[Transcriber's Notes:

Inconsistent spellings and hyphenations such as "re-election" and
"reëlection" have been conformed, and obvious typographical errors
have 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 all
three 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 I
and II, is "Appleton's _Cyclopædia_" and has been corrected in Volume
III.]




A POLITICAL HISTORY

OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK


BY

DeALVA STANWOOD ALEXANDER, A.M.

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


VOL. I

1774-1832


[Illustration]


NEW YORK
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
1906

Copyright, 1906
By
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY




PREFACE


The preparation of this work was suggested to the author by the
difficulty he experienced in obtaining an accurate knowledge of the
movements of political parties and their leaders in the Empire State.
"After living a dozen years in New York," wrote Oliver Wolcott, who
had been one of Washington's Cabinet, and was afterwards governor of
Connecticut, "I don't pretend to comprehend their politics. It is a
labyrinth of wheels within wheels, and it is understood only by the
managers." 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 later
years, Daniel S. Dickinson spoke of "the tangled web of New York
politics"; and Horace Greeley complained of "the zigzag, wavering
lines and uncouth political designations which puzzled and wearied
readers" from 1840 to 1860, when Democrats divided into Conservatives
and Radicals, Hunkers and Barnburners, and Hards and Softs; and when
Whigs were known as Conscience and Cotton, and Woollies and Silver
Grays. More recently James Parton, in his _Life of Andrew Jackson_,
speaks of "that most unfathomable of subjects, the politics of the
State of New York."

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

It would be hard to find in any Commonwealth of the Union a more
interesting or picturesque leadership than is presented in the
political history of the Empire State. Rarely more than two
controlling spirits appear at a time, and as these pass into apogee
younger men of approved capacity are ready to take their places. None
had a meteoric rise, but in his day each became an absolute party
boss; for the Constitution of 1777, by creating the Council of
Appointment, opened wide the door to bossism. The abolition of the
Council in 1821 doubtless made individual control more difficult, but
the system left its methods so deeply impressed upon party management
that what before was done under the sanction of law, ever after
continued under the cover of custom.

After the Revolution, George Clinton and Alexander Hamilton led the
opposing political forces, and while Aaron Burr was forging to the
front, the great genius of DeWitt Clinton, the nephew of George
Clinton, began asserting itself. The defeat of Burr for governor, and
the death of Hamilton would have left DeWitt Clinton in complete
control, had he found a strong man for governor whom he could use. In
1812 Martin Van Buren discovered superiority as a manager, and for
nearly two decades, until the death of the distinguished canal
builder, his great ability was taxed to its uttermost in the memorable
contests between Bucktails and Clintonians. Thurlow Weed succeeded
DeWitt Clinton in marshalling the forces opposed to Van Buren, whose
mantle gradually fell upon Horatio Seymour. Clustered about each of
these leaders, save DeWitt Clinton, was a coterie of distinguished men
whose power of intellect has made their names familiar in American
history. If DeWitt Clinton was without their aid, it was because
strong men in high position rebelled against becoming errand boys to
do his bidding. But the builder of the Erie canal needed no
lieutenants, since his great achievement, aiding the farmer and
enriching the merchant, overcame the power of Van Buren, the
popularity of Tompkins, and the phenomenal ability of the Albany
Regency.

In treating the period from 1800 to 1830, the term "Democrat" is
purposely avoided, since all anti-federalist factions in New York
claimed to be "Republican." The Clay electors, in the campaign of
1824, adopted the title "Democrat Ticket," but in 1828, and for
several years after the formation of the Whig party in 1834, the
followers of Jackson, repudiating the title of Democrats, called
themselves Republicans.

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

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, preparing
the way for the Declaration of Independence, recommended that those
Colonies which were without a suitable form of government, should, to
meet the demands of war, adopt some sufficient organisation. The
patriot government of New York had not been wholly satisfactory. It
never lacked in the spirit of resistance to England's misrule, but it
had failed to justify the confident prophecies of those who had been
instrumental in its formation.

For nearly a year New York City saw with wonder the spectacle of a few
fearless 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, and
removing cannon from the Battery, while an English fleet, well
officered and manned, rode idly at anchor in New York harbour.
Inspiring as the spectacle was, however, it did not appreciably help
matters. On the contrary, it created so much friction among the people
that the conservative business men--resenting involuntary taxation,
yet wanting, if possible with honour, reconciliation and peace with
the mother country--organised, in May, 1774, a body of their own known
as the Committee of Fifty-one, which thought the time had come to
interrupt the assumed leadership of the Committee of Fifty. This
usurpation by one committee of powers that had been exercised by
another, caused the liveliest indignation.

The trouble between England and America had grown out of the need for
a continental revenue and the lack of a continental government with
taxing power--a weakness experienced throughout the Revolution and
under the Confederation. In the absence of such a government,
Parliament undertook to supply the place of such a power; but the
Americans blocked the way by an appeal to the principle that had been
asserted by Simon de Montford's Parliament in 1265 and admitted by
Edward I. in 1301--"No taxation without representation." So the Stamp
Act 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 bitter
disputes. The idea of independence, however, had, in May, 1774,
scarcely entered the mind of the wildest New York radical. In their
instructions to delegates to the first Continental Congress, convened
in September, 1774, the Colonies made no mention of it. Even in May,
1775, the Sons of Liberty in Philadelphia cautioned John Adams not to
use the word, since "it is as unpopular in all the Middle States as
the Stamp Act itself."[1] Washington wrote from the Congress that
independence 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 and
Fifty-one were merely political. One favoured agitation for the
purpose of arousing resistance to the King's summary methods--the
other preferred a more orderly but not less forceful way of making
known their opposition. Members of both committees were patriots in
the highest and best sense, yet each faction fancied itself the only
patriotic, public spirited and independent party.

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

[Footnote 3: City Hall Park.]

The remarkable parallel between Hamilton and the younger Pitt begins
in this year, while both are in the schoolroom. Hamilton "in the
Fields" recalls Pitt at the bar of the House of Lords, amazing his
companions with the ripe intelligence and rare sagacity with which he
followed the debate, and the readiness with which he skilfully
formulated answers to the stately arguments of the wigged and powdered
nobles. Pitt, under the tuition of his distinguished father, was
fitted for the House of Commons as boys are fitted for college at
Exeter and Andover, and he entered Parliament before becoming of age.
Hamilton's preparation had been different. At twelve years of age he
was a clerk in a counting house on the island of Nevis in the West
Indies; at sixteen he entered a grammar school in New Jersey; at
seventeen he became a sophomore at King's College. It is then that he
spoke "in the Fields"--not as a sophomore, not as a precocious youth
with unripe thoughts, not as a boy orator--but as a man speaking with
the wisdom of genius.

After the meeting "in the Fields" patriotism proved stronger than
prejudice, and in November, 1774, the Committee of Fifty-one gave
place to a Committee of Sixty, charged with carrying out
recommendations of the Continental Congress. Soon after a Committee of
One Hundred, composed of members of the Committees of Fifty and
Fifty-one, assumed the functions of a municipal government. Finally,
in May, 1775, representatives were chosen from the several counties to
organise a Provincial Congress to take the place of the long
established legislature of the Colony, which had become so steeped in
toryism that it refused to recognise the action of any body of men who
resented the tyranny of Parliament. Thus, in the brief space of
eighteen months, the government of the Crown had been turned into a
government of the people.

For several months, however, the patriots of New York had desired a
more complete state government. All admitted that the revolutionary
committees were essentially local and temporary. Even the hottest Son
of Liberty came to fear the licentiousness of the people on the one
hand, and the danger from the army on the other. Nevertheless, the
Provincial Congress, whose members had been trained by harsh
experience to be stubborn in defence and sturdy in defiance, declined
to assume the responsibility of forming such a government as the
Continental Congress recommended. That body had itself come into
existence as a revolutionary legislature after the Provincial Assembly
had refused either to approve the proceedings of the first Continental
Congress, or to appoint delegates to the second; and, although it did
not hesitate to usurp temporarily the functions of the Tory Assembly,
to its great credit it believed the right of creating and framing a
new civil government belonged to the people; and, accordingly, on May
24, 1776, it recommended the election of new representatives who
should be specially authorised to form a government for New York.

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

The new Provincial Congress met at the courthouse in White Plains on
July 9, 1776, and, as evidence of the change from the old institutions
to the new, it adopted the name of the "Convention of the
Representatives of the State of New York." As further evidence of the
new order of things it declared that New York began its existence as a
State on April 20, 1775. It also adopted as the law of the State such
parts of the common and statute law of England as were in force in the
Colony of New York on April 19, 1775.

By this time the British forces had become so active in the vicinity
of New York that the convention thought it advisable to postpone the
novel and romantic work of state-making until the threatened danger
had passed; but, before its hasty adjournment, by requesting officers
of justice to issue all processes and pleadings under the authority
and in the name of the State of New York, it served notice that King
and Parliament were no longer recognised as the source of political
authority. This appears to have been the first official mention of the
new title of the future government.[4] When the convention reassembled
on the first day of the following August it appointed John Jay
chairman 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 whose
abilities were to make a great impression upon the history of his
country. He belonged to a family of Huguenot merchants. The Jays lived
at La Rochelle until the revocation of the Edict of Nantes drove the
great-grandfather to England, where the family continued until 1686,
when Augustus, the grandfather, settled in New York. It was not a
family of aristocrats; but for more than a century the Jays had ranked
among the gentry of New York City, intermarrying with the Bayards, the
Stuyvesants, the Van Cortlandts and the Philipses. To these historic
families John Jay added another, taking for his wife Sarah Livingston,
the sister of Brockholst, who later adorned the Supreme Court of the
United States, and the daughter of William, New Jersey's coming war
governor, already famous as a writer of poems and essays.

Jay's public career had begun two years before in connection with the
revolutionary Committee of Fifty-one. He did not accept office because
he loved it. He went into politics as he might have travelled on a
stage-coach at the invitation of a few congenial friends, for their
sake, not for his own. When he took up the work of organisation,
therefore, it was with no wish to become a leader; he simply desired
to guide the spirit of resistance along orderly and forceful lines.
But soon he held the reins and had his foot on the brake. In drafting
a reply to resolutions from a Boston town meeting, he suggested a
Congress of all the Colonies, to which should be referred the
disturbing question of non-importation. This letter was not only the
first serious suggestion of a general Congress, placing its author
intellectually at the head of the Revolutionary leaders; but the
plan--which meant broader organisation, more carefully concerted
measures, an enlistment of all the conservative elements, and one
official head for thirteen distinct and widely separated
colonies--gradually found favour, and resulted in sending the young
writer as a delegate to the first Continental Congress.

It was in this Congress that Jay won the right to become a
constitution-maker. Of all the men of that busy and brilliant age, no
one advanced more steadily in the general knowledge and favour. When
he wrote the address to the people of Canada, his great ability was
recognised at once; and after he composed the appeal to Ireland and to
Jamaica, the famous circular letter to the Colonies, and the patriotic
address to the people of his own State, his wisdom was more frequently
drawn upon and more widely appreciated than ever; but he may be said
to have leaped into national fame when he drafted the address to the
people 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 the
country, began the work of drafting a constitution. His retirement
recalls 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 the
work. One writer says he "entered an almost unexplored field." On the
other hand, John Adams wrote Jefferson that Jay's "model and
foundation" was his own letter to George Wythe of Virginia. Neither is
true. The field was not unexplored, nor did John Adams' letter contain
a suggestion of anything not already in existence, except the election
of a Council of Appointment, with whose consent the governor should
appoint all officers. His plan of letting the people elect a governor
came later. "We have a government to form, you know," wrote Jay, "and
God knows what it will resemble. Our politicians, like some guests at
a feast, are perplexed and undetermined which dish to prefer;"[5] but
Jay evidently preferred the old home dishes, and it is interesting to
note how easily he adapted the laws and customs of the provincial
government 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 separate
and distinct bodies, called the Assembly and the Senate. The first
consisted of seventy members to be elected each year; the second of
twenty-four members, one-fourth to be elected every four years.
Members of the Assembly were proportioned to the fourteen counties
according to the number of qualified voters. For the election of
senators, the State was divided into "four great districts," the
eastern being allowed three members, the southern nine, the middle six
and the western six. To each house was given the powers and privileges
of the Provincial Assembly of the Colony of New York. In creating this
Legislature, Jay introduced no new feature. The old Assembly suggested
the lower house, and the former Council or upper house of the
Province, which exercised legislative powers, made a model for the
Senate.[6] In their functions and operations the two bodies were
indistinguishable.[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 the
Legislature greatly restricted suffrage. Theoretically every patriot
believed in the liberties of the people, and the first article of the
Constitution declared that "no authority shall, on any pretence
whatever, be exercised over the people of the State, but such as shall
be derived from and granted by them." This high-sounding exordium
promised the rights of popular sovereignty; but in practice the makers
of the Constitution, fearing the passions of the multitude as much as
the tyranny of kings, deemed it wise to keep power in the hands of a
few. A male citizen of full age, possessing a freehold of the value of
twenty pounds, or renting a tenement of the yearly value of forty
shillings, could vote for an assemblyman, and one possessing a
freehold 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 the
Constitution. The legislators themselves, although thus carefully
selected, might prove inefficient, and so, lest "laws inconsistent
with the spirit of this Constitution, or with the public good, may be
hastily or unadvisedly passed," a Council of Revision was created,
composed of the governor, chancellor, and the three judges of the
Supreme Court, or any two of them acting with the governor, who "shall
revise all bills about to be passed into laws by the Legislature." If
the Council failed to act within ten days after having possession of
the bill, or if two-thirds of each house approved it after the Council
disapproved it, the bill became law. This Council seems to have been
suggested by the veto power possessed by the King's Privy Council.

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

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

The only governors with whom Jay had had any experience were British
governors, and the story of their rule was a story of astonishing
mistakes and vexing stupidities. To go no farther back than Lord
Cornbury, the dissolute cousin of Queen Anne, not one in the long
list, covering nearly a century, exhibited gifts fitting him for the
government of a spirited and intelligent people, or made the slightest
impression for good either for the Crown or the Colony. Their
disposition was to be despotic, and to prevent a repetition of such
arbitrary conduct, Jay sought to restrict the governor's power in
making appointments to civil office.

The new Constitution provided for the appointment of sheriffs, mayors
of cities, district attorneys, coroners, county treasurers, and all
other officers in the State save governor, lieutenant-governor, state
treasurer and town officers. Some members of the convention wished the
governor to make these appointments; others wanted his power limited
by the Legislature's right to confirm. Jay saw objections to both
methods. The first would give the governor too much power; the latter
would transfer too much to the Legislature. To reconcile these
differences, therefore, he proposed "Article XXIII. That all officers,
other than those who, by this Constitution, are directed to be
otherwise appointed, shall be appointed in the manner following, to
wit: The Assembly shall, once in every year, openly nominate and
appoint one of the senators from each great district, which senators
shall form a Council for the appointment of the said officers, of
which the governor shall be president and have a casting vote, but no
other vote; and with the advice and consent of the said Council shall
appoint all of the said officers."[8]

[Footnote 8: "The clause directing the governor to _nominate_ officers
to the Legislature for their approbation being read and debated, was
generally disapproved. Many other methods were devised by different
members, and mentioned to the house merely for consideration. I
mentioned several myself, and told the convention at the time, that,
however I might then incline to adopt them, I was not certain, but
that after considering them, I should vote for their rejection. While
the minds of the members were thus fluctuating between various
opinions, I spent the evening of that day with Mr. Morris at your
lodgings, in the course of which I proposed the plan for the
institution of the Council as it now stands, and after conversing on
the subject we agreed to bring it into the house the next day. It was
moved and debated and carried."--John Jay, _Correspondence and Public
Papers_, Vol. 1, p. 128. Letter of Jay to Robert R. Livingston and
Gouverneur Morris, April 29, 1777.]

This provision was simply, as the sequel showed, a bungling
compromise. Jay intended that the governor should nominate and the
Council confirm, and in the event of a tie the governor should have
the casting vote. But in practice it subordinated the governor to the
Council whenever a majority of the Assembly was politically opposed to
him, and the annual election of the Council greatly increased the
chances of such opposition. When, finally, the Council of Appointment
set up the claim that the right to nominate was vested concurrently in
the governor and in each of the four senators, it practically stripped
the chief executive of power.

The anomaly of the Constitution was the absence of provision for the
judicature, the third co-ordinate branch of the government. One court
was created for the trial of impeachments and the correction of
errors, but the great courts of original jurisdiction, the Supreme
Court and the Court of Chancery, as well as the probate court, the
county court, and the court of admiralty, were not mentioned except
incidentally in sections limiting the ages of the judges, the offices
each might hold, and the appointment of clerks. Instead of recreating
these courts, the Constitution simply recognised them as existing. The
new court established, known as the Court of Errors and Impeachment,
consisted of the president of the Senate, the senators, the
chancellor, and the three judges of the Supreme Court, or a major part
of them. The conception of vesting supreme appellate jurisdiction in
the upper legislative house was derived from the former practice of
appeals to the Council of the Province,[9] which possessed judicial
as well as legislative power. The Constitution further followed the
practice of the old Council by providing that judges could not vote on
appeals from their own judgments, although they might deliver
arguments in support of the same--a custom which had obtained in New
York 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, legal
customs, and popular rights, most of which had been in existence for a
century, were carried over. The Constitution simply provided, in a
general way, for the continuance of such parts of the common law of
England, the statute law of England and Great Britain, and the acts of
the legislature of the Colony of New York, as did not yield obedience
to the government exercised by Great Britain, or establish any
particular denomination of Christians, or their priests or ministers,
who were debarred from holding any civil or military office under the
new State; but acts of attainder for crimes committed after the close
of the war were abrogated, with the declaration that such acts should
not work a corruption of the blood.

The draft of the Constitution in Jay's handwriting was reported to the
convention on March 12, 1777, and on the following day the first
section was accepted. Then the debate began. Sixty-six members
constituted the convention, a majority of whom, led by John Morin
Scott, believed in the reign of the people. The spirit that nerved a
handful of men to embargo vessels and seize munitions of war covered
by British guns never wanted courage, and this historic band now
prepared to resist a conservatism that seemed disposed simply to
change the name of their masters. Jay understood this feeling. "It is
probable that the convention was ultra-democratic," says William Jay,
in the biography of his father, "for I have heard him observe that
another 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 of
despair. They had well-formed notions of a popular government, and
their replies to proposed changes broke the force of the opposition.
But Jay, relying more upon his own policy, prudently omitted several
provisions that seemed to him important, and when discussion developed
their need, he shrewdly introduced them as amendments. Upon one
question, however, a prolonged and spirited debate occurred. This
centred upon the freedom of conscience. The Dutch of New Netherland,
almost alone among the Colonies, had never indulged in fanaticism, and
the Constitution, breathing the spirit of their toleration, declared
that "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship without diminution or preference shall forever hereafter be
allowed within the State to all mankind." Jay did not dissent from
this sentiment; but, as a descendant of the persecuted Huguenots, he
wished to except Roman Catholics until they should deny the Pope's
authority to absolve citizens from their allegiance and to grant
spiritual absolution, and he forcefully insisted upon and secured the
restriction that "the liberty of conscience hereby granted shall not
be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify
practices inconsistent with the safety of the State." The question of
the naturalisation of foreigners renewed the contention. Jay's
Huguenot blood was still hot, and again he exacted the limitation that
all persons, before naturalisation, shall "abjure and renounce all
allegiance to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and
state, in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil."

Jay intended reporting other amendments--one requiring a similar
renunciation on the part of all persons holding office, and one
abolishing domestic slavery. But before the convention adjourned he
was, unfortunately, summoned to the bedside of his dying mother.
Otherwise, New York would probably have had the distinction of being
first to set the example of freedom. "I should have been for a clause
against the continuance of domestic slavery," he said, in a letter
objecting 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 and
passed, but subsequently omitted."--_Ibid._, p. 136, _note_.]

Although the Constitution was under consideration for more than a
month, haste characterised the close of the convention's
deliberations. As soon as Jay left, every one seemed eager to get
away, and on Sunday, April 20, 1777, the Constitution was adopted as a
whole practically as he left it, and a committee appointed to report a
plan for establishing a government under it. Unlike the Constitution
of Massachusetts, it was not submitted to the voters for ratification.
The fact that the delegates themselves had been elected by the people
seemed sufficient, and two days after its passage, the secretary of
the convention, standing upon a barrel in front of the courthouse at
Kingston, published it to the world by reading it aloud to those who
happened to be present. As it became known to the country, it was
cordially approved as the most excellent and liberal of the American
constitutions. "It is approved even in New England," wrote Jay, "where
few New York productions have credit."[13]

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

The absence of violent democratic innovations was the Constitution's
remarkable feature. Although a product of the Revolution, framed to
meet the necessities growing out of that great event, its general
provisions were decidedly conservative. The right of suffrage was so
restricted that as late as 1790 only 1303 of the 13,330 male residents
of New York City possessed sufficient property to entitle them to vote
for governor. Even the Court of Chancery remained undisturbed,
notwithstanding royal governors had created it in opposition to the
wishes of the popular assembly. But despite popular dissatisfaction,
which evidenced itself in earnest prayers and ugly protests, the
instrument, 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 its
committee for the organisation of a state government, appointed Robert
R. Livingston, chancellor; John Jay, chief justice of the Supreme
Court; Robert Yates, Jr., and John Sloss Hobart, justices of the
Supreme Court, and Egbert Benson, attorney-general. To a Council of
Safety, composed of fifteen delegates, with John Morin Scott,
chairman, were confided all the powers of the State until superseded
by a regularly elected governor.




CHAPTER III

GEORGE CLINTON ELECTED GOVERNOR

1777


After the constitutional convention adjourned in May, 1777, the
Council of Safety immediately ordered the election of a governor,
lieutenant-governor, and members of the Legislature. The selection of
a governor by ballot interested the people. Although freeholders who
could vote represented only a small part of the male population,
patriots of every class rejoiced in the substitution of a neighbour
for a lord across the sea. And all had a decided choice. Of those
suggested as fittest as well as most experienced Philip Schuyler, John
Morin Scott, John Jay and George Clinton were the favourites. Just
then Schuyler was in the northern part of the province, watching
Burgoyne and making provision to meet the invasion of the Mohawk
Valley; George Clinton, in command on the Hudson, was equally watchful
of the movements of Sir Henry Clinton, whose junction with Burgoyne
meant the destruction of Forts Clinton and Montgomery at the lower
entrance to the Highlands; while Scott and Jay, as members of the
Council of Safety, were directing the government of the new State.

