Constitution of 1777, i. 10. 

Governors, names and service of, George Clinton, 1777-95, i. 21, 37, 44; John Jay, 1795-1801, 64, 82; George Clinton, 1801-4, 60, 115; Morgan Lewis, 1804-7, 136, 161; Daniel D. Tompkins, 1807-17, 155, 173, 223, 236; DeWitt Clinton, 1817-23, 250, 279; Joseph G. Yates, 1823-5, 312; DeWitt Clinton, 1825-8, 330-350; Nathaniel Pitcher (acting), 1828-9, 366; Martin Van Buren, 1829, 364; Enos T. Throop, 1829-33, 366, 376; William L. Marcy, 1833-9, 394, 403. 

 William L. Marcy, ii. 11; William H. Seward, 1839-43, 19, 42; William C. Bouck, 1843-5, 54; Silas Wright, 1845-7, 78; John Young, 1847-9, 118; Hamilton Fish, 1849-51, 139; Washington Hunt, 1851-3, 154; Horatio Seymour, 1853-5, 172; Myron H. Clark, 1855-7, 199; John A. King, 1857-9, 236; Edwin D. Morgan, 1859-63, 248, 328. 

 Horatio Seymour, 1863-5, iii. 38; Reuben E. Fenton, 1865-9, 116, 151; John T. Hoffman, 1869-1873, 205-7, 230-1; John A. Dix, 1873-5, 293; Samuel J. Tilden, 1875-7, 313; Lucius Robinson, 1877-9, 345-6; Alonzo B. Cornell, 1880-3, 412-8; Grover Cleveland, 1883-5, 488-91. 

Grace, William Russell, character of, iii. 460; nominated for mayor of N. Y. , 461; elected, 463. 

Graham, Theodore V. W. , removed as recorder, i. 179. 

Granger, Francis, nominated for Assembly, i. 358; Weed on, 361; Seward on, 361, note; career of, 361; opponent of John C. Spencer, 361; dress, appearance, and manners of, 361, and note; defeated for nomination for gov. , 368; nominated lt. -gov. , 368; defeated, 368; nominated for gov. By Anti-Masons, 1830, 376; indorsed by Nat. Reps. , 376; a great mistake, 377; defeated, 377; nominated for gov. , 1832, 393; reason for defeat, 396; elected to Congress, 1834, 402, 404; Seward on, 404. 

 Defeated for nomination for gov. , 1838, ii. 19-21; continued in Congress, 47; postmaster-general, 154; left Congress, 1843, 154; in Utica con. , 153; ally of Fillmore, 154; leads Silver-Grays' secession, 155; delegate to peace congress, 350; friendship with Weed renewed, 350. 

Granger, Gideon, member of Madison cabinet, i. 202; supports DeWitt Clinton for President, 202; character and career of, 202; father of Francis, 360. 

Grant, Ulysses S. , favoured for President, 1864, iii. 93; gives no encouragement, 93; favours Lincoln's election, 120; reports upon Southern sentiment, 1865, 136; unpopularity with radical Reps. , 190; quarrels with Johnson, 191; taken up by Reps. , 191; endorsed by Rep. State con. 1868, 191; nominated for President, 192; elected, 215; fails to carry New York, 215; evidences of fraud in election, 215-8; adm. Criticised, 276-81; renominated, 1872, 292; elected, 302; severely criticised, 317; talk of a third term, 1874, 317; his letter ends it, 1875, 329; renewed on his return from abroad, 428; an active candidate, 428; gets fifty votes from N. Y. , 441; defeated, 442; the faithful, 306, 442. 

Graves, Ezra, nominated for prison insp. , 1872, iii. 296; elected, 302; renominated, 1874, 315; defeated, 319. 

Gray, David, Buffalo _Courier_, a leading Dem. Editor, iii. 420. 

Greeley, Horace, edits the _Jeffersonian_, ii. 26; early career of, 26; came to N. Y. , 1821, 26; political conditions, 27; first meeting with Weed, 28; gifts of, 29; relations with Weed, 32; failed of election to constitutional con. , 1846, 105; chafes under Weed's control, 116; elected to Congress, 1848, 138; assails Castle Garden meeting, 157; at Anti-Nebraska con. , 194; wants to be gov. , 198; appeals to Weed, 198, note; offended at Raymond's nomination, 199, 200; favoured a Rep. Party, 1854, 200; at birth of Rep. Party, 1855, 213; active in 1856, 240; favours Douglas for U. S. Senator, 247; dislike of Seward, 247; at Chicago con. , 286; Seward and Weed think him faithful, 284, note, 286, note; for Bates for President, 287; jubilant over Seward's defeat, 289-90; reply to Raymond, 308-9; demands his letter of 1854, 310; publishes it, 311-17; character of campaign, 1860, 332; peaceable secession, 335-6; "no compromise" theory, 343; defeated for U. S. Senate, 363-5, note; reasons for, 365, note; _Tribune_ on, 366; persistent office-seeker, 366; charges Seward with favouring Weed's compromise, 380, 382; criticised Seward's appointments, 399; as to Dickinson, 398, 401; relations with Lincoln not cordial, 402-3. 

 On Scott's insincerity, iii. 11, note; heads radical anti-slavery sentiment, 14; prayer of twenty millions, 35; his force, 36; contest with Bennett, 36; favours Wadsworth, 44; ambition for U. S. Senate, 1863, 54; tries to defeat Morgan, 56; Seymour's complicity in draft-riot, 69; at Rep. State con. , 1863, 75; qualities as a party leader, 75, note; susceptible to flattery, 75, note; favours postponing Rep. Nat. Con. , 1864, 89; preferred Chase, Fremont, or Grant to Lincoln, 89; failure of his leadership, 91, note; yearns for peace, 1864, 102; visits Confederates at Niagara Falls, 102; authority from Lincoln, 102; encourages substitution of another candidate for Lincoln, 104; nominated for elector-at-large, 117; elected, 125; yields to an offer of office, 126; favours negro suffrage, 128; lion of Rep. State con. , 1866, 150; aspires to U. S. Senate, 1867, 166; wants to be gov. , 1868, 193; way seems to be open, 194; great applause when presented, 195; received small vote, 195; reasons for it, 196; named for state comp. , 1869, 226; defeated, 227; wants to be gov. , 1870, 237; opposed as in 1868, 237; reasons for defeat, 238; laments removal of Fenton men, 250; resents efforts to crush his machine, 1871, 251-6; attacks Conkling, 257; replies to Conkling's con. Speech, 263-4; his organisation defeated, 263; reasons for joining Lib. Reps. , 281-2; suggested for President, 1872, 283; opposition to, 283; writes platform of party, 284; nominated, 285; endorsed by Dems. , 289; defeated, 302; pathetic ending of his life, 303; buried like a conqueror, 304. 

Green, Andrew H. , appointed deputy city comp. , iii. 247; estimate of Tweed Ring's plunder, 248. 

Green, Beriah, early abolitionist, ii. 7. 

Green, George C. , del. To Kelly's state con. , 1880, and named asdel. -at-large to Dem. Nat. Con. , iii. 452; refused admission, 457; part in spectacular reconciliation, 458. 

Greenback Party, organization of, 1876, iii. 346; meet at Syracuse, 346; second con. , 1876, 346; con. Of, 1877, 384; smallness of its vote, 389; united with labor reform party, 389; issues call for a Nat. Con. , 389; see Nat. Green. -Lab. Reform party. 

Greenback Labour party, state con. , Albany, 1882, iii. 487. 

Griffin, Richard M. , nominated for gov. , 1876, iii. 346; defeated, 350. 

Grinnell, Moses H. , at Anti-Nebraska con. , ii. 194; declined nomination for gov. , 1856, 234; career and character of, 234-5; approves Weed's compromise, 338. 

 Acts as agent of the President, iii. 7; urges Lincoln's renomination, 88; secedes from Rep. State con. , 1871, 264; meets with a separate body, 264. 

Griswold, John A. , elected to Congress, iii. 125; character and services of, 125; changes his party, 126; nominated for gov. , 1868, 193; defeated, 215; evidences of fraud in election, 215-8; declines to oppose Morgan for U. S. Senate, 220. 

Groesbeck, William S. , candidate in opposition to Greeley, 1872, iii. 289. 

Groo, Albert J. , nominated for gov. , 1876, iii. 346; defeated, 350. 

Gross, Ezra C. , gifts of, i. 358; eloquence of, 358; death of, 358. 

Grover, Martin, nominated for judge court of Appeals, 1865, iii. 129; defeated, 135; renominated, 1867, 179; elected, 187. 

Gumbleton, Henry A. , clerk of N. Y. County, iii. 418; removed from office, 418. 

Habeas corpus, suspension of, iii. 16, 24, 27, 58. 

Hagner, Henry, nominated for sec. Of state, 1877, iii. 384; defeated, 387. 

Haight, Jacob, treas. Of state, ii. 36. 

Hale, Daniel, removed as sec. Of state, i. 179. 

Hale, Matthew, bitterly opposed third-term, iii. 429. 

"Half-breeds, " title of faction in Rep. Party, 1880, iii. 437. 

Hall, A. Oakey, known as "elegant Oakey, " iii. 177; "without ballast, " 177; good speaker, 177; versifier, 177; tortuous political career, 177; succeeds Hoffman as mayor, 177; tried and not convicted, 247, note; served his term as mayor, 247. 

Hall, Willis, atty. -gen. , ii. 36; character of, 37. 

Halleck, Fitz-Greene, Tam. Song, i. 182. 

Hamilton, early life of, i. 3; speech at age of seventeen, 3; compared with William Pitt, 3; association with Washington, 25; at Yorktown, 26; Washington on, 26; admitted to the bar, 26; defends Tories, 26; opposes Clinton, 26; collection of duties by Congress, 27-8; at Annapolis, 29; revision of Articles of Confederation, 29; reasons for Clinton's opposition, 29; del. To amend Articles, 29; his plan, 31; supports Madison's plan, 31; signs Federal Constitution, 31; Clinton reproves him, 31; ratification of Constitution, 31; eloquence and influence of, 31-6; fear of disunion, 35; hears from Virginia and New Hampshire, 35; criticism of Clinton, 36; on Robert Yates for gov. , 38-40; failure of coalition, 44; control of Federal patronage, 44; sec. Of the treasury, 44; first meeting with Burr, 45; opinion of Washington, 46; legend as to Burr and, 46; opposed by R. R. Livingston, 48; reasons for it, 48; defeat of Schuyler, 49; Jay's nomination for gov. , 50; assumption of state debts, 53; Jay's renomination for gov. , 65; Jay's treaty with England, 65-6; assaulted by a mob, 65; election of Apr. , 1800, 90; Alien-Sedition laws, 90; meets Burr at the polls, 91; courtesy of, 91; style of oratory, 91; Root's opinion of, 91; party defeated, 91; election of presidential electors, 92; breaks with Adams, 94; reason for, 94; ugly letter opposing Adams, 96; prefers Jefferson to Adams, 96; great mistake, 97; urges Federalists to oppose Burr, 99-101; hoped DeWitt Clinton would become a Federalist, 108; earnings as a lawyer, 132; Spencer's estimate of, 132; Root's estimate of, 132; argues Croswell case, 132; Kent's opinion of, 132-3; prefers Lansing to Burr, 133-5; Burr, a leader of secession, 134; disapproves disunion, 134; Lansing's withdrawal, 136; Burr's challenge, 139-40; an imperious custom, 140-1; his defence for fighting, 141; duel and death, 142-3; profound sorrow, 143; his career had he lived, 143; charters United States Bank, 186. 

Hammond, John, nominated for prison insp. , 1866, iii. 152; elected, 165. 

Hammond, John M. , nominated for canal com. , 1867, iii. 174; defeated, 188. 

Hampton, Wade, in command at Plattsburgh, i. 224; character and fitness of, 224; failure of, 224; resigns, 224. 

Hancock, Winfield S. , aspires to be President, iii. 197; his training, 197; nominated for President, 1880, 457; defeated, 463. 

Hards, name of Dem. Faction, ii. 185; successors to the Hunkers, 185; why so called, 185; ticket defeated, 1853, 189; repeal of the Missouri Compromise, 195; nominate Bronson for gov. , 196; defeated, 203; refused to rejoin Softs, 209; stand with South, 210; welcomed at Nat. Con. , 226-8; unite with Softs, 232; hold a separate state con. , 324; Brady nominated for gov. , 325; defeated, 333. 

Hard times of 1837, cause and result of, ii. 16-20; Van Buren's statesmanship, 41. 

Harris, Ira, career and character of, ii. 117, 390; on Supreme Court, 117; in Assembly, 117; in constitutional con. , 1846, 117; supported Young for gov. , 118; elected U. S. Senator, 365; appearance and ability of, 390; associates of, 390; with Sumner and Collamer, 390; question of patronage, 390, 396. 

 Sustains Seward, iii. 84; seeks re-election to U. S. Senate, 1867, 166; wise and safe legislator, 166; Lincoln's joke, 166; defeated by Conkling, 171; resents removal of Sumner, 278. 

Harrison, Richard, member of Poughkeepsie con. , i. 33; U. S. Atty. , 44; ability of, 44. 

Harrison, William Henry, candidate of northern Whigs, 1836, ii. 11; nominated for President, 1840, 40; elected, 45. 

Hart, Ephraim, friend of DeWitt Clinton, i. 261; defeated for canal com. , 261. 

Harvard University, Rufus King a graduate of, i. 270. 

Haskin, John B. , in Congress, ii. 339, note; disapproves Weed's compromise, 339, note; del. To Kelly's state con. , 1880, iii. 451; proposes plank on Tilden, 452. 

Hatch, Roswell D. , member of Com. Of Seventy, iii. 268; activity in reform, 1871, 268. 

Havermeyer, Henry, dispatches to, sent by Marble, 1876, iii. 350. 

Havermeyer, William F. , served two terms as mayor, iii. 299; character of, 299; renominated, 1872, 299; elected, 302; death, 314; a good record, 318. 

Hawley, Gideon, state supt. Of schools, i. 288; record of, 288; dismissal of, 288. 

Hayes, Rutherford B. , nominated for President, 1876, iii. 334; letter of acceptance, 344; declared elected, 350; efforts to reform civil service, 360; opposition, 361; advocates hard money, 391; nominates successors to Arthur and Cornell, 1877, 399; reasons for, 399, 402; Conkling's criticism of, 402-3; appointees defeated, 404-5; suspends Arthur and Cornell, 1878, 406; reason for, 406; their successors confirmed, 409. 

Headley, Joel T. , career and character of, ii. 215; writer of biography, 215; nominated for sec. Of state, 215; elected, 218. 

Heenan, John C. , "the Benicia Boy, " ii. 257; backs Wood in his capture of state con. , 257. 

Henry, John V. , removed from comptrollership, i. 117; resents methods of Council, 119; character of, 119. 

Hepburn, A. Barton, nominated for congressman-at-large, 1882, iii. 494; declined to accept, 495. 

Hewitt, Abram S. , ch'm. Dem. Nat. Con. , 1876, iii. 349; management of, 349; informs Tilden of Electoral Com. , 354; relied upon Davis being fifth judge, 356; uses "Morey letter, " 1880, with great force, 462; an organiser of the County Democracy, 484. 

Higgins, Frank W. , promoted from lt. -gov. To gov. , i. 180. 

Hildreth, Matthias B. , appointed atty. -gen. , i. 179; death of, 213. 

Hill, David B. , promoted from lt. -gov. To gov. , i. 180; ch'm. State con. , 1877, iii. 380; early career, 381; character and ability, 381; aids Tilden, 381; hesitates to rule against Kelly, 382; in con. , 1879, 420; elected lt. -gov. , 1882, 498. 

Hill, Nicholas, ability of, ii. 390. 

Hillhouse, Thomas, nominated for state comp. , 1865, iii. 130; elected, 135; renominated, 1867, 187; defeated, 187; renominated, 1869, 225; withdraws from ticket, 225. 

Hiscock, Frank, attended Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, iii. 296; on com. To confer with Dems. , 296; suggested for gov. , 1879, 414; early career and character, 415. 

Hitchman, William, elected speaker of Assembly, 1869, iii. 224; controlled by Tweed, 224; re-elected, 1870, 228. 

Hoadley, George, joins Lib. Rep. Movement, iii. 283; opposes Greeley's nomination, 283. 

Hobart, John Sloss, member first constitutional con. , i. 5; judge Supreme Court, 16; at Hartford con. , 28; member Poughkeepsie con. , 33; retired from Supreme Court, 68; elected to U. S. Senate, 70. 

Hoffman, James O. , recorder of N. Y. , i. 179. 

Hoffman, John T. , life and character of, iii. 156, 157, 164; offices held, 157, 177; nominated for gov. , 1866, 159; active in campaign, 164; makes good impression, 164; loyalty impeached, 164; defeated, 165; ch'm. Dem. State con. , 1867, 179; favours U. S. Bonds paid in gold, 180; receives complimentary votes for President, 1868, 198; nominated for gov. , 1868, 205; Nast's cartoons, 210; proclamation as mayor, 1868, 214; elected, 215; evidence of fraud, 215-8; approves Tweed charter, 229; also Erie railroad legislation, 230; appoints Tweed judges to general term, 230; criticised severely, 230; renominated, 1870, 231; Nast's cartoon on repeaters, 242; attacks resented, 243; elected, 244; del. -at-large to Dem. Nat. Con. , 1872, 287; declines to be candidate for gov. , 1872, 297; con. Approves his administration, 298; in retirement, 299; death, 299. 

Hoffman, Josiah Ogden, leads Federalists, i. 61; removed as atty. -gen. , 117. 

Hoffman, Michael, leading Radical, ii. 52; career and character of, 52-3; defeated for speaker, 59; power in debate, 63; constitutional con. , 1846, 97-9; in constitutional con. , 103; state indebtedness, 107-9; Weed on, 108. 

Hoffman, Ogden, son of Josiah Ogden Hoffman, i. 357; eloquence of, 357; sent to Assembly, 358; criminal lawyer, 358; nominated for atty. -gen. , ii. 187; gifts of, 188; Greeley on, 188. 

Holley, Orville L. , surveyor-general, ii. 18, 36. 

Hopkins, Nelson K. , nominated for state comp. , 1871, iii. 264; elected, 275; renominated, 1873, 308; endorsed by Liberals, 309; elected, 309. 

Hoskins, George G. , nominated for lt. -gov. , 1879, iii. 416; elected, 427. 

Howe, Epenetus, nominated for gov. , 1882, iii. 487; defeated, 498. 

Howland, Joseph, nominated for state treas. , 1865, iii. 130; elected, 135. 

Hoyt, Stephen T. , nominated for canal com. , 1866, iii. 152; elected, 165; renominated, 1869, 226; defeated, 227. 

Hubbard, Ruggles, member of Council, i. 231; attachment for Clinton, 234; character of, 235. 

Hudson River Valley, attracts New Englanders, i. 81. 

Hughes, Charles, nominated for clerk of Court of Appeals, 1862, iii. 45, note; defeated, 51. 

Hulburd, Calvin T. , nominated for state comp. , 1867, iii. 174; defeated, 188. 

Humphrey, James, congressman, ii. 338, note; attacks Weed's compromise, 338, note. 

Hunkers, Democratic faction so called, ii. 126; leaders of, 126-7; Barnburners secede from, 127; lose the state, 1847, 127; 1848, 143; Seymour unites them with Barnburners, 149; nominate Seymour for gov. , 1850, 156; defeated, 158; support Dickinson for President, 1852, 169-72; support Pierce and Seymour, 1852, 169-78; secede from Barnburners, 1853, 180-5; nominate separate ticket, 183; approve canal constitutional amendment, 183; called Hardshells or Hards, 185; see Hards. 

Hunt, Alvah, elected state treas. , ii. 127-8. 

Hunt, Ward, candidate for U. S. Senate, ii. 244; brilliant career of, 244. 

 Supported for U. S. Senate, 1863, iii. 55; character of, 73; speech at Rep. State con. , 1863, 73; nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1865, 130; elected, 135. 

Hunt, Washington, on Clay's Alabama letter, ii. 88; elected state comp. , 150; nominated for gov. , 1850, 154; endorsed by Silver-Grays, 156; elected, 158; calls extra session of legislature, 163; renominated for gov. , 173; inclined to Fillmore, 173; defeated, 178; favours union of Rep. And American parties, 249; president of Constitutional Union party, 326; fuses party with Softs, 326; criticised by Greeley, 326-7; impaired value of fusion, 327; declares intention, 327. 

 Manager, of Cons. Union con. , 1863, iii. 79, note; del. To Dem. Nat. Con. , 1864, 110; demands armistice and con. Of states, 110; candidate for elector-at-large, 1864, 120; defeated, 125. 

Huntington, George, nominated for lt. -gov. , i. 213. 

Husted, James W. , character and ability, iii. 258; choice of his party for speaker of Assembly, 258; nominated for state treas. , 1881, 485; defeated, 486. 

Hutchins, Waldo M. , visits Lincoln for Greeley, iii. 126, note; head of Fenton machine, 220; at Rep. State con. , 1871, 259; joins Lib. Rep. Party, 283; organises Nat. Con. For Greeley's nomination, 283; attended Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, 296; on com. To confer with Dems. , 296; name presented for gov. , 1882, 488, note. 

Hyer, Tom, noted pugilist, ii. 281; at Chicago con. For Seward, 281; leads street parade, 281; fails to get into Wigwam, 288. 

Independence, not thought of, 1774, i. 2. 

"Infected district, " of anti-Masonry, western half of state, i. 360. 

Ingersoll, Charles Jared, statement of, after war of 1812, i. 230; on annexation of Texas, ii. 67. 

Irving Hall Democracy, organised by Morrissey, 1874, iii. 331; its ticket elected, 1875, 331; dels. Yield to Tam. , 1879, 421; seated after Kelly's bolt, 423; fooled by Tam. In candidate for mayor, 1880, 460-1; unites with Tam. And County Democracy, 1882, 498; local ticket elected, 499. 

Irving, Peter, publisher of N. Y. _Chronicle_, i. 123; supports Burr, 123, 152. 

Ives, Benoni J. , nominated for prison insp. , 1874, iii. 325; defeated, 331. 

Jackson, Andrew, battle of New Orleans, i. 229; favoured by Clinton for President, 334-6; eulogises Clinton, 336; likeness to Clinton, 336; Van Buren joins Clinton in support of, 346; popularity of, 358; a Free Mason, 361; offer to United States Bank, 1832, 393; refused by Clay and Webster, 393; vetoed its charter, 393; the issue, 1832, 393; elected, 368; makes Van Buren sec. Of state, 383; appoints Van Buren to England, 387; compels Van Buren's nomination for Vice President, 391. 

 Compels Van Buren's nomination for President, ii. 4, 5; confidence in Van Buren, 1844, 69. 

Jackson, James, nominated for canal com. , 1873, iii. 308; elected, 309. 

Jacobs, John C. , senator from Kings county, iii. 421; ch'm. Dem. Con. , 1879, 421; named for gov. , 422; declines, 422; candidate for U. S. Senate, 1881, 482; withdraws, 482. 

James, Amaziah B. , at peace congress, ii. 350; patriotism of, 359. 

James, Thomas L. , appointed postmaster-general, 1881, iii. 468; confirmed, 468; tries to compromise Robertson's appointment, 472. 

Jay, John, in first constitutional con. , i. 5; appointed to draft a state constitution, 6; age, 6; family of, 6; marriage of, 6; Committee of Fifty-one, 6; del. To first Continental Congress, 7; author of famous papers, 7; Jefferson on, 7; drafts constitution, 7; proposed Council of Appointment, 12; account of, 11, note; abolition of slavery, 14; withdraws from con. , 14; chief justice of State Supreme Court, 16; suggested for gov. , 17; proposed Schuyler and Clinton for gov. And lt. -gov. , 20; extreme modesty of, 20; defeated for del. To constitutional con. Of 1787, 30; member of Poughkeepsie con. , 33; mentioned for gov. , 37; chief justice U. S. Supreme Court, 44; nominated for gov. , 1792, 50; previous refusals, 51; career and character of, 51; buzz of presidential bee, 51; denounced as an aristocrat, 53; campaign abuse, 53-4; opposed by the Livingstons, 55; counted out, 56; anger of Federalists, 59-60; dignified conduct, 60; renominated for gov. , 64; elected, 65; treaty with England, 65; opposition to, 65; burned in effigy, 65; first term as gov. , 67; dodges the slavery question, 68; appoints Kent and Radcliff to Supreme Court, 68; opposed for re-election by Livingston, 78; re-elected, 82; approves Alien-Sedition laws, 85; Hamilton's plan for electing Presidential electors, 92; opposes DeWitt Clinton, 110; refuses to reconvene Council of Appointment, 110; fails to recommend abolition of slavery, 111; close of career, 111-14; character of, 112; crowning act of his life, 112; Canada in peace treaty of 1783, 112-3; declines reappointment as chief justice of U. S. , 114; retires to his farm, 115; favours DeWitt Clinton for President, 203-5. 

Jay, Peter A. , eldest son of John Jay, i. 273; recorder of New York City, 273; a thrust at high-minded Federalists, 273; removed from office, 287. 

Jefferson, Thomas, compliments Jay, i. 101; opinion of Burr, 105; swift removals from office, 120; rewards the Livingstons, 121; acts with Clinton in crushing Burr, 121; opposed Burr, 1804, 137; on _Chesapeake_ affair, 163; orders embargo, 163; repeals it, 179; opinion of Stephen Van Rensselaer, 214; on Erie canal, 244. 

Jenkins, Elisha, reappointed sec. Of state, i. 179. 

Jenkins, Timothy, career of, ii. 247; ambitious to be gov. , 1858, 247. 

Jennings, Lewis J. , N. Y. _Times_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 414. 

Johnson, Alexander S. , nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1874, iii. 315; defeated, 319. 

Johnson, Andrew, becomes President, 1865, iii. 127; plan of reconstruction, 127; rejects negro suffrage, 128; endorsed by Dems. , 1865, 128; and by Reps. , 132; influence of Weed and Raymond, 131-2; radical Reps. Hostile, 136; Stevens opposes his policy, 137; Raymond replies, 137; defeated, 141; vetoes civil rights bill, 141; bad traits, 142; ill-tempered speech, 142; Civil Rights bill passed over veto, 142; favours Philadelphia con. , 1866, 142; swing around the circle, 148; removal of Rep. Officials, 162; his party defeated, 166; Dems. Drop him, 182; impeachment of, 190; candidate for President at Dem. Nat. Con. , 197. 

Johnson, William S. , opposes Seward, ii. 147. 

Johnston, Joseph E. , at battle of Bull Run, iii. 12. 

Jones, David R. Floyd, nominated for sec. Of state, 1861, iii. 21, note; defeated, 29; candidate for lt. -gov. , 1862, 41, note; elected, 51; renominated, 1864, 120; defeated, 125. 

Jones, George, of N. Y. _Times_, iii. 95; approves Raymond's support of Johnson, 95; rejects Tweed's enormous bribe, 246. 

Jones, Henry, nominated for clerk of Court of Appeals, 1865, iii. 130; elected, 135. 

Jones, Samuel, member of Poughkeepsie con. , i. 33; supports Clinton for gov. , 1789, 43; Kent on, 43, note; first state comp. , 70. 

Jones, Samuel, son of the preceding, i. 347; appointed chancellor, 347. 

Jordan, Ambrose L. , in constitutional con. , 1846, ii. 109; on elective judiciary, 110; gifts of, 110; atty. -gen. , 128. 

Junio, John J. , nominated for sec. Of state, 1877, iii. 384; defeated, 387. 

Kansas, efforts in behalf of slavery, ii. 208; rifles from the North, 222; border ruffians withdraw, 223; Seward's bill to admit as State, 223; more hostilities, 223; Beecher's Bibles, 224; against Lecompton constitution, 246; action of free-state men, 262; Wyandotte constitution, 262. 

Kaufman, Sigmund, nominated for lt. -gov. , 1870, iii. 238; defeated, 244. 

Kelley, William, nominated for gov. By Softs, 1860, ii. 326; career and character of, 326; defeated, 333; at Dem. State peace con. , 354. 

Kelly, John, succeeds Tweed as leader of Tam. , iii. 288; appearance, 288; early career, 288; character, 288; reorganises Tam. , 1871, 289; favours nomination of Greeley, 1872, 289; urges Schell for gov. , 1872, 297; nominates Lawrence for mayor, 1872, 299; defeated, 302; declares for Tilden for gov. , 1874, 310; blow at canal ring, 312; selects men of Tweed ring for city offices, 314; Havermeyer charges graft, 318 and note; elects Tam. Ticket, 319; breaks with Morrissey, 1875, 325; his faction known as "Short-hairs, " 325; ticket defeated, 1875, 331; opposes Tilden, 1876, 341-2; reunites with Morrissey, 1876, 346; his ticket elected, 350; breaks with Morrissey, 1877, 386; Morrissey elected, 389; controls state con. , 1878, 392; nominates Schell for mayor, 394; badly punished by defeat, 396; gov. Removes his best friend, 418; declares war on Robinson, 418, 420; charges against, 420; threatens to bolt con. , 1879, 421; exhausts argument and trickery, 422-3; leaves the con. , 423-4; holds one of his own, 424; accepts nomination for gov. , 424; alliance with Cornell, 426; reasons for charge, 426; crushed by defeat, 427; refused admission to state con. , 1880, 451; holds con. Of his own, 451; fierce speech against Tilden, 452; refused admission to Nat. Con. , 1880, 457; cool treatment of, 458; spectacular reconciliation, 458; forces a state con. , 1880, 460; controls it, 460; fools Irving Hall, 460; held responsible for Hancock's defeat, 483 and note; opponents organise County Democracy, 1881, 483-4; dels. Excluded from state con. , 1881, 484; holds balance of power in legislature, 1882, 487; his demands, 487, note; affiliates with Reps. , 487; forces way into state con. , 1882, 488; divides vote among four candidates for gov. , 490; supports Cleveland in stampede, 491; joins County Democracy in local nominations, 1882, 498; city and state tickets elected, 498. 

Kelly, William E. , aspirant for gov. , 1864, iii. 117; candidate for elector-at-large, 1864, 120; defeated, 125. 

Kent, James, on Schuyler, i. 18; supports Jay, 1792, 55; personal appearance of, 55; on Supreme Court, 68; character of, 68; reforms of, 68; on Hamilton in Croswell case, 132-3; on Hamilton's future had he lived, 143; on privateering, 265; answered by Young, 265-6; asked to stand for U. S. Senator, 268; in constitutional con. , 1821, 298; freehold franchise, 299-300; heads electoral ticket, 1832, 393; law lectures, ii. 104; death of, 125. 

Kent, William, son of the chancellor, ii. 31; calls Weed the "Dictator, " 31; candidate for lt. -gov. , 1852, 173; career of, 173-4; elector on fusion Dem. Ticket, 1860, 326; criticised by _Tribune_, 327. 

Kernan, Francis, ch'm. Dem. State con. , 1861, iii. 17; views on emancipation, 17; refuses nomination for atty. -gen. , 21; offices held, 21; elected to Congress, 1862, 52; del. To Dem. Nat. Con. , 1864, 108; attends Saratoga con. , 1866, 144; in Nat. Dem. Con. , 1868, 200; advises Seymour to accept presidency, 201; shabby treatment of, 270-1; nominated for gov. , 1872, 297; defeated, 302; elected to U. S. Senate, 1874, 321; advocates gold standard, 396; defeated for re-election, 1881, 468. 

Keyser, Abraham, state treas. , ii. 1. 

King, John A. , son of Rufus, i. 259; on German's election as speaker, 259; predicts division of Federal party, 259; resents Clinton's control of Federalists, 267; charges Van Ness with hypocrisy, 268; president of Anti-Nebraska con. , ii. 194; at birth of Rep. Party, 212; nominated for gov. , 236; character and career of, 236-7; elected, 241; at peace congress, 350. 

King Park, Long Island, old home of Rufus King, i. 271. 

King, Preston, supports Wilmot Proviso, ii. 102, 126; career and character of, 102; a Barnburner, 131; at Utica con. , 131; supports Pierce and Seymour, 1852, 177; withdraws from con. Of Softs, 1854, 197; at birth of Rep. Party, 214; nominated for sec. Of state, 214; elected U. S. Senator, 243-5; disapproves Weed's compromise, 339; question of patronage, 390, 396. 

 Defeated for U. S. Senate, 1863, iii. 54; creditable service, 54; deserted by Seward and Weed, 54; del. -at-large to Rep. Nat. Con. , 1864, 92; supported Johnson for Vice-President, 94; approved Seward's removal from Cabinet, 94; early friend of President Johnson, 130; accepts collectorship of New York, 1865, 131; reconciliation with Seward, 131; suicide, 131; reasons for act, 131. 

King, Rufus, U. S. Senator, i. 44; referee in Clinton-Jay contest, 57; minister to England, 70; disapproves disunion, 134; spoken of for gov. , 1804, 137; candidate for Vice-President, 1804, 147; candidate for Vice-President, 1808, 166; defeated, 167; opposes DeWitt Clinton for President, 202-6; re-elected U. S. Senator, 211; charged with bargain, 211; nominated for gov. , 1816, 236; strength of, 236; defeated, 236; doubts feasibility of Erie canal, 244; votes cast for re-election to U. S. Senate, 267; resents Clinton's control of Federalists, 267; reasons for, 267; re-elected to U. S. Senate, 269; courageous stand of Van Buren for, 268-70; gifts, character, and career of, 270-2; supported war of 1812, 270; opposed Missouri Compromise of 1820, 272; known as champion of freedom, 272; relations with Van Buren, 272; declines to join Bucktail party, 272; effort to prevent Tompkins' nomination, 277-9. 

King's (Columbia) College, Gouverneur Morris a graduate of, i. 73. 

Kinsella, Thomas, Brooklyn _Eagle_, a leading Dem. Editor, iii. 420. 

Kirkland, Charles S. , in constitutional con. , 1846, ii. 103; on elective judiciary, 109. 

Kirkpatrick, Thomas, nominated for prison insp. , 1871, iii. 264; elected, 275. 

Knower, Benjamin, state treas. , i. 294; member Albany Regency, 294; go-between of Van Buren and Clinton, 346, 348. 

Know-Nothing party, see Native American party. 

Labor Reform party, state con. Of, 1877, iii. 384; its principles, 389; coalesces with Greenback party, 389; issues call for Nat. Con. , 389; see Nat. -Green. -Lab. -Reform party. 

Labor Reform vote, 1870, iii. 244, note. 

Ladue, Oliver, nominated for canal comr. , 1862, iii. 45, note; defeated, 51. 

Laflin, Fordyce, nominated for prison insp. , 1866, iii. 226; elected, 227. 

Laning, Albert P. , character of, iii. 20; patriotic sentiments, 20; presents resolutions, 40; del. To Nat. Dem. Con. , 1864, 108; defeated for nomination for lt. -gov. , 207; ch'm. State con. , 1878, 392; rules in favour of Kelly, 393. 

Lansing, Abraham G. , removed as state treas. , i. 165; character of, 165; restored as treas. , 172. 

Lansing, Garrett T. , son of preceding, i. 165; removed as master in chancery, 179. 

Lansing, John, Jr. , del. To amend Articles of Confederation, i. 29; fitness for, 30; withdraws from con. , 30; refuses to sign Federal Constitution, 31; member of Poughkeepsie con. , 33; supports Clinton for gov. , 1789, 43; appointed to Supreme Court, 45; story of his career, 129; made chancellor, 129; his murder, 130; selected for gov. , 1804, 131; withdraws, 136; reasons for, 152-3. 

Lapham, Elbridge G. , nominated for U. S. Senator, 1881, iii. 481; elected, 482. 

Lapham, George H. , nominated for state comp. , 1881, iii. 484; defeated, 486. 

Lawrence, Cornelius V. R. , candidate for mayor of N. Y. , 1834, i. 400; first year mayor was elective, 400; spirited contest, 400; elected, 401. 

Lawrence, John, elected to U. S. Senate, i. 70; career and character of, 70; prosecuted Major André, 70; marriage of, 70. 

Lawrence, Lewis, editor of Utica _Republican_, iii. 385. 

Leavenworth, Elias W. , nominated for sec. Of state, ii. 258. 

Lecompton constitution, character of, ii. 246; Douglas on, 246; see Kansas. 

Ledyard, Isaac, supports Burr for gov. , 1792, i. 50. 

Lester, Albert, in canal debate, ii. 63. 

Lewis, Harris, nominated for gov. , 1879, iii. 412; defeated, 427. 

Lewis, Morgan, brother-in-law of Chancellor Livingston, i. 49; atty. -gen. , 49; chief justice Supreme Court, 115; nominated for gov. , 1804, 136; reasons for it, 137; career of, 136-7; powerful support, 137; elected, 138; practices nepotism, 147, 155, 156; favours Merchants' Bank, 148, 190; Clinton opposed to, 149-50; secures Council, 154; removes Clinton from mayoralty, 154-5; opposed by Tompkins, 155; renominated for gov. , 161; defeated, 161; member of Council, 217; supports Riker for Supreme Court, 217; in war of 1812, 221; character as a soldier, 221; retires in disgrace, 225. 

Lewis, William B. , candidate for state treas. , 1861, iii. 23, note; elected, 29. 

L'Hommedieu, Ezra, in first constitutional con. , i. 5; ridicules Livingston's steamboat, 76. 

Liberal Republican party, organisation, 1872, iii. 280; calls Nat. Con. , 280; prominent Reps. Aid movement, 280; Greeley's reasons for joining it, 281-2; nominate Greeley for President, 286; ticket endorsed by Dems. , 289; defeated, 302; leaders in N. Y. Return to Rep. Party, 1874, 315. 

Liberal Republican state conventions, 1872, Syracuse, iii. 296; 1874, Albany, 315-6; 1875, Albany, 326; 1876, Saratoga, 337; unites with Rep. State con. , 1876, 337. 

Lieutenant-governorship, not necessarily stepping stone to gov. , i. 180. 

Lincoln, Abraham, first meeting with Seward, ii. 143; defeated for nomination for Vice-President, 229; lectures in New York City, 262-4; Greeley on, 263-4; defeats Crittenden compromise, 344; Greeley's relations with, 402-3. 

 Orders relief of Fort Sumter, iii. 1; call for troops, 3; reply to Greeley, 35; letter to Seymour, 63; to Erastus Corning on Vallandigham, 65-6; letter to Seymour about draft, 71; letter to Rep. State con. , 1863, 77-8; its influence, 79-80; relations with Seward, 84; with Weed, 85-7; veiled opposition to, 87; effort to postpone Rep. Nat. Con. , 1864, 88-9; Radicals resent his relations with Weed and Seward, 89; renominated for President, 94; did he suggest Johnson for Vice-President, 95; ignores Weed's wishes, 97; message, Dec. 1863, 98; plan for restoration of Southern states, 98; longs for peace, 102; authority to Greeley, 102; sends Hay to Niagara Falls, 103; insists on abolition of slavery, 103; unpopularity of, 103; movement to substitute another candidate, 103-4 and note; Weed and Raymond hopeless of his election, 104-5; his iron nerve, 105; interest in N. Y. Election, 125; elected, 125; assassination, 127. 

Lindenwald, Van Buren's home, ii. 45-6. 

Litchfield, Elisha, speaker of Assembly, ii. 59; career and character of, 59. 

Littlejohn, DeWitt C. , speaker of Assembly, ii. 207; declares for Seward, 207; opposes Greeley for U. S. Senate, 364. 

Livingston, Brockholst, brother-in-law of Jay, i. 6, 79; on U. S. Supreme Court, 6; hostility to Jay, 79; cousin of Chancellor, 116; appointed to state Supreme Court, 116. 