Schuyler's public career began in the Provincial Assembly of New York
in 1768. He represented the people's interests with great boldness,
and when the Assembly refused to thank the delegates of the first
Continental Congress, or to appoint others to a second Congress, he
aided in the organisation of the Provincial Congress which usurped the
Assembly's functions and put all power into the hands of the people.
Chancellor Kent thought that "in acuteness of intellect, profound
thought, indefatigable activity, exhaustless energy, pure patriotism,
and persevering and intrepid public efforts, Schuyler had no
superior;" and Daniel Webster declared him "second only to Washington
in the services he rendered the country."[14] But there was in
Schuyler's make-up a touch of arrogance that displayed itself in
letters as well as in manners. The soldierly qualities that made him a
commander did not qualify him for public place dependent upon the
suffrage of men. People respected but did not love him. If they were
indignant that Gates succeeded him, they did not want him to govern
them, however much it may have been in his heart to serve them
faithfully.

[Footnote 14: While in command of the northern department, embracing
the province of New York, Schuyler was known as "Great Eye," so
watchful did he become of the enemy's movements; and although
subsequently, through slander and intrigue, superseded by Horatio
Gates, history has credited Burgoyne's surrender largely to his wisdom
and patriotism, and has branded Gates with incompetency, in spite of
the 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 a
patriotic agitator. John Adams, who breakfasted with him, speaks of
his country residence three miles out of town as "an elegant seat,
with the Hudson just behind the house, and a rural prospect all around
him." But the table seems to have made a deeper impression upon the
Yankee patriot than the picturesque scenery of the river. "A more
elegant breakfast I never saw--rich plate, a very large silver
coffee-pot, a very large silver teapot, napkins of the very finest
materials, toast and bread and butter in great perfection. Afterwards
a plate of beautiful peaches, another of pears, another of plums, and
a musk melon." As a parting salute, this lover of good things spoke of
his host as "a sensible man, one of the readiest speakers upon the
continent, but not very polite."[15] This is what the Tories thought.
According to Jones, the Tory historian, Scott had the misfortune to
graduate at Yale--"a college remarkable for its republican principles
and religious intolerance," he says, and to belong to a triumvirate
whose purpose was "to pull down church and state, and to raise their
own 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 to
pursue, but he was always right from his point of view, and his point
of view was bitter hostility to English misrule. Whatever he did he
did with all the resistless energy of a man still in his forties. He
was of distinguished ancestry. His great-great-grandfather, Sir John
Scott, baronet, of Ancrum, Scotland, had been a stalwart Whig before
the revolution of 1688, and his grandfather, John Scott, coming to New
York in 1702, had commanded Fort Hunter, a stronghold on the Mohawk.
Both were remarkable men. Tory blood was foreign to their veins. Young
John, breathing the air of independence, scorned to let his life and
property depend upon the pleasure of British lords and a British
ministry, or to be excluded from the right of trial by a jury of his
neighbours, or of taxation by his own representatives. In 1775 he went
to the Continental Congress; in 1776, to the Provincial Congress of
New York; and later he participated in the battle of Long Island as a
brigadier-general. After the adoption of the State Constitution he
became secretary of state, and from 1780 to 1783 served in the
Continental 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 or
Scott. Indeed, it has been given to few men in New York to inspire
more passionate personal attachment than George Clinton. A patriot
never lived who was more bitter in his hostility to English misrule,
or more uncompromising in his opposition to toryism. He was a typical
Irishman--intolerant, often domineering, sometimes petulant, and
occasionally too quick to take offence, but he was magnetic and
generous, easily putting himself in touch with those about him, and
ready, 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 devoted
adherent of Charles I., found it healthful to wander about Europe, and
finally to settle in the north of Ireland, out of reach of Cromwell's
soldiers, and out of sight of his ancestral patrimony. By the time
Charles II. came to the throne, the estate was lost, and this friend
of the Stuarts lived on in the quiet of his secluded home, and after
him, his son; but the grandson, stirred by the blood of a Puritan
mother, exchanged the North Sea shore for the banks of the Hudson,
where his son breathed the air that made him a leading spirit in the
war for American independence. Clinton's youth is one record of
precocity. Before the war began he passed through a long, a varied,
even a brilliant career, climbing to the highest position in the State
before he had reached the age when most men begin to fill responsible
places. At fifteen he manned an American privateer; at sixteen, as a
lieutenant, he accompanied his father in a successful assault upon
Fort Frontenac; at twenty-six, in the colonial legislature, he became
the rival of Philip Schuyler in the leadership and influence that
enabled a patriotic minority to resist the aggressions of Great
Britain; at thirty-six, holding a seat in the Second Continental
Congress, he voted for the Declaration of Independence, and commanded
a brigade of Ulster County militia.

The election which occurred in June was not preceded by a campaign of
speaking. People were too busy fighting to supplement a campaign of
bullets with one of words. But Jay sent out an electioneering letter
recommending Philip Schuyler for governor and George Clinton for
lieutenant-governor. This was sufficient to secure for these
candidates the conservative vote. It showed, too, Jay's unconcern for
high place. He was modest even to diffidence, an infirmity that seems
to have depressed him at times as much as it did Nathaniel Hawthorne
in a later day.

The returns were made to the Council of Safety, and Jay carefully
scanned them as they came in. On June 20 he wrote Schuyler: "The
elections in the middle district have taken such a turn as that, if a
tolerable degree of unanimity should prevail in the upper counties,
there will be little doubt of having, ere long, the honour of
addressing a letter to your excellency. Clinton, being pushed for both
offices, may have neither; he has many votes for the first and not a
few for the second. Scott, however, has carried a number from him, and
you are by no means without a share. You may rely on receiving by
express the earliest notice of the event alluded to."[17] When the
voters from Orange and other southern counties came in, however, Jay
discovered that the result did not follow the line either of his
wishes or of his suggestions. On the contrary, Clinton was elected to
both 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 returns
from 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 southern
counties gave the election to Clinton."--_Civil List, State of New
York_ (1886), p. 164. Subsequently, when the Legislature met at
Kingston on September 1, Pierre Van Cortlandt as president of the
Senate performed the duties of lieutenant-governor.]

The result of the election proved a great surprise and something of a
humiliation to the ruling classes. "Gen. Clinton, I am informed, has a
majority 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 few
days later, after confirmation of the rumour, he betrayed considerable
feeling. "Clinton's family and connections do not entitle him to so
distinguished a pre-eminence," he wrote, showing that Revolutionary
heroes were already divided into more democratic and less democratic
whigs, and more aristocratic and less aristocratic patriots; but the
division was still in the mind rather than in any settled policy. "He
is virtuous and loves his country," added Schuyler, in the next line;
"he has ability and is brave, and I hope he will experience from every
patriot support, countenance and comfort."[20] Washington understood
his merits. "His character will make him peculiarly useful at the head
of 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 of
the courthouse at Kingston on top of the barrel from which the
Constitution had been published in the preceding April, and in the
uniform of his country, with sword in hand, he took the oath of
office. Within sixty days thereafter Sir Henry Clinton had carried the
Highland forts, scattered the Governor's troops, dispersed the first
Legislature of the State, burned Kingston to the ground, and very
nearly captured the Governor himself, the latter, under cover of
night, having made his escape by crossing the river in a small
rowboat. Among the captured patriots was Colonel McClaughry, the
Governor's brother-in-law. "Where is my friend George?" asked Sir
Henry. "Thank God," replied the Colonel, "he is safe and beyond the
reach of your friendship."




CHAPTER IV

CLINTON AND HAMILTON

1777-1789


During the war Governor Clinton's duties were largely military. Every
important measure of the Legislature dealt with the public defence,
and the time of the Executive was fully employed in carrying out its
enactments and performing the work of commander-in-chief of the
militia. A large proportion of the population of the State was either
avowedly loyal to the Crown or secretly indisposed to the cause of
independence. "Of all the Colonies," wrote William Jay, "New York was
probably the least unanimous in the assertion and defence of the
principles of the Revolution. The spirit of disaffection was most
extensive on Long Island, and had probably tainted a large majority of
its inhabitants. In Queens County, in particular, the people had, by a
formal vote, refused to send representatives to the colonial congress
or convention, and had declared themselves neutral in the present
crisis."[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 in
the eighteenth century. At the outset of his career he declared that
he had "rather roast in hell to all eternity than be dependent upon
Great Britain or show mercy to a damned Tory." To add to his fame, he
enforced this judgment with heavy fines, long imprisonments, summary
banishments, and frequent coats of tar and feathers.

Very soon after the adoption of the Constitution, the Legislature
passed a law requiring an oath of allegiance to the State; and under
the vigorous enforcement of this act the Governor sent many Tories
from the rural districts into the city of New York or expelled them
from the State. Others were required to give a pledge, with security,
to reside within prescribed limits. At times even the churches were
filled with prisoners, some of whom were sent to jails in Connecticut,
or exchanged for prisoners of war. In 1779 the Legislature increased
the penalty of disloyalty to the State, by passing the Confiscation
Act, declaring "the forfeiture and sale of the estates of persons who
had adhered to the enemy."

Up to this time only one political party had existed among the Whig
colonists. The passage of the Confiscation Act, however, encountered
the opposition of many sincere lovers of the cause of independence,
who favoured a more moderate policy toward loyalists, since they were
probably as sincere in their opinions as those opposed to them.
Besides, a generous and magnanimous course, it was argued, would
induce the return of many desirable citizens after hostilities had
ceased. To this the ultra-Whigs replied that the law of
self-preservation made a severe policy necessary, and if any one
suffered by its operation he must look to the government of his choice
for comfort and reimbursement. As for the return of the Tories, the
ultras declared that only citizens sincerely loyal to an independent
country would be acceptable.

This division into moderate and ultra Whigs was emphasised in 1781 by
the legislative grant to Congress of such import duties as accrued at
the port of New York, to be levied and collected "under such penalties
and regulations, and by such officers, as Congress should from time to
time make, order, and appoint." Governor Clinton did not cordially
approve the act at the time of its passage, and as the money began
flowing into the national treasury, he opposed the method of its
surrender. 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 Legislature
substituted for the law of 1781 the act of March, 1783, granting the
duties to Congress, but directing their collection by officers of the
State. Although this act was subsequently amended, making collectors
amenable to Congress, another law was enacted in 1786 granting
Congress the revenue, and reserving to the State, as in the law of
1783, "the sole power of levying and collecting the duties." When
Congress asked the Governor to call a special session of the
Legislature, that the right to levy and collect might be yielded as
before, he refused to do so.

Governor Clinton understood the commercial advantages of New York's
geographical location, which were greatly enhanced by the navigation
acts of other States. The peace treaty had made New York the port of
entry for the whole region east of the Delaware, and into its coffers
poured a revenue so marvellous as to excite hopes of a prospective
wealth which a century, remarkable as was its productiveness, did
little more than realise. If any State, therefore, could survive
without a union with other Colonies, it was New York, and it is not
surprising that many, perhaps a majority of its people, under the
leadership of George Clinton, settled into a policy unfriendly to a
national revenue, and later to a national government.

The Governor had gradually become mindful of an opposition as stubborn
as it was persistent. He had encountered it in his treatment of the
Tories, but not until Alexander Hamilton became an advocate of amnesty
and oblivion, did Clinton recognise the centre and future leader of
the opposing forces. Hamilton did not appear among those interested in
the election of governor in 1777. His youth shut him out of Assembly
and Congress, out of committees and conventions, but it did not shut
him out of the army; and while Governor Clinton was wrestling with new
problems of government in the formation of a new State, Hamilton was
acting as secretary, aide, companion, and confidant of Washington,
accepting suggestions as commands, and acquiescing in his chief's
judgment with a fidelity born of love and admiration. In the history
of war nothing is more beautiful than the friendship existing between
the 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-day
relationship between Ulysses S. Grant and John A. Rawlins, his chief
of staff.

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

In the summer of 1782 Hamilton was admitted to the bar in Albany, but
soon afterward settled in New York City, where he seems to have come
into practice and into fame by defending the rights of Tories. For
four years after the war ended, the treatment of British sympathisers
was the dominant political issue in New York. Governor Clinton
advocated disfranchisement and banishment, and the Legislature enacted
into law what he advised; so that when the British troops, under the
peace treaty, evacuated New York, in November, 1783, loyalists who had
thus far escaped the wrath of this patriot Governor, flocked to Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick like birds seeking a more congenial clime,
recalling the flight of the Huguenots after the revocation of the
Edict of Nantes one hundred years earlier. It is not easy to estimate
the number who fled before this savage and violent action of the
Legislature. Sir Guy Carleton, in command at New York, fixes the
emigration at one hundred thousand souls. For many years the "Landing
of the Loyalists" was annually commemorated at St. John, and in the
cemeteries of England and Scotland are found the tombstones of these
unfortunate devotees of the mother country.

It is likely Clinton was too intolerant, but it was the intolerance
that follows revolution. Hamilton, on the other hand, became an early
advocate of amnesty and oblivion, and, although public sentiment and
the Legislature were against him, he finally succeeded in modifying
the one and changing the other. "Nothing is more common," he observed,
"than for a free people in times of heat and violence to gratify
momentary passions by letting in principles and precedents which
afterwards prove fatal to themselves. If the Legislature can
disfranchise at pleasure, it may soon confine all the votes to a small
number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if
it may banish at discretion, without hearing or trial, no man can be
safe. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a
mockery of common sense."[22]

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

The differences between Congress and the Legislature respecting the
collection of duties also brought Clinton and Hamilton into conflict.
As early as 1776 Hamilton had considered the question whether Congress
ought not to collect its own taxes by its own agents,[23] and, when a
member of Congress in 1783, he urged it[24] as one of the cardinal
features of an adequate federal system. In 1787 he was a member of the
Legislature. Here he insisted upon having the federal revenue system
adopted by the State. His argument was an extended exposition of the
facts which made such action important.[25] Under the lead of Clinton,
however, New York was willing to surrender the money, but not the
power 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 end
Clinton and Hamilton seemed for several years to be working in
harmony. In 1780 Clinton had presented to the Legislature the "defect
of power" in the Confederation, and, in 1781, John Sloss Hobart and
Egbert Benson, representing New York at a convention in Hartford,
urged the recommendation empowering Congress to apportion taxes among
the States in the ratio of their total population. The next year,
Hamilton, although not a member of the Legislature, persuaded it to
adopt resolutions written by him, declaring that the powers of the
central government should be extended, and that it should be
authorised to provide revenue for itself. To this end "it would be
advisable," continued the resolutions, "to propose to Congress to
recommend, and to each State to adopt, the measure of assembling a
general convention of the States, specially authorised to revise and
amend the Constitution." To Washington's farewell letter, appealing
for a stronger central government, Governor Clinton sent a cordial
response, and in transmitting the address to the Legislature in 1784,
he recommended attention "to every measure which has a tendency to
cement the Union, and to give to the national councils that energy
which 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 official
communications read like the utterances of a friend; but his
influence, as disclosed in the acts of 1783 and 1786, reserving to the
State the sole power of levying and collecting duties, clearly
indicate that while he loved his country in a matter-of-fact sort of
way, it meant a country divided, a country of thirteen States each
berating the other, a country of trade barriers and commercial
resentments, a country of more importance to New York and to Clinton
than to other Commonwealths which had made equal sacrifices.

Thus matters drifted until New York and other middle Atlantic States
discovered that it was impossible under the impotent Articles of
Confederation to regulate commerce in waters bordered by two or more
States. 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. This
compelled Congress to call the convention, to which commissioners from
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia, assembled
at Annapolis in 1786, to consider the trade and commerce of the United
States, and to suggest measures for the action of Congress. Hamilton
and Egbert Benson were members of this body, the former of whom wrote
the address, afterward adopted, which declared the federal government
inefficient, and proposed a convention to revise the Articles of
Confederation,[27] in order to render them adequate to the exigencies
of the Union. This was the resolution unanimously adopted by the New
York Legislature in 1782, but to the surprise of Hamilton and the
friends of a stronger government, the Legislature now disapproved such
a convention. The idea did not please George Clinton. As Hamilton
summed up the opposition, it meant disinclination to taxation, fear of
the 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 resolution
instructing members of Congress from the State to urge that a
convention be held to amend the Articles of Confederation, and, when
Congress issued the call,[29] Robert Yates, John Lansing, Jr., and
Alexander Hamilton were elected delegates "for the sole purpose of
revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and
the several Legislatures such alterations as shall, when agreed to by
Congress and confirmed by the several States, render the Federal
Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the
preservation of the Union." Hamilton's election to this convention was
cited as proof of Clinton's disposition to treat fairly the opponents
of state supremacy, since it was well understood that his presence at
Philadelphia would add the ablest and most ultra exponent of a strong,
central government. It was certainly in Clinton's power to defeat
Hamilton as he did John Jay, but his liberality carried a high
check-rein, for Robert Yates and John Lansing were selected to
overcome Hamilton's vote.

[Footnote 29: In _Madison Papers_, Vol. 2, Introductory to Debates of
1787, is a history of previous steps toward union.]

Clinton's first choice for a delegate was Yates, whose criticism of
the work of the convention manifests hostility to a Union. He seemed
to have little conception of what would satisfy the real needs of a
strong government, preferring the vague doctrines of the old Whigs in
the early days of revolution. Lansing was clearer, and, perhaps, less
extreme in his views; but he wanted nothing more than an amendment of
the existing Confederation, known as the New Jersey plan.[30] The
moment, therefore, that a majority favoured the Virginia plan which
contemplated a national government with an executive, legislature,
and judiciary of its own, Lansing and Yates, regarding it a violation
of their instructions, and with the approval of Governor Clinton,
withdrew[31] from the convention and refused to sign the Constitution
after 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 supreme
legislative, judiciary, and executive,' Lansing moved a declaration
'that the powers of legislation be vested in the United States
Congress.' He stated that if the Jersey plan was not adopted, it would
produce the mischiefs they were convened to obviate. That the
principles of that system were an equality of representation, and
dependence of the members of Congress on the States. That as long as
state distinctions exist, state prejudices would operate, whether the
election be by the States or the people. If there was no interest to
oppress, there was no need of an apportionment. What would be the
effect of the other plan? Virginia would have sixteen, Delaware one
representative. Will the general government have leisure to examine
the state laws? Will it have the necessary information? Will the
States agree to surrender? Let us meet public opinion, and hope the
progress of sentiment will make future arrangements. He would like the
system of his colleague (Hamilton) if it could be established, but it
was a system without example."--_Hamilton's MSS. notes_, Vol. 6, p.
77. Lansing's motion was negatived by six to four States, Maryland
being divided.]

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

[Footnote 32: "That they acted in accordance with Clinton was proved
by his deportment at this time. Unreserved declarations were made by
him, that no good was to be expected from the appointment or
deliberations of this body; that the country would be thrown into
confusion by the measure. Hamilton said 'Clinton was not a man
governed in ordinary cases by sudden impulses; though of an irritable
temper, when not under the immediate influence of irritation, he was
circumspect and guarded, and seldom acted or spoke without
premeditation or design.' When the Governor made such declarations,
therefore, Hamilton feared that Clinton's conduct would induce the
confusion he so confidently and openly predicted, and to exhibit it
before the public in all its deformity, Hamilton published a pointed
animadversion, charging these declarations upon him, and avowing a
readiness to substantiate them."--John C. Hamilton, _Life of Alexander
Hamilton_, Vol. 2, p. 528.]

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

[Footnote 33: _Works_, Vol. 1, p. 357. G.T. Curtis, _Commentaries on
the Constitution_, pp. 371, 381, presents a very careful analysis of
Hamilton's plan. For fac-simile copy of Hamilton's plan, see
_Documentary History of the Constitution_ (a recent Government
publication), 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 the
Constitution, which required the assent of nine of the thirteen
States, to the several legislatures. At once it became the sole topic
of discussion. In New York it was the occasion of riots, of mobs, and
of violent contests. It was called the "triple-headed monster," and
declared to be "as deep and wicked a conspiracy as ever was invented
in the darkest ages against the liberties of a free people." Its
opponents, numbering four-sevenths of the community--although their
strength was mainly in the country[36]--and calling themselves Federal
Republicans, organised a society and opened correspondence with
leading men in other States. "All the old alarm about liberty was now
revived," says W.G. Sumner, "and all the elements of anarchy and
repudiation which had been growing so strong for twenty years were
arrayed in hostility."[37] But its bitterest opponent in the thirteen
Colonies was George Clinton.[38] "He preferred to remain the most
powerful citizen of New York, rather than occupy a subordinate place
under a national government in which his own State was not
foremost."[39] On the other hand, the _Federalist_, written largely by
Hamilton, carried conviction to the minds of thousands who had
previously doubted the wisdom of the plan. In the last number of the
series, he said: "The system, though it may not be perfect in every
part, is upon the whole a good one, is the best that the present views
and circumstances will permit, and is such an one as promises every
species 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 usual
speech or message, but he said nothing of what everybody else was
talking about. Consideration of the Constitution was the only
important business before that body; four States had already ratified
it, and three others had it under consideration; yet the Governor said
not a word. His idea was for New York to hold off and let the others
try it. Then, if the Union succeeded, although revenue difficulties
were expected to break it up immediately,[41] the State could come in.
Meantime, like Patrick Henry of Virginia, he proposed another general
convention, to be held as soon as possible, to consider amendments.
Thus matters drifted until January, 1788, when Egbert Benson, now a
member of the Legislature, offered a resolution for holding a state
convention to consider the federal document. Dilatory motions blocked
its way, and its friends began to despair of better things; but Benson
persisted, until, at last, after great bitterness, the resolution was
adopted.

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

Of the sixty-one delegates to this convention, which assembled at the
courthouse in Poughkeepsie on June 17, two-thirds were opposed to the
Constitution.[42] The convention organised with Governor Clinton for
president. Among the champions of the Constitution appeared Hamilton,
Jay, Robert R. Livingston, Robert Morris, James Duane, then mayor of
New York, John Sloss Hobart, Richard Harrison, and others of like
character. Robert Yates, Samuel Jones, Melancthon Smith, and John
Lansing, Jr., led the fight against it. Beginning on June 19, the
discussion continued until July 28. Hamilton, his eloquence at its
best, so that at times there was not a dry eye in the assembly,[43]
especially emphasised the public debt. "It is a fact that should
strike us with shame, that we are obliged to borrow money in order to
pay the interest of our debt. It is a fact that these debts are
accumulating every day by compound interest."[44] In the old
Confederation, he declared, the idea of liberty alone was considered,
but that another thing was equally important--"I mean a principle of
strength and stability in the organisation of our government, and of
vigour in its operations."[45] Professor Sumner, in his admirable
biography, expresses surprise that nothing is said about debts in the
_Federalist_, and comparatively little about the Supreme Court. "This
is very remarkable," he says, "in view of the subsequent history; for
if there is any 'sleeping giant' in the Constitution, it has proved to
be the power of the Supreme Court to pass upon the constitutionality
of laws. It does not appear that Hamilton or anybody else foresaw that
this function of the Court would build upon the written constitution a
body 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. Familiar
with political history, and one of the ablest debaters in the country,
he proved himself no mean antagonist even for Hamilton. "He must have
been a man of rare candour, too," says John Fiske, "for after weeks of
debate he owned himself convinced."[47] Whatever could be said against
the Constitution, Smith voiced it; and there was apparent merit in
some of his objections. To a majority of the people, New York appeared
to be surrendering natural advantages in much larger measure than
other Commonwealths, while its concession of political power struck
them as not unlikely to endanger the personal liberty of the citizen
and the independence of the State. They disliked the idea of a far-off
government, with many officers drawing large salaries, administering
the army, the navy, and the diplomatic relations with nations of the
Old World. It was so different from anything experienced since their
separation from England, that they dreaded this centralised power;
and, to minimise it, they proposed several amendments, among them one
that no person should be eligible to the office of President for a
third term. Time has demonstrated the wisdom of some of these
suggestions; but commendable as they now appear after the lapse of
more than a century, they were of trifling importance compared to the
necessity 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 it
was the centre of the Union. From the standpoint of military
movements, too, it had been supremely important in the days of
Montcalm and Burgoyne, and it was felt that a Federal Union cut in
twain by the Mohawk and Hudson valleys must have a short life. "For my
own part," said Hamilton, "the more I can penetrate the views of the
anti-federal party in this State, the more I dread the consequences of
the non-adoption of the Constitution by any of the other States--the
more I fear eventual disunion and civil war."[48] His fear bred an
apparent willingness to agree to a conditional ratification,[49] until
Madison settled the question that there could be no such thing as
conditional ratification since constitutional secession would be
absurd. On July 11 Jay moved that "the Constitution be ratified, and
that whatever amendments might be deemed expedient should be
recommended." This, however, did not satisfy the opposition, and the
discussion 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 for
news 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, telling
the glad story that the requisite number of States had been secured.
This reduced the question to ratification or secession. A few days
later it was learned that Virginia had also joined the majority. The
support of Patrick Henry had been a tower of strength to Governor
Clinton, and his defeat exaggerated Clinton's fear that New York City
and the southern counties which favoured the Constitution might now
execute their threat to split off unless New York ratified. Then came
Melancthon Smith's change to the federalist side. This was like
crushing the centre of a hostile army. Finally, on July 28, a
resolution "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 not
vote, but it was known that he advised several of his friends to
favour the resolution. On September 13, he officially proclaimed the
Federal Constitution as the fundamental law of the Republic.

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

The march of events has so clearly proved the wisdom of Hamilton and
the unwisdom of Clinton, that the name of one, joined inseparably with
that of Washington, has grown with the century, until it is as much a
part of the history of the Union as the Constitution itself. The name
of George Clinton, on the contrary, is little known beyond the limits
of his native State. It remained for DeWitt Clinton, the Governor's
distinguished nephew, to link the family with an historic enterprise
which should bring it down through the ages with increasing respect
and admiration.




CHAPTER V

CLINTON'S FOURTH TERM

1789-1792


At each triennial election for twelve years, ever since the adoption
of the State Constitution in 1777, George Clinton had been chosen
governor. No one else, in fact, had ever been seriously talked of,
save John Jay in 1786. Doubtless Clinton derived some advantage from
the control of appointments, which multiplied in number and increased
in influence as term succeeded term, but his popularity drew its
inspiration from sources other than patronage. A strong, rugged
character, and a generous, sympathetic nature, sunk their roots deeply
into the hearts of a liberty-loving people who supported their
favourite with the fidelity of personal friendship.

The time had, however, come at last when Clinton's right to continue
as governor was to be contested. Hamilton's encounter with the New
York opponents of the Federal Constitution had been vigorous and
acrimonious. It was easy to stand with one's State in opposing the
Constitution when opposition had behind it the powerful Clinton
interest and the persuasive Clinton argument that federal union meant
the substitution of experiment for experience, and the exchange of a
superior for an inferior position; but it required a splendid
stubbornness to face, daringly and aggressively, the desperate odds
arrayed against the Constitution. Every man who wanted to curry favour
with Clinton was ready to strike at Hamilton, and they covered him
with obloquy. Very likely his attitude was not one to tempt the
forbearance of angry opponents. He did not fight with gloves.
Nevertheless, his success added one more to his list of splendid
victories. He had beaten Clinton in his intolerant treatment of
loyalists; he had beaten him in obtaining for Congress the sole power
of regulating commerce; he had beaten him in the Philadelphia
convention called to frame a federal constitution; he had beaten him
in a state convention called to ratify that constitution; and now he
proposed to beat him for governor in a State which would have great
influence in smoothing the way for the new federal government.

After the close of the Revolution, there had been local parties in the
various Stales, divided on issues of hard and soft money, on imposts,
on treatment of Tories, and on state rights, and these issues had
coincided in many of the States. During the contest growing out of the
adoption of the Federal Constitution, all these elements became
segregated into two great political parties, those who supported the
Constitution being known as Federalists--those who were opposed to
strengthening the bond between the States being called anti-Federalists.
The latter were clearly in the majority in New York, and Hamilton
rightly inferred that, notwithstanding the people, since the adoption
of the Constitution, manifested a disposition to sustain the general
government, a large majority of freeholders, having heretofore
supported Clinton as a wise, patriotic governor, would not now desert
him for an out-and-out Federalist. To meet this emergency, several
Federalists, at a meeting held February 11, 1789, nominated Robert
Yates, an anti-Federalist judge of the Supreme Court, hoping thus to
form a coalition with the more moderate men of his party.

In support of such politics, of the doubtful wisdom of which there was
abundant illustration in the recent unnatural coalition between Lord
North and the brilliant Charles James Fox, Hamilton wrote to his
friends in Albany that in settling upon a candidate, some difficulties
occurred. "Our fellow citizens in some parts of the State," he said,
"had proposed Judge Yates, others had been advocates of
Lieutenant-Governor Van Cortlandt, and others for Chief Justice
Morris. It is well known that the inhabitants of this city are, with
few exceptions, strongly attached to the new Constitution. It is also
well known that the Lieutenant-Governor and Chief Justice, whom we
respect and esteem, were zealous advocates for the same cause. Had it
been agreed to support either of them for governor, there would have
been reason to fear that the measure would have been imputed to party,
and not to a desire of relieving our country from the evils they
experience from the heats of party. It appeared, therefore, most
advisable to elect some man of the opposite party, in whose integrity,
patriotism, and temper, confidence might be placed, however little his
political opinions on the question lately agitated might be approved
by those who were assembled upon that occasion.

"Among the persons of this description, there were circumstances which
led to a decision in favour of Judge Yates. It is certain that as a
man and a judge he is generally esteemed. And, though his opposition
to the new Constitution was such as his friends cannot but disapprove,
yet, since the period of its adoption, his conduct has been tempered
with a degree of moderation, and seems to point him out as a man
likely to compose the differences of the State. Of this at least we
feel confident, that he has no personal revenge to gratify, no
opponents to oppress, no partisans to provide for, nor any promises
for 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. The
Federalists wanted Richard Morris, chief justice of the Supreme Court,
who had encouraged the establishment of a strong government, and, as a
member of the Poughkeepsie convention, had voted to ratify the Federal
Constitution. Besides, he was a gentleman of the old school, of
inflexible integrity, firm and decided in character, whose full,
rounded face and commanding presence appeared to advantage among the
stately and dignified personages who supported knee breeches and silk
stockings, and displayed the delicate ruffles of a shirt under the
folds of a rich velvet coat. Hamilton was fond of Morris, and
recognised 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 had
pronounced it the ablest argument and most patriotic address ever
heard in the State of New York. But the great Federalist, determined
to destroy Clinton, wanted availability, not fidelity, and so Morris
declined in favour of Yates.

In everything Robert Yates was an anti-Federalist. He dressed like one
and he talked like one. He had been an opponent of the Federal
Constitution, an advocate of the doctrine of state supremacy, and an
ardent supporter of the Governor. With Clinton's approval he had
withdrawn from the Philadelphia convention when the majority favoured
a strong government wielding supreme authority; with Clinton's
approval, he had opposed the ratification of the Federal Constitution
in the state convention at Poughkeepsie, and with Clinton's approval
he declined to change his vote, although New Hampshire's action and
Hamilton's speech had already settled the question of ratification.
What Hamilton proposed, Yates opposed; what Clinton advocated, Yates
approved. After the ratification of the Constitution, however, Robert
Yates charged the grand jury that it would be little short of treason
against the Republic to disobey it. "Let me exhort you, gentlemen," he
said, "not only in your capacity as grand jurors, but in your more
durable and equally respectable character as citizens, to preserve
inviolate this charter of our national rights and safety, a charter
second only in dignity and importance to the Declaration of our
Independence."

Upon the bench Yates distinguished himself for impartiality and
independence, if not for learning. He abated the intemperate zeal of
patriotic juries, and he refused to convict men suspected of
disloyalty, without proof. On one occasion he sent a jury back four
times to reconsider a verdict of guilty unauthorised by the evidence,
and subsequently treated with indifference a legislative threat of
impeachment, based upon a fearless discharge of duty. He could afford
to be just, for, like George Clinton, he had early embraced the cause
of the Colony against the Crown. From an Albany alderman he became a
maker of the State Constitution, and from a writer of patriotic
essays, he shone as an active member of the Committee of Safety.
Together with John Jay and Robert R. Livingston, he had obstructed the
passage of Lord Howe's ships up the Hudson, and with General Schuyler
he devised measures to repel the British from the northern and western
frontier. He had helped to fix the dividing line between Massachusetts
and New York, and, as one of the Council of Administration, he
governed southern New York from the withdrawal of the British until
the assembling of the Legislature.

Having decided to go outside his own party, Hamilton made no mistake
in picking his man. If Clinton was the Hampden of the colonial period,
Robert Yates could well be called its Pym. He had toleration as well
as patriotism. But he also had an itching desire for office. Some one
has said that the close connection between man and a child is never
more clearly illustrated than in the joy and pride which the wisest
statesman feels in the wearing of a ribbon or a star. It could not be
said of Robert Yates then, as it was said, with good reason, six years
later, that his desire for office extinguished his devotion to party
and his character for political consistency, but it was openly charged
that, upon the suggestion of Hamilton, he urged the grand jury to
support the Federal Constitution in order to strengthen himself with
the Federalists. Whether this be true or not, Yates' previous devotion
to the anti-Federalist party set his present conduct in sharp contrast
to that of other distinguished anti-Federalist statesmen of the
time--to men like Samuel Jones and Melancthon Smith, who accepted the
action 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 of
principle, or his condescension to any act of baseness, to obtain
office. It was indeed a question whether Clinton, or Hamilton through
Yates, should control the state government; but the gubernatorial
contest involved more than that. The new government, soon to be placed
on 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. From
Hamilton'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 in
its leading-strings, at least, the general government would have the
hearty support of New York.

Hamilton's great coalition, intended to work such wonders, boasted
many brilliant names. Of the younger men Robert Troup, of Hamilton's
age, an early friend of Burr, took a most conspicuous part, while
among the older members of this galaxy was James Duane, a lawyer of
rare ability, the first mayor of New York, for ten years continuously
in the Continental Congress, a man of great force, of large wealth,
and superb character. He was in his forties when Hamilton, a boy of
seventeen, won his heart by a single speech, denouncing the act of
Parliament which closed the port of Boston. The most notable man in
the coalition, next to Hamilton and Jay, was Robert R. Livingston, now
Hamilton's devoted friend, before long to be his bitter enemy. He was
still young, little more than forty, but in everything he was bold and
skilful, vigorous as a writer, eloquent as a speaker, deeply learned
as a jurist, and rich in scholarship. Of the same age as Livingston
was William Duer,[51] who started at eighteen as an aide to Lord Clive
in India. Duer was at one time the most useful man in America. Nobody
could cheat him. As soon as Hamilton became secretary of the
treasury, he made Duer assistant secretary, an office which he held
with credit until 1790, when he resigned to become the chief of a ring
of speculators, who, two years later, left him insolvent and in jail.
Hamilton's coalition also furnished the only instance of the political
association of himself and Burr, although Burr's support of Yates is
said to have been personal rather than political. The story is that
Burr, seeking admission to the bar after reading law less than a year,
induced Judge Yates to suspend the rule requiring three years of
study, because of the applicant's term as a soldier, a service that
laid the foundation of a lasting friendship.

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

On the opposite side were many men who live in history as builders of
the Empire State. None belong to the gallery of national characters,
perhaps, but John Lansing, Livingston's successor as chancellor, and
Samuel Jones,[52] the first state comptroller, known, by common
consent, as the father of the New York bar, find places in the list of
New York's ablest statesmen. To this memorable company also belonged
Melancthon Smith, the head of the anti-Federalist forces at the
Poughkeepsie convention, and Gilbert Livingston of Dutchess, whose one
patriotic address was the last blow needed to ratify the Constitution.
He was not, like Smith, a great debater, but his ready eloquence
classed him among the orators who were destined to live in the memory
of a later generation. Beside him was James Clinton, brother of the
Governor and father of DeWitt Clinton. A soldier by profession, he had
taken part in several important battles and marches, charging with
Bradstreet at the capture of Fort Frontenac, following the lamented
Montgomery to Quebec, and serving with Sullivan in his famous
expedition against the Indians. Finally, he shared in the glory of
being with Washington at the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. He seems to
have been the real soldier of the family, blending the strong, active
powers of the Clinton mind with the gentler virtues which made him as
sympathetic 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 and
simplicity of character; no one equalled him in his accurate knowledge
of the technical rules and doctrines of real property, and his
familiarity with the skilful and elaborate, but now obsolete and
mysterious, black-letter learning of the common law."]

Thus the contest between Yates and Clinton, although the first real
political conflict in the history of the State, became one of the
sharpest and most bitterly fought. For six weeks the atmosphere was
thick and hot with political passion. Veteran observers declared that
their generation had seen nothing like it. But the arguments of Duer,
the powerful influence of Chancellor Livingston, the leadership of
Hamilton, and the phenomenal popularity of John Jay, could not win the
voters who saw nothing more in the arrangement than a question of
individual preference, and while Yates carried the western district by
a large majority and held his own in the southern, Clinton's home
county gave him 1093 out of 1245 votes, making his majority 429 in a
total vote of 12,353.

The call for the Governor was so close that he quickly prepared for a
repetition of the contest in 1792. The inauguration of Washington on
April 30 had given Hamilton control of the federal offices in New
York, and, although of trifling importance compared to state
patronage, they were used to strengthen federalism, and, if possible,
to destroy Clinton. John Jay became chief justice of the Supreme
Court, James Duane judge of the District Court, Richard Harrison
United States attorney, and William S. Smith United States marshal. It
was a brilliant array of talent and legal learning. Of the lights and
ornaments of the law in his day, Richard Harrison excelled in an
intimate knowledge of its intricacies and mysteries. Added to these
officials were Rufus King and Philip Schuyler, United States senators,
and three members of Congress, with Egbert Benson at their head. As
secretary 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 he
governed his conduct with the toleration and foresight of a master
politician. He declined to punish those who had deserted his standard,
refusing to accept Robert Yates' apostacy as sufficient cause to bar
his promotion as chief justice, and appointing to the vacancy John
Lansing, Jr., who, although a strong anti-Federalist, had already
shown an independence of political domination.

But the master-stroke of Clinton's diplomacy displayed itself in the
appointment of Aaron Burr as attorney-general. After Burr left the
army "with the character of a true knight," as John Adams put it, he
began 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 remained
silent. His silence, however, was the silence of concealment. He
shared no confidences, he exploited no principles, he did nothing in
the open. He lived in an air of mystery, writing letters in cipher,
using messengers instead of the mails, and maintaining espionage upon
the movements of others. Of himself he wrote to Theodosia, "he is a
grave, silent, strange sort of animal, inasmuch that we know not what
to make of him." In the political parlance of to-day, his methods
savoured of the "still hunt," and in their exercise he exhibited the
powers of a past-master in stirring up men's prejudices, and creating
divisions among his rivals; but his methods, whether practised in law
or in politics, were neither modern nor moral. He marshalled forces
with equal celerity under either flag.

Shortly after Burr moved into Maiden Lane, Hamilton made his home in
Wall Street. Their first meeting, which occurred on the road from
Harlem bridge to White Plains during the disastrous retreat of
Washington's army from Manhattan in September, 1776, had been
characterised by mutual dislike. Burr, with the rank of major, acted
as aide to General Putnam; Hamilton, as an officer of artillery, was
soon to become an aide to Washington. Both were young then--Hamilton
not yet twenty, Burr scarcely twenty-one; yet their character, then
fully developed, shines out in their estimate of the commander-in-chief.
Burr thought Washington inferior as an officer, and weak, though
honest, as a man; Hamilton thought him a great soldier and a great
statesman, upon whose services the welfare of the country largely
depended. Burr's prejudices settled into positive dislike; Hamilton's
appreciation voiced the sentiment of the people and the judgment of
posterity.

There is a legend that from the first, destiny seemed determined to
oppose the genius and fame of Hamilton with the genius and fame of
Aaron Burr. It is certainly a remarkable coincidence that two men,
born without the State, so nearly of an age, so similar in brilliant
attainments, so notably distinguished in charm of manner and
phenomenal accomplishments, and so strikingly alike in ripeness of
intelligence and bent of ambition, should happen to have lived at the
same time, in the same city, and become members of the same
profession; yet it is not surprising that these men should prove
formidable rivals and deadly foes, since difference in character was
far more real than resemblance of mental attainments. Both were
fearless and brave, but the one was candid, frank and resolute; the
other subtle, crafty and adventurous. Perhaps their only common
characteristic was an ungoverned admiration for the charms of women,
though, unlike Burr, Hamilton neither bragged of his amours, nor
boasted 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 of
the anti-Federalists all talented and spirited young men; but it is
none the less evident that Clinton was thinking more of himself than
of his party. Burr figured as an ugly opponent in the recent campaign.
Besides, he possessed the happy faculty of surrounding himself with
young men who recognised in him a superlative combination of bravery,
chivalry, and ability. Hamilton called them "Burr's myrmidons," but
Theodosia, with a daughter's devotion and diplomatic zeal, entitled
them "the Tenth Legion." They had joined Burr when a violent Whig in
1784, sending him to the Assembly for two terms; they had rallied
under his call to the Sons of Liberty, attracting the fierce fire of
Hamilton; and they had broken party bonds to support Robert Yates
because of their chief's personal friendship.

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

If Clinton thought himself fortunate in gaining Burr, he was still
more fortunate in the defection of the influential Livingstons. What
Cæsar said of Gaul used to be said of the Empire State, that all New
York was divided into three parts--the Clintons, the Livingstons, and
the Schuylers. Parton said "the Clintons had power, the Livingstons
had numbers, and the Schuylers had Hamilton."[53] In 1788 seven
members of the Livingston family, with the Schuylers, had overthrown
the Clintons, and turned the Confederation into the Union. Robert R.
Livingston, standing at their head, was the exponent of a liberal
policy toward all American citizens, and the champion of a broader
national life. His associates were the leading Federalists; his
principles were the pillars of his party; and his ambitions centred in
the success and strength of his country.

[Footnote 53: James Parton, _Life of Aaron Burr_, Vol. 1, p. 169. "New
York, much more than New England, was the home of natural leaders and
family alliances. John Jay, the governor; the Schuylers, led by Philip
Schuyler and his son-in-law, Alexander Hamilton; the Livingstons, led
by 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, other
connections 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, had
they lived in New England, would probably have united in the support
of their class; but being citizens of New York they quarrelled."--Henry
Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 108-09.]

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

Hamilton's funding system, especially the proposed assumption of state
debts, then dividing the public mind, afforded plausible cause for
opposing federalism; and ostensibly for this reason, the Livingstons
ceased to be Federalists. Some of the less conspicuous members,
residents of Columbia County, continued their adherence, but the
statesmen who give the family its name in history wanted nothing more
of a party whose head was a "young adventurer," a man "not native to
the soil," a "merchant's clerk from the West Indies." The story is
that the Chancellor convened the family and made the separation so
complete that Washington's subsequent offer of the mission to France
failed to secure his return.

The first notice of the Livingston break was in the election of a
United States senator in 1791. Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's
father-in-law, confidently expected a re-election. His selection for
the short term was with this understanding. But several members of the
Assembly, nominally Federalists, were friendly to Clinton, who
preferred Aaron Burr to Schuyler because of Hamilton's influence over
him;[54] and when the Governor promised Morgan Lewis, the Chancellor's
brother-in-law, Burr's place as attorney-general, Livingston's
disposition to injure Hamilton became intensified, and to the
disappointment of Schuyler, the vote of the Legislature disclosed a
small majority for Burr.

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

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

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

The defeat of Schuyler was a staggering blow to Hamilton. The great
statesman had achieved success as secretary of the treasury, but as a
political manager, his lack of tact, impatience of control, and
infirmity of temper, had crippled the organisation. In less than three
years the party had lost a United States senator, suffered the
separation of a family vastly more important than federal appointees,
and sacrificed the prestige of victory, so necessary to political
success.