Livingston, Charles L. , speaker of Assembly, ii. 1. 

Livingston, Edward, resents Alien-Sedition laws, i. 84; advised to give up Jefferson for Burr, 103; Burr thought him friendly, 103; practises deception, 103; U. S. Atty. , 104, 121; defaulter, 104; mayor of New York, 116; goes to New Orleans to reside, 150; sec. Of state, ii. 1. 

Livingston, Edward P. , nominated for lt. -gov. , 1830, i. 376; unpopular manners, 376; elected, 377; defeated for renomination for lt. -gov. , 1832, 395. 

Livingston, Gilbert, supports Clinton for gov. , 1789, i. 43; his eloquence, 43. 

Livingston, Maturin, son-in-law of Morgan Lewis, i. 147; appointed to office, 147; character of, 147-8; removed from office, 151; restored, 154; defeated for Supreme Court, 156; removed from office, 165. 

Livingston, Peter R. , hostility to DeWitt Clinton, i. 251; makes war on, 255; career and gifts of, 402; joins Whig party, 1834, 402; ch'm. Of its first con. , 402. 

Livingston, Philip, in first constitutional con. , i. 5. 

Livingston, Robert R. , member first constitutional con. , i. 5; appointed chancellor, 16; member of Poughkeepsie con. , 33; in campaign, 1789, 42; hostile to Hamilton, 47; strengthens Clinton, 47; left out in division of offices, 48; ceased to be a Federalist, 48; defeats Schuyler for U. S. Senate, 49; opposes Jay, 1792, 55; steam navigation, 75-7; associated with Fulton, 77; nominated for gov. , 78; hostility to Jay, 79; appearance and character of, 79; desires to be President, 80; mistakes signs of times, 81; defeated, 82; reasons for it, 83; his disposition, 83; minister to France, 115; assailed by Van Ness, 125; without ambition for further political honours, 150. 

Lockwood, Daniel N. , at Dem. State con. , 1882, iii. 490; forceful presentation of Cleveland's name for gov. , 490. 

Locofocos, origin of title, ii. 16; applied to Dem. Party, 16. 

Loomis, Arphaxed, in constitutional con. , 1846, ii. 109; character and gifts of, 110; resents war methods, 1861, iii. 18, 19. 

Lord, Jarvis B. , nominated for canal com. , 1861, iii. 21, note; defeated, 29; renominated, 1864, 120; defeated, 125; opposes Tilden for gov. , 1874, 312; exults over downfall of Tilden régime, 383. 

Lott, John A. , nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1869, iii. 226; elected, 227. 

Lowell, James Russell, declares people long for peace, 1864, iii. 101. 

Ludlow, William B. , opposes Union state con. , 1861, iii. 15. 

Ludlow, William H. , chairman of Softs' con. , 1854, ii. 197; defeated, 203. 

Lundy, Benjamin, original abolitionist, ii. 5; career of, 5-7. 

McCarthy, Dennis, presents Washburne's name for Vice-President, 1880, iii. 444; moves Arthur's nomination, 445; on Robertson's appointment, 469. 

McClellan, George B. , succeeds Scott, 1861, iii. 31. 

McComb, Alexander, charged with corrupt conduct, i. 54; friend of George Clinton, 54. 

McDougal, Alexander, in first constitutional con. , i. 5. 

McGuire, Jeremiah, named as del. -at-large to Dem. Nat. Con. , iii. 452; delegation rejected, 458. 

McIntosh, James, nominated for sec. Of state, 1877, iii. 384; defeated, 387. 

McIntyre, Archibald, becomes comp. , i. 151; controversy with Tompkins, 276; removal of, 287-9; elected state senator, 289; agent for state lotteries, 289. 

McKean, James B. , congressman, ii. 338; disapproves Weed's compromise, 338. 

 Del. To People's Union con. , 1861, iii. 22; colonel 67th N. Y. Regiment, 22; nominated for sec. Of state, 1867, 174; defeated, 188. 

McKelway, St. Clair, brilliant editor of Albany _Argus_, iii. 419; influence of, 419; returns to Brooklyn _Eagle_, 419, note. 

McKenzie, William L. , connected with Canadian rebellion, ii. 23-4. 

McKnown, James, recorder at Albany, i. 347; forced upon Regency, 347; aids Van Buren's conciliatory policy, 347. 

McLaughlin, Hugh, leader of Kings County Democracy, iii. 421; favours Robinson for gov. , 1879, 421. 

McNeil, David B. , nominated for prison insp. , 1864, iii. 120; defeated, 125; renominated, 207; elected, 215; renominated, 273; defeated, 275. 

McNutt, Andrew J. , nominated for prison insp. , 1865, iii. 129; defeated, 135. 

Mackin, James, nominated for state treas. , 1877, iii. 384; elected, 387; renominated, 1879, 424; defeated, 427. 

Madison, James, renominated for president, i. 197, 201; character of, 199, 200; offers Tompkins place of sec. Of state, 237; dislike of Armstrong, 238; dislike of Monroe, 239. 

Magone, Daniel, member of Tilden's canal commission, 1875, iii. 323. 

Maine Liquor law, introduced by Clark, ii. 199; vetoed by Seymour, 199. 

Manhattan Bank, clever trick of Burr to charter, i. 187. 

Manning, Daniel B. , early career, iii. 419; genius for political leadership, 419; successor of Richmond, 419; controls Robinson's candidacy, 1879, 420; his rare tactics, 421; ticket defeated by Kelly's bolt, 427; controls Dem. State con. , 1880, 449; iron-clad unit rule, 450; endorses Tilden for President, 450; action at Dem. Nat. Con. , 1880, 454-6; an indefinite letter, 454; a definite telegram, 456; delegation's loss of prestige, 456; controls Dem. State con. , 1881, 484; great victory, 1882, 498. 

Marble, Manton, writes Dem. Platform, 1876, iii. 344; cipher dispatches, 1876, 350; a leading Dem. Editor, 420. 

Marey, William L. , favours King's re-election to U. S. Senate, i. 269; adjutant-general, 289; career, character, and appearance of, 289-94; capture of St. Regis, 293; original member of Albany Regency, 293-4; death of, 294; highest mountain in state named for, 294, note; becomes comp. , 1823, 321; appointed to Supreme Court, 360; investigates death of Morgan, 360; in U. S. Senate, 385; record as comp. And judge, 386; failure as senator, 386-8; to victors belong the spoils, 389; injures Van Buren, 389, note; nominated for gov. , 1832, 394; "the Marcy patch, " 395; elected, 396; "Marcy's mortgage, " 400; renominated for gov. , 1834, 403; hot campaign, 403-4; elected, 404. 

 Member of a powerful group, ii. 1; writes for _Argus_, 2; attitude toward slavery, 10; renominated, 1836, 11; elected, 14; signs bank charters, 16; renominated for gov. , 1838, 22; review of his administration, 23-5; defeated, 28; appointed to Mexican Claims Commission, 30; canal policy, 49; sec. Of war, 94; a Hunker, 127; becomes a Barnburner, 169; candidate for President, 1852, 169-72; Seymour favours, 169-72; sec. Of state, 181-2. 

Martindale, John H. , record as a soldier, iii. 130; nominated for atty. -gen. , 1865, 130; elected, 135. 

Martling Men, forerunners of Tammany Hall, i. 132, 170; charge Clinton with duplicity, 352. 

Mason, Charles, nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1867, iii. 174; defeated, 188; renominated, 1869, 226; defeated, 227. 

Matthews, James N. , Buffalo _Express_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 414. 

Matthews, Stanley, joins Lib. Rep. Movement, iii. 283; opposes Greeley's nomination, 283. 

Maxwell, Hugh, collector port of New York City, ii. 153; opposes Seward's endorsement, 153-4. 

Maxwell, Robert A. , nominated for state treas. , 1881, iii. 484; elected, 486. 

May, Samuel J. , rescues a fugitive slave, ii. 165. 

Mead, Sidney, nominated for canal com. , 1873, iii. 308; defeated, 309. 

Mears, John W. , nominated for gov. , 1879, iii. 412; defeated, 427. 

Meigs, Henry, member of Congress, i. 285; correspondence with Van Buren, 285. 

Mellspaugh, George W. , nominated for prison insp. , 1873, iii. 309; defeated, 309. 

Merritt, Edwin A. , attended Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, iii. 296; on com. To confer with Dems. , 296; nominated for state treas. , 1875, 325; defeated, 331; nominated for surveyor of port of New York, 1877, 399; confirmation defeated, 404-5; appointed collector of customs, 1878, 406; career and character, 406; able administrator, 406; confirmed, 409; nominated for con. -gen. To London, 1881, 469; confirmed, 477. 

Miller, Elijah, father-in-law of Seward, i. 318; early friend of Weed, 318. 

Miller, Jedediah, opposes Tompkins' accounts, i. 276. 

Miller, Theodore, nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1874, iii. 314; elected, 319. 

Miller, Warner, early career, iii. 467; character and ability, 467; aids election of Platt to U. S. Senate, 1881, 468; nominated for U. S. Senator, 480; elected, 481; ch'm. State Rep. Con. , 1881, 485. 

Minthorne, Mangle, daughter married Tompkins, i. 161; leader of Martling Men, 161; bitter opponent of Clinton, 161, 181. 

Missouri Compromise of 1820, i. 272, ii. 190; repeal of, ii. 190-5; Seward on, 191; excitement over, 192-5; opposition to, 193-5; John Van Buren on, 195; Marcy on, 195. 

Mitchell, Samuel Latham, character of, i. 74; friend of Priestly, 74; attainments of, 75; member of Assembly, 75; steam navigation, 75; associated with R. R. Livingston, 77; friend of DeWitt Clinton, 108; in U. S. Senate, 170. 

Mohawk River, early schemes for its navigation, i. 242. 

Mohawk River Valley, attracts New Englanders, i. 81. 

Monroe, James, disliked by Madison, i. 239; helped by Van Buren, 240. 

Mooers, Benjamin, deserts DeWitt Clinton, i. 279. 

Moore, Sir Henry, projects canal around Little Falls, i. 242. 

"Morey letter, " in campaign, 1880, iii. 462; Garfield brands it a forgery, 462; fictitious character made clear, 462; used by Dems. With great force, 462. 

Morgan, Christopher, sec. Of state, ii. 127. 

Morgan, Edwin D. , at birth of Rep. Party, ii. 213; nominated for gov. , 1858, 248; character and career of, 248; elected, 255; at Chicago con. , 1860, 283; renominated for gov. , 1860, 328; elected, 333; conservative appeal to Legislature, 348. 

 Forwards troops promptly, 1861, iii. 7; acts as agent of President, 7; thinks Wadsworth available for gov. , 1862, 42; declines renomination, 1862, 44; creditable record, 44; elected to U. S. Senate, 1863, 54; taste for political life, 54; criticised, 55; at Rep. State con. , 1863, 74; bitter feeling against, 74; urges Lincoln's renomination, 87; supports Johnson, 142; votes to override veto, 142; seeks re-election to U. S. Senate, 1869, 219; weakened by association with Johnson, 219; supported by Conkling's followers, 220; defeated by Fenton, 222; at Rep. Nat. Con. , 1876, 333; nominated for gov. , 1876, 338; defeated, 350; declines secretaryship of treasury, 1881, 486. 

Morgan, William, career of, i. 359; disclosure of Free Masonry, 359; abduction of, 359; left at Fort Niagara, 359; drowned in Lake Ontario, 360; excitement over crime, 359-60; investigation of, 360; punishment of conspirators, 360; see Anti-Masons. 

Morris, Gouverneur, elected to U. S. Senate, i. 71; family of, 71-2; association with Hamilton and Jay, 73; conservatism of, 74; life in Paris, 74, note; opposes Burr, 100; supports DeWitt Clinton for President, 202-6; favours disunion, 228; predicts construction of Erie canal, 241; canal commissioner, 243. 

Morris, Lewis, member first constitutional con. , i. 5; served in Continental Congress, 72; family of, 71-4. 

Morris, Richard, in first constitutional con. , i. 5; nomination as gov. Desired, 39; character of, 40; on Hamilton's speech at Poughkeepsie, 40; treatment of Gouverneur, his half brother, 72. 

Morris, Robert, member of Poughkeepsie con. , i. 33. 

Morris, Staats Long, served in Parliament, i. 73; family of, 71-4. 

Morrissey, John, opposes Dix for gov. , 1866, iii. 158; breaks with Kelly, 1875, 325; faction known as "Swallow-tails, " 325; delegation rejected by Dem. State con. , 325; organises Irving Hall, 1875, 331; runs for state senator, 331; endorsed by Reps. , 331; elected, 331; reunites with Kelly, 1876, 346; opposes Kelly, 1877, 382-3; runs for state senator against Schell, 1877, 386; fierce fight, 386; great victory, 388; death, 388. 

Morton, Levi P. , defeated for Congress, 1876, iii. 350; elected, 1878, 397; declines to become a candidate for Vice-President, 1880, 444; acts upon Conkling's advice, 444; choice of Conkling for U. S. Senator, 1881, 465; suggested for sec. Of treas. And navy, 468; declines secretaryship of navy, 1881, 469; becomes ambassador to France, 1881, 469. 

Morton, Oliver P. , speaks in New York, iii. 282; prophecy as to Lib. Rep. Nat. Con. , 282. 

Mosely, Daniel, appointed to Supreme Court, i. 366. 

Mozart Hall, organisation of, 1858, iii. 30; represents Fernando Wood, 30; nominates Wood for mayor, 30; defeated, 29; after 1866 failed to present a ticket, 268, note. 

Mulligan, John W. , appointed surrogate of New York, i. 179. 

Murphy, Henry C. , character of, iii. 156; aspirant for gov. , 1866, 156; active in campaign, 1867, 186; at Dem. Nat. Con. , 1868, 197; heads com. On res. , 197; career of, 197; aspirant for gov. , 1868, 205. 

Murphy, Thomas, charges Fenton with graft, 1869, iii. 221; appointed collector of New York, 1870, 233; bitter criticism of, 233; by whom recommended, 233; Conkling secures his confirmation, 235; contest with Fenton, 234-5; changes made in custom-house, 251, note; efforts to crush Fenton machine, 250-63; severely criticised, 279; supports Crowley for U. S. Senate, 1881, 465. 

Myers, Charles G. , presents Dix's name for gov. , 1862, iii. 44. 

Nast, Thomas, cartoons Tweed ring, iii. 245; rejects enormous bribe, 245; startling cartoon, 274; Tweed proposes to stop the paper, 274. 

_National Advocate_, edited by Noah, i. 262; opposition to Erie canal, 262; silenced, 262. 

National Greenback Labor Reform party, iii. 389; hist. Of its organisation, 389; con. Syracuse, 1878, 389; its principles, 389; represents large vote, 397; its influence on Dem. Party, 397; holds state con. , 1879, 412. 

National Republicans, followers of Adams, 1828, i. 361; adopt ticket of Anti-Masons, 1832, 393; reason for defeat, 396; party, 1834, becomes Whig, 399. 

National Union state convention, 1866, iii. 154; substitute for Dem. State con. , 154; attended by Reps. And Dems. , 155; Dix defeated by Hoffman for gov. , 1866, 159; platform for home rule, 160. 

Native American party, organised, 1844, ii. 82; opposed foreigners voting or holding office, 82; confined to New York City, 82; elected a mayor, 1844, 82; in constitutional con. , 1846, 97-100; revived, 1854, as Know-Nothings, 201; secret methods of, 201; Seward opposed to, 201-2; unknown strength of, 202-3; Silver-Grays partial to, 202; nominations, 1854, 202; defeated, 204; its con. , 1855, 214; elected its ticket, 216; defeated, 1858, 255; endorse Reps. And Dems. , 1859, 258-9; Wilson on, 259. 

Negro suffrage, i. 299-300. 

 Left it to Southern state, iii. 128; Greeley advocates it, 128; Weed and Raymond oppose it, 130; Rep. State con. , 1865, dodges it, 133; not squarely met, 1866, 153; aids to defeat Rep. Party, 1867, 185-7; defeats Constitution of 1867, 227. 

Nelson, Absolom, nominated for canal com. , 1870, iii. 238; defeated, 244. 

Nelson, Homer A. , nominated for sec. Of state, 1869, iii. 226; elected, 227; aspires to be gov. , 1872, 297; again an aspirant for gov. , 1882, 488. 

Nelson, Samuel, member of constitutional con. , 1821, i. 298; career of, 298; investigates death of Morgan, 360; made justice of U. S. Supreme Court, ii. 97, 103; in constitutional con. , 1846, 103. 

Nepotism, practised by DeWitt Clinton, i. 117, 347; Gov. Lewis, 147; Gov. Yates, 321; Gov. Bouck, ii. 57. 

 Gov. Seymour, iii. 80; Gov. Dix, 316. 

Newspapers, leading Rep. Journals in state, iii. 413-4; leading Dem. Journals in state, 420. 

New York City merchants, their losses, 1861, iii. 31. 

New York City, work of radicals in, i. 1; census of, 1820, 295. 

New York, Colony of, tainted with Toryism, i. 23. 

New York draft-riot, 1863, iii. 68, 69. 

New York _Evening Post_, established by Hamilton and Jay, i. 117; edited by William Coleman, 117. 

New York Legislature, gerrymander of, iii. 397-8. 

New York troops, promptly forwarded after Lincoln's call, 1861, iii. 7; engaged at battle of Bull Run, 12, note. 

Nicholas, John, member of Council of Appointment, 1807, i. 156. 

Nichols, Asher P. , nominated for state comp. , 1870, iii. 231; elected, 244; renominated, 1871, 273; defeated, 275; renominated, 308; defeated, 309. 

Noah, Mordecai Manesseh, editor _National Advocate_, i. 262; character and career of, 262, 351; opposed to Erie canal, 262; opposition silenced by Van Buren, 262; supports Clinton for gov. , 1826, 351. 

North, S. Newton Dexter, Albany _Express_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 414. 

North, William, elected to U. S. Senate, i. 70; service and character of, 71; on staff of Baron Steuben, 71 and note; speaker of Assembly, 171. 

Nott, Eliphalet, President Union College, ii. 34. 

Noyes, William Curtis, at peace congress, ii. 350. 

 Presents letter from Morgan, 1862, iii. 44; would welcome Lincoln's withdrawal, 1864, 104. 

O'Conor, Charles, in constitutional con. , 1846, ii. 104; opposes negro suffrage, 107; on elective judiciary, 109; opposed constitution of 1846, 112; conservatism of, 112; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1848, 134; career of, 134-5; in campaign, 1852, 178; declines to support the Softs, 186. 

 Sympathy with the South, iii. 4; supports' Tilden's attack upon the Tweed ring, 268; letter to Dem. State con. , 1871, 272; credits Tilden with impeachment of Tweed judges, 293. 

O'Rourke, Matthew J. , aids in exposure of Tweed ring, iii. 246; estimated aggregate of sum stolen, 248-9. 

Oakley, Thomas J. , surrogate of Dutchess County, i. 171; removed, 179; friend of Clinton, 254; displaces Van Buren as atty. -gen. , 273; opposes Tompkins' accounts, 276; removed as atty. -gen. , 287. 

Oaksmith, Appleton, del. To seceding states, ii. 351-2. 

Office-seekers, number and persistence of, ii. 388-9. 

Ogden, Darius A. , nominated for canal com. , 1876, iii. 347; elected, 351. 

"Ohio Idea, " The, iii. 179-181. 

Olcott, Frederick P. , nominated for state comp. , 1877, iii. 384; elected, 387; renominated, 1879, 424; defeated, 427. 

Olcott, Thomas W. , financier of Albany Regency, ii. 20; refuses nomination for state comp. , 1863, iii. 74. 

Opdyke, George, acts as agent of U. S. Government, 1861, iii. 7; elected mayor of N. Y. , 1861, 29; career and character, 30; at Rep. State con. , 1863, 74; loses place on state com. , 74; favours new candidate in place of Lincoln, 104, and note. 