CHAPTER VI

GEORGE CLINTON DEFEATS JOHN JAY

1792-1795


Burr's rapid advancement gave full rein to his ambition. Not content
with the exalted office to which he had suddenly fallen heir, he now
began looking for higher honours; and when it came time to select
candidates for governor, he invoked the tactics that won him a place
in the United States Senate. He found a few anti-Federalists willing
to talk of him as a stronger candidate than George Clinton, and a few
Federalists who claimed that the moderate men of both parties would
rally to his support. In the midst of the talk Isaac Ledyard wrote
Hamilton that "a tide was likely to make strongly for Mr. Burr,"[56]
and James Watson, in a similar strain, argued that Burr's chances, if
supported 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 from
that quarter, but the increasing difficulty among Federalists to find
a candidate offered opportunity for Burr's peculiar tactics, until his
adherents were everywhere--on the bench, in the Legislature, in the
drawing-rooms, the coffee-houses, and the streets. Hamilton had only
to present him and say, "Here is your candidate," and Aaron Burr would
cheerfully have opposed the friend who, within less than two years,
had appointed him attorney-general and elected him United States
senator. But Hamilton deliberately snuffed him out. The great
Federalist had finally induced John Jay to become the candidate of his
party. This was on February 13, 1792. Two days later, the
anti-Federalists named George Clinton and Pierre Van Cortlandt, the
old 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 for
governor. "That the office of the first magistrate of the State," he
wrote, May 16, 1777, "will be more respectable as well as more
lucrative than the place I now fill is very apparent; but my object in
the course of the present great contest neither has been nor will be
either rank or money."[58] After his return from Europe, when Governor
Clinton's division of patronage and treatment of royalists had become
intensely objectionable, Jay was again urged to stand as a candidate,
but he answered that "a servant should not leave a good old master for
the sake of more pay or a prettier livery."[59] If this was good
reasoning in 1786 and 1789, when he was secretary of foreign affairs,
it was better reasoning in 1792, when he was chief justice of the
United States; but the pleadings of Hamilton seem to have set a
presidential bee buzzing, or, at least, to have started ambition in a
mind until now without ambition. At any rate, Jay, suddenly and
without any apparent reason, consented to exchange the most exalted
office 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 he
was not the most popular man in the city of New York. In 1788 he
received for delegate to the Poughkeepsie convention, twenty-seven
hundred and thirty-five votes out of a total of twenty-eight hundred
and thirty-three. John Adams called him "a Roman" because he resembled
Cato more than any of his contemporaries. Jay's life divided itself
into three distinct epochs of twenty-eight years each--study and the
practice of law, public employment, and retirement. During the years
of uninterrupted public life, he ran the gamut of office-holding. It
is a long catalogue, including delegate to the Continental Congress,
framer of the New York Constitution, chief justice of the New York
Supreme Court, president of the Continental Congress, minister to
Spain, member of the Peace Commission, secretary of foreign affairs,
chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, negotiator of the
Jay treaty, and finally governor of New York. No other American save
John Quincy Adams and John Marshall ever served his country so
continuously in such exalted and responsible place. On his return from
Europe after an absence of five years, Adams said he returned to his
country "like a bee to its hive, with both legs loaded with merit and
honour."[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 he
be not asked to take part in the campaign. "I made it a rule," he
wrote afterward, "neither to begin correspondence nor conversation
upon the subject."[61] Accordingly, while New York was deeply stirred,
the Chief Justice leisurely rode over his circuit, out of hearing and
out of sight of the political disturbance, apparently indifferent to
the result.

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

The real political campaign which is still periodically made in New
York, may be said to have had its beginning in April, 1792. Seldom has
an election been contested with such prodigality of partisan fury. The
rhetoric of abuse was vigorous and unrestrained; the campaign lie
active and ingenious; the arraignment of class against class sedulous
and adroit, and the excitement most violent and memorable. If a weapon
of 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 political
upheaval, he has only to glance at local histories. Federalists and
anti-Federalists were alike convulsed by a movement which was the
offspring of a genuine and irresistible enthusiasm of that strong,
far-reaching kind that makes epochs in the history of politics. The
people having cut loose from royalty, now proposed cutting loose from
silk stockings, knee breeches, powdered hair, pigtails, shoe buckles,
and ruffled shirts--the emblems of nobility. Perhaps they did not then
care for the red plush waistcoats, the yarn stockings, and the
slippers down at the heel, which Jefferson was to carry into the White
House; but in their effort to overthrow the tyranny of the past, they
were beginning to demand broader suffrage and less ceremony, a larger,
freer man, and less caste. To them, therefore, Jay and Clinton
represented the aristocrat and the democrat. Jay, they said, had been
nurtured in the lap of ease, Clinton had worked his way from the most
humble rank; Jay luxuriated in splendid courts, Clinton dwelt in the
home of the lowly son of toil; Jay was the choice of the rich, Clinton
the man of the people; Jay relied upon the support of the President
and the Secretary of the Treasury, Clinton upon the poor villager and
the toiling farmer.

Newspapers charged Jay with saying that "there ought to be in America
only two sorts of people, one very rich, the other very poor,"[62] and
to support the misrepresentation, they quoted his favourite maxim that
"those who own the country ought to govern it," pointing to the State
Constitution which he drafted, to prove that only the well-to-do could
vote. The Dutch, largely the slave holders of the State, accused him
of wishing to rob them by the abolition of slavery. Dressed in other
rhetorical 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 "reign
of speculators" that flowered in the year 1791. "Bank bubbles,
tontines, lotteries, monopolies, usury, gambling and swindling
abound," said the New York _Journal_; "poverty in the country, luxury
in the capitals, corruption and usurpation in the national councils."
Hamilton's system had given the deepest stab to the hopes of the
anti-Federalists, since it taught people to look to the Union rather
than to the State. Internal taxes and import duties were paid to the
United States; coin was minted by the United States; paper money
issued by the United States; letters carried and delivered by the
United States; and state debts assumed by the United States. All this
had a tendency to break state attachments and state importance; and in
striking back, Republican orators branded the reports of the Secretary
of the Treasury as "dangerous to liberty," the assumption of debts as
"a clever device for enslaving the people," and the whole fiscal
system "a dishonest scheme." The failure and imprisonment of William
Duer, until recently Hamilton's trusted assistant, followed by riots
in New York City, gave colour to the charge, and, although the most
bitter opponents of the great Federalist in no wise connected him with
any corrupt transaction, yet in the spring of 1792 Hamilton, the
friend and backer of Jay, was the most roundly abused man in the
campaign.

The Federalists resented misrepresentation with misrepresentation.
Clinton's use of patronage, his opposition to the Federal
Constitution, and the impropriety of having a military governor in
time of peace, objections left over from 1789, still figured as set
pieces in rhetorical fireworks; but the great red light, burned at
every meeting throughout the State, exposed Governor Clinton as
secretly profiting by the sale of public lands. The Legislature of
1791 authorised the five state officers, acting as Commissioners of
the Land Office, to sell unappropriated lands in such parcels and on
such terms as they deemed expedient, and under this power 5,542,173
acres returned $1,030,433. Some of the land brought three shillings
per acre, some two shillings six pence, some one shilling, but
Alexander McComb picked up 3,635,200 acres at eight pence. McComb was
a friend of Clinton. More than that, he was a real estate dealer and
speculator. In the legislative investigation that followed,
resolutions condemning the commissioners' conduct tangled up Clinton
in a division of the profits, and sent McComb to jail. This was a
sweet morsel for the Federalists. It mattered not that the Governor
denied it; that McComb contradicted it; that no proof supported it; or
that the Assembly acquitted him by a party vote of thirty-five to
twenty; the story did effective campaign service, and lived to torture
Aaron Burr, one of the commissioners, ten years afterward. Burr tried
to escape responsibility by pleading absence when the contracts were
made; but the question never ceased coming up--if absence included all
the months of McComb's negotiations, what time did the Attorney-General
give to public business?

It was a deep grief to Jay that the Livingstons opposed him. The
Chancellor 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 head
was on fire," and violence characterised his political feelings and
conduct. Satirical letters falsely attributed to Jay fanned the sparks
of the Livingston opposition into a bright blaze, and, although the
Chief Justice denied the insinuation, the Chancellor gave battle with
the enthusiasm of a new convert.

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

There were also Smith Thompson, taught in the law by Chancellor Kent
and tutored in politics by George Clinton, who was to follow the
former Chief Justice and end his days on the United States Supreme
bench; Joseph C. Yates, founder of Union College, and Samuel L.
Mitchill, scientist and politician, who has been called the Franklin
of 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 to
be the intimate friend of Robert Fulton, a famous leader of a famous
bar, and a political chieftain of a distinguished career.[63]

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

At the election, the people gave Jay a majority of their votes; but at
the count, a majority of the state canvassers gave Clinton the
governorship. This was the first vicious party precedent established
in the Empire State. It has had many successors at the polls, in the
Legislature, and at the primaries, but none bolder and more harmful,
or ruder and more outrageously wrong. Under the law, inspectors of
election sealed the ballots, delivered them to the sheriff or his
deputy, who conveyed them to the secretary of state. In Otsego County,
Richard R. Smith's term as sheriff had expired, and the new sheriff
had not yet qualified, but Smith delivered the ballots to a person
specially deputised by him. Tioga's sheriff turned the ballots over
to his deputy, who, being taken ill on the journey, handed them to a
clerk for transmission. In Clinton the sheriff gave the votes to a man
without deputation. No ballots were missing, no seals were broken, nor
had their delivery been delayed for a moment. But as soon as it became
known that these counties gave Jay a majority of about four hundred,
quite enough to elect him, it was claimed that the votes had not been
conveyed to the secretary of state by persons authorised to do so
under the law, and the canvassers, voting as their party preferences
dictated, ruled out the returns by a vote of seven to four in
Clinton's favour. The discussion preceding this action, however, was
so acrimonious and the alleged violation of law so technical, that the
board 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 the
responsibility, since an opinion might jeopardise his political
interests. If he found for Clinton, his Federalist friends would take
offence; if he antagonised Clinton, the anti-Federalists would cast
him 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 endeavoured
to 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 the
question of the canvassers, he took the broad ground that an election
law should be construed in furtherance of the right of suffrage. The
act was for the protection of voters whose rights could not be
jeopardised by the negligence or misconduct of an agent charged with
the delivery of the ballots, nor by canvassers charged with their
counting. It was preposterous to suppose that the sudden illness of a
deputy, or the failure of an official to qualify, could disfranchise
the voters of a whole county. If it were otherwise, then the foolish
or intentional misconduct of a sheriff might at any time overturn the
will of a majority. There was no pretence of wrong-doing. The ballots
had been counted, sealed, and delivered to the secretary of state no
less faithfully than if there had been a technical adherence to the
strict letter of the law. He favoured canvassing Tioga's vote,
therefore, although it was doubtful if a deputy sheriff could deputise
a deputy, while the vote of Clinton should be canvassed because a
sheriff may deputise by parol. As to Otsego, on which the election
really turned, King held that Smith was sheriff until a successor
qualified, if not in law, then in fact; and though such acts of a _de
facto_ officer as are voluntarily and exclusively beneficial to
himself are void, those are valid that tend to the public utility.

Burr was uninfluenced by respect for suffrage. Being statutory law, it
must be construed literally, not in spirit, or because of other rights
involved. He agreed with his colleague as to the law governing the
Clinton case; but following the letter of the act, he held that
Tioga's votes ought not to be counted, since a deputy could not
appoint a deputy. The Otsego ballots were also rejected because the
right of a sheriff to hold over did not exist at common law; and as
the New York statute did not authorise it, Smith's duties ceased at
the end of his term; nor could he be an officer _de facto_, since he
had accepted and exercised for one day the office of supervisor, which
was incompatible with that of sheriff. In other words, Burr reduced
the question of Jay's election to Smith's right to act, and to avoid
the _de facto_ right, so ably presented by Senator King, he relied
upon Smith's service of a day as supervisor before receiving and
forwarding the ballots, notwithstanding sheriffs invariably held over
until their successors qualified. Seven of such cases had occurred in
fifteen years, and never before had the right been seriously
questioned. In one instance a hold-over sheriff had executed a
criminal. When urged to appoint a sheriff for Otsego earlier in the
year, Governor Clinton excused his delay because the old one could
hold over.

After this decision, only Clinton himself could avert the judgment
certain to be rendered by a partisan board. Nevertheless, the Governor
remained silent. Thus, by a strict party vote of seven to four, the
canvassers, omitting the three counties with four hundred majority in
Jay'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 the
secretary of state.[64]

[Footnote 64: A few days after Clinton's inauguration Burr wrote a
Federalist friend: "I earnestly wished and sought to be relieved from
the necessity of giving any opinion, particularly as it would be
disagreeable to you and a few others whom I respect and wish always to
gratify; but the conduct of Mr. King left me no alternative. I was
obliged to give an opinion.... It would, indeed, be the extreme of
weakness in me to expect friendship from Mr. Clinton. I have too many
reasons to believe that he regards me with jealousy and
malevolence.... Some pretend, but none can believe, that I am
prejudiced in his favour. I have not even seen or spoken to him since
January last." This letter had scarcely been delivered when Clinton
appointed 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, no
reporters, no regular correspondents, no special editions to tell the
morning reader what had happened the day before; but when it once
became known that John Jay had been counted out, the people of the
State were aroused to the wildest passion of rage, recalling the
famous Tilden-Hayes controversy three-quarters of a century later. A
returning board, it was claimed, had overturned the will of the
people; and to the superheated excitement of the campaign, was added
the fierce anger of an outraged party. Wild menaces were uttered, and
the citizens of Otsego threatened an appeal to arms. "People are
running in continually," wrote Mrs. Jay to her husband, "to vent their
vexation. Senator King says he thinks Clinton as lawfully governor of
Connecticut as of New York, but he knows of no redress."[65] Hamilton
agreed with King, and counselled peaceful submission.

[Footnote 65: _Jay MSS._]

Meantime the Chief Justice was returning home from Vermont by way of
Albany. At Lansingburgh the people met him, and from thence to New
York public addresses and public dinners were followed with the roar
of artillery and the shouts of the populace. "Though abuse of power
may for a time deprive you and the citizens of their right," said one
committee, "we trust the sacred flame of liberty is not so far
extinguished in the bosoms of Americans as tamely to submit to the
shackles of slavery, without at least a struggle to shake them
off."[66] Citizens of New York met him eight miles from the city, and
upon his arrival, "the friends of liberty" condemned the men who would
deprive him of the high office "in contempt of the sacred voice of the
people, in defiance of the Constitution, and in violation of the
uniform 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 remarkable
forbearance and dignity. It was the poise of Washington. "The
reflection that the majority of electors were for me is a pleasing
one," he wrote his wife; "that injustice has taken place does not
surprise me, and I hope will not affect you very sensibly. The
intelligence found me perfectly prepared for it. A few years more will
put us all in the dust, and it will then be of more importance to me
to have governed myself than to have governed the State."[68] This
thought influenced his conduct throughout. When armed resistance
seemed inevitable, he raised his voice in opposition to all feeling.
"Every consideration of propriety forbids that difference in opinion
respecting candidates should suspend or interrupt that natural good
humour which harmonises society, and softens the asperities incident
to human life and human affairs."[69] At a large dinner on the 4th of
July, 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) of
the State of New York."

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

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

Clinton entered upon his sixth term as governor amidst vituperation
and obloquy. He was known as the "Usurper," and in order to reduce him
to a mere figurehead, the Federalists who controlled the Assembly, led
by Josiah Ogden Hoffman, the brilliant New York lawyer, now proposed
to choose a new Council of Appointment, although the term of the old
Council had not yet expired. The Constitution provided that the
Council should hold office one year, and that the Governor, with the
advice of the Council, should appoint to office. Up to this time such
had been the accepted practice. Nevertheless, the Federalists, having
a majority of the Assembly, forced the election of a Council made up
entirely of members of their own party, headed by Philip Schuyler, the
veteran legislator and soldier, and then proceeded to nominate and
confirm Egbert Benson as a judge of the Supreme Court. Clinton, as
governor 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 Jay
interpreted it; but Schuyler held otherwise, claiming that the Council
had a concurrent right to nominate. He went further, and decided that
whenever the law omitted to limit the number of officers, the Council
might 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 of
officials not otherwise limited by law, and to displace every
anti-Federalist at the expiration of his commission.

Clinton argued that the governor, being charged under the Constitution
with the execution of the laws, was vested with exclusive discretion
as to the number of officers necessary to their execution, whereas, if
left to one not responsible for such execution, too many or too few
officials might be created. With respect to the continuation of an
incumbent in office at the pleasure of the Council, "the Constitution
did not intend," he said, "a capricious, arbitrary pleasure, but a
sound discretion to be exercised for the promotion of the public good;
that a contrary practice would deprive men of their offices because
they have too much independence of spirit to support measures they
suppose injurious to the community, and might induce others from undue
attachment to office to sacrifice their integrity to improper
considerations."[70] This was good reasoning and good prophecy; but
his protests fell upon ears as deaf to a wise policy as did the
protests of Jay's friends when the board of canvassers counted Jay out
and 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 to
Clinton. Under Jay's constitution, every officer in city, county, and
State, civil and military, save governor, lieutenant-governor, members
of the Legislature, and aldermen, could now be appointed by the
Council regardless of the Governor; and already these appointments
mounted 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 Assembly
to elect a Council which made all appointments, and the control of
appointments was sufficient to elect a majority of the Assembly. Thus
it was an endless chain the moment the Council became a political
machine, and it became a political machine the moment Philip Schuyler
headed the Council of 1793.

This arbitrary proceeding led to twenty years of corrupt methods and
political scandals. Schuyler's justification was probably the
conviction that poetic justice required that Clinton, having become
governor without right, should have his powers reduced to their lowest
terms; but whatever the motive, his action was indefensible, and his
reply that the Governor's practices did not correspond to his precepts
fell for want of proof. Clinton had then been in office seventeen
years, and, although he took good care to select members of his own
party, only one case, and that a doubtful one, could be cited in
support of the charge that appointments had been made solely for
political purposes.

In a published address, on January 22, 1795, Governor Clinton declined
to stand for re-election in the following April because of ill health
and neglected private affairs. Included in this letter was the
somewhat apocryphal statement that he withdrew from an office never
solicited, which he had accepted with diffidence, and from which he
should retire with pleasure. The reader who has followed the story of
his career through the campaigns of 1789 and 1792 will scarcely
believe him serious in this declaration, although he undoubtedly
retired with pleasure. At the time of his withdrawal, he had an attack
of inflammatory rheumatism, but he was neither a sick man nor an old
one, being then in his fifty-fifth year, with twelve years of
honourable public life still before him. It is likely the reason in
the old rhyme, "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another
day," had more to do with his retirement than shattered health and
crippled fortune. Defeat has never been regarded helpful to future
political preferment, and this shrewd reader of the signs of the
times, his ambition already fixed on higher honours and more exalted
place, saw the coming political change in New York as clearly and
unmistakably as an approaching storm announced itself in an increase
of his rheumatic aches.




CHAPTER VII

RECOGNITION OF EARNEST MEN

1795-1800


With Clinton out of the race for governor in 1795, his party's
weakness discovered itself in the selection of Chief Justice Robert
Yates, Hamilton's coalition candidate in 1789. It was a makeshift
nomination, since none cared to run after Clinton's declination
sounded a note of defeat. Yates' passion for office led him into
strange blunders. He seemed willing to become the candidate of any
party, under any conditions, at any time, if only he could step into
the official shoes of George Clinton. He was excusable in 1789,
perhaps, when the way opened up a fair chance of success, but in 1795
his ambition subjected him to ridicule as well as to humiliation. It
was said derisively that he was defeated, although every freeholder in
the 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 him
in the preceding year to negotiate a treaty to recover, among other
things, compensation for negroes who followed English troops across
the Atlantic at the close of the war; to obtain a surrender of the
Western military posts not yet evacuated; and to secure an article
against impressments. It was believed that a storm of disapproval
would greet his work, and the timid ones seriously questioned the
expediency of his nomination. The submission of the treaty had already
precipitated a crisis in the United States Senate, and while it might
not be ratified and officially promulgated before election, grave
danger existed of its clandestine publication by the press. Hamilton,
however, insisted, and Jay became the nominee. "It had been so decreed
from the beginning," wrote Egbert Benson.

The campaign that followed was featureless. Chief Justice Yates
aroused no interest, and Chief Justice Jay was in England. From the
outset, Jay's election was conceded; and a canvass of the votes showed
that he had swept the State by a large majority. In 1789 Clinton
received a majority of 489; in 1792 the canvassers gave him 108; but
in 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 before
election, fills one with interested conjecture. Its disclosure on July
2, the day after Jay's inauguration, turned the applause of that
joyous occasion into the most exasperating abuse. Such a sudden and
tempestuous change in the popularity of a public official is
unprecedented in the history of American politics. In a night the
whole State was thrown into a ferment of intense excitement, the storm
of vituperation seeming to centre in New York city. Jay was burned in
effigy; Hamilton was struck in the face with a stone while defending
Jay's work; a copy of the treaty was burned before the house of the
British Minister; riot and mob violence held carnival everywhere.
Party spirit never before, and never since, perhaps, ran so high. One
effigy 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 up
to my price, and I will sell you my country." Chalked in large white
letters on one of the principal streets in New York, appeared these
words: "Damn John Jay! Damn every one that won't damn John Jay!! Damn
every one that won't put lights in his windows and sit up all night
damning John Jay!!!"[72] This revulsion of public sentiment was not
exactly a tempest in a teapot, but it proved a storm of limited
duration, the elections in the spring of 1796 showing decided
legislative 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 the
President--Mr. Adams, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Jefferson.... Mr. Jay has been
repeatedly the object of attacks with the same view. His friends, as
well as his enemies, anticipated that he could make no treaty which
would not furnish weapons against him; and it were to have been
ignorant of the indefatigable malice of his adversaries to have
doubted that they would be seized with eagerness and wielded with
dexterity. The peculiar circumstances which have attended the two last
elections for governor of this State have been of a nature to give the
utmost keenness to party animosity. It was impossible that Mr. Jay
should be forgiven for his double, and, in the last instance,
triumphant success; or that any promising opportunity of detaching
from him the public confidence, should pass unimproved.... Trivial
facts frequently throw light upon important designs. It is remarkable
that in the toasts given on July 4, 1795, whenever there appears a
direct or indirect censure of the treaty, it is pretty uniformly
coupled with compliments to Mr. Jefferson, and to our late governor,
Mr. Clinton, with an evident design to place those gentlemen in
contrast to Mr. Jay, and, decrying him, to elevate them. No one can be
blind to the finger of party spirit, visible in these and similar
transactions. It indicates to us clearly one powerful source of
opposition 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 not
greatly pleasing to Washington. Perhaps Jay said the best thing that
could 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 West
Indian trade, which the Senate rejected. Nevertheless the country was
greatly and permanently benefited. The treaty acquired extradition
for criminals; it secured the collection of debts barred by the
Revolution, amounting to ten million dollars; it established the
principle that war should not again be a pretext for the confiscation
of debts or for the annulment of contracts between individuals; and it
avoided a war with England, for which the United States was never more
unprepared. "As the first treaty negotiated under the new government,"
says John W. Foster, "it marked a distinct advance in international
practice."[74] In a recent biography of Andrew Jackson, Professor
Sumner says: "Jay's treaty was a masterpiece of diplomacy, considering
the times and the circumstances of this country." Even the
much-criticised commercial clause, "the entering wedge," as Jay called
it, proved such a gain to America, that upon the breaking out of war
in 1812, Lord Sheffield declared that England had "now a complete
opportunity of getting rid of that most impolitic treaty of 1794, when
Lord 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 Lord
Colchester_, Vol. 2, p. 409.]

John Jay's first term as governor was characteristically cautious and
conservative. He began with observing the proprieties, gracefully
declining the French Consul's invitation to a republican
entertainment, and courageously remaining at his post during the
yellow fever epidemic of 1795. With equal ease he settled the growing
conflict between the severity of the past and the sympathy of the
present, by changing the punishment in cases of ordinary felony, from
death to imprisonment. Up to that time men might have been executed
for stealing a few loaves of high-priced bread to relieve the
sufferings of a hungry family. Under Jay's humane plea for mercy the
death penalty was limited to treason, murder, and stealing from a
church. A quarter of a century passed before Sir James Mackintosh
succeeded in carrying a similar measure through the British
Parliament.

In his first message Jay recommended neither the abolition of
slavery, nor the discontinuance of official changes for political
reasons, "since the best and most virtuous men," he said, "must, in
the distribution of patronage, yield to the influence of party
considerations." As the only important questions before him just then
involved the freedom of slaves and reform in the civil service, his
silence as to the one and his declaration as to the other were
certainly sufficient to allay any suspicion that he was to become a
radical reformer. He did recommend a legislative interpretation of the
Constitution relating to the governor's exclusive right to nominate to
office; but in the blandest and most complimentary words, the
Legislature invited the Governor to let well enough alone. "The
evidence of ability, integrity and patriotism," so the answer ran,
"which has been invariably afforded by your conduct in the discharge
of the variety of arduous and important trusts, authorise us to
anticipate an administration conducive to the welfare of your
constituents." This amiable answer betrayed the deft hand of Ambrose
Spencer, who, to make it sweeter and more acceptable, moved the
insertion of the word "invariably."[76] Thus ended the suggestion of a
law that might have undone the mischief of Schuyler, and prevented the
scandal and corrupt methods that obtained during the next two decades.
At least, this is the thought of a later century, when civil service
reform has sunk a tap-root into American soil, still frosty, perhaps,
yet not wholly congealed as it seems to have been one hundred years
ago.

[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, able
men, whose meritorious service became their passport to office. Upon
the retirement in 1798 of Robert Yates and John Sloss Hobart from the
Supreme bench, he appointed James Kent and Jacob Radcliff. If Jay had
never done anything else, the appointment of Kent would immortalise
him, just as the selection of John Marshall placed a halo about the
head of President Adams. Kent, now thirty-five years old, a great
lawyer and a strong partisan, had the conservatism of Jay, and held
to the principles of Hamilton. He was making brilliant way in
politics, showing himself an administrator, a debater, and a leader of
consummate ability; but he steadily refused to withdraw from the
professional path along which he was to move with such distinction.
Until Kent's appearance, the administration of the law had been
inefficient and unsatisfactory. Men of ability had occupied the bench;
but the laborious and business methods which subsequently gave
strength and character to the court, had not been applied. The custom
of 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 the
cases and the law, to bring the written opinions which enrich the
reports of Caines and Johnson, to the consultations of the judges,
thus setting an example to his associates, and opening the way for
that admirable and orderly system of jurisprudence that has adorned
the judiciary of New York for more than a century. The men of the
older school had had their day. The court of Hobart was closed; the
age 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 chancery
lawyer. He had a natural gift for chancery, and no natural inclination
whatever for politics or the bench. So, after serving a single term in
the Assembly, two years as an assistant attorney-general, and six
years on the Supreme Court, he returned to the practice, to which he
devoted the remaining forty years of his life, save when holding the
office of mayor of New York in 1810, and again in 1815 during the
brief retirement of DeWitt Clinton. Wherever he appeared, Radcliff's
erect, dignified bearing and remarkably handsome face, illuminated
with large eyes and a highly intellectual expression, marked him as a
man of distinction. He set the custom of dictating bills in chancery
to an amanuensis, doing it with such accuracy that a word had seldom
to be changed. Of the same age as Kent, he must have been of great
help to that distinguished jurist, had he continued with the court.
While hovering somewhat uncertain between the bench and the bar, he
removed to New York City, where the opportunities for one of his gifts
soon settled the question.

Other appointments of Jay were equally satisfactory. The
comptrollership of state, recently created, went to Samuel Jones in
return for having patiently worked out this more perfect method of
controlling and disbursing state funds. Ambrose Spencer became an
assistant attorney-general, and the appointment of Rufus King as
minister to England made room for the election of John Lawrence to the
United States Senate. Lawrence had little claim, perhaps, to be
entered in the class with Rufus King, since he was neither leader nor
statesman; but he had been the faithful adjutant-general of
Washington, and a steady, fearless supporter of Hamilton. Lawrence, an
Englishman by birth, had settled in New York at an early period in
life, and by his marriage to the daughter of Alexander McDougall,
quickly came into conspicuous sympathy with the radical wing of the
patriotic party. He will always be remembered in history as
judge-advocate of the court that tried Major André. He held office
almost continuously from 1775 until his death in 1810, serving eight
years in the army, one in the State Senate, six in Congress, four as
judge of the United States District Court, and four as a United States
senator, closing his honourable career as president pro tem. of that
body.

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, an
event that must have sweetened the closing years of the Revolutionary
veteran. But Schuyler was now a sick man, and in January, 1798, he
resigned the senatorial toga to others, upon whose shoulders it rested
briefly, and possibly with less ease and grace. John Sloss Hobart wore
it 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 sweets
of the exalted position so brilliantly filled by the erratic grandson
of Jonathan Edwards. North and Watson were men of certain ability and
certain gifts. Both had been soldiers. North had followed Arnold to
Quebec, had charged with his regiment at Monmouth, had served with
credit upon Baron Steuben's staff,[77] and had acquitted himself with
honour at Yorktown. He belonged to that coterie of brilliant young
men, noted for bravery and endurance, who quickly found favour with
the fighting generals of the Revolution. Watson resigned his captaincy
in 1777, and engaged successfully in mercantile pursuits, subsequently
entering the Assembly with North, the former becoming speaker in 1794
and the latter in 1795 and 1796. At the time of North's election to
the United States Senate, Watson was a member of the State Senate.
Like Lawrence, both were perfervid Federalists, zealous champions of
Hamilton, and profound believers in the wisdom of minimising, if not
abrogating, the rights of States.

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

Watson's resignation from the United States Senate enabled the
Federalists to elect Gouverneur Morris just before the political
change in 1800 swept them from power. Morris was a fit successor to
Schuyler. His family had belonged to the State for a century and a
half. The name stood for tradition and conservatism--an embodiment of
the past amid the changes of revolution. His home near Harlaem, an
estate of three thousand acres, with a prospect of intermingled
islands and water, stretching to the Sound, which had been purchased
by a great-grandfather in the middle of the preceding century,
reflected the substantial character of its founder, a distinguished
officer in Cromwell's army.

Gouverneur was the child of his father's second marriage. The
family,[78] especially the older children, of whom Richard, chief
justice of the State, was the third and youngest boy, resented the
union, making Gouverneur's position resemble that of Joseph among his
brethren. Twenty-two years intervened between him and Richard. Before
the former left the schoolroom, the latter had succeeded his father as
judge of the vice-admiralty; but as for being of any assistance to the
fatherless lad Richard might as well have been vice-admiral of the
blue, sailing the seas. There would be something pathetic in this
estrangement, if independence and self-reliance had not dominated the
youngest son as well as the older heirs of this noble family. Lewis,
the eldest, served in the Continental Congress and became a signer of
the Declaration of Independence, while Staats Long, the second son,
wandered to England, married the Countess of Gordon, became a general
in the British army, and a member of Parliament in the days of Lord
North and Charles James Fox. It was a strange coincidence, one brother
resisting Parliament in Congress, the other resisting Congress in
Parliament.

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

The influences surrounding Gouverneur's youth were decidedly Tory. His
mother warmly adhered to George the Third; his professors at King's
taught loyalty to the Crown; his distinguished tutor in the law,
William Smith, New York's Tory historian, magnified the work and the
strength of Parliament; while his associates, always his mother's
welcomed guests at Morrisania, were British officers, who talked of
Wolfe and his glorious struggles for England. But there never was a
moment from the time Gouverneur Morris entered the Provincial Congress
of New York on May 22, 1775, at the age of twenty-three, that he was
not conspicuously and brilliantly active in the cause of America.
Whenever or wherever a Revolutionary body was organised, or for
whatever purpose, Congress, Convention, or Committee of Safety, he
became a member of it. Six years younger than Jay, and six years older
than Hamilton, he seemed to complete that remarkable New York trio, so
fertile in mental resources and so successful in achievement. He did
not, like Jay, outline a constitution, but he believed, with Jay, in
balancing wealth against numbers, and in contending for the protection
of the rights of property against the spirit of democracy. It is
interesting to study these young men, so different in temperament, yet
thinking 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 distrust
of western influences, however, Morris was more conservative than Jay
or Hamilton. He was broad and liberal toward the original thirteen
States, but he wanted to subordinate the balance of the country to
their control. He regarded the people who might seek homes west of the
Alleghanies with something of the suspicion Jay entertained for the
propertyless citizens of New York. The day would come, he believed,
when those untutored, backwoods settlers would outnumber their
brethren on the Atlantic coast, and he desired some provision in the
Constitution which would permit the minority to rule such a majority.
If these views shrivelled his statesmanship, it may be said to his
credit that they discovered a prophetic gift most uncommon in those
days, giving him the power to see a great empire of people in the
fertile valley of the Mississippi and its tributaries.[79] Fifteen
years later Robert R. Livingston expressed the belief that not in a
century 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 and
Livingston he drafted the Constitution of the State; with Hamilton and
Madison he stood for the Federal Constitution, the revision of its
style being committed to his pen. Then Washington needed him, first in
England, afterward as minister to France; and when Monroe relieved him
in 1794 he travelled leisurely through Europe for four years, meeting
its distinguished writers and statesmen, forming friendships with
Madame De Staël and the Neckers, aiding and witnessing the release of
Lafayette from Olmutz prison, and finally assisting the young and
melancholy, but gentle and unassuming Duke of Orleans, afterward King
of France, to find a temporary asylum in the United States. He
returned to America ten years after he had sailed from the Delaware
capes, just in time to be called to the United States Senate.]

Into the life of Jay's peaceful administration came another
interesting character, the champion of every project known to the
inventive genius of his day. We shall hear much of Samuel Latham
Mitchill during the next three decades. He was now thirty-five years
old, a sort of universal eccentric genius, already known as
philosopher, scientist, teacher, and critic, a professor in Columbia,
the friend of Joseph Priestley, the author of scientific essays, and
the first in America to make mineralogical explorations. Perhaps if
he had worked in fewer fields he might have won greater renown, making
his name familiar to the general student of our own time; but he
belonged to an order of intellect far higher than most of his
associates, filling the books with his doings and sayings. Although
his influence, even among specialists, has probably faded now, he
inspired the scientific thought of his time, and established societies
which still exist, and whose history, up to the time of his death in
1831, was largely his own. Mitchill belonged to the Republican party
because it was the party of Jefferson, and he followed Jefferson
because Jefferson was a philosopher. For the same reason he became the
personal friend of Chancellor Livingston, with whom, among other
things, he founded the Society for the Promotion of Agriculture,
Manufactures, and the Useful Arts. It was said of Mitchill that "he
was equally at home in studying the geology of Niagara, or the anatomy
of an egg; in offering suggestions as to the angle of a windmill, or
the shape of a gridiron; in deciphering a Babylonian brick, or in
advising how to apply steam to navigation."

Mitchill became a member of the Assembly in 1798, and it was his
interest in the experiments then being made of applying steam to
navigation, that led him to introduce a bill repealing the act of
1787, giving John Fitch the sole right to use steamboats on the
Hudson, and granting the privilege to Chancellor Livingston for a term
of twenty years, provided that within a year he should build a boat of
twenty tons capacity and propel it by steam at a speed of four miles
an hour. John Fitch had disappeared, and with him his idea of applying
steam to paddles. He had fitted a steam engine of his own invention
into a ferry-boat of his own construction, and for a whole summer this
creation of an uneducated genius had been seen by the people of
Philadelphia moving steadily against wind and tide; but money gave
out, the experiment was unsatisfactory, and Fitch wandered to the
banks of the Ohio, where opium helped him end his life in an obscure
Kentucky inn, while his steamboat rotted on the shores of the
Delaware. Then John Stevens of Hoboken began a series of experiments
in 1791, trying elliptical paddles, smoke-jack wheels, and other
ingenious contrivances, which soon found the oblivion of Fitch's
inventions. Subsequently Rumsey, another ingenious American, sought
with no better success to drive a boat by expelling water from the
stern. When it was announced that the great Chancellor also had a
scheme, it is not surprising, perhaps, that the wags of the Assembly
ridiculed the project as idle and whimsical. "Imagine a boat," said
one, "trying to propel itself by squirting water through its stern."
Another spoke of it as "an application of the skunk principle." Ezra
L'Hommedieu, then a state senator, declared that Livingston's
"steamboat bill" was a standing subject of ridicule throughout the
entire session.

But there were others than legislators who made sport of these
apparently visionary projects to settle the value of steam as a
locomotive power. Benjamin H. Latrobe, the most eminent engineer in
America, did not hesitate to overwhelm such inventions with objections
that, in his opinion, could never be overcome. "There are indeed
general objections to the use of the steam engine for impelling
boats," he wrote, in 1803, "from which no particular mode of
application can be free. These are, first, the weight of the engine
and of the fuel; second, the large space it occupies; third, the
tendency of its action to rack the vessel and render it leaky; fourth,
the expense of maintenance; fifth, the irregularity of its motion and
the motion of the water in the boiler and cistern, and of the
fuel-vessel in rough water; sixth, the difficulty arising from the
liability of the paddles or oars to break, if light, and from the
weight, if made strong. Perhaps some of the objections against it may
be obviated. That founded on the expense and weight of the fuel may
not for some years exist in the Mississippi, where there is a
redundance of wood on the banks; but the cutting and loading will be
almost as great an evil."[80]

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

Mitchill, however, would not be suppressed by the fun-making
legislators or the reasoning of a conservative engineer. "I had to
encounter all their jokes and the whole of their logic," he wrote a
friend. His bill finally became a law, and Livingston, with the help
of the Doctor, placed a horizontal wheel in a well in the bottom and
centre of a boat, which propelled the water through an aperture in the
stern. The small engine, however, having an eighteen-inch cylinder and
three feet stroke, could obtain a speed of only three miles an hour,
and finding that the loss of power did not compensate for the
encumbrance of external wheels and the action of the waves, which he
hoped to escape, Livingston relinquished the plan. Four years later,
however, the Chancellor's money and Robert Fulton's genius were to
enrich the world with a discovery that has immortalised Fulton and
placed 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 satisfactory
administration 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's
financial system, then thoroughly understood and appreciated, came
unprecedented good times. To all appearances, therefore, Jay's
re-election in 1798 seemed assured by an increased majority, and the
announcement that Chancellor Livingston was a voluntary rival proved
something of a political shock.[81] For many years the relations
between Jay and Livingston were intimate. They had been partners in
the law, associates in the Council of Revision, colleagues in
Congress, co-workers in the formation of a state constitution, and
companions in the Poughkeepsie convention. Jay had succeeded
Livingston in 1784 as secretary of foreign affairs under the
Confederation, and while the charming Mrs. Jay was giving her now
historic dinners and suppers at 133 Broadway, her cousin, Robert R.
Livingston, of No. 3 Broadway, was among her most distinguished
guests. In her home Livingston made those arrangements with Hamilton
and Jay, the Morrises and the Schuylers, that resulted in the
overthrow of Governor Clinton and his supporters in the convention
which 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 chief
justice of the United States Supreme Court, the Chancellor had been as
intense, if not as violent an opponent of Federalism as Brockholst
Livingston. In their criticism of Jay's treaty these two cousins had
been especially bitter. The Chancellor attacked it as "Cato,"
Brockholst as "Decius;" the one spoke against it on the platform with
Aaron Burr, the other voluntarily joined the mob--if he did not
actually throw the stone--that wounded Hamilton; while the Chancellor
saw a copy of the treaty slowly destroyed at Bowling Green, Brockholst
coolly witnessed its distinguished author burned in effigy "in the
Fields." Relationship did not spare John Jay. Cousin and
brother-in-law had the "love frenzy for France," which finally
culminated in celebrating the ninth anniversary of the treaty of
alliance between France and America, at which Brockholst became
proudly eloquent, and the Chancellor most happy in the felicity of an
historic toast: "May the present coolness between France and America
produce, like the quarrels of lovers, a renewal of love."

Chancellor Livingston was now in the fifty-first year of his age, tall
and handsome, with an abundance of hair already turning gray, which
fell in ringlets over a square high forehead, lending a certain
dignity that made him appear as great in private life as he was when
gowned and throned in his important office.[82] In the estimation of
his contemporaries he was one of the most gifted men of his time, and
the judgment of a later age has not reversed their decision. He added
learning to great natural ability, and brilliancy to profound thought;
and although so deaf as to make communication with him difficult, he
nearly concealed the defect by his remarkable eloquence and
conversational gifts. Benjamin Franklin called him "the Cicero of
America." His love for the beautiful attracted Edmund Burke. It is
doubtful if he had a superior in the State in the knowledge of
history and the classics, and in the study of science Samuel L.
Mitchill alone stood above him. He lacked the creative genius of
Hamilton, the prescient gifts of Jay, and the skill of Burr to marshal
men for selfish purposes, but he was at home in debate with the ablest
men of his time, a master of sarcasm, of trenchant wit, and of
felicitous rhetoric.

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

Livingston's candidacy for governor was clearly a dash for the
Presidency. He reasoned, as every ambitious New York statesman has
reasoned from that day to this, that if he could carry the State in an
off year, he would be needed in a presidential year. This reasoning
reduces the governorship to a sort of spring-board from which to vault
into the White House, and, although only one man in a century has
performed the feat, it has always figured as a popular and potent
factor in the settlement of political nominations. George Clinton
thought promotion would come to him, and Hamilton inspired Jay with a
similar notion, although it is doubtful if the people ever seriously
considered the candidacy of either; but Livingston, sanguine of better
treatment, was willing voluntarily to withdraw from the professional
path along which he had moved to great distinction, staking more than
he had a right to stake on success. In his reckoning, as the sequel
showed, he miscalculated the popularity of Jay as much as Hamilton did
that of George Clinton in 1789.

The Chancellor undoubtedly believed the tide of Federalism, which had
been steadily rising for six years, was about to ebb. There were
sporadic indications of it. Perhaps Livingston thought it had already
turned, since Republicans had recently won several significant
elections. Two years before DeWitt Clinton and his associates had
suffered defeat in a city which now returned four assemblymen and one
senator with an average Republican majority of more than one thousand.
This indicated that the constant talk of monarchical tendencies, of
Hamilton's centralising measures, and of the court customs introduced
by Washington and followed by Adams, was beginning to influence the
timid into voting with Republicans.

But counteracting influences were also at work, which Livingston, in
his zeal for political honours, possibly did not observe. New England
Federalists, attracted by the fertile valleys of the Hudson and the
Mohawk, had filled the western district, and were now holding it
faithful to the party of Jay and Hamilton. Just at this time, too,
Federalists were bound to be strengthened by the insulting treatment
of American envoys sent to France to restore friendly intercourse
between the two republics. President Adams' message, based upon their
correspondence, asserted that nothing could be accomplished "on terms
compatible with the safety, honour, and essential interests of the
United States," and advised that immediate steps be taken for the
national defence. What the President had withheld for prudential
reasons, the public did not know; but it knew that the Cabinet
favoured an immediate declaration of war, and that the friends of the
Administration in Congress were preparing for such an event. This of
itself should have taken Livingston out of the gubernatorial contest;
for if war were declared before the April election, the result would
assuredly be as disastrous to him as the publication of Jay's treaty
in April, 1795, would have been hurtful to the Federalists. But
Chancellor Livingston, following the belief of his party that France
did not intend to go to war with America, accepted what he had been
seeking for months, and entered the campaign with high hopes.