Orr, Alexander E. , member of Tilden's canal commission, 1875, iii. 323. 

Ostrander, Catherine, wife of Weed, i. 318; true love match, 319; waited for him three years, 319. 

Ottendorfer, Oswald, editor N. Y. _Staats-zeitung_, iii. 268; efforts at reform, 268; at Dem. State con. , 1871, 272; influence, 272. 

Palmer, Abiah W. , nominated for state comp. , 1870, iii. 238; defeated, 244. 

Parker, Amasa J. , nominated for gov. , 1856, ii. 232-3; career and ability of, 233-4; defeated, 241; nominated for gov. , 1858, 249; defeated, 255; at Dem. State peace con. , 354; president of, 354. 

 President of Dem. State con. , 1863, iii. 79; aspirant for gov. , 1864, 118; presented for gov. , 1874, 313; president of Kelly's state con. , 1880, 451; named as del. -at-large to Nat. Con. , 452; delegation refused admission, 457; part in spectacular reconciliation, 458. 

Parkhurst, John, nominated for prison insp. , 1870, iii. 238; defeated, 244. 

Parmenter, Roswell A. , nominated for atty. -gen. , 1881, iii. 484; defeated, 486. 

Parrish, Daniel, state senator, i. 178. 

Patrick, J. N. H. , dispatches to Pelton from Oregon, 1876, iii. 351. 

Patrick, Marsena R. , nominated for state treas. , 1865, iii. 129; defeated, 135. 

Patterson, George W. , to Weed about Fillmore, ii. 79; in constitutional con. , 1846, 103; on elective judiciary, 109; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1848, 140; character of, 140; defeated for state comp. , 165; Greeley on, 165-6; ambitious to be gov. , 1852, 173. 

Payn, Louis P. , renominated for U. S. Marshal, 1881, iii. 469; nomination withdrawn, 475; warns Conkling and Platt of defeat, 481; chided by Sharpe, 481; prophecy fulfilled, 481, note. 

Peace congress, 1861, ii. 350; suggested by Virginia, 350; adopted by Legislature of New York, 350; dels. To, 350; convened at Washington, 358; its work and results, 358-60. 

Peaceable secession, Greeley advocates, ii. 335-6; also Abolitionists, 336; preferable to civil war, 347, 355. 

Peck, Jedediah, opposed Alien-Sedition laws, i. 89; arrested, 89; creates great excitement, 89. 

Peckham, Rufus H. , a supporter of Tilden, iii. 422; cool and determined, 422; in Dem. State con. , 1879, 422; at Dem. Nat. Con. , 1880, 457. 

Peckham, Rufus W. , opposes repeal of Missouri Compromise, ii. 195. 

Pelton, William T. , nephew of Tilden, iii. 350; lived in Tilden's house, 350; cipher dispatches, 350-1. 

People's party, supports Adams, 1824, i. 324; stood for popular election of Presidential electors, 324; resented defeat of the measure, 326; Tallmadge and Wheaton lead it, 324; secedes from Utica con. , 331-2; supports Clinton, 1826, 350; joins Nat. Rep. Party, 1828, 361. 

People's Union convention, 1861, iii. 21, 22. 

Perkins, Edward O. , nominated for clerk of Court of Appeals, 1865, iii. 129; defeated, 135. 

Perrin, Edward O. , nominated for clerk of Court of Appeals, 1868, iii. 207; elected, 215. 

Perry, Oliver H. , victory on Lake Erie, i. 225. 

Phelps, Oliver, nominated for lt. -gov. With Burr, 1804, i. 131; character of, 138. 

Philadelphia Union convention, 1866, iii. 144; Dix the ch'm. , 144; Richmond and Weed managers, 144; Raymond heads resolution committee, 144; picturesque features, 144. 

Phillips, Wendell, opposition to arbitrary arrests, 1862, iii. 19, note. 

Pierce, Franklin, nominated for President, 1852, ii. 169-72; elected, 179; humiliated Dix, 182, note; appoints Marcy sec. Of state, 182. 

Pierrepont, Edwards, life and character of, iii. 155; favoured Dix for gov. , 1866, 155; sudden change to Hoffman, 159; Weed's surprise, 159. 

Pitcher, Nathaniel, elected lt. -gov. , i. 352; career of, 366; character of, 366; acting gov. , 366; appointments of, 366; defeated for renomination by Van Buren, 366; ceases to act with Jackson party, 367. 

Pitt, William, compared with Hamilton, i. 3. 

Platt, Jonas, defeated for Supreme Court, i. 156; character of, 156, 173-4; nominated for gov. , 173; assails embargo, 174; betrayed by prejudices, 176; defeated for gov. , 179; supports Clinton for mayor, 213; and for gov. , 1817, 248; retires from Supreme Court, 323; later career and death of, 323. 

Platt, Moss K. , nominated for prison insp. , 1873, iii. 308; endorsed by Liberals, 309; elected, 309. 

Platt, Thomas C. , early career, iii. 363; character and ability, 364; ch'm. Rep. State con. , 1877, 364; candidate for U. S. Senate, 1881, 465; Stalwart leaders divide, 465; supported by Cornell, 465; opposed by Arthur, Sharpe, Murphy, and Smyth, 465; promise made to Half-breeds, 468; with their aid nominated in caucus, 468; elected, 468; Robertson's appointment, Mar. 23, 469; failure of his efforts to have it withdrawn, 475; tenders resignation, May 16, 476; reasons for it, 477-8; seeks re-election at Albany, 478; Rep. Caucus refused, 479; first ballot gives highest vote, 479; withdraws as a candidate, July 1, 480; successor elected, July 16, 481. 

Platt, Zephaniah, father of Jonas Platt, i. 156; character and career of, 156; founded Plattsburgh, 156; served in Legislature and in Congress, 156. 

Plumb, Joseph, nominated for lt. -gov. By Abolitionists, 1850, ii. 156. 

Political campaigns, begin 1789, i. 44; abusive, 1792, 52; young men in, 56 and note; modern methods introduced, 90. 

Pomeroy, Theodore M. , at Rep. Nat. Con. , 1876, iii. 334; aspires to be gov. , 1879, 414; career and character of, 414 and note. 

Porter, John K. , in constitutional con. , 1846, ii. 104; nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1865, iii. 130; elected, 135. 

Porter, Peter B. , supports Burr, 1804, i. 138; removed as county clerk, 147; character and career of, 148; member of Congress, 148; secretary of war, 148; appointed sec. Of state, 233; canal com. , 213; opposed Clinton for gov. , 1817, 249; brilliant war record, 249; eloquence of, 250; nominated for gov. By Tam. , 251; defeated, 252; aspirant for gov. , 1822, 318; supports Clay, 1824, 324; nominated for Assembly, 1827, 358. 

Porter, Peter A. , declines nomination for sec. Of state, 1863, iii. 75; prefers military to civil office, 75. 

Post, Henry, confidential correspondent of DeWitt Clinton, i. 243. 

Potter, Clarkson N. , aspires to be gov. , 1876, iii. 345; president of Dem. State con. , 1777, 384; failure of fraud investigation, 395 and note; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1879, 424; defeated, 427; candidate for U. S. Senate, 1881, 482; defeated, 482. 

Poughkeepsie convention, ratifies Federal Constitution, i. 33; number of dels. , 33; champions of Constitution, 33; opponents of, 33; date of ratification, 35; vote on, 36. 

Powell, Archibald C. , nominated for state eng. , 1867, iii. 174; defeated, 188. 

Pratt, Daniel, nominated for atty. -gen. , 1873, iii. 308; elected, 309. 

Prince, L. Bradford, nominated for naval officer, 1877, iii. 399; not confirmed, 405. 

Privateers in war of 1812, Samuel Young's description of, i. 266. 

Prohibition, issue, 1854, ii. 203; law passed, 210; declared unconstitutional, 210. 

Prohibition party organised, 1874, iii. 316; nominated Clark for gov. , 1874, 316; total vote, 319; state con. , 1875, 326; state con. , 1876, 346; state con. , 1877, 384; state con. , 1878, 392; state con. , 1879, 412; principles of, 412. 

Pruyn, Robert H. , aspirant for gov. , 1866, iii. 156; services of, 156; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1866, 159; defeated, 165. 

Pulitzer, Joseph, N. Y. _World_, a leading Dem. Editor, iii. 420. 

Purcell, William, supporter of Tam. , iii. 383; editor Rochester _Union Advertiser_, 420; a leading journalist, 420; nominated for sec. Of state, 1881, 484; defeated, 486. 

Purdy, Ebenezer, state senator, i. 149; charged with bribery, 149, 190; character of, 190; resigns to escape expulsion, 191. 

Putnam, James O. , a Silver-Gray, ii. 156; eloquence of, 156; votes for Babcock for U. S. Senator, 1855, 207; favours union of American and Rep. Parties, 249; elector-at-large, 328; Americans follow him into Rep. Party, 332. 

"Quids, " nickname for Gov. Lewis' followers, 1806, i. 152. 

Radcliff, Jacob, appointed on Supreme Court, i. 68; life of, 69; character and appearance of, 69; becomes mayor of New York City, 172; removed, 179. 

Radical and Conservative Democrats, difference in canal policy, ii. 53. 

Radicals, faction of Dem. Party, ii. 52, 126; opposed state debt to construct canal, 52, 126; leaders of, 53, 126; called Barnburners after supporting the Wilmot Proviso, 126; see Barnburners. 

Raines, Thomas, nominated for state treas. , 1871, iii. 264; elected, 275; joins Lib. Rep. Party, 307; dropped by Reps. , 307; renominated by Dems. , 1873, 308; elected, 309. 

Randall, Henry S. , biographer of Jefferson, ii. 324; Barnburner, 324; ch'm. Of Hards' state con. , 1860, 324. 

Randolph, John, teller when J. Q. Adams was elected President, i. 343. 

Rapallo, Charles J. , nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1880, iii. 460; defeated, 463. 

Raymond, Henry Jarvis, in Assembly, ii. 159; speaker, 159; career and gifts of, 159-61; editor of N. Y. _Courier_, 160; established N. Y. _Times_, 160; quarrels with Webb, 161; supports Fish for U. S. Senate, 162; ambition to be gov. , 1852, 173; at Anti-Nebraska con. , 194; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1854, 199; deep offence to Greeley, 199-200; elected, 204; at birth of Rep. Party, 213; active, 1856, 240; favours Douglas for U. S. Senator, 247; at Chicago con. , 283; calls Greeley a disappointed office-seeker, 306-7; Greeley's letter to Seward, 1854, 307; endorses Weed's compromise, 337. 

 Elected to Assembly, iii. 29; upholds Lincoln's policy, 42; favours Dix, 1862, 42; ch'm. Rep. State con. , 1862, 44; replies to Seymour, 44; candidate for U. S. Senate, 1863, 55; del. -at-large to Rep. Nat. Con. , 1864, 92; reports the platform, 93; supports Johnson for Vice-President, 94; zenith of his influence, 95; why he supported Johnson, 95; did Lincoln whisper to him, 96; writes Lincoln of hopeless situation, 105-6; elected to Congress, 1864, 126; great victory, 126; supports President Johnson, 132; enters Congress, 137; prestige of, 138; his maiden speech, 138; defeated, 141; sustains veto, 142; his fickleness, 142; satirised by Stevens, 142, note; hesitates to attend Philadelphia con. , 1866, 143; Seward urges him on, 143; extreme views, 145; removed from Rep. Nat. Ex. Com. , 145; Congress added no fame, 145; mental weariness, 146; refuses to support Hoffman for gov. , 161; returns to Rep. Party, 161; supports Fenton with loyalty, 161; declines to run for Congress, 161; sincerity of, 161; brilliant life cut short, 175. 

Redfield, Herman J. , kept out of office, i. 348. 

 Ch'm. Dem. State con. , 1861, ii. 17; his views on the war, 18; prophecy of, 18. 

Reed, Thomas B. , Conkling's attack on Curtis found in scrap-book, iii. 374, note; listed among masterpieces of sarcasm and invective, 374. 

Reeves, Henry A. , Greenport _Republican Watchman_, a leading Dem. Editor, iii. 420. 

Reid, Whitelaw, N. Y. _Tribune_, iii. 414; leading Rep. Editor, 414; telegram about Robertson's appointment, 472-3. 

Renwick, James, characteristics of Tompkins, i. 215. 

Republican national conventions, Baltimore, 1864, iii. 93; Chicago, 1868, 192; Philadelphia, 1872, 291-2; Cincinnati, 1876, 333-5; Chicago, 1880, 438-46. 

Republican party, Anti-Nebraska con. , ii. 194; Greeley favoured its organisation, 1854, 200; Weed and Seward opposed, 200; Greeley named it, 211; Executive Committee appointed, 1854, 211; formal organisation, 1855, 211-4; its platform, 213; Seward's speech for, 217-8; Silver-Grays defeat it, 219; Weed and Seward criticised, 219-20; carried state for Fremont and King, 241-2; elect gov. , 1858, 255; made up of young men, 328-9; elect Lincoln and Morgan, 333; desired peace, 360. 

Republican State Committee, proposes a Union state con. , 1861, iii. 15. 

Republican state conventions, 1861, Syracuse, iii. 21; 1862, Syracuse, 44; 1863, Syracuse, 73; 1864, Syracuse, 90, 115; 1865, Syracuse, 129; 1866, Syracuse, 150; 1867, Syracuse, 172; 1868, Syracuse, 193; 1869, Syracuse, 225; 1870, Saratoga, 235; 1871, Syracuse, 257; 1872, Utica, 292; 1873, Utica, 307; 1874, Utica, 315; 1875, Saratoga, 324; 1876, Saratoga, 336-9; 1877, Rochester, 362-77; 1878, Saratoga, 301; 1879, Saratoga, 412-8; 1880, Utica, 429-34; 1881, Saratoga, 485; 1882, Saratoga, 492. 

Reynolds, Marcus T. , wit of, ii. 390. 

Rhodes, William C. , nominated for prison director, 1861, iii. 21, note. 

Richmond, Dean, original Barnburner, ii. 131; leadership at Charleston con. , 1860, 270-9; character and career of, 271-2; believed to be for Seymour, 276, 298, note, 299; sustains two-thirds rule, 277; defeats Douglas' nomination under rule, 277-8; sustains admission of contestants, 300; Dickinson's attack on, 302-3; intentions of, 303; calls Dem. State peace con. , 354. 

Opposes a Union state con. , 1861, iii. 15; reasons therefor, 16; appeal to Seymour, 38, 39; draft circular, 82; del. To Dem. Nat. Con. , 1864, 101; opposes Seymour for President, 107; supports McClellan, 107; supports Johnson, and manages Saratoga and Philadelphia conventions, 1866, 144; favours Dix for gov. , 1866, 155; sudden death, 158; first unofficial man in America, 159; dies in home of Tilden, 265, note. 

Richmond _Enquirer_, resents unanimity of the North, 1861, iii. 9, 10. 

Richmond _Examiner_, resents Unionism in New York, 1861, iii. 9, 10. 

Richmond, Henry A. , son of Dean, iii. 39, note; succeeds father on state committee, 265, note. 

Richmond, Van Rensselaer, nominated for state eng. , 1869, iii. 226; elected, 227, renominated, 1871, 273; defeated, 275. 

Riker, Richard, dist. -atty. , i. 117; assailed by Van Ness, 124; acts as second for DeWitt Clinton, 127; Clinton fails to support him for Supreme Court, 218; affection for Clinton turned into hate, 218; Clinton removed him as recorder, 273. 

Roberts, Ellis H. , character and services of, iii. 169; aids Conkling's election to U. S. Senate, 1867, 170; defeats Conkling's candidate for state senate, 1877, 388 and note. 

Roberts, Marshall O. , attends Saratoga con. , 1866, iii. 144; aspires to be gov. , 1870, 237; Fenton's candidate, 237; approves books of Tweed's comp. , 245; secedes from Rep. State con. , 1871, 264; meets with a separate body, 264; among supporters of Greeley, 1872, 283. 

Robertson, William H. , early career, iii. 293; character and ability, 293; aspires to be gov. , 1872, 293; opposition, 293; defeated by Dix, 293; beginning of dislike of Conkling, 294; declines nomination for state comp. , 1874, 325; votes for Blaine at Rep. Nat. Con. , 1876, 335; aspirant for gov. , 1876, 337; suggested for gov. , 1879, 414; decides to vote for Blaine, 1880, 436; his letter, 437; other Half-breeds follow, 437; votes for Blaine at Rep. Nat. Con. , 1880, 441; nominated for collector of customs, Mar. 23, 1881, 469; a surprise, 469; reports and theories, 469-70; a Blaine triumph, 470-1; endorsed by Legislature, 472; efforts at compromise, 472; confirmed, 476. 

Robinson, John C. , nominated for state eng. , 1869, iii. 226; withdraws from ticket, 226; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1872, iii. 296; elected, 302; renominated, 1874, 315; defeated, 319; name presented for gov. , 1882, 492. 

Robinson, Lucius, candidate for state comp. , 1861, iii. 23, note; elected, 29; valuable services, 74; renominated, 1863, 74; elected, 83; signs call for Cleveland con. , 1864, 90; resents infringement of rights of individuals and states, 90; letter to Cleveland con. , 92; declares Administration guilty of mistakes, 92; suggests nomination of Grant, 93; prefers a candidate other than Lincoln, 104 and note; Dems. Renominate him for state comp. , 1865, 129; a political somersault, 129; kind words by Reps. , 129; a faithful official, 129; defeated, 135; aspires to be gov. , 1872, 297; nominated for state comp. , 1874, 326; elected, 331; nominated for gov. , 1876, 340; elected, 350; character of administration, 379; leadership at Dem. State con. , 1877, 379; Kelly opposes old ticket, 382; relies upon Hill's ruling, 382; Tilden régime routed, 383; denounces Rep. Gerrymander, 397-8; removes Kelly's henchman, 418; accepted as declaration of war, 418; Kelly's charges, 420; renominated for gov. , 424; Kelly bolts, 424; defeated, 427. 

Rochester, William B. , character and career of, i. 350; nominated for gov. , 1826, 350; proved strong candidate, 351; defeated, 352; believed Van Buren's support insincere, 352; proposed for U. S. Senator, 352; lost at sea, 352, note. 

Rogers, Sherman S. , nominated for lt. -gov. , 1876, iii. 338-39; defeated, 350; candidate for U. S. Senate, 1881, 467. 

Roosevelt, Theodore, nominated for collector of customs, 1878, iii. 399; not confirmed, 405; died, 1879, 406. 

Root, Erastus, gifts and character of, i. 85; career of, 86; friend of Burr, 86; opposes Alien-Sedition laws, 86; strikes at nullification, 87; his opinion of Burr and Hamilton, 91; supports Burr, 1804, 138; defence of methods used by State Bank, 188-9; changes views in case of Merchants' Bank, 191; opposes Bank of America, 196; makes war on Clinton, 255; unfriendly to Erie canal, 261; opposition silenced, 262; favours settlement of Tompkins' accounts, 276; conspicuous work in constitutional con. , 1821, 299-310; aspirant for gov. , 1822, 313; sent to Assembly, 1827, 357; sought nomination for gov. , 1830, 376; leaves Jackson party, 1832, 394; death of, ii. 104. 

Roseboom, Robert, member of Council of Appointment, i. 107; controlled by DeWitt Clinton, 107. 

Ross, Charles N. , nominated for state treas. , 1874, iii. 326; elected, 331. 

Rouse, Caspar M. , accused David Thomas of bribery, i. 193. 

Ruger, William C. , elected chief judge of Court of Appeals, 1882, iii. 499. 

Ruggles, Charles H. , in constitutional con. , 1846, ii. 109; chairman judiciary com. , 109; nominated for Court of Appeals, 184; character of, 184; elected, 189. 

Ruggles, Samuel B. , Seward's reliance upon, ii. 34. 