Jay had intended retiring from public life at the close of his first
term as governor.[83] For a quarter of a century he had been looking
forward to a release from the cares of office, and to the quiet of his
country home in Westchester; but "the indignities which France was at
that time heaping upon his country," says William Jay, his son and
biographer, "and the probability that they would soon lead to war,
forbade him to consult his personal gratification."[84] On the 6th of
March, therefore, he accepted renomination on a ticket with Stephen
Van 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 a
lieutenant-governor on the ticket with Livingston. Stephen Van
Rensselaer was a Federalist of the old school, a brother-in-law of
Hamilton, and a vigorous supporter of his party. It is difficult to
accept the theory that none of his opponents wanted the place; it is
easier to believe that under existing conditions no one of sufficient
prominence cared to make the race, especially after President Adams
had published the correspondence of the American envoys, disclosing
Talleyrand'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 be
taken immediately to ravage the coast of the United States by French
frigates from St. Domingo." The display of such despicable greed,
coupled with the menace, acted very much as the fire of a file of
British soldiers did in Boston in 1770, and sent the indignant and
eloquent reply of Charles C. Pinckney, then minister to France,
ringing throughout the country--"Millions for defence, but not a cent
for tribute." Within four weeks Congress authorised the establishment
of a navy department, the construction of ten war vessels, the
recapture of American ships unlawfully seized, the purchase of cannon,
arms, and military stores, and the raising of a provisional army of
ten thousand, with the acceptance of militia volunteers. The French
tri-colour gave place to the black cockade, a symbol of patriotism in
Revolutionary days, and "Hail Columbia," then first published and set
to the "President's March," was sung to the wildest delight of
American 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 to
2380.[85] It is not easy to estimate how much of this result was
influenced by the rising war cloud, and how much is to be credited to
the individuality of the candidates. Both probably entered into the
equation. But the fact that Jay carried legislative districts in which
Republicans 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 of
this 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 no
confidence in his political integrity, and had been disgusted by his
unwarrantable expectations. His want of popularity was so well known
that nothing could have induced this inexpedient measure, but a desire
to show the futility of his pretensions, and thus in future avoid his
hitherto unceasing importunities."[86]

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

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

Livingston's search for distinction in the political field seems to
have resulted in unhappiness. The distinguished ability displayed as
chancellor followed him to the end, but the joy of public life
vanished when he entered the domain of partisan politics. Had he
possessed those qualities of leadership that bind party and friends by
ties of unflinching services, he might have reaped the reward his
ambition so ardently craved; but his peculiar temper unfitted him for
such a career. Jealous, fretful, sensitive, and suspicious, he was as
restless as his eloquence was dazzling, and, although generous to the
poor, 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 out
of the war news from France, formed themselves into clubs, made
eloquent addresses, and cheered John Adams and his readiness to fight
rather than pay tribute, while the Legislature, in extra session,
responded to Jay's patriotic appeal by unanimously pledging the
President the support of the State, and making appropriations for the
repair of fortifications and the purchase of munitions of war. From
all indications, the Federalists seemed certain to continue in power
for the next decade, since the more their opponents sympathised with
the French, the stronger became the sentiment against them. If ever
there was a period in the history of the United States when the
opposite party should have been encouraged to talk, and to talk loudly
and saucily, it was in the summer of 1798, when the American people
had waked up to the insulting treatment accorded their envoys in
France; but the Federalist leaders, horrified by the bloody record of
the French Revolution, seemed to cultivate an increasing distrust of
the common people, whom they now sought to repress by the historic
measures known as the Naturalisation Act of June 18, 1798, the Alien
Act of June 25, and the Sedition Act of July 14.

The briefest recital of the purpose of these laws is sufficient to
prove the folly of the administration that fathered them, and when one
considers the possible lengths to which an official, representing the
President, might go if instigated by private or party revenge, Edward
Livingston's declaration that they "would have disgraced the age of
Gothic barbarity" does not seem too strong.[87] Under the Alien Act
persons not citizens of the United States could be summarily banished
at the sole discretion of the President, without guilt or even
accusation, thus jeopardising the liberty and business of the most
peaceable and well-disposed foreigner. Under the Act of Sedition a
citizen could be dragged from his bed at night and taken hundreds of
miles from home to be tried for circulating a petition asking that
these laws be repealed. The intended effect was to weed out the
foreign-born and crush political opponents, and, the better to
accomplish this purpose, the Alien Act set aside trial by jury, and
the Sedition Act transferred prosecutions from state courts to federal
tribunals.

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

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

The discussion of these measures gave opportunity for the public
opening of a great career in New York legislation--a career that was
to continue into the years made memorable by Martin Van Buren and
William L. Marcy. The record of New York party politics for forty
years is a record of long and brilliant contests in which Erastus
Root, if not a recognised party chieftain, was one of the ablest
lieutenants that marshalled on the field of combat. He was a man of
gigantic frame, scholarly and much given to letters, and, although
somewhat uncouth in manner and rough in speech, his forceful logic,
coupled with keen wit and biting sarcasm, made him a dreaded opponent
and a welcomed ally. He resembled Hamilton in his independence,
relying less upon organisation and more upon the strength of his
personality, yet shrewdly holding close relations with those whose
careful management and adroit manipulation of the spoils kept men in
line whatever the policy it seemed expedient to adopt. For eleven
years he served in the Assembly, and thrice became speaker; for eight
years he served in the Senate, and twice became its president; for
twelve years he served in the lower house of Congress, and once became
lieutenant-governor. Wherever he served, he was recognised as a
master, not always consistent, but always earnest, eloquent, and
popular, fighting relentlessly and tirelessly, and compelling respect
even when unsuccessful.

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

In the debate in the Assembly on the indorsement of the Kentucky
resolutions Root maintained with great force the right of the people's
representatives in the Legislature to express an opinion upon an act
of Congress, however solemn, and he ridiculed the argument that
questions limited to the judiciary were beyond the jurisdiction of
any other body of men to criticise and condemn. This touched a popular
chord, and if the mere expression of an opinion by the Assembly had
been the real question at issue, young Root might have carried his
point as he did the fight against the amendments proposed by
Massachusetts. But there was one question Root did not successfully
meet. Although Jefferson's eighth and ninth resolutions--declaring
that whenever the general government assumed powers not delegated, "a
nullification of the act is the rightful remedy" of every State--had
been stricken out, the dangerous doctrine was still present in the
preamble, making it apparent to the friends of the Constitution that
the promulgation of such a monstrous heresy would be worse than the
acts sought to be annulled. It is not clear that Root's understanding
of these resolutions went so far; for the question discussed by him
concerned only the right of the Legislature to express an opinion
respecting the wisdom or unwisdom of an act of Congress. Nor does it
appear that he favoured what afterward became known as "nullification;"
for it is certain that when, thirty-four years later, the doctrine
came up again under John C. Calhoun's leadership, Erastus Root, then
in Congress, struck at it as he would at the head of a viper, becoming
the fearless expounder of principles which civil war permanently
established.

While young Root was leading the debate in the Assembly, Ambrose
Spencer led it in the Senate. Spencer's apostacy produced a profound
sensation in political circles. He had given no intimation of a change
of political principles. Although still a young man, barely
thirty-three, he had ranked among the foremost leaders of the
Federalist party, having been honoured as an assistant attorney-general,
a state senator, a member of the Council of Appointment, a friend of
Hamilton, and the confidential adviser of Jay. The latter's heart
might well sink within him to be abandoned by such a colleague at a
time when the stability of the Union was insidiously attacked; nor
ought Spencer to have been surprised that public rumour immediately
set to work to find some reason for his change less simple and less
honest, perhaps, than a dislike of the Federalist policy. Various
causes have been given for his mysterious behaviour. Some thought him
eager for a high mark of presidential favour, possibly a mission
abroad, which was not warmly advocated by Hamilton; others believed
that the bitter quarrel between Adams and Hamilton influenced him to
desert a sinking party; but the rumour generally accepted by the
Federalists ascribed it to his failure to become state comptroller in
place of Samuel Jones, an office which he sought. It was recalled that
shortly after Jones' appointment, Spencer raised the question, with
some show of bitterness, that Jones' seat in the Senate should be
declared vacant.

Spencer denied the charges with expletives and with emphasis, treating
the accusations as a calumny, and insisting that his change of
principles occurred in the spring of 1798 before his re-election as
senator. This antedated the alien and sedition measures, but not the
appointment of Samuel Jones, making his conversion contemporary with
the candidacy for governor of Chancellor Livingston, to whom he was
related. It is not unlikely that he shared Livingston's confidence in
an election and thought it a good time to join the party of his
relative; but whether his change was a matter of principle, of
self-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 to
destroy the good name of any man in New England; but he became a
chief-justice of ability and integrity."--Henry Adams, _History of the
United States_, Vol. 1, p. 112.]

The début of the brilliant Root and the St. Paul-like conversion of
Ambrose Spencer were not, however, needed to overthrow a party
responsible for the famous alien and sedition laws. No one has ever
yet successfully defended this hasty, ill-considered legislation, nor
has any one ever admitted responsibility for it, except President
Adams who approved it, and who, up to the last moment of his long
life, contended that it was "constitutional and salutary, if not
necessary." President Adams had, indeed, refrained from using the
power so lavishly given him; but rash subordinates listened to the
dictate of unwise party leaders. The ridiculous character of these
prosecutions is illustrated by a fine of one hundred dollars because
one defendant wished that the wadding used in a salute to John Adams
had 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 until
recently a Federalist, wrote a vitriolic petition for its repeal,
which Jedediah Peck circulated for signatures. This incited the
indiscreet and excitable Judge Cooper, father of the distinguished
novelist, to begin a prosecution; and upon his complaint, the United
States marshal, armed with a bench-warrant, carried off Peck to New
York City for trial. It is two hundred miles from Cooperstown to the
mouth of the Hudson, and in the spring of 1800 the marshal and his
prisoner 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 an
offensive law. "The rule of George Third," declared the press, "was
gracious and loving compared to such tyranny." In the wildest delirium
of revolutionary days, when patriots were refusing to drink tea, and
feeding it to the fishes, New York had not been more deeply stirred
than now. "A hundred missionaries in the cause of democracy, stationed
between New York and Cooperstown," says Hammond, the historian, "could
not have done so much for the Republican cause as this journey of
Jedediah Peck from Otsego to the capital of the State. It was nothing
less than the public exhibition of a suffering martyr for the freedom
of 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 of
1800, undertook to gain twelve electoral votes for the Republicans by
carrying the Legislature of New York. It required seventy electoral
votes to choose a President, and outside of New York the
anti-Federalists could count sixty-one. The capture of this State,
therefore, would give them a safe majority. Without advertising his
purposes, Burr introduced the sly methods that characterised his
former campaigns, beginning with the selection of a ticket that would
commend itself to all, and ending with an organisation that would do
credit to the management of the later-day chiefs of Tammany. To avoid
the already growing rivalry between the Clinton and Livingston
factions, George Clinton and Brockholst Livingston headed the ticket,
followed by Horatio Gates of Revolutionary fame, John Broome, soon to
be lieutenant-governor, Samuel Osgood, for two years Washington's
postmaster-general, John Swartout, already known for his vigorous
record in the Assembly, and others equally acceptable. Burr himself
stood for the county of Orange. For the first time in the history of
political campaigning, too, local managers prepared lists of voters,
canvassed wards by streets, held meetings throughout the city, and
introduced other methods of organisation common enough nowadays, but
decidedly novel then.

Hamilton was alive to the importance of the April election, but
scarcely responsible for the critical character of the situation. He
had not approved the alien and sedition measures, nor did he commit
himself to the persecuting policy sanctioned by most Federal leaders,
and although he favoured suppressing newspaper libels against the
government, he was himself alien-born, and of a mind too broad not to
understand the danger of arousing foreign-born citizens against his
party on lines of national sentiment. "If we make no false step," he
wrote Oliver Wolcott, "we shall be essentially united, but if we push
things to extremes, we shall then give to faction body and
solidity."[90] It was hasty United States attorneys and indiscreet
local 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 four
days, from April 29 to May 2, while the polls were open, he visited
every voting precinct, appealing to the public in his wonderfully
persuasive and captivating manner. On several occasions Burr and
Hamilton met, and it was afterward recalled that courtesy
characterised the conduct of each toward the other, one champion
waiting while the other took his turn. Rarely if ever in the history
of the country have two men of such ability and astuteness
participated in a local canvass. The rivalry was all the more exciting
because it was a rivalry of styles as well as of capacities. Burr was
smooth, polished, concise, never diffuse or declamatory, always
serious and impressive. If we may accept contemporary judgment, he was
a good speaker whom everybody was curious to hear, and from whom no
one turned away in disappointment. On the other hand, Hamilton was an
acknowledged orator, diffuse, ornate, full of metaphor, with flashes
of poetical genius, revelling in exuberant strength, and endowed with
a gift of argumentative eloquence which appealed to the intellect and
the feelings at the same time. Erastus Root says Hamilton's words were
so well chosen, and his sentences so finely formed into a swelling
current, that the hearer would be captivated if not convinced, while
Burr's arguments were generally methodised and compact. To this Root
added a judgment, after thirty years' experience in public life at
Washington and in New York, that "they were much the greatest men in
the State, and perhaps the greatest men in the United States."

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

This was Hamilton's plan. In an earnest plea he urged Jay to convene
the Legislature in extraordinary session for this purpose. "The
anti-Federal party," he wrote to the Governor, "is a composition
indeed of very incongruous materials, but all tending to mischief;
some of them to the overthrow of the government by stripping it of its
due energies; others of them by revolutionising it after the manner of
Bonaparte. The government must not be confided to the custody of its
enemies, and, although the measure proposed is open to objection, a
popular government cannot stand if one party calls to its aid all the
resources which vice can give, and the other, however pressing the
emergency, feels itself obliged to confine itself within the ordinary
forms 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 time
afterward the great Federalist's letter was found carefully filed
among the papers in the public archives, bearing an indorsement in the
Governor's handwriting: "This is a measure for party purposes which I
think it would not become me to adopt."

The sincerity of Jay's action has been doubted. He was about to retire
from 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 suggestion
stands out conspicuously as his best judgment at the most trying
moment in a long and eventful life. Jay was a stalwart Federalist. He
had supported Washington and Hamilton in the making of a federal
constitution; he had approved the alien and sedition laws; he had
favourably reported to the Legislature the proposed amendments of
Massachusetts, limiting service in Congress to native-born citizens;
he regarded the advent of Jefferson and his ideas with as much alarm
as Hamilton, and he knew as well as Hamilton that the adoption of the
district plan of choosing electors would probably defeat the
Virginian; but to call an extra session of the Legislature for the
purpose indicated by Hamilton, would defeat the expressed will of the
people as much as the action of the state canvassers defeated it in
1792. Should he follow such a precedent and save his party, perhaps
his country, from the dire ills so vividly portrayed by Hamilton? The
responsibility was upon him, not upon Hamilton, and he wisely refused
to do what the people of the State had so generally and properly
condemned in the canvassers.

Hamilton's proposition naturally provoked the indignation of his
opponents, and later writers have used it as a text for unlimited
vituperation; but if one may judge from what happened and continued to
happen during the next three decades, not a governor who followed Jay
in those eventful years would have declined under similar
circumstances to concur in Hamilton's suggestion. It was undoubtedly a
desperate proposal, but it was squarely in line with the practice of
party leaders of that day. George Clinton countenanced, if he did not
absolutely advise, the deliberate disfranchisement of hundreds of
voters in 1792 that he might continue governor. A few years later, in
1816, 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 the
Manhattan Bank, which Jay approved; no violation of law, as in the
Otsego election case, which Clinton approved; no deliberate fraud, as
in the Allen-Fellows case, which Tompkins approved. All this does not
lessen the wrong involved in Hamilton's proposed violation of moral
ethics, but it places the suggestion in the environment to which it
properly belongs, making it appear no worse if no better than the
political 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 to
suggest the greater sufferer, Burr with his victory, or Hamilton with
his defeat. Hamilton's bold expedients began at once; Burr's desperate
schemes waited until after the election in November; but when the
conflict was over, the political influence of each had ebbed like
water in a bay after a tidal wave. Although Jay's refusal to reconvene
the old Legislature in extra session surprised Hamilton as much as the
Republican victory itself, the great Federalist did not despair. He
still thought it possible to throw the election of President into the
House of Representatives, and to that end he wrote his friends to give
equal support to John Adams and Charles C. Pinckney, the candidates of
the Federal party. "This is the only thing," he said, "that can
possibly save us from the fangs of Jefferson."[92]

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

But the relations between Adams and Hamilton were now to break. For
twelve years Hamilton had kept Adams angry. He began in 1789 with the
inconsiderate and needless scheme of scattering the electoral votes of
Federalists for second place, lest Washington fail of the highest
number, and thus reduced Adams' vote to thirty-four, while Washington
received sixty-nine. In 1796 he advised similar tactics, in order that
Thomas Pinckney might get first place. For the past three years the
President had endured the mortification of having Hamilton control
his cabinet advisers. After the loss of New York, however, Adams
turned elsewhere for strength, appointing John Marshall secretary of
state in place of Timothy Pickering, and Samuel Dexter secretary of
war in place of James McHenry. The mutual dislike of Hamilton and
Adams had become so intensified that the slightest provocation on the
part of either would make any form of political reconciliation
impossible, and Adams' reconstruction of his Cabinet furnished this
provocation. Pickering and McHenry were Hamilton's best supporters.
They had done more to help him and to embarrass Adams, and their
dismissal, because of the loss of New York, made Hamilton thirsty for
revenge. Pickering suggested "a bold and frank exposure of Adams,"
offering to furnish the facts if Hamilton would put them together, and
agreeing to arrange with George Cabot and other ultra Federalists of
New England, known as the "Essex Junto," to throw Adams behind Charles
C. Pinckney in the electoral vote. Their plan was to start Pinckney as
the second Federalist candidate, with the hope that parties would be
so divided as to secure his election for President. It was nothing
more than the old "double chance" manoeuvres of 1796, when Thomas
Pinckney was Hamilton's choice for President; but the iniquity of the
scheme 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 "Essex
Junto," calling them a "British faction," with Hamilton as its chief,
a designation to which the Republican press had made them peculiarly
sensitive. This aroused Hamilton, who, preliminary to a quarrel,
addressed the President, asking if he had mentioned the writer as one
who belonged to a British faction. Receiving no reply, he again wrote
the President, angrily repelling all aspersions of the kind. This the
President likewise ignored.

Then Hamilton listened to Timothy Pickering. Fiery as his temper had
often proved, and grotesquely obstinate as he had sometimes shown
himself, Hamilton's most erratic impulse appears like the coolness of
Jay when contrasted with the conduct upon which he now entered. The
letter he proposed to write, ostensibly in justification of himself,
was apparently intended for private circulation at some future day
among Federal leaders, to whom it would furnish reasons why electors
should unite in preferring Pinckney. It is known, too, that Hamilton's
coolest and ablest advisers opposed such a letter, recalling the
congressional caucus agreement, which he had himself advised, to vote
fairly for both Adams and Pinckney. Besides, to impair confidence in
Adams just at that moment, it was argued, would impair confidence in
the Federal party, while at best such a letter could only produce
confusion without compensatory results. But between Adams and
Jefferson, Hamilton now preferred the latter. "I will never be
responsible for him by my direct vote," he wrote in May, 1800, "even
though the consequence be the election of Jefferson."[93] Moreover,
Hamilton was accustomed to give, not to receive orders. Had Washington
lived, Hamilton would doubtless never have written the letter, but now
he wrote it, printed it, and in a few days was forced to publish it,
since garbled extracts began appearing in the press. Many theories
have been advanced as to how it fell into the hands of a public
printer, some fanciful, others ridiculous, and none, perhaps,
absolutely truthful. The story that Burr unwittingly coaxed a
printer's errand boy to give him a copy, is not corroborated by
Matthew L. Davis; but, however the publication happened, it was not
intended 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 vindication
of himself and the Pinckneys lost itself in the severity of the attack
upon Adams, whose career was reviewed from the distant day of an
unsound judgment ventured in military affairs during the Revolution,
to the latest display of a consuming egotism, vanity, and jealousy as
President. In a word, all the quarrels, resentments, and antagonisms
which had torn and rent the Federal party for four years, but which,
thanks to Washington, had not become generally known, were now, in a
moment, officially exposed to the whole country, to the great
astonishment of most Federalists, and to the great delight of all
Republicans. "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, but
how 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 Jacobin
opponents great service. The party, already practically defeated by
its alien and sedition legislation, and now inflamed with angry
feelings, hastened on to the inevitable catastrophe like a boat sucked
into the rushing waters of Niagara, while the party of Jefferson,
united in principle, and encouraged by the divisions of their
adversaries, marched on to easy victory. When the result was known,
Jefferson and Burr had each seventy-three electoral votes, Adams
sixty-five, Pinckney sixty-four, and Jay one.

It is difficult to realise the arguments which persuaded Hamilton to
follow the suggestion of the fallen minister. Hot-tempered and
impatient of restraint as he was, he knew Adams' attack had only paid
him in kind. Nor is mitigation of Hamilton's conduct found in the
statement, probably true, that the party could not in any case have
carried the election. The great mass of Federalists believed, as
Hamilton wrote Jay when asking an extra session of the Legislature,
that the defeat of Jefferson was "the only means to save the nation
from more disasters," and they naturally looked to him to accomplish
that defeat. Of all men that ever led a political party, therefore, it
was Hamilton's duty to sink personal antipathy, but in this attack
upon 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 a
century it is the judgment of men who cherish his teachings and revere
his memory.

While Hamilton wrote and worried and wrestled, Aaron Burr rested on
the well-earned laurels of victory. It had been a great fight. George
Clinton did not take kindly to Thomas Jefferson, and stubbornly
resisted allowing the use of his name to aid the Virginian's
promotion; Horatio Gates and other prominent citizens who had left the
political arena years before, if they could be said ever to have
entered it, were also indisposed to head a movement that seemed to
them certain to end in rout and confusion; but Burr held on until
scruples disappeared, and their names headed a winning ticket. It was
the first ray of light to break the Republican gloom, and when, six
months later, the Empire State declared for Jefferson and Burr it
added to the halo already surrounding the grandson of Jonathan
Edwards.