Russell, Leslie W. , nominated for atty. -gen. , 1881, iii. 485; elected, 486. 

Sage, Russell, in Congress, ii. 195; opposes repeal of Missouri Compromise, 195. 

Sanders, John, member of Council of Appointment, i. 107. 

Sanford, Nathan, career and character of, i. 170; defends embargo, 170-1; opposes DeWitt Clinton for President, 203; elected U. S. Senator, 233; succeeded by Van Buren, 286; succeeded by Jones for chancellor, 347; re-elected U. S. Senator, 347. 

Saratoga Union convention, 1866, iii. 144; attended by Reps. And Dems. , 144; appoints dels. To Johnson's Philadelphia con. , 144. 

Savage, Edward, member Council of Appointment, 1807, i. 156. 

Savage, John, appointed Supreme Court judge, i. 322. 

Schell, Augustus, at Charleston con. , ii. 272; aspires to be gov. , 1872, iii. 297; opposes Tilden, 1876, 342; candidate for state senator, 386; opposed by Morrissey, 386; fierce fight, 386; defeated, 388; nominated for mayor by Tam. , 394; defeated, 396; leads the Tam. Bolt, 1879, 423; refused admission to Dem. Nat. Con. , 1880, 457; part in spectacular reconciliation, 458. 

Scheu, Solomon B. , nominated for prison insp. , 1870, iii. 231; elected, 244. 

Schoonmaker, Augustus, nominated for atty. -gen. , 1877, iii. 384; elected, 387; renominated, 1879, 424; defeated, 427; nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1881, 484; defeated, 486. 

Schurz, Carl, reports upon Southern sentiment, iii. 136; opposes Ku Klux Act, 276; favours universal amnesty, 277; criticism of Grant's administration, 278; organises Lib. Rep. Movement, 280; ch'm. Of Lib. Rep. Con. , 283; opposes Greeley for President, 283. 

Schuyler, George W. , nominated for state treas. , 1863, iii. 76; elected, 83. 

Schuyler, Philip, member first constitutional con. , i. 5; suggested for gov. , 17; public career of, 17; Kent on, 17; Webster on, 18; characteristics of, 18; called "Great Eye, " 18, note; surprised by Clinton's election as gov. , 21; elected U. S. Senator, 44; defeated for re-election, 49; combination against him, 49; member of Council of Appointment, 61; nominates Benson, 61; claims concurrent right with gov. , 61; justification of, 62; re-elected to U. S. Senate, 70; resigns, 70; example in Council followed by DeWitt Clinton, 110. 

Scott, George F. , nominated for state comp. , 1861, iii. 21, note; defeated, 29. 

Scott, John Morin, member first constitutional con. , i. 5; leads radicals in, 13; ch'm. Council of Safety, 16; suggested for gov. , 17; Adams on, 18; Jones on, 18; ancestry of, 19; career of, 19. 

Scott, Winfield, valour at Queenstown Heights, i. 223; opinion of Wilkinson, 223; promoted, 225; bravery at Lundy's Lane, 226; brilliant leadership, 227; candidate for President, 1852, ii. 166-7; tour through New York, 176; regarded as Seward's candidate, 175; confident of election, 179; defeated, 179. 

 Disapproves relief of Fort Sumter, iii. 1; disapproves battle of Bull Run, 11. 

"Scratchers, " a faction of Rep. Party, iii. 424; origin of name, 424. 

Scribner, G. Hilton, defeated for ch'm. Of Rep. State con. , 1871, iii. 258-9; nominated for sec. Of state, 1871, 264; elected, 275. 

Seceders, Barnburners from Hunkers, ii. 127; Silver-Grays from Seward Whigs, 155; Dem. Senators from state senate, 163; Hunkers from Barnburners, 180; anti-slavery members from Softs, 197; Wood delegation from Dem. State con. , 249. 

Secretary of state, stepping stone to Presidency, i. 364. 

Sedgwick, Charles B. , character of, iii. 55; candidate for U. S. Senate, 1863, 55; defeated, 55. 

Selden, Henry S. , nominated for lt. -gov. , ii. 237; family of, 237; character and career of, 236-7. 

 Suggested for U. S. Senate, 1863, iii. 55; nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1863, 76; elected, 83; joins Lib. Rep. Party, 284; attends its Nat. Con. , 284; opposes scheme of Fenton, 284. 

Selden, Samuel L. , nominated for Court of Appeals, ii. 211; elected, 219; brother of Henry R. , 237; character and career of, 237-8. 

Selkreg, John H. , Ithaca _Journal_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 414. 

Senate, state, number of members in first, i. 9; election of, 9; how apportioned, 9; powers of, 9; model of, 9; who could vote for, 9. 

Senate, United States, its enormous power, i. 118; membership in it preferred to the governorship, 364; years of its greatness, 386. 

Senators, United States, service of Rufus King, 1789-96, i. 44; Philip Schuyler, 1789-91, 44; Aaron Burr, 1791-7, 49; John Lawrence, 1796-1801, 70; Philip Schuyler, 1797-8, 70; John Sloss Hobart, 1798, 70; William North, 1798, 70; James Watson, 1798-1800, 70; Gouverneur Morris, 1800-3, 71; John Armstrong, 1801-2, 118; DeWitt Clinton, 1802-3, 118; John Armstrong, 1803-4, 118; Theodorus Bailey, 1804, 156; Samuel L. Mitchell, 1804-9, 170; John Smith, 1804-15, 170; Obadiah German, 1809-15, 170; Rufus King, 1815-27, 211, 269; Nathan Sanford, 1815-21, 233; Martin Van Buren, 1821-8, 286; Charles B. Dudley, 1829-33, 383; Nathan Sanford, 1827-31, 347; William L. Marcy, 1831-2, 385. 

 Silas Wright, 1833-44, ii. 1, 65; Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, 1833-44, 39; Daniel S. Dickinson, 1845-51, 93; Henry A. Foster, 1844-5, 93; John A. Dix, 1845-9, 93; William H. Seward, 1849-61, 145, 205; Hamilton Fish, 1851-7, 162; Preston King, 1857-63, 243; Ira Harris, 1861-7, 365. 

 Edwin D. Morgan, 1863-9, iii. 55; Roscoe Conkling, 1867-81, 171, 305, 397; Reuben E. Fenton, 1869-75, 222; Francis Kernan, 1875-81, 321; Thomas C. Platt, 1881, 468; Warner Miller, 1881-7, 481; Elbridge G. Lapham, 1881-5, 482. 

Sessions, Loren B. , a state senator, iii. 437; decides to vote for Blaine, 1880, 437; severely criticised, 437; charged with bribery, 1881, 480; acquitted, 480, note. 

Seward, Frederick W. , nominated for sec. Of state, 1874, iii. 325; defeated, 331. 

Seward, William H. , elected state senator, i. 377; appearance of, 377; career and character of, 378; his boyhood, 378; gifts, 378; an active Clintonian, 379; first meeting with Weed, 379; Weed on, 380; joined Anti-Masons, 380; visits John Quincy Adams, 380; Whigs nominate for gov. , 1834, 402; fitness and red hair, 402-3; bright prospects of election, 402-3; defeated, 404; indifference of, 405. 

 Nominated for gov. , 1838, ii. 19-21; elected, 29; accepts Weed's dictatorship, 31-3, 36-8; first message of, 34-5; tribute to DeWitt Clinton, 35; prophetic of Erie canal, 36; renominated, 1840, 42; elected, 45; weakness of, 45; reasons for, 48-50; declines renomination, 50-1; unhappy, 1844, 84-5; predicts disunion, 86; Clay's Alabama letter, 87-8; on Wilmot Proviso, 102; absence of, from constitutional con. , 1846, 104-5; picture of candidates, 1846, 121; on the stump, 1848, 141-3; first meeting with Lincoln, 143; elected U. S. Senator, 145-7; gratitude to Weed, 148; opposes compromises, 1850, 152; higher law speech, 152; Whigs approve his course, 153-5; opposes repeal of Missouri Compromise, 190-3; Blair on, 192-3; opposed a Rep. Party, 1854, 200; re-elected to U. S. Senate, 205-7; Raymond on, 205; _Evening Post_ on, 205; opposed by Know-Nothings, 205-6; gratitude to Weed, 208; speech for Rep. Party, 217-8; criticised, 219-20; speech on Kansas, 225-6; declined nomination for President, 229-32; hinted Weed betrayed him, 230; grouty, 239; suspicions of trimming, 252; irrepressible conflict speech, 252-3; criticism of, 254; goes to Europe, 260-1; bill to admit Kansas, 261; speech on, 265-7; criticised as bid for Presidency, 267-8; Phillips, Garrison, and Greeley on, 268; confident of nomination for President, 1860, 283-4; on Greeley's fidelity, 284, note; character of opposition, 285; defeated on third ballot, 289; sorrow of friends, 290, note; personal bearing of, 291-3; letter to wife, 292; to Weed, 291-3; Greeley's letter, 1854, 311-17; its effect upon him, 317; admits Greeley should have had an office, 323; vindictiveness of, 323, 386; in New England, 328; in the West, 329; climax of career, 329; predicted Alaska purchase, 330; on threats of disunion, 334; as to Weed's compromise, 368, 380; waiting to hear from Lincoln, 368-9; on Buchanan's message, 369-70; offered secretaryship of state, 370; generally anticipated, 370; Weed saw Lincoln for, 371; Astor House speech, 371-3; opposes Crittenden Compromise, 373-4; answers Jefferson Davis, 376-7; non-committalism, 377-9; purpose of, 377-8; Whittier's poem on, 378; speech criticised, 379; secession in White House, 379; controversy with Mason of Virginia, 381-2; brilliant and resourceful, 383; modifies Lincoln's inaugural address, 384-5; a blow at Curtin, 386; opposes Chase, 386; declines to enter Cabinet, 386; tenacious as to patronage, 390; conference with Harris and President, 390, 396, 397; Barney's appointment, 390-7; President or Premier, 397; secures all important offices, 398; Dickinson's appointment, 399-401. 

 Disapproves relief of Fort Sumter, iii. 1; orders arrests, 19; favours Dix for gov. , 1862, 41; position in Cabinet, 41; views on emancipation, 41; opposes Wadsworth, 50; criticism of Seymour, 83; relations with Lincoln, 84-5; humorous illustration of, 84; Radicals resent his influence with Lincoln, 89; influence in state lessened, 89; supports Johnson, 143; favours Philadelphia con. , 1866, 143; shares Raymond's unpopularity, 146; influence with the President, 146; writes veto messages, 147; speech of May 22, 1866, 147; a leader without a party, 149; criticised in Rep. State con. , 1866, 151; his home speech, 1868, 212. 

Seymour, David L. , character and career of, ii. 232-3; at Charleston con. , 272. 

Seymour, Henry, elected canal commissioner, i. 261; deprives Clinton of patronage, 261. 

Seymour, Horatio, leading Conservative, ii. 53; member of Assembly, 60; report on canal, 61; legislative skill and influence, 61; appearance, 61; Hoffman and, 63; elected speaker of Assembly, 91-2; poise and gifts, 91; beginning of leadership, 91; controls in election of U. S. Senators, 93; fight over fourth constitutional con. , 99; harmonises Hunkers and Barnburners, 149; John Van Buren, 150; nominated for gov. , 1850, 156; defeated, 158; supports Marcy for President, 1852, 169-72; nominated for gov. , 1852, 172-3; Conkling on, 172; elected, 178; secures canal constitutional amendment, 183-4; approved by Barnburners, 184; renominated for gov. , 1854, 197; vetoes Maine liquor law, 199; defeated, 203; pleads for Softs at Nat. Con. , 226-8; leader of united party, 232; condemns Rep. Party, 239, note; declines nomination for gov. , 1858, 249; Richmond's choice for President at Charleston, 276, 298, note, 299; name withdrawn at Baltimore, 301; at Softs' state con. , 325; at Dem. State peace con. , 354; sentiments of, 355-6, and note. 

 View on war issues, iii. 27-9; opposes a Union state con. , 1861, 15; nominated for gov. , 1862, 38; prefers another, 38; Richmond's appeal to, 38; his influence, 40; speech of acceptance, 40; criticised, 44, 45; speaks in campaign, 47; resents Raymond's attack, 47; elected, 51; not a member of the Union league, 61; inaugural address, 61; views about the war, 62; Lincoln's letter to, 63; his opinion of President, 63; fails to write Lincoln, 64; vetoes bill allowing soldiers to vote, 64; criticises arrest of Vallandigham, 65; sends troops to Gettysburg, 66; refuses to reply to Lincoln's thanks, 67; Fourth of July speech, 67; draft-riot, 68; speech to rioters, 68; calls them "friends, " 68; no complicity, 69; influence of his speech, 69; his use of the word "friends, " 69; cause of embarrassment, 70; views about the draft, 70; dilatoriness of, 70; his letter to Lincoln, 71; dreary speech, 79, note; severely criticised, 80-1; charged with nepotism, 80; speeches in reply, 81-2; message of, 1864, 98-100; a bid for the presidency, 100; heads delegation to Dem. Nat. Con. , 1864, 101; war depression favours, 107; his journey to Chicago, 107; candidacy for President, 107; opposed by Richmond, 107; dislike of McClellan, 107; delegation supports him until defeat is certain, 108; refuses to vote for McClellan, 108; ch'm. Of con. , 110; his speech, 110-12; delivery of, 111; renominated for gov. , 1864, 117-9; Richmond fooled, 119; criticises Lincoln, 123; defeated, 125; supports President Johnson, 133; ch'm. Dem. State con. , 1867, 179; on payment of U. S. Bonds, 181; drops Johnson, 182; on canal frauds, 183; on negro suffrage, 186-7; president of Nat. Dem. Con. , 1868, 197; favours Chase for President, 198; approved platform with negro suffrage, 198; refuses to be candidate for President, 200; nominated, 201; much affected, 201; accepts, 204; criticism, 205; high character of, 208; tours the West, 211; defeated, 214; but carries New York, 215; evidences of fraud in election, 215-8; in Dem. State con. , 1871, 270; shabbily treated, 270; absent from Dem. State con. , 1872, 287; also from Dem. Nat. Con. , 1872, 287; advises Tilden not to run for gov. , 311; writes platform, 1874, 314; nominated for gov. , 1876, 346; declines, 346; Tam. Urges him for President, 1880, 451; preferred a funeral to a nomination, 451. 

Seymour, Horatio, Jr. , nominated for state eng. , 1877, iii. 384; elected, 387; renominated, 1879, 424; elected, 427. 

Seymour, Silas, nominated for state eng. , 1882, iii. 485; elected, 486. 

Sharpe, George H. , holds office of surveyor of port of New York, iii. 399; successor appointed, 1877, 399; suggests Arthur for Vice President, 1880, 444; Conkling objects to it, 444; fails to get Conkling to present Arthur's name, 444; secures Woodford to do it, 444; character and services, 464; elected speaker of the Assembly, 464; supports Crowley for U. S. Senate, 1881, 465; urges Conkling to seek re-election at Albany, 1881, 481; prophecy of Payn, 481, note; aids election of Miller for U. S. Senator, 481. 

Sharpe, Peter B. , speaker of Assembly, i. 262; unfriendly to canal, 261-2; opposition silenced, 262; approves Tompkins' war accounts, 276; opposes Jackson, 357; nominated for Assembly, 1827, 358. 

Shaw, Samuel M. , Cooperstown _Freeman's Journal_, a leading Dem. Editor, iii. 420. 

Sheldon, Alexander, speaker of Assembly, i. 194; charges Southwick with bribery, 194. 

Sherman, John, aids Cornell's election as gov. , 1879, iii. 427; reply to criticisms, 427, note; indignant over Arthur's nomination for Vice President, 445, note. 

Sherwood, Henry, nominated for speaker of Assembly, 1863, iii. 53; defeated, 53. 

"Short-hairs, " faction of Tam. , iii. 325, note. 

Sickles, Daniel E. , member of the Hards, ii. 209; represented Tam. , 249. 

 Early life of, iii. 8; offers services to Government, 8; interview with President, 9, note; del. To Rep. Nat. Con. , 1868, 192; ch'm. Of New York delegation, 192; supports Fenton, 193; destroys the Erie-Gould ring, 293. 

Sigel, Franz, named for sec. Of state, 1869, iii. 226; defeated, 227. 

Silliman, Benjamin D. , nominated for atty. -gen. , 1873, iii. 308; defeated, 309. 

Silver-Grays, faction of Whig party, ii. 155; origin of name, 155; secede from Whig con. , 1850, 155; hold con. At Utica, 155-6; indorse Hunt for gov. , 156; become Know-Nothings, 202, 204; also Hards, 204; defeated Reps. , 1855, 219; finally absorbed by other parties, 332. 

Skinner, Roger, member of Council, i. 288; U. S. Judge, 294; member of Albany Regency, 294. 

Skinner, William I. , nominated for canal com. , 1862, iii. 41, note; elected, 51. 

Slavery, Jay fails to recommend abolition of, i. 68, 111; abolished by Legislature of New York, 111; agitation against, ii. 5-10; Beardsley heads a mob, 6; state anti-slavery society formed, 8; Van Buren's attitude toward, 10-12; Wilmot Proviso, 102; Free-soil movement, 126-44; prohibition of, in Territories, 282; platform of Rep. Party, 282. 

Sloan, George B. , career and character, iii. 417; elected speaker of Assembly, 1877, 417; defeated for speaker, 1879, 407, 417; votes for Cornell, 1879, 417; resented, 417. 

Slocum, Henry W. , record of, iii. 128; nominated for sec. Of state, 1865, 129; defeated, 135; aspires to be gov. , 1879, 421; defeated by Robinson, 423; presented for gov. , 1882, 488; favoured by Manning, 489; charges against, 489; contest with Flower, 491; elected congressman-at-large, 1882, 498, note. 

Smith, Alexander, brigadier-general, relieves Stephen Van Rensselaer onNiagara frontier, i. 222; character and failure of, 222. 

Smith, Carroll E. , Syracuse _Journal_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 413-4. 

Smith, Charles E. , Albany _Journal_, a leading Rep. Editor, iii. 413; ch'm. Of Rep. State con. , 1880, 430; character and career, 430-2. 

Smith, Gerrit, career and gifts of, ii. 7-8; Weed on, 7-8; wealth of, 7; becomes an Abolitionist, 8; generosity of, 8; organises state anti-slavery society, 8; influence, 1838, 25; 1844, 83; rescues a fugitive, 165; elected to Congress, 179. 

 Del. To Rep. Nat. Con. , 1872, iii. 291; boasts that delegation is without an office-holder, 291. 

Smith, Henry, known as "Hank, " iii. 250; leader of Tam. Reps. , 250; controversy over, 255-63. 

Smith, James C. , at peace congress, ii. 350. 

Smith, Melancthon, member of Poughkeepsie con. , i. 33; ablest opponent of Federal Constitution, 34; Fiske on, 34; wisdom of suggestions, 34; change of mind, 35; supports Clinton for gov. , 1789, 43. 

Smith, Peter, father of Gerrit, ii. 7; large landowner, 7. 

Smith, William S. , appointed U. S. Marshal, i. 44. 

Smyth, John F. , forsakes Pomeroy, 1879, iii. 416; calls a snap con. , 1880, 429; career and character, 429-30; supports Crowley for U. S. Senate, 1881, 465; ch'm. Rep. State com. , 1882, 494; disclaimed any part in fraud and treachery, 498; overwhelmingly defeated, 498. 

Social Democratic party, state con. , 1877, iii. 384. 

Softs, name of Dem. Faction, ii. 185; successors to Barnburners, 185; why so called, 185; ticket defeated, 1853, 189; strained position as to repeal of Missouri Compromise, 196; withdrawal of anti-slavery leaders, 197; Seymour renominated for gov. By, 197-8; defeated, 203; disapproved extension of slavery, 210; became pro-slavery, 226; humiliated at Nat. Con. , 226-8; Seymour pleads for, 226-8; unite with Hards, 232; support Buchanan and Parker, 232; Wood captures their state con. , 257; Dickinson yields to, 258; control at Charleston and Baltimore, 270-9, 294-303; hold separate state con. , 1860, 325-6; nominated Kelley for gov. , 326; fuse with Constitutional Union party, 326-7. 

Soldiers' vote, scheme to defraud, 1864, iii. 124. 

Soule, Howard, nominated for state eng. , 1877, iii. 377; defeated, 387; renominated, 1879, 416; defeated, 427. 

Southern fire-eaters, threats of disunion, ii. 261; reward for heads of Rep. Leaders, 264-5. 

Southern press, criticism of New York City, 1861, iii. 10. 

Southwick, Solomon, character and gifts of, i. 154; career, 154, 192-3; connection with Bank of America, 191, 193-4; indicted and acquitted, 194; becomes postmaster, 239; opposes Tompkins for President, 230; runs for gov. , 1822, 316; strange career of, 316-7; without support, 319; without votes, 320; nominated for gov. , 1828, 364; defeated, 368. 

Spaulding, Elbridge G. , career of, ii. 188; nominated treas. Of state, 188; "father of the greenback, " 188; elected state treas. , 189; at birth of Rep. Party, 214; presents petition for peace, 350. 

 Member of Ways and Means com. , iii. 32; drafts legal tender act, 32; opposed by Conkling, 32; aided by sec. Of treas. , 33; bill becomes a law, 33; defeated for Congress, 1876, 350. 

Spencer, Ambrose, appearance of, i. 55-6; asst. Atty. -gen. , 70; changes his politics, 87; reasons for, 88; relative of Chancellor Livingston, 88; member of Council of Appointment, 107; atty. -gen. , 117; on Supreme Court, 117; appointment alarms Federalists, 117; reasons for, 117-8; character of, 118; attack on Foote, 120; assailed by Van Ness, 125; opposes the Merchants' Bank, 148; votes for Clinton for President, 167; opposes charter of Merchants' Bank, 189; and Bank of America, 195; breaks with DeWitt Clinton, 197; opposes him for President, 202-4; denounced by Clinton, 204; friend of Armstrong, 216; distrusted by Tompkins, 216-7; opposes Van Buren for atty. -gen. , 232; relations with Tompkins strained, 233; favours Armstrong for U. S. Senate, 233; becomes a candidate, 233; beaten by Van Buren, 233; breaks with Tompkins, 237; relations renewed with Clinton, 245; brother-in-law of, 245; declares for him for gov. , 246; forces a broader party caucus, 250; work in constitutional con. , 1821, 299-310; Yates' treatment of, 322; later career and death, 322-3. 

Spencer, Daniel C. , nominated for canal com. , 1876, iii. 339; defeated, 350. 

Spencer, John C. , son of Ambrose Spencer, i. 263; gifts, character, and career of, 263-5; likeness to Calhoun, 264; home at Canandaigua, 264; DeWitt Clinton's opinion of, 264; candidate for U. S. Senate, 266-7; defeated, 267; fails to become atty. -gen. , 274; speaker of Assembly, 276; opposes Tompkins' accounts, 276; headed electoral ticket, 1832, 393. 

 Seward's reliance upon, ii. 34; sec. Of state, 36; ambitious to go to U. S. Senate, 38; sec. Of war, 48; breaks with Weed, 48; with Scott at Albany, 176. 

Spencer, Joshua A. , defeated for U. S. Senate, ii. 38. 

Spinner, Francis B. , nominated for state comp. , 1874, iii. 325; defeated, 331; nominated for sec. Of state, 1877, 384; defeated, 387. 

"Stalwarts, " title of faction in Rep. Party, 1880, iii. 429; use of regretted, 482. 

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, daughter of Daniel Cady, i. 169; gifts of, 169. 

Starin, John H. , aspires to be gov. , 1879, iii. 414; career of, 414 and note; name presented for gov. , 1882, 492; defeated, 494. 

State debt, Hoffman's estimate of, 1846, ii. 108-9. 

Steam navigation, history of its inception, i. 75-6. 

Stephens, Alexander H. , predicts civil war, ii. 279. 

Stevens, Samuel, ancestry and career of, i. 376; nominated for lt. -gov. , 376; defeated, 377; energy of, 390; renominated for lt. -gov. , 1832, 393. 

Stevens, Thaddeus, approves legal tender act, iii. 32; dislike of Johnson, 132; opposes his policy, 137; defeats Raymond, 141. 

Stewart, Alvan, nominated for gov. , ii. 82; character and career of, 82-3; defeated, 89; increasing strength, 89. 

Stewart, William, brother-in-law of George Clinton, i. 117; made asst. Atty. -gen. , 117. 

Stillwell, Silas M. , nominated for lt. -gov. , i. 402; character and career of, 402; defeated, 404. 

Stranahan, Ferrand, member of Council, i. 231. 

Stroud, Reuben W. , nominated for canal com. , 1872, iii. 296; elected, 302; renominated, 1874, 315; defeated, 319. 

Suffrage, restrictions of under first constitution, i. 9. 

Sumner, Charles, assaulted by Brooks, ii. 225; Seward on, 225; excitement in North, 226; leads radicals in U. S. Senate, iii. 14; opposes President Johnson, 128; removed from Com. On Foreign Affairs, 278. 

Sutherland, Jacob, appointed Supreme Court judge, i. 322. 

"Swallow-tails, " faction of Tam. , iii. 325; history of name, 325. 

Swartwout, John, dist. -atty. , i. 117, 121; challenges DeWitt Clinton, 127; wounded twice, 127; leader of Burrites, 152. 

Sweeny, Peter B. , known as Peter Brains Sweeny, iii. 177; Tweed's reliance upon, 177; begins, 1857, as dist. -atty. , 177; the Mephistopheles of Tam. , 178; hidden from sight, 178; city chamberlain, 178; cost of confirmation, 178; author of Tweed charter, 228; takes position of most lucre, 229; exposure of startling crime, 246; resigns from office, 1871, 247; escapes to Europe with plunder, 248; compromises and returns, 248, note. 

Sweet, Sylvanus H. , nominated for state eng. , 1865, iii. 129; defeated, 135; renominated, 1873, 309; elected, 309. 

Sylvester, Francis, nominated for state comp. , 1877, iii. 377; defeated, 387. 

Talcott, Samuel A. , atty. -gen. , i. 289; career and appearance of, 289-94; genius of, 290; compared to Hamilton, 290; Chief Justice Marshall on, 290; opposed Webster in Snug Harbour case, 290; close relations with Butler, 291; original member of Albany Regency, 293-4; death of, 294. 

Tallmadge, Fred A. , elected to state senate, ii. 16; nominated for clerk to Court of Appeals, 1862, iii. 41, note; elected, 51. 

Tallmadge, James, opposition to Missouri Compromise, i. 274; applicant for atty. -gen. , 274; hostility to DeWitt Clinton, 274; work in constitutional con. , 1821, 299-310; applicant for state comp. , 321; beaten by Marcy, 321; supported Adams, 1824, 324; voted for Clinton's removal as canal com. , 328-9; great mistake, 329; nominated for lt. -gov. , 331; in constitutional con. , 1846, ii. 103. 

Tallmadge, Nathaniel P. , opponent of Regency, i. 358; sent to Assembly, 358; in U. S. Senate, ii. 1; attitude toward slavery, 11; endorsed Seward for gov. , 24-5; nominated for U. S. Senate, 38; elected, 39; becomes gov. Of Wisconsin, 92. 

Tammany Society, early history of, i. 181-5; hostility to DeWitt Clinton, 181-5; opposes Erie canal, 251; opposed Clinton for gov. , 1817, 251; defeated, 252; Clinton dismisses its office-holders, 255; Van Buren silences its opposition to canal, 261-2; influence in securing the constitutional con. , 1821, 296; favours Jackson for President, 357; trains with the Softs, ii. 249; defeats Wood, 257. 

Tammany Hall, defeated, 1861, iii. 29; Tweed begins his career, 176; boss of, 176; his lieutenants, 177; forces Hoffman's nomination, 1866, 159; fraudulent naturalisations, 175; its new building, 178; again nominates Hoffman, 1868, 205; renominates Hoffman, 1870, 231; startling disclosures of Tweed ring, 246-9; controls state con. , 1871, 269-73; dismayed by result of election, 275; Kelly succeeds Tweed as its leader, 288; reorganises it, 289; divided into two factions, 325; Morrissey faction rejected, 325; Kelly's ticket defeated, 1875, 331; Morrissey and Kelly factions unite, 1876, 346; ticket elected, 350; factions divide, 1877, 378; Kelly wins, 383; but Morrissey elected to Senate, 388; it controls Dem. State con. , 1878, 392; defeated in election, 397; bolts Dem. State con. , 1879, 423; holds con. Of its own, 424; nominates Kelly for gov. , 424; crushed by defeat, 427; refused admission to Dem. State con. , 1880, 451; holds con. Of its own, 451; platform stigmatises Tilden, 452; refused admission to Dem. Nat. Con. , 1880, 457; spectacular reconciliation, 458; forces a Dem. State con. , 460; has its own way, 460; fools Irving Hall on mayoralty, 460; opponents organise County Democracy, 483; dels. Excluded from Dem. State con. , 1881, 484; local ticket defeated, 483; forces way into Dem. State con. , 1882, 488; divides its vote for gov. , 490; finally supports Cleveland, 491; joins County Democracy on local ticket, 498; elect state and city officials, 498. 

"Tammany-Republicans, " history of title, iii. 250, 254, 255. 

Tappan, Abraham B. , candidate prison insp. , 1861, iii. 23, note; elected, 29. 

Tappan, Arthur, early Abolitionist, ii. 6; requisition for, 6. 

Tappan, Lewis, early Abolitionist, ii. 6; home mobbed, 6; nominated for state comp. , 216. 

Taylor, John, career and character of, i. 177-8; speech against Platt, 178; opposes Bank of America, 196; appearance of, 196; nominated for lt. -gov. , 213; attacked by Clinton, 213; elected, 215; renominated for lt. -gov. With Clinton, 279. 

Taylor, John J. , nominated for lt. -gov. , ii. 249-50; career of, 250. 

Taylor, John W. , congressman from Saratoga, i. 312; brilliant leader, 312; twice speaker of national House of Representatives, 312, ii. 204; refuses nomination for lt. -gov. , i. 331; defeated for speaker in Twentieth Congress, 359. 

 Champion opponent of Missouri Compromise, 1820, ii. 204; lived to see principles adopted, 204; longer continuous service than any successor, 204; character of speeches, 204; death of, 204. 

Taylor, Moses, urges Lincoln's renomination, iii. 88; attends Saratoga con. , 1866, 144; approves books of Tweed's city comp. , 245. 

Taylor, William B. , candidate for state eng. , 1861, iii. 23, note; elected, 29; renominated, 1863, 76; elected, 83; renominated, 1869, 226; defeated, 227; renominated, 1871, 264; elected, 275; renominated, 1873, 308; defeated, 309. 

Temperance vote, 1870, iii. 244, note. 

Thayer, Adin, nominated for canal com. , 1874, iii. 314; elected, 319. 

Thayer, Francis S. , nominated for sec. Of state, 1873, iii. 308; defeated, 309. 

Third term, talk of it, 1874, iii. 317; Grant's letter ends it, 1875, 329; Rep. State con. , 1875, declares against it, 325; Grant becomes an active candidate, 1880, 428; efforts of Stalwarts to nominate him, 429-42; opposition to, 429-42; defeated, 442. 

Thomas, David, career and character of, i. 191-2; charged with bribery, 193; indicted and acquitted, 194. 

Thomas, Thomas, member of Council of Appointment, 1807, i. 156. 

Thompson, Herbert O. , appointed clerk of N. Y. County, 1879, iii. 418; an organiser of the County Democracy, 483. 

Thompson, Smith, related to Livingstons, i. 155; on Supreme bench, 155; refused mayoralty of New York, 155; career of, 362; learning of, 362; sec. Of navy under Munroe, 362; on bench twenty-five years, 362; justice of U. S. Supreme Court, 362; nominated for gov. , 1828, 362; refused to withdraw, 363; defeated, 368. 

Thompson, William, caucus nominee for speaker, i. 257; character and career of, 257; defeated by a bolt, 258-9. 

Thorn, Stephen, an assemblyman, i. 149; charged Purdy with bribery, 149, 190. 

Throop, Enos T. , criticised Morgan's abductors, i. 365; home on Lake Owasco, 365; nominated for lt. -gov. , 366-7; bargain with Van Buren, 366; resigned from Supreme Court, 366; elected lt. -gov. , 368; becomes acting gov. , 376; nominated for gov. , 1830, 376; unpopular manners, 376; elected, 377; defeated for renomination, 1832, 394; nicknamed "Small-light, " 394; character of, 394. 

Thurman, Allen G. , attitude toward Tilden, iii. 354. 

Tilden, Samuel J. , in constitutional con. , 1846, ii. 104; opposes negro suffrage, 107; writes address of Barnburners, 131; nominated for atty. -gen. , 211; defeated, 218. 

 Del. To Dem. Nat. Con. , 1864, iii. 108; age and appearance of, 108; ability, 109; war record, 109; becomes wealthy, 110; accepted leader at Chicago, 110; member com. On res. , 110; declares war a failure, 110; criticised for his timidity, 113; attends Saratoga con. , 1866, 144; del. -at-large to Philadelphia, 144; active in campaign, 1867, 186; attends Dem. Nat. Con. , 1868, 197; ch'm. New York delegation, 197; forces nomination of Seymour, 201; study of his methods, 203; disclaims any agency, 203; his artfulness, 203; urges Seymour to accept, 204; certain of success, 213; denies signing infamous circular, 213; fails to denounce forgers, 214; calls Dem. State con. To order, 1870, 230; has his pocket picked, 230; severely criticised, 231; prophesies Tweed will die in jail or exile, 265; no liking for Rep. Party, 265-6; begins reform in Dem. Party, 266-7; rejects Tweed's proposals, 267; labours to punish Ring, 267; unites anti-Tam. Organisations, 268; at Dem. State con. , 1871, 269-74; though defeated, proves its master, 273; Tweed arrested on his affidavit, 275; absent from Dem. Nat con. , 1872, 287; secures impeachment of Tweed judges, 293; at Dem. State con. , 1872, 297; opposed by Tweed influence, 297; nominates Kernan for gov. , 298; decides to run for gov. , 310; supported by Kelly, 310; praised by Rep. Journals, 311; opposed by canal ring, 311; dissuaded by friends, 311; Seymour advises against it, 311; insists upon making race, 312; nominated, 313; elected gov. , 319; message against canal ring, 321-2; prosecutions, 323; tour of the state, 323; Rep. Press criticises, 326; speech at Utica, 327; message of, 1876, a bid for presidency, 340; opposed by Kelly, 341-2; strength of, 342; confidence of, 343; a critical moment, 343; nominated for President, 343; letter of acceptance, 344; fails to nominate Dorsheimer for gov. , 345; severe criticism of, 348-9; denies complicity in cipher dispatches, 351; attitude toward Electoral Com. , 354-5; relied upon Davis' vote, 356; hurt by Conkling's exclusion, 356; prestige weakened, 378; publication of cipher dispatches, 394-5; influence upon, 395; party talks of his nomination, 1880, 447; embodiment of fraud issue, 448; opposition of Kelly, 448; Dem. State con. , 1880, endorses him for President, 449; would he accept nomination, 453; his health, 453-4; gives Manning a letter, 454; regarded as indefinite, 455-6; settles question in telegram, 456; did not know himself, 456; an opportunist, 456. 

Tillotson, Thomas, brother-in-law of Chancellor Livingston, i. 113; sec. Of state, 115; assailed by Van Ness, 125; removed as sec. , 151; restored, 154; removed, 165. 

Tinsley, William F. , nominated for canal com. , 1874, iii. 325; defeated, 331. 

Tompkins, Daniel D. , nominated for gov. , i. 155; character and career of, 158-61; compared with Clinton, 160-1; elected gov. , 161-2; an issue dividing parties, 162; sustains embargo, 164; opposes George Clinton for President, 166-7; renominated for gov. , 173; re-elected, 179; opposes banks, 194-5; ambitious to be President, 197, 232, 238; prorogues Legislature, 197; opposes DeWitt Clinton for President, 201; renominated for gov. , 212; attacked by Clinton, 213; re-elected, 215; at zenith of popularity, 215; jealous of Armstrong, 216; distrusts Spencer, 217; called the great war gov. , 219; refuses to give Clinton active service in field, 220; re-elected, 223; efforts paralysed by Federalists, 219-30; defeat of Federalists, 226; calls extra session of Legislature, 226; vigorous prosecution of war, 226; opposed Spencer, 233-4; relations with Spencer strained, 233; favoured Sanford for U. S. Senate, 233; Legislature endorses him for President, 235; re-elected gov. , 236; opposed for President by Spencer, 237; offered place in Madison's cabinet, 237; reasons for declining, 238; Virginians create opposition to, 239; Van Buren's sly methods, 240; nominated and elected Vice President, 240; did not favour Erie canal, 246; nominated to beat Clinton, 274; majorities in prior elections, 275; shortage in war accounts, 275-82; effort to prevent nomination of, 275-8; Yates on, 279; insisted on fifth race, 279; handicapped by canal record, 279; defeated, 281; sad closing of his life, 282; president constitutional con. , 1821, 299; willing to run for gov. , 1822, 318. 

Toombs, Robert, opposes attack on Fort Sumter, iii. 2; prophecy fulfilled, 3. 

Tories, treatment of, i. 23; their flight to Nova Scotia, 26. 

Tousey, Sinclair, joins Lib. Rep. Movement, iii. 283; organises its con. For Greeley's nomination, 283; del. To Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, 296. 

Townsend, Henry A. , character and career of, i. 217; member of Council, 217; supports Clinton for mayor, 217. 

Townsend, John D. , strong supporter of Tam. , iii. 383. 

Townsend, Martin I. , as an orator, iii. 80-1; arraigns Seymour, 81; nominated for atty. -gen. , 1869, 226; defeated, 227. 

Tracy, Albert H. , gifts and career of, i. 372; in Congress, 372; mentioned for U. S. Senate, 372; ambitious for public life, 372; easy principles, 372; like Jefferson in appearance, 372-3; nominated for state Senate, 373; faithful to Weed, 379; presides at anti-masonic con. , 393; weakens after defeat, 397; Weed on, 397; Seward on, 397, note; leaves Anti-Masons, 398; others follow, 399; withdraws from politics, ii. 38; loses chance of being Vice President and President, 40. 

Tracy, John, nominated for lt. -gov. , 1832, i. 395; renominated, 1836, ii. 11; elected, 14; renominated, 1838, 23; defeated, 29. 

Treaty with England, 1795, excitement over, i. 65; Jay's opinion of, 66; what it accomplished, 67. 

Tremaine, Grenville, nominated for atty. -gen. , 1877, iii. 377; defeated, 387. 

Tremaine, Lyman, Dems. Nominate him for atty. -gen. , 1861, iii. 21; refused to accept, 24; character of, 24; addresses a Union meeting, 26; nominated by Reps. For lt. -gov. , 1862, 45, note; defeated, 51; ch'm. Rep. State con. , 1864, 90; his leadership, 91; on death of Wadsworth, 91; del. -at-large to Rep. Nat. Con. , 1864, 92; president of Rep. State con. , 1866, 150; aspires to U. S. Senate, 166; aspirant for gov. , 1868, 193; nominated for congressman-at-large, 1872, 296; elected, 302. 

Troup, Robert, in campaign, 1789, i. 42. 

Trowbridge, Charles W. , nominated for prison insp. , 1876, iii. 339; defeated, 350. 

Tweed Ring, begins its career, iii. 176; its leading members, 177; first frauds in elections, 175; its character exposed, 206; Greeley characterises it, 207; secures new city charter, 229; members take places of power, 229; loot the city treasury, startling disclosures, 246-7; punishment of its members, 247-8; aggregate sum stolen, 249; amount recovered, 249. 