It was known that Jefferson and Burr had run very evenly, and by the
middle of December, 1800, it became rumoured that their vote was a
tie. "If such should be the result," Burr wrote Samuel Smith, a
Republican congressman from Maryland, "every man who knows me ought to
know that I would utterly disclaim all competition. Be assured that
the Federalist party can entertain no wish for such an exchange. As to
my friends, they would dishonour my views and insult my feelings by a
suspicion that I would submit to be instrumental in counteracting the
wishes and the expectations of the people of the United States. And I
now constitute you my proxy to declare these sentiments if the
occasion should require."[94] At the time this letter was much
applauded at public dinners and other Republican gatherings as proof
of 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 to
cover the opposition with chagrin, and to sow among them the seeds of
a morbid division," wrote Harrison Gray Otis of Massachusetts.[95]
Gradually this sentiment took possession of New England and the Middle
States, until it seemed to be the prevailing opinion of the Federal
party. "Some, indeed most of our eastern friends are warm in support
of Burr," said Gouverneur Morris, which James A. Bayard of Delaware
corroborated in a note to Hamilton. "There appears to be a strong
inclination in a majority of the Federal party to support Burr," he
said.[96] "The current has already acquired considerable force, and is
manifestly increasing." John Rutledge, governor of South Carolina,
thought "his promotion will be prodigiously afflicting to the Virginia
faction, and must disjoint the party. If Mr. B.'s Presidency be
productive 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 conciliate
the Federalists."[97] Theodore Sedgwick, speaker of the House of
Representatives, likewise declared that "most of the Federalists are
for Burr. It is very evident that the Jacobins dread this appointment
more even than that of General Pinckney. If he be elected by the
Federalists against the hearty opposition of the Jacobins, the wounds
mutually given and received will probably be incurable. Each will have
committed the unpardonable sin. Burr must depend on good men for his
support, and that support he cannot receive, but by a conformity to
their views. At first, I confess, I was strongly disposed to give
Jefferson the preference, but the more I have reflected, the more I
have 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 he
distrusted Burr more than he did Jefferson, but because the
Federalists should leave the responsibility of a selection to the
Republicans and thus in nowise be answerable for the consequences. "If
the anti-Federalists who prevailed in the election," he wrote Bayard
of Delaware, "are left to take their own man, they remain responsible,
and the Federalists remain free, united, and without stain, in a
situation to resist with effect pernicious measures. If the
Federalists substitute Burr, they adopt him, and become answerable for
him. 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 we
can to reconcile the minds of Federalists to him, and we prepare them
for the effectual operation of his acts. He will, doubtless, gain many
of them; and the Federalists will become a disorganised and
contemptible party. Can there be any serious question between the
policy of leaving the anti-Federalists to be answerable for the
elevation of an objectionable man, and that of adopting him ourselves,
and becoming answerable for a man who, on all hands, is acknowledged
to be a complete Catiline? 'Tis enough to state the question to
indicate the answer, if reason, not passion, presides in the
decision."[99]

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

Gouverneur Morris, now a United States senator, had already taken a
similar position. Bayard of Delaware, who carried the vote of the
little 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 of
Hamilton's campaign indiscretion, was in no temper to follow such
prudent advice. As already indicated, the disposition was "to cover
the opposition with chagrin," and "to sow among them the seeds of
morbid 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 dexterous
to accomplish his ends, and without pernicious theories, whose very
selfishness was a guard against mischievous foreign predilection, and
whose local situation was helpful to his appreciation of the utility
of the country's commercial and federal systems, while his elevation
to the Presidency would be a mortal stab to the Jacobins, breeding
invincible hatred and compelling him to lean on the Federalists, who
had nothing to fear from his ambition, since it would be checked by
his good sense, or from any scheme of usurpation that he might
attempt.

In vain did Hamilton combat these points, insisting that Burr was a
man of extreme and irregular ambition, selfish to a degree which even
excluded social affection, and decidedly profligate. He admitted that
he was far more artful than wise, far more dexterous than able, but
held that artfulness and dexterity were objections rather than
recommendations, while he thought a systematic statesman should have a
theory. "No general principles," he said, "will work much better than
erroneous ones."[100] As to foreign predilection, he thought Burr as
warm a partisan of France as Jefferson, and instead of leaning on good
men, whom he knew would never support his bad projects, he would
endeavour to disorganise both parties, and from the wreck form a third
out of conspirators and other men fitted by character to carry out his
schemes of usurpation. As the campaign advanced he became more
emphatic, insisting that Burr's election would disgrace the country
abroad, and that no agreement with him could be relied upon. "As well
think 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, had
thrown the election into the House of Representatives, where it would
be decided on the 11th of February, 1801. In the House the Republicans
controlled eight States to the Federalists' six, with Maryland and
Vermont without a majority of either party. To elect Jefferson,
therefore, an additional State must be secured, and to prevent it, if
possible, the Federalists, by a party caucus held in January, resolved
to support Burr, Bayard and three others, any one of whom could decide
the choice for Jefferson, reserving the right to limit the contest to
March 4, and thus avoid the risk of general anarchy by a failure to
elect.

Very naturally the Republicans became alarmed and ugly. Jefferson
wrote Madison of the deplorable tie, suggesting that it had produced
great dismay and gloom among Republicans and exultation among
Federalists, "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 the
election of Burr at every hazard, and I am persuaded they have taken
their ground with a fixed resolution to destroy the government rather
than yield their point."[103] Madison thought if the then House of
Representatives did not choose Jefferson, the next House would do so,
supported as he was by the great body of the people, who would no
longer submit "to the degradation of America by attempts to make Burr
the 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 to
an explicit understanding without avail. His only published utterance
on the subject, save the letter to Samuel Smith, was in a family note
of January 15 to his son-in-law, Joseph Allston of South Carolina, in
which he spoke of the tie as exciting great speculation and much
anxiety, adding, "I believe that all will be well, and that Jefferson
will be our President."[105] Five days before this, Speaker Sedgwick
informed Hamilton that "Burr has expressed his displeasure at the
publication of his letter by Samuel Smith,"[106] which, wrote Bayard
on January 7, "is here understood to have proceeded either from a
false calculation as to the result of the electoral vote, or was
intended as a cover to blind his own party."[107] But there was no
danger of Joseph Allston publishing his note, at least not until the
fight 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 of
the Legislature he had gone there early in January, where he not only
kept silent but mysteriously aloof, although his lobbyists thronged
Washington in such numbers that Senator Morris, on February 14, asked
his colleague, John Armstrong, "how it happened that Burr, who is four
hundred miles off, has agents here at work with great activity, while
Mr. Jefferson, who is on the spot, does nothing?"[108] That these
agents understood their mission and were quite as active as Morris
represented, was evident by the reports sent from time to time to
Hamilton, who remained in New York. "Some who pretend to know his
views," wrote Morris, "think he will bargain with the Federalists."[109]
Bayard was also approached. "Persons friendly to Mr. Burr state
distinctly that he is willing to consider the Federalists as his
friends, and to accept the office of President as their gift."[110] As
early as January 10 Governor Rutledge wrote that "we are assured by a
gentleman who lately had some conversation with Mr. Burr on this
subject 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 Republicans
were 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 "it
is the sense of the Republicans in this State that, after some trials
in 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 his
agent at the seat of government," adding that Burr had volunteered the
further information "that the Federalists might proceed in the
certainty that, upon a second ballot New York and Tennessee would join
him."[113] There is no doubt Burr believed then, and for some time
afterward, that Edward Livingston was his friend, but he did not know
that Jefferson had offered the secretaryship of the navy to Edward's
brother, the powerful Chancellor,[114] or that the Chancellor's young
brother was filling Jefferson's diary with the doings and sayings of
those who were interested in Burr's election. Edward got a United
States attorneyship for his treachery, and soon after became a
defaulter for thirty thousand dollars under circumstances of culpable
carelessness, as the Treasury thought.[115]

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

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

[Footnote 114: Jefferson to Livingston, Feb. 24, 1801; _Jefferson's
Works_, 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 States
voted for Jefferson and six for Burr, Vermont and Maryland being
neutralised by an even party division. In this manner the voting
continued for six days, through thirty-five ballots, the House taking
recesses to give members rest, caucuses opportunity to meet, and the
sick time to be brought in on their beds. Finally, on the thirty-sixth
ballot, the Vermont Federalist withdrew, and the four Maryland
Federalists, with Bayard of Delaware, put in blanks, giving Jefferson
ten States and Burr five.

Burr had played his game with the skill of a master. The tactics that
elected him to the United States Senate in 1791 and made him a
gubernatorial possibility in 1792 were repeated on a larger scale and
shrouded in deeper mystery. He had appeared to disavow any intention
of supplanting Jefferson, and yet had played for Federalist and
Republican support so cleverly that Jefferson pronounced his conduct
"honourable and decisive, and greatly embarrassing" to those who tried
to "debauch him from his good faith." In the evening of the
inauguration, President and Vice President received together the
congratulations of their countrymen at the presidential mansion. At
Albany banqueting Republicans drank the health of "Aaron Burr, Vice
President of the United States; his uniform and patriotic exertions in
favour of Republicanism eclipsed only by his late disinterested
conduct."

But when soberer thoughts came the Republican mind was disturbed with
the question why Burr, after the Federalists had openly resolved to
support him, did not proclaim on the housetop what he had written to
Samuel Smith before the tie was known. Gradually the truth began to
dawn as men talked and compared notes, and before three months had
elapsed Jefferson's estimate of Burr's character corresponded with
Hamilton's. It is of record that from 1790 to 1800 Jefferson
considered him "for sale," and when the Virginians, after twice
refusing 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. His
father, a clergyman of rare scholarship and culture, became, at the
age of thirty-two, the second president of Princeton College, while
Jonathan Edwards, his maternal grandfather, whose "Freedom of the
Will" made him an intellectual world-force, became its third
president; but if one may accept contemporary judgment, Aaron Burr had
scarcely one good or great quality of heart. Like Lord Chesterfield,
his favourite author, he had intellect without truth or virtue; like
Chesterfield, too, he was small in stature and slender.[117] Here,
however, the comparison must end if Lord Hervey's description of
Chesterfield be accepted, for instead of broad, rough features, and
an ugly face, Burr's personal appearance, suggested by the delicately
chiselled features in the marble, was the gift of a mother noted for
beauty as well as for the inheritance of her father's great
intellectuality. Writers never forget the large black eyes, keen and
penetrating, so irresistible to gifted and beautiful women. They came
from the Edwards side; but from whence came the absence of honour that
distinguished 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 of
March 4, 1801, Aaron Burr stood at the desk, and having duly sworn to
support the Constitution took his seat in the chair as Vice President.
This quiet, gentlemanly and rather dignified figure, hardly taller
than Madison, and dressed in much the same manner, impressed with
favour all who first met him. An aristocrat imbued in the morality of
Lord Chesterfield and Napoleon Bonaparte, Colonel Burr was the chosen
head of Northern democracy, idol of the wards of New York City, and
aspirant to the highest offices he could reach by means legal or
beyond the law; for, as he pleased himself with saying after the
manner of the First Consul of the French Republic, 'great souls care
little for small morals.'"--Henry Adams, _History of the United
States_, Vol. 1, p. 195.]




CHAPTER X

JOHN JAY AND DeWITT CLINTON

1800


The election that decided the contest for Jefferson, returned DeWitt
Clinton to the State Senate, and a Republican majority to the
Assembly. As soon as the Legislature met, therefore, Clinton proposed
a new Council of Appointment. Federalists shrieked in amazement at
such a suggestion, since the existing Council had served little more
than half its term. To this Republicans replied, good naturedly, that
although party conditions were reversed, arguments remained the same,
and reminded them that in 1794, when an anti-Federalist Council had
served only a portion of its term, the Federalists compelled an
immediate change. Whatever was fair for Federalists then, they argued,
could not be unfair for Republicans now. If it was preposterous, as
Josiah Ogden Hoffman had asserted, for a Council to serve out its full
term in 1794, it was preposterous for the Council of 1800 to serve out
its full term; if Schuyler was right that it was a dangerous and
unconstitutional usurpation of power for the anti-Federalist Council
to continue its sittings, it was a dangerous and unconstitutional
usurpation of power for the Federalist Council of 1800 to continue its
sittings. Of course Federalists were wrong in 1794, and Republicans
were wrong in 1800, but there was as much poetic justice in the
situation as a Republican could desire. As soon as the Assembly had
organised, therefore, DeWitt Clinton, Ambrose Spencer, Robert
Roseboom, and John Sanders became the Council of Appointment. Sanders
was a Federalist, but Roseboom was a Republican, whose pliancy and
weakness made him the tool of Clinton and Spencer.

DeWitt Clinton had at last come to his own. Until now his life had
been uncheckered by important incident and unmarked by political
achievement. He had run rapidly through the grammar school of Little
Britain, his native town; through the academy at Kingston, the only
one then in the State; through Columbia College, which he entered as a
junior at fifteen and from which he graduated at the head of his
class; and through his law studies with Samuel Jones. In 1789 came an
appointment as private secretary to his uncle, George Clinton. When
Governor Jay sought the assistance of another in 1795, Clinton resumed
the law; but he continued to practise politics for a living, and at
last found himself in the Assembly of 1797. He was then twenty-eight,
strong, handsome, and well equipped for any struggle. He had devoted
his leisure moments to reading, for which he had a passion that lasted
him all his lifetime. He was especially fond of scientific studies,
and of the active-minded Samuel L. Mitchill, six years his senior, who
gave scientific reputation to the whole State.

In spite of his love for science, DeWitt Clinton was a born
politician, with all the characteristic incongruities incident to such
a life. He had the selfishness of Livingston, the inconsistency of
Spencer, the imperiousness of Root, and the ability of a statesman.
Unlike most other men of his party, he did not rely wholly upon
discipline and organisation, or upon party fealty and courtesy.
Hamilton had cherished the hope that Clinton might become a
Federalist, not because he was a trimmer, or would seek a party in
power simply for the spoils in sight, but because he had the breadth
and liberality of enlightened opinions, the prophetic instinct, and
the force of character to make things go his way, without drifting
into success by a fortunate turn in tide and wind. He was not a mere
day-dreamer, a theorist, a philosopher, a scholar, although he
possessed the gifts of each. He was, rather, a man of action--self-willed,
self-reliant, independent--as ambitious as Burr without his slippery
ways, and as determined as Hamilton with all his ability to criticise
an opponent. Clinton relied not more upon men than upon measures, and
in the end the one thing that made him superior to all his
contemporaries of the nineteenth century was a never-failing belief in
the possibility of success along lines marked out for his life's work.
He had faults and he committed errors. His one great political defect
filled him with faults. He would be all or nothing. Attachment to his
interests was the one supreme and only test of fitness for favours or
friendship, and at one time or another he quarrelled with every friend
who sought to retain independence of action.

Just now Clinton was looking with great expectancy into the political
future. From defeat in 1796 he had reached the Assembly in 1797, and
then passed to the State Senate in 1798; and from defeat in 1799 he
passed again into the Senate in 1800. Thus far his record was without
blemish. As a lad of eighteen he sided with his uncle in the contest
over the Federal Constitution; but once it became the supreme law of
the land he gave it early and vigorous support, not even soiling his
career by a vote for the Kentucky resolutions. Unlike the Livingstons,
he found little to commend in the controversy with Genet and the
French, and in Jay's extra session of the Legislature he voted arms
and appropriations to sustain the hands of the President and the
honour of the flag. But he condemned the trend of Federalism as
unwise, unpatriotic, and dangerous to the liberty of the citizen and
to the growth of the country; and with equal force he opposed the
influence of the French Revolution, maintaining that deeds of violence
were unnecessary to startle the public into the knowledge that
suffering exists, and that bad laws and bad social conditions result
in hunger and misery. If he had been a great orator he would have
charmed the conservatives who hated Federalism and dreaded Jacobinism.
Like his uncle he spoke forcibly and with clearness, but without grace
or eloquence; his writing, though correct in style and sufficiently
polished, lacked the simplicity and the happy gift of picturesque
phrase which characterised the letters of so many of the public men
of that day. Yet he was a noble illustration of what may be
accomplished by an indomitable will, backed by a fearless independence
and a power to dominate people in spite of antagonism of great and
successful rivals.

Clinton was now only at the opening of his great career. Even at this
time his contemporaries seem to have made up their minds that he had a
great career before him, and when he and Governor Jay met as members
of the new Council of Appointment, on February 11, 1801, it was like
Greek 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 not
hesitate to claim the exclusive right of nomination for office as had
Governor Clinton in 1794. Clinton, on the other hand, following the
course pursued by Philip Schuyler, boldly and persistently claimed a
concurrent right on the part of the senatorial members. The break came
when Jay nominated several Federalists for sheriff of Orange County,
all of whom were rejected. Then Clinton made a nomination. Instead of
putting the question Jay made a further nomination, on which the
Council refused to vote. This ended the session. Jay asked for time to
consider, and never again convened the Council; but two days later he
sent a message to the Assembly, reviewing the situation and asking its
advice. He also requested the opinion of the Chancellor and the
Supreme Court Judges. The Assembly replied that it was a
constitutional question for the Governor and the Council; the Judges
declined to express an opinion on the ground that it was
extra-judicial. Three weeks later Clinton, Spencer, and Roseboom
reported to the Assembly, with some show of bitterness, that they had
simply followed the precedent of Egbert Benson's appointment to the
Supreme Court in 1794, an appointment, it will be remembered, which
was made on the nomination of Philip Schuyler and confirmed, over the
protest 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 the
Governor into such a course. Appointments made under such conditions
could scarcely satisfy an ambitious leader who had friends to reward;
and, besides, the election of a new governor in the following month
would enable him to appoint a corps of men willing to do the bidding
of their new master. On the other hand, Governor Jay closed his
official career as he began it. His first address to the Legislature
discovered an intention of adhering to the dogmas of civil service,
and so far as directly responsible he seems to have maintained the
principle of dismissing no one for political reasons.

The closing days of Jay's public life included an act for the gradual
abolition of domestic slavery. It cannot be called an important
feature of his administration, since Jay was entitled to little credit
for bringing it about. Although he had been a friend of emancipation,
and as president of an anti-slavery society had characterised slavery
as an evil of "criminal dye," his failure to recommend emancipation in
his messages emphasises the suggestion that he was governed by the
fear of its influence upon his future political career. However this
may be, it is certain that he resigned the presidency of the abolition
society at the moment of his aroused ambition immediately preceding
his nomination for governor in 1792. His son explains that the people
of the State did not favour abolition; yet the reform apparently
needed only the vigorous assistance of the Governor, for in 1798 a
measure similar to the act of 1799 failed in the Assembly only by the
casting vote of the chairman in committee of the whole.

One thing, though, may be assumed, that a man so animated by high
principles as John Jay must have felt amply justified in taking the
course he did. Of all distinguished New Yorkers in the formative
period of the government, John Jay, perhaps, possessed in fullest
measure the resplendent gifts that immortalise Hamilton. Nevertheless,
it was the purity of his life, the probity of his actions, the
excellence of his public purposes, that commended him to the
affectionate regard of everybody. "It was never said of him," wrote
John Quincy Adams, "that he had a language official and a language
confidential." During a political career of eight and twenty years, if
he ever departed from the highest ideal of an irreproachable
uprightness of character, it is not of record. His work was
criticised, often severely, at times justly, but his character for
honesty and goodness continued to the end without blemish.

It is difficult to say in what field Jay did the best work. He
excelled in whatever he undertook. He had poise, forcefulness,
moderation, moral earnestness, and mental clearness. Whether at home
or abroad the country knew his abiding place; for his well-doing
marked his whereabouts as plainly as smoke on a prairie indicates the
presence of a camp. He has been called the draftsman of the
Continental Congress, the constitution-maker of New York, the
negotiator of the peace treaty, and dictator under the Confederation,
and he came very near being all that such designations imply. In a
word, it may be said that what George Washington was in the field, in
council, and as President, John Jay was in legislative halls, in
diplomatic 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 to
realise that the failure to include Canada within the young Republic's
domain was ground for just criticism. In his note to Richard Oswald,
preliminary to any negotiations, Franklin suggested the cession of
Canada in token "of a durable peace and a sweet reconciliation,"
having in mind England's desire that loyalists in America be restored
to their rights. This was one of the three essentials to peace, and to
meet it Franklin's note proposed that compensation be paid these
loyalists out of the sale of Canada's public lands. Subsequent
revelations made it fairly certain that had such cession, with its
concessions to the loyalists, been firmly pressed, Canada would have
become American territory. Why it was not urged remains a secret.
There is no evidence that Franklin ever brought his suggestion to
Oswald to the attention of Jay,[118] but it is a source of deep regret
that Jay's profound sagacity did not include a country whose existence
as a foreign colony on our northern border has given rise to continued
embarrassment. The feeling involuntarily possesses one that he, who
owned the nerve to stop all negotiations until Englishman and American
met on equal terms as the representatives of equal nations, and dared
to break the specific instructions of Congress when he believed France
favoured confining the United States between the Atlantic and the
Alleghanies, would have had the temerity to take Canada, had the great
foresight been his to discern the irritating annoyances to which its
independence would subject us.

[Footnote 118: "Mr. Oswald returned to Paris on the fourth of May
(1782), having been absent sixteen days; during which Dr. Franklin
informed each of his colleagues of what had occurred--Mr. Jay, at
Madrid, Mr. Adams, in Holland--Mr. Laurens, on parole, in
London."--James Parton, _Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin_, Vol. 2,
p. 461. Franklin wrote to Adams and Laurens on April 20, suggesting
that he had "hinted that, if England should make us a voluntary offer
of Canada, expressly for that purpose, it might have a good effect."
_Works of Franklin_ (Sparks), Vol. 9, pp. 253-256. But his letter to
Jay simply urged the latter's coming to Paris at once. _Works of
Franklin_ (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 States
Supreme Court gave little opportunity to test his real ability as a
jurist. The views expressed by him pending the adoption and
ratification of the Federal Constitution characterised his judicial
interpretation of that instrument, and he lived long enough to see his
doctrine well established that "government proceeds directly from the
people, and is ordained and established in the name of the people."
His distinguishing trait as chief justice was the capacity to
confront, wisely and successfully, the difficulties of any situation
by his own unaided powers of mind, but it is doubtful if the Court,
under his continued domination, would have acquired the strength and
public confidence given it by John Marshall. Jay believed that "under
a system so defective it would not obtain the energy, weight, and
dignity essential to its affording due support to the general
government." This was one reason for his declining to return to the
office after he ceased to be governor; he felt his inability to
accomplish what the Court must establish, if the United States
continued to grow into a world power. Under these circumstances, it
was well, perhaps, that he gave place to John Marshall, who made it a
great, supporting pillar, strong enough to resist state supremacy on
the 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, who
declared that in making the appointment he exercised his "best
judgment."