Tweed's judges, Barnard, Cardozo, and McCunn, iii. 248; Cardozo resigns, 248; others impeached, 248; McCunn dies soon after sentenced, 248; Barnard soon follows, 248. 

Tweed, William M. , favours repeal of Missouri Compromise, ii. 195. 

 Early career of, iii. 176; a recognised boss, 176; manners and character, 176; officials selected, 177; signs of wealth, 178; political ambition, 178; demands at Dem. State con. , 1867, 178; vice president of Dem. Nat. Con. , 1868, 197; forces Hoffman's renomination for gov. , 1868, 205; his frauds, 1868, 206; Greeley's attack, 207; his infamous circular, 213; evidences of his fraud in election, 215-8; elected to state Senate, 223; important committees, 223; plunders through tax-levies, 224; Reps. Aid him, 225; gets majority in Senate, 227; controls the state, 227; leader of state Democracy, 228; his city charter passed, 229; its character, 228-9; enormous bribery, 229; takes position of most power, 229; loots the city treasury, 229; controls Dem. State con. , 1870, 230; Nast's cartoons, 242, 245; lavish campaign expenses, 243; personal extravagance, 244; purchases control of Assembly, 1871, 245; scheme to widen Broadway, 244; viaduct railway, 244; offers bribes to prevent exposure, 245; punishment and death, 246-8; controls Dem. State con. , 1871, 269; "Let's stop those damned pictures, " 274. 

Twombly, Horatio N. , del. To Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, iii. 296. 

Tyler, John nominated for Vice President, ii. 40; nobody else would take it, 40; becomes President, 47; turns against the Whigs, 47-8. 

Ullman, Daniel, nominated for gov. , 1854, ii. 202; career of, 202; defeated, 204. 

Union College, founded by Joseph C. Yates, i. 249; Seward, an alumnus of, 379. 

Union League Clubs, organisation, iii. 59 and note; Seward's praise of, 59; Brady's work in, 59; Van Buren's loyalty exhibited, 59; Seymour not a member of, 61. 

Union League Club of New York, iii. 59; when organised, 59, note; investigates fraud, 1868, 215. 

Union Square war meeting, 1861, iii. 5. 

United States Bank, incorporation of, i. 186; Clinton defeats extension of charter, 186; the great issue, 1832, 392; preferred to compromise than fight Jackson, 393; Webster and Clay objected, 393; Congress extends charter, 393; Jackson vetoes it, 393; creates fear of panic, 400. 

United States Senate. See Senate, United States. 

United States senators. See Senators, United States. 

Utica _Republican_, established by Conkling, 1877, iii. 385; its aggressive character, 385, note; publication discontinued, 1879, 397. 

Vallandigham, Clement L. , arrest of, iii. 64; banished to Southern Confederacy, 64; Lincoln's letter, 66; dangerous precedent, 66. 

Van Buren, John, son of Martin Van Buren, ii. 128; career and gifts of, 128-30; leading Free-soiler, 128, 129, 141; reason for, 129; Lord on, 128; Wilson on, 130; Seymour afraid of, 130; style of oratory, 130; at Utica con. , 131; appearance of, 141; avenged his father's wrongs, 144; compared to Seymour, 150; opposed Seymour for nomination, 172-3; supports him for gov. , 1852, 177; advocates popular sovereignty, 250; opens way for Douglas, 1860, 250. 

 Favours Dix for gov. , 1862, iii. 37, 48; supports Seymour, 48; humour of, 48; _Tribune_ criticises, 48, 49; loyalty exhibited, 59; in campaign, 1864, 123; nominated for atty. -gen. , 1865, 129; stigmatises Seymour, 134; defeated, 135; death, 135, note. 

Van Buren, John D. , member of Tilden's canal com. , 1875, iii. 323; nominated for state eng. , 1874, 326; elected, 331. 

Van Buren, Martin, supports DeWitt Clinton for President, i. 206, 208; career, gifts, and character of, 206-10; compared with Clinton, 208; deserts Clinton, 212; energy in war of 1812, 232; made atty. -gen. , 232; opposed by Spencer, 232; opposes Spencer, 233; cunning support of Tompkins, 240; disturbed over Clinton's action, 247; adroit opposition, 248; outwitted by Spencer, 250; ludicrous picture of, 250; urges building of canal, 251; makes war on Clinton, 255; sneers of Elisha Williams, 255; Fellows-Allen case, 256; drives Clinton to bolt, 257-60; deprives Clinton of patronage, 260-1; silences opposition to canal, 261-2; prevents Spencer's nomination to U. S. Senate, 266-7; favours re-election of King, 268; reason for bold stand, 268-9; removed as atty. -gen. , 273; an "arch scoundrel, " 273; calls Clintonians "political blacklegs, " 274; effort to prevent Tompkins' nomination, 275-8; Tompkins' war accounts, 276; confident of Tompkins' election, 281; dismissal of postmasters, 285; the "prince of villains, " 286; elected to U. S. Senate, 286; Clinton's vituperative allusions to, 286, note; selects Talcott, Marcy, and Butler, 291-3; conspicuous work in constitutional con. , 1821, 299-310; Crawford for President, 324; outwitted by Weed, 339-40; weakened by Young's and Crawford's defeat, 344; non-committalism, 345-6, note; methods of Burr, 346; joins Clinton in support of Jackson, 346; conciliatory policy toward Clinton, 347; opposes Adams' administration, 348; a leader in U. S. Senate, 349; parliamentary debates, 349-50, 365; organiser of modern Dem. Party, 350, 365; John Q. Adams on, 350; equivocal support of Rochester, 352; re-elected to U. S. Senate, 353; Parton on, 353; Jackson on, 353; nominated for gov. , 1828, 364, 367; cleverly divides opponents, 364-5; appearance at church, 365; puts Throop on ticket, 365; acting gov. Pitcher, 366; strong friends, 367; elected, 368; seventy days a gov. , 383; insincerity of, 383; sec. Of state, 383; a politician's face, 384; resigns from Cabinet, 387; minister to England, 387; rejected by Senate, 387-9; spoilsman, 389, note; on his rejection, 389-90; friends indignant, 390; nominated for Vice President, 391; tendered reception, 391; elected, 397. 

 Dix's devotion to, ii. 4; Crockett's life of, 4; opponents of, 4; Calhoun on, 4; nominated for President, 4-5; attitude toward slavery, 5, 10, 11; elected, 14; moral courage of, 41; fearless statesman, 41; renominated for President, 41; sub-treasury scheme, 41-2; defeat of, 43-5; retirement to Lindenwald, 46, 74; Texas question, 65-9; Hammet letter, 66-7; Southern hostility, 70; two-thirds rule, 71, note; defeated at Baltimore, 71-5; friends proscribed, 94; a Barnburner, 127; nominated for President at Utica, 1848, 131; endorsed by Buffalo con. , 133; Webster's pun, 133; Sumner on, 133; defeated, 143-4; supports Pierce and Seymour, 1852, 177; criticised by Southern press, iii. 10. 

Van Cortlandt, James, in first constitutional con. , i. 5. 

Van Cortlandt, John, in first constitutional con. , i. 5. 

Van Cortlandt, Philip, in first constitutional con. , i. 5. 

Van Cortlandt, Pierre, renominated for lt. -gov. , 1792, i. 51; supports DeWitt Clinton for President, 202. 

Van Cott, Joshua M. , nominated for atty. -gen. , 1867, iii. 174; defeated, 188; nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1878, iii. 392, note; defeated, 397. 

Van Ness, William P. , on Livingston's defeat, i. 83; with Burr in Albany, 103; practises deception, 103; on Ambrose Spencer, 117; on the Council's treatment of Burr, 119; as "Aristides, " 123-6; law teacher of Van Buren, 207. 

Van Ness, William W. , gifts and character of, i. 153; leads Federalists against Clinton, 154; elected judge of Supreme Court, 157; mentioned for gov. , 236; supports Clinton for gov. , 1817, 248; asks Kent to stand for U. S. Senate, 268; charged with hypocrisy, 268; retires from Supreme Court, 323; early death of, 323. 

Van Rensselaer, Jacob R. , character and career of, i. 248; supports Clinton for gov. , 1817, 248. 

Van Rensselaer, Jeremiah, lt. -gov. , i. 180. 

Van Rensselaer, Solomon, adj. -gen. , i. 287; summary removal from office, 287; service at Queenstown Heights, 293. 

Van Rensselaer, Stephen, candidate for lt. -gov. , 1798, i. 82; character and family of, 82; candidate for gov. , 1801, 115; defeated, 115; nominated for gov. By Federalists, 213; record as a soldier, 214; Jefferson's opinion of, 214; in command at Queenstown Heights, 222; failure of, 222; resigns command, 222; family and career of, 341; brother-in-law of Hamilton, 342; established Troy Polytechnical Institute, 342; in election of John Quincy Adams, 343; importance of his action, 343. 

Van Vechten, Abraham, gifts and character of, i. 168-9; refused a Supreme Court judgeship, 169; assails embargo, 169; becomes atty. -gen. , 172; removed, 179; opposes State Bank, 188; work in constitutional con. Of 1821, 303. 

Van Wyck, Charles H. , ch'm. Rep. State con. , 1866, iii. 150; speech censored, 150; aspires to be gov. , 1868, 193; ch'm. Rep. State con. , 1870, 235. 

Verplanck, Gulian C. , gifts and career of, i. 400; Whig candidate for mayor of New York, 1834, 400; defeated, 401. 

Wadsworth, James, native of Connecticut, ii. 235; graduate of Yale, 235; early settler in Genesee Valley, 235; duel with Kane, 235-6; interested in schools, 235; wealthy and generous, 235; averse to holding public office, 235. 

Wadsworth, James S. , son of James, ii. 236; graduate of Yale, 236; studied law with Webster, 236; gifts of, 236; appearance of, 236; a Barnburner, 236; ambitious to be gov. , 236; beaten by Weed, 235-6; defeated for U. S. Senate, 244; at peace congress, 350. 

 Member of Union Defence com. , 1861, iii. 8; aide on McDowell's staff, 8; made brigadier-general, 8; thought available for gov. , 42; war service, 42; duties as a major-general, 42; character, 43; generosity, 43; political strength, 43; opposed by Weed, Seward, and Raymond, 43; nominated for gov. , 1862, 45; criticised, 46, 48; makes one speech, 50; defeated, 51; reasons for it, 51; killed in battle of Wilderness, 91; his defeat for gov. Resented, 91; his supporters control Rep. State con. , 1864, 91. 

Wadsworth, James W. , nominated for state comp. , 1879, iii. 416; elected, 427; name presented for gov. , 1882, 492; his alleged dels. Used to defeat Cornell, 494. 

Wagner, George, nominated for prison insp. , 1874, iii. 314; elected, 319. 

Wakeman, Abraham, president Rep. State con. , 1863, iii. 74; postmaster at New York, 74, note. 

Wales, Salem H. , nominated for mayor of New York, 1874, iii. 314; defeated, 319. 

Walruth, Christopher A. , nominated for canal com. , 1874, iii. 326; elected, 331. 

Walworth, Reuben H. , appointed chancellor, i. 366; nominated for gov. , ii. 134; career of, 134; at Democratic state peace con. , 355. 

Ward, Hamilton, at Rep. State con. , 1871, iii. 261; services and character, 261; proposes a compromise, 261; crushed by Conkling, 263; nominated for atty. -gen. , 1879, 416; elected, 427. 

Ward, Henry Dana, editor _Anti-Masonic-Review_, i. 370. 

War of 1812, declared, i. 221; Federalists refused to support, 220; soldiers poorly equipped, 220; Dearborn commands on Canadian border, 221; failure of plans, 222; offers to resign, 222; cowardice and loss at Queenstown Heights, 222; valour of Scott, 223; Armstrong's plans, 223; valour of Jacob Brown, 223; battle at York, 223; dismal failures, 223; Wilkinson relieves Dearborn, 223; Hampton ordered to Plattsburgh, 224; complete failure of plans, 224; Buffalo burned and Fort Niagara captured, 224; quarrels of generals and secretary of war, 224; Perry's victory, 225; Brown in command, 225; character and career of, 225-6; Scott promoted, 225; battles at Chippewa, Lundy's Lane, Fort Erie, and Plattsburgh, 226; brilliant leadership, 227; Federalists talk of disunion, 227; Washington captured and banks suspend specie payments, 227; Hartford con. Favours New England confederacy, 228; alarming condition of affairs, 229; battle of New Orleans, 229; treaty of peace, 229; valour of troops, 230. 

Warren, Joseph, Buffalo _Courier_, iii. 201; urges Seymour to accept nomination, 1868, 201; secures Church's consent to run for gov. , 1874, 312; hot shot at Kelly, 313; a leading Dem. Editor, 420. 

Washington, George, on independence, i. 2; not desired, 2; on Schuyler, 18; on George Clinton, 22, 36; on Hamilton, 26; inauguration of, 44; appoints Jay chief justice of U. S. Supreme Court, 114; on inland navigation in New York, 241. 

Watson, James, supports Burr for gov. , 1792, i. 50; elected to U. S. Senate, 70; service and character of, 71. 

Webb, James Watson, leaves Jackson party, 1832, i. 393; editor of _Courier and Enquirer_, 393. 

 Career of, ii. 161-2; duel with Marshall, 161; challenges Cilley, 161; appearance of, 161; unites _Courier_ with _Enquirer_, 162; supports the Silver-Grays, 162; defeated for minister to Austria, 162; candidate for U. S. Senate, 161-2; endorses Weed's compromise, 337. 

Webster, Daniel, on Philip Schuyler, i. 18; teller at John Q. Adams' election, 343; defeats Van Buren, 387; United States Bank, 393. 

Weed, Joel, father of Thurlow, i. 317; could not make a living, 317; moved five times in ten years, 317. 

Weed, Smith M. , dispatches sent from South Carolina, 1876, iii. 351. 

Weed, Thurlow, on Albany Regency, i. 294; career, character, and gifts of, 317-19; precocious, 318; friends of best people, 318; love match, 319; slow in getting established, 319; helped Southwick, 1822, 319; supports Adams, 1824, 324; opposes Clinton's removal, 328; sleepless and tireless worker, 338; united friends of Clay and Adams, 338-9; well kept secret, 339; Van Buren hit, 340, 344; kept faith, 340-1; predicts Granger's defeat, 368; accepted leader against Van Buren, 369-70; founded _Anti-Masonic Enquirer_, 370; a born fighter, 371; investigates crime of 1826, 370; selects able lieutenants, 371; incident of his poverty, 373; founds _Evening Journal_, 374; pungent paragraphs, 374, note; met Croswell in boyhood, 374; rival editors estranged, 375; Croswell seeks aid of, 375; growth of the _Journal_, 375; "the Marcy patch, " 395; opposed to the United States Bank, 396, note; organisation of Whig party, 394-401; favours Seward for gov. , 1834, 401. 

 On Democratic organisation, ii. 2; Seward for gov. , 1838, 19-21; Fellows-Allen case, 22; Seward's election, 29; Dictator, 31-3, 36-8; creates trouble, 38-9; carries state Senate, 39; made state printer, 39; supports Harrison, 40; unhappy, 1844, 84-5; Clay's Alabama letter, 87-8; opposed to Young for gov. , 118; for Taylor, 1848, 135-7; breaks with Fillmore, 148; assails Castle Garden meeting, 157; defeats Fillmore, 166-7; favours Scott, 166-7; Scott's defeat, 178-9; Greeley's appeal to, for gov. , 198, note; opposed to a Rep. Party, 1854, 200; at birth of party, 1855, 213; criticised for delaying it, 219-21; Seward and the Presidency, 229-32; controlled election of U. S. Senator, 1857, 243-5; at Chicago con. , 283; Bowles on, 283; offered Lane money to carry Indiana, 287, note; weeps over Seward's defeat, 291; returns Greeley's letter of 1854, 311; denies seeing it, 318, 323; replies to it, 318-23; predicts Lincoln's election, 332; proposed compromise, 336-44; Greeley opposed, 343; Lincoln opposed, 344; work as a boss, 362; relations with Lincoln, 362; opposed Greeley for U. S. Senate, 363-5; strained relations with Harris, 366; Barney's appointment, 390-7. 

 Criticised by Southern press, 1861, iii. 10; proposed conduct of the war, 14; names Dix for gov. , 1862, 37; return from London, 41; view of emancipation, 42; pushes Morgan for U. S. Senate, 56; controls canal patronage, 56; withdraws from _Evening Journal_, 56; did not return to Rochester, 57; No. 12 Astor House, 58; his services, 58; his patriotism, 58; cradle of "Amens, " 58; takes message from Lincoln to Seymour, 62; resents retention of Barney, 85; Lincoln sends for him, 86; plan for peace, 86; continues slavery, 86; rejected by Lincoln, 87; Barney to be removed, 87; influence lessened, 89, 90; beaten in Rep. State con. , 1864, 91; favours nomination of Grant, 93; fickle support of the Vice President, 94; Lincoln ignores his wishes, 97; writes Seward of hopeless outlook, 1864, 104; fails to defeat Greeley, 1864, 117; supports Johnson, 130; manages Saratoga con. , 1866, 144; also Philadelphia con. , 1866, 144; favours Dix for gov. , 1866, 155; surprised by Pierrepont's change, 159; supports Hoffman, 1866, 161; complains of President's action, 162; favours Grant, 1868, 190; opposes Fenton, 1869, 192; influence of his absence, 222; declines to head electoral ticket, 1872, 296; suggests name of Douglass, 296, note; favours greenbacks, 390; fails to attend Rep. State con. , 1878, because of feebleness, 412. 

Wendell, Nathan D. , nominated for state treas. , iii. 416; elected, 427. 

West, DeWitt C. , strong supporter of Tam. , iii. 383. 

Wheaton, Henry, supports Adams, 1824, i. 324; gifts and career of, 324-5; edited _National Advocate_, 324; leader in People's party, 324; Clinton's dislike of, 330, note. 

Wheeler, William A. , career and character, iii. 335; nominated for Vice President, 1876, 335-6; declared elected, 350; declined to run for ch'm. Of Rep. State con. , 1879, 413; not a fighter, 413, note; presented for U. S. Senator, 1881, 467. 

Whig party, formed, 1834, i. 399; name first used, 399; opponents of, 399; Webster on, 401; its first campaign, 399-401; first state con. , 401; Seward its first candidate for gov. , 401; hot campaign, 402-4; defeated, 404. 

 Without a national platform, 1840, ii. 40; log cabin campaign, 43-5; its humiliation, 47-54; defeated by Clay's letter, 1844, 89; divided into Radicals and Conservatives, 116; elects Young gov. , 120; carries state, 1847, 127; without platform, 1848, 138; carries state, 1848, 143; elects Seward U. S. Senator, 145-7; elects state officers, 1849, 150; approves higher law speech, 153-5; nominated Hunt for gov. , 1850, 154; Silver-Grays secede, 155; Hunt elected, 158; avoids slavery issue, 1851, 163-5; loses state, 165; Greeley on, 165-6; Fish on, 166; defeated, 1852, 179; carries state, 1853, 189; Clark nominated for gov. , 199; elected, 203; unites with Anti-Nebraska Dems. , 194; see Rep. Party. 

Whig platform, 1852, Greeley on, ii. 175; Seward on, 175. 

Whigs, during Revolution, i. 24; moderate and ultra, 24. 

White, Andrew D. , about Ira Harris, iii. 166; presents Conkling's name for U. S. Senator, 170; about Seward, 213; writes of election frauds, 1868, 215; ch'm. Rep. State con. , 1871, 258-9; criticism of, 239-60 and note. 

White, Hugh L. , candidate of Southern Whigs, 1836, ii. 11. 

Whitney, William C. , an organiser of County Democracy, iii. 483. 

Whittlesey, Frederick, editor, Rochester _Republican_, i. 370; strong Anti-Mason, 370; confidence in Weed, 375. 

Wickham, William H. , nominated for mayor of New York, 1874, iii. 314; character, 314, note; elected, 319. 

Wide-awakes, marching body of young men, 1860, ii. 328; their great number, 328. 

Wilkin, James W. , defeated for U. S. Senator, i. 211; result of a bargain, 211-2. 

Wilkin, Samuel J. , nominated for lt. -gov. , ii. 80; character and career of, 80; defeated, 89. 

Wilkinson, James, commands on Canadian border, i. 223; career and character of, 223-4; fails, quarrels, and retires in disgrace, 225. 

Willers, Diedrich, nominated for sec. Of state, 1871, iii. 273; defeated, 275; renominated, 1873, 308; elected, 309. 

Willet, Marinus, member first constitutional con. , i. 5; supports Burr, 1804, 138; appointed mayor New York, 155; army service, 155, 184-5; removed from mayoralty, 165; nominated for lt. -gov. , 184; defeated, 185; opposed Jackson for President, 357; presides at meeting, 357. 

Williams, Elisha, gifts and career of, i. 207; sneers at Van Buren, 255; opposes Tompkins' accounts, 276; member of constitutional con. , 1821, 298; nominated for Assembly, 1827, 358. 

Williams, Robert, in Council, i. 171; known as Judas Iscariot, 172. 

Williams, William, nominated for State treasurer, 1861, iii. 24, note; defeated, 29. 

Willman, Andreas, nominated for prison insp. , 1862, iii. 45, note; defeated, 51. 

Wilmot, David, ch'm. Chicago con. , 1860, ii. 282. 

Wilmot Proviso, supported by Preston King, ii. 102; the issue presented, 126, note; voted down by Whig Nat. Con. , 1848, 138. 

Winans, Orange S. , votes with Tweed, iii. 245; unfortunate bargain, 245, note. 

Wirt, William, Anti-Mason candidate for President, 1832, i. 398. 

Wood, Benjamin, N. Y. _News_, conspicuous as an editor, iii. 420. 

Wood, Fernando, ambitious to be candidate for gov. , ii. 223; character of, 323-4; early career of, 233, note; withdraws from Dem. State con. , 249; captures state con. , 257; a bold trick, 257; at Charleston con. , 270; goes with South, 270; advocates secession of New York City, 348; Greeley on, 348-9. 

 Speech at Union Square meeting, iii. 6; defeated for mayor, 1861, 30; refused admission to Dem. State con. , 1864, 101; calls a peace con. , 1864, 106; Richmond humiliates, 106; death of, 107. 

Wood, Julius, tells Seward of Greeley's hostility, ii. 284, note. 

Woodford, Stewart L. , character and services, iii. 152; his eloquence, 152; nominated for lt. -gov. , 1866, 152; elected, 165; suggested for gov. , 1868, 193; nominated for gov. , 1870, 238; defeated, 244; presents Conkling's name for President, 1876, 335; brilliant speech, 335; New York presents him for Vice-President, 1876, 335; defeated, 336; work in campaign, 1878, 396; interview with Conkling, 1880, 443; presents Arthur for Vice-President, 1880, 444; reappointed U. S. Atty. , 469. 

Woodin, William B. , opposes Cornell for lt. -gov. , 1876, iii. 338; at Rep. State con. , 1880, 434; advocates independence of dels. , 434, 436; agreed to support instructions of state con. , 434; appearance and character, 436; avoids obeying instructions, 437; severely criticised, 437. 

Woodruff, Lewis B. , nominated for judge of Court of Appeals, 1869, iii. 226; defeated, 227. 

Woodworth, John, defeated for Supreme Court, i. 156; defeated for U. S. Senator, 156; removed as atty. -gen. , 165; Spencer favours restoration, 232; opposed by Tompkins, 232. 

Wool, John E. , at peace congress, ii. 350. 

Worth, Gorham A. , banker, i. 318; early friend of Weed, 318; character of, 318. 

Wortman, Teunis, bitter opponent of DeWitt Clinton, i. 181. 

Wright, Silas, member of Albany Regency, i. 294, 384; appointed comp. , 383; appearance and gifts of, 384; career of, 384-5; holder of many offices, 385; knowledge of the tariff, 385. 

 In U. S. Senate, ii. 1; writes for _Argus_, 2; attitude toward slavery, 11; re-elected to U. S. Senate, 65; declines nomination to the U. S. Supreme Court, 73; declines nomination for Vice-President, 73; nominated for gov. , 76-8; compared with Fillmore, 80-1; elected, 89; approves constitutional con. , 100; vetoes canal appropriation, 101; bitterness against, 114-5; renominated for gov. , 1846, 116; refused to pardon Anti-Renters, 119; defeated, 120; reasons for, 121-3; retirement to farm, 123-4; death of, 124. 

Wright, William B. , candidate for judge of Court of Appeals, 1861, iii. 23, note; elected, 29. 

Wright, William W. , nominated for canal com. , 1861, iii. 21, note; defeated, 29; renominated, 1866, 159; defeated, 165; renominated, 1869, 226; elected, 227. 

Wyandotte constitution, see Kansas. 

Yancey, William L. , at Charleston con. , ii. 273. 

Yates, Abraham, in first constitutional con. , i. 5. 

Yates, John Van Ness, appointed recorder at Albany, i. 179; gifts and character, 257; sec. Of state, 321; nephew of gov. , 321; on election of presidential electors, 325. 

Yates, Joseph G. , family, career, and character, i. 248-9; founder of Union College, 249; asked to stand for U. S. Senate, 268; on Tompkins, 279; nominated for gov. , 1822, 312-3; opposed by Southwick, 316; elected, 320; nepotism and ingratitude of, 321-2; opposes election of presidential electors, 323; a political dodge, 325; beaten by the Regency, 327; revenge of, 330; retirement of, 331. 

Yates, Richard, in first constitutional con. , i. 5. 

Yates, Robert, member first constitutional con. , i. 5; delegate to amend Articles of Confederation, 29; his fitness, 30; first choice of Clinton, 30; withdraws from con. , 30; refuses to sign Federal Constitution, 31; in Poughkeepsie con. , 33; nominated for gov. , 38; Hamilton on nomination of, 38-9; his character, career, and ability, 40-2; Burr's friendship for, 43; defeated for gov. , 44; appointed chief justice, 45; nominated for gov. , 64; retires from Supreme Court, 68. 

Young, John, member of Assembly, ii. 95; career and character, 95-6; gifts of, 96-7; sudden rise to power, 96-7; contest over fourth constitutional con. , 97-101; Seymour and, 99; triumph of, 99-100; carries canal appropriation, 100; nominated for gov. , 1846, 118; Weed unfriendly to, 118; agreed to pardon Anti-Renters, 118; course on Mexican war, 119; elected gov. , 120; aspirant for Vice-Presidency, 1848, 137; loss of prestige, 139; death of, 139. 

Young, Samuel, speaker of Assembly, i. 232; failed to become sec. Of state, 233; dislike of Clinton, 251-2; quarrels with Van Buren, 254; Clinton refuses to recognise, 254; makes war on Clinton, 255; candidate for U. S. Senate, 263; gifts and eloquence of, 265; failed in caucus, 266-7; number of votes received, 267; in constitutional con. , 1821, 299-310; ambitious to be gov. , 1822, 313; bitterness over Yates' nomination, 314; supports Clay, 1824, 324; nominated for gov. , 1824, 327; great fight with Clinton, 332; defeated, 333; later career of, 333; adheres to Jackson party, 394. 

 Sec. Of state, ii. 52; at Baltimore con. , 72; defeated for sec. Of state, 92; attack on Hunkers, 104; at Utica con. , 131; death of, 157; Greeley on, 158. 

Younglove, Truman G. , elected speaker of Assembly, iii. 220; a Fenton lieutenant, 220; fails to announce committees, 222; becomes "a political corpse, " 222; ch'm. Lib. Rep. State con. , 1872, 296. 

A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(1774-1861)

By D. S. ALEXANDER. Two volumes. 840 pp. 8vo. $5. 00 net (carriageextra). 

This work presents a history of the movements of political parties inNew York State from 1774 to 1861, and embraces a series of brilliantcharacter studies of the leaders, most of them of national importance, who, from the days of George Clinton, have drawn the attention of thenation to New York. The astute methods and sources of power by whichGeorge Clinton, Hamilton, Burr, DeWitt Clinton, Van Buren, Seymour andThurlow Weed each successively controlled the political destiny of theState are clearly and picturesquely set forth. 

"It meets a want widely felt and repeatedly expressed during the pasthundred years. . . . It would be impossible in a dozen notices to renderany sort of justice to the extensive scope of this work and to themultiplicity of its interesting details. "--From two leading articles, aggregating over ten columns, in the _New York Sun_. 

"Will undoubtedly take its place as the authoritative work upon thesubject. "--_Boston Transcript. _

"Without question he has performed . . . His task very capably. Headdresses the general reader and takes pains to be entertaining, dealing with men in preference to measures--and only the mostconspicuous, the most interesting men. . . . Of these outstanding figuresthere are full length portraits--biographies, indeed, in ample detailstrung on a long thread of politics, while very many minor charactershave thumb-nail sketches. Few of the good anecdotes available, itwould seem, have escaped Mr. Alexander, and good stories do not sufferat his hands. "--_The New York Globe. _

"Will not only repay careful reading, but should be placed among thepermanent reference books of every man who has occasion to knowanything about the politics of this state. . . . Estimates of the greatmen . . . Are among its most interesting features. "--_Buffalo Express. _

"The most entertaining story of state politics in Americanhistory. "--_Review of Reviews. _

"Will be read with great interest and profit outside the EmpireState. "--_Cleveland Plain Dealer. _

Henry Holt and Company29 WEST 23D STREET NEW YORK

R. M. JOHNSTON'S LEADING AMERICAN SOLDIERS

Biographies of Washington, Greene, Taylor, Scott, Andrew Jackson, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, McClellan, Meade, Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, Joseph E. Johnson. With portraits. 1 vol. $1. 75 net; by mail $1. 88. 

The first of a new series of biographies of leading Americans. 

"Performs a real service in preserving the essentials. "--_Review ofReviews. _

"Very interesting. . . . Much sound originality of treatment, and thestyle is clear. "--_Springfield Republican. _

AS THE HAGUE ORDAINS

Journal of a Russian Prisoner's Wife in Japan. Illustrated fromphotographs. $1. 50 net, by mail $1. 62. 

"Holds a tremendous human interest. . . . Author writes with wit and adelightfully feminine abandon. "--_Outlook. _

"This surprisingly outspoken volume . . . Could have been written onlyby an extraordinarily able woman who knew the inside of Russianpolitics and also had actual experience in Japanese warhospitals. "--_Chicago Record Herald. _

W. F. JOHNSON'S FOUR CENTURIES OF THE PANAMA CANAL

With 16 illustrations and 6 colored maps. $3. 00 net; by mail, $3. 27. 

"The most thorough and comprehensive book on the PanamaCanal. "--_Nation. _

JOHN L. GIVENS' MAKING A NEWSPAPER

The author was recently with the _New York Evening Sun_. $1. 50 net; bymail $1. 62. 

Some seventy-five leading newspapers praise this book as the bestdetailed account of the business, editorial, reportorial andmanufacturing organization of a metropolitan journal. It should beinvaluable to those entering upon newspaper work and a revelation tothe general reader. 

THE OPEN ROADTHE FRIENDLY TOWN

Compiled by E. V. Lucas. Full gilt, illustrated cover linings, each(cloth) $1. 50; (leather) $2. 50. 

Pretty anthologies of prose and verse from British and Americanauthors, respectively for wayfarers and the urbane. 

 * * * * *

If the reader will send his name and address the publishers will send, from time to time, information regarding their new books. 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANYPUBLISHERS (x-'07) NEW YORK

American Public Problems

EDITED BY

RALPH CURTIS RINGWALT

IMMIGRATION: And Its Effects Upon the United States

By PRESCOTT F. HALL, A. B. , LL. B. , Secretary of the ImmigrationRestriction League. 393 pp. $1. 50 net. By mail, $1. 65. 

"Should prove interesting to everyone. Very readable, forceful andconvincing. Mr. Hall considers every possible phase of this greatquestion and does it in a masterly way that shows not only that hethoroughly understands it, but that he is deeply interested in it andhas studied everything bearing upon it. "--_Boston Transcript. _

"A readable work containing a vast amount of valuable information. Especially to be commended is the discussion of the racial effects. Asa trustworthy general guide it should prove a godsend. "--_N. Y. EveningPost. _

"Earnest and unprejudiced. . . . Cannot fail to be of great assistance inclarifying and setting on a solid foundation the ideas of people whoare now becoming convinced that the problems of immigration in thenation and the municipality will soon reach a more acute stage thanever before. "--_Philadelphia Press. _

"An auspicious omen of the worth of Messrs. Henry Holt and Company'srecently announced series on American Public Problems. . . . Mr. Hall hasbeen in close touch with the immigration movement and he writes with agrasp and a fullness of information which must commend his work toevery reader. . . . A handbook . . . To which one may turn conveniently forinformation for which he would otherwise be obliged to search throughmany a dusty document. "--_The World To-day. _

THE ELECTION OF SENATORS

By Professor GEORGE H. HAYNES, Author of "Representation in StateLegislatures. " 300 pp. $1. 50 net. By mail $1. 65. 

Shows the historical reasons for the present method, and its effect onthe senate and senators, and on state and local government, with adetailed review of the arguments for and against direct election. 

"A timely book. . . . Prof. Haynes is qualified for a historical andanalytical treatise on the subject of the Senate. "--_N. Y. EveningSun. _

"Well worth reading, and unique because it is devoted wholly to theelection of senators and to the deliberations of the Senate. "--_BostonTranscript. _

"Able and dispassionate, and ought to be widely read. "--_New YorkCommercial. _

"Of considerable popular as well as historical interest. "--_Dial. _

Henry Holt and Company29 WEST 23D STREET NEW YORK

TWO BOOKS ON VITAL QUESTIONS FOR THOUGHTFUL AMERICANS

THE NEGRO AND THE NATION

By GEORGE S. MERRIAM

Probably the first complete history of the negro in his relation toour politics, _2d printing_ 436 pp. $1. 75 net. By mail $1. 92. 

The Rev. EDWARD EVERETT HALE in "Lend a Hand": "Sensible people whowish to know, who wish to form good sound opinions, and especiallythose who wish to take their honest part in the great duties of thehour, will read the book, will study it, and will find nothing elsebetter worth reading and study. "

"Admirable, exactly the sort of book needed. . . . Enlightened andpersuasive discussion of the negro problem in its present phases andaspects. Not a dry history. Human, dramatic, interesting, absorbing, there is philosophy of national and political life back of it--aphilosophy which not only furnished interpretation of past events, butoffers guidance for the future. . . . Impartial and informing. . . . Thereis much that tempts quotation. . . . Mr. Merriam has given us anexcellent, high-minded, illuminating book on the problem of theAmerican negro. "--_Chicago Record-Herald. _

"A deeply interesting story. . . . An exceedingly readable volume, especially valuable in its analyses of conditions, causes, situationsand results; and against his main conclusions no sane person cancontend. "--_Boston Transcript. _

STUDIES IN AMERICAN TRADE-UNIONISM

J. H. HOLLANDER and G. E. BARNETT (Editors)

Twelve papers by graduate students and officers of Johns HopkinsUniversity, the results of original investigations of representativeTrade Unions. There are also chapters on Employers' Associations, theKnights of Labor, and the American Federation of Labor. (380 pp. , 8vo, $2. 75 net. By mail, $2. 98. )

"A study of trade-unions in the concrete. Impartial and thorough . . . Expertly written. "--_New York Times Review. _

"Though confined to particular features of particular trade unions, the data dealt with are comprehensive and typical; so that the resultis a substantial contribution to our knowledge of trade-unionstructure and functions. . . . Excellent studies. "--_New York EveningPost. _

"It is doubtful if anything approaching it in breadth and coördinationhas yet found its way into print. . . . A very useful book. "--_SanFrancisco Chronicle. _

Henry Holt and Company34 W. 33D STREET (V, '06) NEW YORK

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

OUR PHILIPPINE PROBLEM

By Prof. HENRY PARKER WILLIS

A study of American Colonial Policy. 12mo, $1. 50 net (By mail, $1. 64)

A book of vital interest, based on personal investigation in thePhilippines by a former editorial writer of the _New York EveningPost_, who was also Washington correspondent of the _New York Journalof Commerce_ and _Springfield Republican_, and is now a professor inWashington and Lee University. 

"Anyone desiring to inform himself fully as to the history, politics, public questions, in short, everything dealing with the subject ofAmerican control of the Philippines from the day Dewey entered Manilaharbor to the present, will find Mr. Willis's work a most importantbook. . . . He writes of the Filipinos as he found them, and with theknack of the true investigator, has avoided falling in with thepolitical views of any party or faction. More valuable still is hisexposition of the Philippine question in its bearings on American lifeand politics. A most exhaustive, careful, honest and unbiased reviewof every phase of the question. "--_The Washington Post. _

"A keen, exhaustive and merciless criticism of the whole Philippineexperiment. . . . His unsparing analysis of all the departments ofPhilippine government must (however) command respect as able, honestand sincere . . . No other book contains more solid truth, or a greatersection of the truth. "--_Springfield Republican. _

AMERICA, ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

By WOLF VON SCHIERBRAND

_Author of "Germany of To-day"_

Considers America's relations to all the countries affected by thePanama Canal, to those on both coasts of the Pacific, and to theislands, besides analyzing the strength and weakness of our rivals. 13maps, 334 pp. $1. 50 net. By mail, $1. 62. 

"A most interesting treatise . . . Having an important bearing upon ourfuture progress. "--_Public Opinion. _

"His observations on the Panama Canal and the future of the Dutch EastIndies are particularly interesting and suggestive. "--_Review ofReviews. _

"An interesting . . . Survey of a broad field . . . Contains a greatvariety of useful information . . . Especially valuable to Americanexporters. "--_Outlook. _

Henry Holt and Company34 W. 33D STREET (V, '06) NEW YORK

BIOLOGY AND ITS MAKERS

By W. A. Locy. 

By the Professor of Biology in Northwestern University. 123illustrations. 8vo. $2. 75 net, by mail $2. 88. 

"Entertainingly written, and, better than any other existing singlework in any language, gives the layman a clear idea of the scope anddevelopment of the broad science of biology. "--_The Dial. _

CANADIAN TYPES OF THE OLD RÉGIME

By C. W. Colby. 

By the Professor of History in McGill University. 18 illustrations. 8vo. $2. 75 net, by mail $2. 90. 

"A light and graceful style. Not only interesting reading, but gives asclear a notion of what the old régime was at its best as may be foundanywhere in a single volume. "--_Literary Digest. _

THE BUILDERS OF UNITED ITALY

By R. S. Holland. 

With 8 portraits. Large 12mo. $2. 00 net, by mail $2. 13. Historicalbiographies of Alfieri, Manzoni, Gioberti, Manin, Mazzini, Cavour, Garibaldi, and Victor Emmanuel. 

"Popular but not flimsy. "--_The Nation. _

THE ITALIANS OF TO-DAY

By René Bazin. 

By the author of "The Nun, " etc. Translated by Wm. Marchant. $1. 25net, by mail $1. 35. 

"A most readable book. He touches upon everything. "--_BostonTranscript. _

DARWINISM TO-DAY

By V. L. Kellogg. 

By the author of "American Insects, " etc. 8vo. $2. 00 net, by mail$2. 12. 

"Can write in English as brightly and as clearly as the old-timeFrenchmen. . . . In his text he explains the controversy so that theplain man may understand it, while in the notes he adduces theevidence that the specialist requires. . . . A brilliant book thatdeserves general attention. "--_New York Sun. _

 * * * * *

If the reader will send his name and address, the publishers willsend, from time to time, information regarding their new books. 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY34 WEST 33d STREET NEW YORK