CHAPTER XI

SPOILS AND BROILS OF VICTORY

1801-1803


John Jay, tired of public life, now sought his Westchester farm to
enjoy the rest of an honourable retirement, leaving the race for
governor in April, 1801, to Stephen Van Rensselaer. On the other hand,
George Clinton, accepting the Republican nomination, got onto his
gouty legs and made the greatest run of his life.[119] Outside of New
England, Federalism had become old-fashioned in a year. Following
Jefferson's sweeping social success, men abandoned knee breeches and
became democratic in garb as well as in thought. Henceforth, New York
Federalists were to get nothing except through bargains and an
occasional 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 entire
control of the State. It had the governor, the Legislature, and the
Council of Appointment. It only remained to empower the Council to
nominate as well as to confirm, and the boss system, begun in 1794,
would have the sanction of law. For this purpose delegates, elected by
the people, met at Albany on the 13th of October, 1801, and organised
a constitutional convention by the election of Aaron Burr as
president. Fortune had thus far been very good to Burr. At forty-five
he stood one step only below the highest place in the nation, and now
by a unanimous vote he became president of the second constitutional
convention of the Empire State. His position was certainly imposing,
but when the convention declared, as it did, that each member of the
Council had the right to nominate as well as to confirm, Burr sealed
DeWitt Clinton's power to overthrow and humiliate him.

In its uncompromising character DeWitt Clinton's dislike of Burr
resembled Hamilton's, although for entirely different reasons.
Hamilton thought him a dangerous man, guided neither by patriotism nor
principle, who might at any moment throttle constitutional government
and set up a dictatorship after the manner of Napoleon. Clinton's
hostility arose from the jealousy of an ambitious rival who saw no
room in New York for two Republican bosses. Accordingly, when the
Council, which Jay had refused to reassemble, reconvened under the
summons of Governor Clinton, it quickly disclosed the policy of
destroying Burr and satisfying the Livingstons.[120] President
Jefferson had already sent the Chancellor to France, and the
Legislature had made John Armstrong, his brother-in-law, a United
States senator. But enough of the Chancellor's family remained to fill
other important offices, and the Council made Edward, a brother, mayor
of New York; Thomas Tillotson, a brother-in-law, secretary of state;
Morgan Lewis, a fourth brother-in-law, chief justice, and Brockholst
Livingston, a cousin, justice of the Supreme Court.

[Footnote 120: "Young DeWitt Clinton and his friend Ambrose Spencer
controlled this Council, and they were not persons who affected
scruple in matters of political self-interest. They swept the
Federalists out of every office even down to that of auctioneer, and
without regard to appearances, even against the protests of the
Governor, installed their own friends and family connections in
power."--Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 228,
229. "DeWitt Clinton was hardly less responsible than Burr himself for
lowering the standard of New York politics, and indirectly that of the
nation."--_Ibid._, p. 112.]

Out of the spoils that remained, and there was an abundance, DeWitt
Clinton and Ambrose Spencer helped themselves; and then they divided
the balance between their relatives and supporters. Sylvanus Miller,
an ardent and lifelong friend of the former, became surrogate of New
York; Elisha Jenkins, who deserted the Federalists in company with
Spencer, took John V. Henry's place as state comptroller; Richard
Riker, the friend and second of Clinton in his famous duel with John
Swartout, became district attorney in place of Cadwallader D. Colden,
a worthy grandson of "Old Silver Locks," the distinguished colonial
lieutenant-governor; John McKisson, a protégé of Spencer, took the
clerkship of the Circuit Court from William Coleman, subsequently the
brilliant editor of the _Evening Post_, established by Jay and
Hamilton; and William Stewart, a brother-in-law of George Clinton,
displaced Nathan W. Howell as assistant attorney-general. Thus the
work of the political guillotine went on. It took sheriffs and
surrogates; 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 the
residence of an appointee did not control. Sylvanus Miller of Ulster
was made surrogate of New York with as much disregard of the people's
wishes as Ruggles Hubbard of Rensselaer, who had visited the city but
twice and knew nothing of its people or its life, was afterward made
its sheriff.

When Clinton and Spencer finished their work a single Federalist,
Josiah Ogden Hoffman, the attorney-general, remained in office, and he
survived only until Ambrose Spencer could take his place. Soon
afterward Spencer was advanced to the Supreme Court in place of Jacob
Radcliff, 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 to
the bench should have given rise to such fears; but Spencer had been
the rudest, most ferocious opponent of all. The Federalists were
afraid of him because they believed with William P. Van Ness, the
young friend of Burr, that he was "governed by no principles or
feelings except those which avarice and unprincipled ambition
inspired."[121] Van Ness wrote with a pen dipped in gall, yet, if
contemporary criticism be accepted, he did not exaggerate the feeling
entertained for Spencer by the Federalists of that day. Like DeWitt
Clinton, he was a bad hater, often insolent, sometimes haughty, and
always arbitrary. After he left the Federalist party and became a
member of the celebrated Council of 1801, he seemed over-zealous in
his support of the men he had recently persecuted, and unnecessarily
severe in his treatment of former associates. "The animosity of the
apostate," said Van Ness, "cannot be controlled. Savage and
relentless, he thirsts for vengeance. Such is emphatically the temper
of Ambrose Spencer, who, after his conversion, was introduced to a
seat in the Legislature, by his new friends, for the express purpose
of perplexing and persecuting his old ones."[122] Spencer never got
over being a violent partisan, but he was an impartial, honest judge.
The strength of his intellect no one disputed, and if his political
affiliations seemed to warp his judgment in affairs of state, it was
none the less impartial and enlightened when brought to bear on
difficult 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 Senate
made room for DeWitt Clinton, who, however, a year later, resigned the
senatorship to become mayor of New York. The inherent strength of the
United States Senate rested, then as now, upon its constitutional
endowment, but the small body of men composing it, having
comparatively little to do and doing that little by general assent,
with no record of their debates, evidently did not appreciate that it
was the most powerful single chamber in any legislative body in the
world. It is doubtful if the framers of the Constitution recognised
the enormous power they had given it. Certainly DeWitt Clinton and his
resigning colleagues did not appreciate that the combination of its
legislative, executive, and judicial functions would one day
practically dominate the Executive and the Congress, for the reason
that its members are the constitutional advisers of the President,
without whose assent no bill can become a law, no office can be
filled, no officer of the government impeached, and no treaty made
operative.

In taking leave of the United States Senate, Clinton probably gave
little thought to the character of the place, whether it was a step up
or a step down to the mayoralty. Just then he was engaged in the
political annihilation of Aaron Burr, and he felt the necessity of
entering the latter's stronghold to deprive him of influence. Out of
six or seven thousand appointments made by the Council of Appointment
not a friend of Aaron Burr got so much as the smallest crumb from the
well-filled table. Even Burr himself, and his friend, John Swartout,
were forced from the directorate of the Manhattan Bank that Burr had
organised. "With astonishment," wrote William P. Van Ness, "it was
observed that no man, however virtuous, however unspotted his life or
his fame, could be advanced to the most unimportant appointment,
unless he would submit to abandon all intercourse with Mr. Burr, vow
opposition to his elevation, and like a feudal vassal pledge his
personal services to traduce his character and circulate
slander."[123]

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

Governor Clinton feebly opposed this wholesale slaughter by refusing
to sign the minutes of the Council and by making written protests
against its methods; but greater emphasis would doubtless have availed
no more, since the constitutional convention had reduced the governor
to the merest figurehead. His one vote out of five limited the extent
of his prerogative. Power existed in the combine only, and so well did
DeWitt Clinton control that when the famous Council of 1801 had
finished its work nothing remained for succeeding Councils to do until
Clinton, the prototype of the party boss, returned in 1806 to crush
the Livingstons.

Occasionally a decapitated office-holder fiercely resented the
Council's action, and, to make it sting the more, complimented the
Governor for his patriotic and unselfish opposition. John V. Henry
evidenced his disgust by ever after declining public office, though
his party had opportunities of recognising his great ability and
rewarding his fidelity. Ebenezer Foote, a bright lawyer, who took his
removal from the clerkship of Delaware County very much to heart,
opened fire on Ambrose Spencer, charging him with base and unworthy
motives in separating from the Federalists. To this Spencer replied
with characteristic rhetoric. "Your removal was an act of justice to
the public, inasmuch as the veriest hypocrite and the most malignant
villain in the State was deprived of the power of perpetuating
mischief. If, as you insinuate, your interests have by your removal
been materially affected, then, sir, like many men more honest than
yourself, 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 DeWitt
Clinton took care of them in Albany. In telling the story, James A.
Bayard of Delaware produced an oratorical sensation in the House of
Representatives. "And now, sir, let me ask the honourable gentleman,"
said the congressman, in reply to William Giles' defence of the
Virginia President, "what his reflections and belief will be when he
observes that every man on whose vote the event of Mr. Jefferson's
election 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 present
chief magistrate, and he has since been appointed minister
plenipotentiary to the court of Madrid--an appointment as high and
honourable as any within the gift of the Executive. I know what was
the value of the vote of Mr. Claiborne of Tennessee; the vote of a
State was in his hands. Mr. Claiborne has since been raised to the
high dignity of governor of the Mississippi Territory. I know how
great, and how greatly felt, was the importance of the vote of Mr.
Linn of New Jersey. The delegation of the State consists of five
members; two of the delegation were decidedly for Mr. Jefferson, two
were decidedly for Mr. Burr. Mr. Linn was considered as inclining to
one side, but still doubtful; both parties looked up to him for the
vote of New Jersey. He gave it to Mr. Jefferson; and Mr. Linn has
since had the profitable office of supervisor of his district
conferred upon him. Mr. Lyon of Vermont was in this instance an
important man; he neutralised the vote of Vermont; his absence alone
would have given the State to Mr. Burr. It was too much to give an
office to Mr. Lyon; his character was low; but Mr. Lyon's son has been
handsomely provided for in one of the executive offices. I shall add
to the catalogue but the name of one more gentleman, Mr. Edward
Livingston of New York. I knew well--full well I knew--the consequence
of this gentleman. His means were not limited to his own vote; nay, I
always 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 has
been raised to the distinguished place of minister plenipotentiary to
the 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 Burr
less selfish than either the Clintons or the Livingstons, and, on the
score of office-seeking, Gallatin was probably correct. But Burr, if
without relatives, had several devoted friends whom he pressed for
appointment, among them John Swartout for marshal, Daniel Gelston for
collector, Theodorus Bailey for naval officer, and Matthew L. Davis
for supervisor. Swartout succeeded, but DeWitt Clinton, getting wind
of the scheme, entered an heroic protest to Jefferson, who quickly
concurred in Clinton's wishes without so much as a conference with
Gallatin or Burr. The latter, hearing rumours of the secret
understanding, sent a sharp letter to Gallatin, pressing Davis'
appointment on the ground of good faith, with a threat that he would
no longer be trifled with; but Gallatin was helpless as well as
ignorant, and the President silent. Davis' journey to Monticello
developed nothing but Jefferson's insincerity, and on his return to
New York the press laughed at his credulity.

This ended Burr's pretended loyalty to the Administration. On his
return to Washington, in January, 1802, he quietly watched his
opportunity, and two weeks later gave the casting vote which sent
Jefferson's pet measure, the repeal of the judiciary act of 1801, to a
select 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 the
fatal stab. The country didn't understand it, but to Jefferson and the
Clintons it meant all that Burr intended, and from that moment DeWitt
Clinton's newspaper, the _American Citizen and Watchtower_, owned by
his cousin and edited by James Cheetham, an English refugee, took up
the challenge thus thrown down, and began its famous attack upon the
Vice President.

Burr's conduct during those momentous weeks when Federalists did their
utmost to make him President, gave his rivals ample ground for
creating the belief that he had evidenced open contempt for the
principles of honest dealing. Had he published a letter after the
Federalists decided to support him, condemning their policy as a
conspiracy to deprive the people of their choice for President, and
refusing to accept an election at their hands if tendered him, it must
have disarmed his critics and smoothed his pathway to further
political preferment; but his failure so to act, coupled with his
well-known behaviour and the activity of his friends, gave opponents
an advantage that skill and ability were insufficient to overcome.

James Cheetham handled his pen like a bludgeon. Even at this distance
of time Cheetham's "View of Aaron Burr's Political Conduct," in which
is traced the Vice President's alleged intrigues to promote himself
over Jefferson, is interesting and exciting. Despite its bitter
sarcasm and torrent of vituperation, Cheetham's array of facts and
dates, the designation of persons and places, and the bold assumptions
based on apparent knowledge, backed by foot-notes that promised
absolute proof if denial were made, impress one strongly. There is
much 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 Rhode
Island, a communication sent under cover to another, letters in
cipher, pleasant notices in Federalist newspapers, a journey of
Timothy Green to South Carolina--all these belong to the realm of
inference; but the method of blending them with well established facts
was so artful, the writer's sincerity so apparent, and the strokes of
the pen so bold and positive, that it is easy to understand the effect
which Cheetham's accusation, taken up and ceaselessly repeated by
other papers, would have upon the political fortunes of Burr.

Nevertheless the Vice President remained silent. He did not feel, or
seem to feel, newspaper criticism with the acuteness of a sensitive
nature trying to do right. "They are so utterly lost on me that I
should never have seen even this," he wrote Theodosia, "but that it
came inclosed to me in a letter from New York." Still Cheetham kept
his battery at work. After his "Narrative" came the "View," and then,
in 1803, "Nine Letters on the Subject of Burr's Defection," a heavier
volume, a sort of siege-gun, brought up to penetrate an epidermis
heretofore apparently impregnable. Finally, the Albany _Register_ took
up the matter, followed by other Republican papers, until their
purpose to drive the grandson of Jonathan Edwards from the party could
no longer be mistaken.[126]

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

Burr's coterie of devoted friends so understood it, and when the
gentle Peter Irving, whose younger brother was helping the newly
established _Chronicle_ into larger circulation by his Jonathan
Oldstyle essays, showed an indisposition as editor of the Burrite
paper to vituperate and lampoon in return, William P. Van Ness, the
famous and now historic "Aristides," appeared in the political
firmament with the suddenness and brilliancy of a comet that dims the
light of stars.

Van Ness coupled real literary ability with political audacity,
putting Cheetham's fancy flights and inferences to sleep as if they
were babes in the woods. It was quickly seen that Cheetham was no
match for him. He had neither the finish nor the venom. Compared to
the sentences of "Aristides," as polished and attractive as they were
bitter and ill-tempered, Cheetham's periods seemed coarse and tame.
The letters of Junius did not make themselves felt in English
political life more than did this pamphlet in the political circles of
New York. It was novel, it was brilliantly able, and it drove the
knife deeper and surer than its predecessors. What Taine, the great
French writer, said of Junius might with equal truth be said of
"Aristides," that if he made his phrases and selected his epithets, it
was not from the love of style, but in order the better to stamp his
insult. No one knew then, nor until long afterward, who "Aristides"
was--not even Cheetham could pierce the _incognito_; but every one
knew that upon him the full mind of Aaron Burr had unloaded a volume
of information respecting men, their doings and sayings, which
enriched the work and made his rhetoric an instrument of torture. It
bristled with history and character sketches. Whatever the Vice
President knew, or thought he knew, was poured into those eighty pages
with a staggering fulness and disregard of consequences that startled
the political world and captivated all lovers of the brilliant and
sensational in literature. Confidences were revealed, conversations
made public, quarrels uncovered, political secrets given up, and the
gossip of Council and Legislature churned into a story that pleased
every one. What Hamilton's attack on Adams did for Federalists,
"Aristides'" reply to Cheetham did for the Republicans; but the latter
wrote with a ferocity unknown to the pages of the great Federalist's
unfortunate letter.

"Aristides" struck at everybody and missed no one. The Governor "has
dwindled into the mere instrument of an ambitious relative;"
Tillotson was "a contemptible shuffling apothecary, without ingenuity
or devise, or spirit to pursue any systematic plan of iniquity;"
Richard Riker was "an imbecile and obsequious pettifogger, a vain and
contemptible little pest, who abandoned the Federal standard on the
third day of the election, in April, 1800;" John McKisson, "an
execrable compound of every species of vice," was the man whom Clinton
"exultingly declared a great scoundrel." The attack thus daringly
begun was steadily maintained. Ambrose Spencer was "a man as
notoriously infamous as the legitimate offspring of treachery and
fraud can possibly be;" Samuel Osgood, "a born hypocrite, propagated
falsehood for the purpose of slander and imposition;" Chancellor
Livingston, "a capricious, visionary theorist," was "lamentably
deficient in the practical knowledge of a politician, and heedless of
important and laborious pursuits, at which his frivolous mind
revolted."

The greatest interest of the pamphlet, however, began when
"Aristides," taking up the cause of Burr, struck at higher game than
Richard Riker or Ambrose Spencer. DeWitt Clinton was portrayed as
"formed for mischief," "inflated with vanity," "cruel by nature," "an
object of derision and disgust," "a dissolute and desperate
intriguer," "an adept in moral turpitude, skilled in all the
combination of treachery and fraud, with a mind matured by the
practice of iniquity, and unalloyed with any virtuous principle." "Was
it not disgraceful to political controversy," continues "Aristides,"
with an audacity of denunciation and sternness of animosity, "I would
develop the dark and gloomy disorders of his malignant bosom, and
trace each convulsive vibration of his wicked heart. He may justly be
ranked among those, who, though destitute of sound understandings, are
still rendered dangerous to society by the intrinsic baseness of
character that engenders hatred to everything good and valuable in the
world; who, with barbarous malignity, view the prevalence of moral
principles, and the extension of benevolent designs; who, foes to
virtue, seek the subversion of every valuable institution, and
meditate the introduction of wild and furious disorders among the
supporters of public virtue. His intimacy with men who have long since
disowned all regard to decency and have become the daring advocates of
every species of atrocity; his indissoluble connection with those,
who, by their lives, have become the finished examples of profligacy
and corruption; who have sworn enmity, severe and eternal, to the
altar of our religion and the prosperity of our government, must
infallibly exclude him from the confidence of reputable men. What
sentiments can be entertained for him, but those of hatred and
contempt, when he is seen the constant associate of a man whose name
has become synonymous with vice, a dissolute and fearless assassin of
private character, of domestic comfort, and of social happiness; when
he is known to be the bosom friend and supporter of the profligate and
abandoned libertine, who, from the vulgar debauches of night, hastens
again to the invasion of private property. Who, through the robbery of
the public revenue, and the violation of private seals, hurries down
the precipice of deep and desperate villainy."

This parting shot at Cheetham penetrated the most secret corners of
private life, and leaves an impression that Cicero's denunciation of
Catiline had delighted the youth of "Aristides." It would be fruitless
to attempt the separation of the truth from the undeserved reproaches
of Van Ness, but at the end of the discussion, Burr's character had
not benefited. However unscrupulous and selfish the Clintons and the
Livingstons might be, Burr's unprincipled conduct was fixed in the
mind of his party, not by Cheetham's indulgence in fancy and
inference, but by the well known and well established facts of
history, which no rhetoric could wipe out, and no denunciation
strengthen.

In the days of the duello such a war of words could hardly go on for
two or three years without a resort to the pistol. Cheetham's pen had
stirred up the tongues of men who resented charge with countercharge,
and the high spirited United States marshal, John Swartout, the only
friend of Burr in office, was quick to declare that DeWitt Clinton's
opposition to the Vice President was based upon unworthy and selfish
motives. Clinton answered promptly and passionately. The Governor's
nephew displayed a fondness for indulging the use of epithets even in
mature years, after he had quarrelled with William L. Marcy and Martin
Van Buren. In those calmer days when age is supposed to bring a desire
for peace, he was accustomed to call Erastus Root "a bad man," Samuel
Young "much of an imbecile," Marcy "a scoundrel," and Van Buren "the
prince of villains." Just now, however, Clinton was younger, only
thirty-two years old, about the age of Swartout, and on hearing of the
latter's criticism he trebled his epithets, pronouncing him "a liar, a
scoundrel and a villain." Swartout quickly demanded a retraction,
which Clinton declined unless the Marshal first withdrew his offensive
words. Thereupon, the latter sent a challenge, and Clinton, calling in
his friend, Richard Riker, the district attorney, met his adversary
the next day at Weehawken and exchanged three shots without effect. On
the fourth Clinton's bullet struck Swartout's left leg just below the
knee, and while the surgeon was cutting it out, the Marshal renewed
his demand for an apology. Clinton still refused, although expressing
entire willingness to shake hands and drop the matter. On the fifth
shot, the Marshal caught Clinton's ball in the same leg just above the
ankle. Still standing steadily at his post and perfectly composed,
Swartout demanded further satisfaction; but Clinton, tired of filling
his antagonist with lead, declined to shoot again and left the field.
In the gossip following the duel, Riker reported Clinton as saying in
the course of the contest, "I wish I had the principal here."[127] The
principal, of course, was Burr, to whose house the wounded Swartout
was taken. "No one ever explained," says Henry Adams,[128] "why Burr
did not drag DeWitt Clinton from his ambush and shoot him, as two
years 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 to
be brought up. It was a silly affair. Clinton ought to have declined
the challenge of the bully, and have challenged the principal, who was
Burr. There were five shots, the antagonist wounded twice, and fell.
C. behaved with cool courage, and after the affair was over challenged
Burr on the field."--_Harper's Magazine_, Vol. 50, p. 565. "How
Clinton should have challenged Burr on the field," writes John
Bigelow, in _Harper's New Monthly Magazine_ for May, 1875, "without
its resulting in a meeting is not quite intelligible to us now. Though
not much given to the redress of personal grievances in that way, Burr
was the last man to leave a hostile message from an adversary like
Clinton, then a Senator of the United States, unanswered."]

Out of this quarrel grew another, in which Robert Swartout, John's
younger brother, fought Riker, wounding him severely. William Coleman
of the _Evening Post_, in letting fly some poisoned arrows, also got
tangled 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 Cheetham
made such haste to adjust matters that a report got abroad of his
having shown the white feather. Harbour-Master Thompson, an appointee
of Clinton, now championed Cheetham's cause, declaring that Coleman
had weakened. Immediately the young editor sent him a challenge, and,
without much ado, they fought on the outskirts of the city, now the
foot of Twenty-first Street, in the twilight of a cold winter day,
exchanging two shots without effect. Meantime, the growing darkness
compelled the determined combatants to move closer together, and at
the next shot Thompson, mortally wounded, fell forward into the
snow.[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 and
found him bleeding and near his death. He refused to name his
antagonist, or give any account of the affair, declaring that
everything which had been done was honourably done, and desired that
no 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 become
Vice President, declined re-election;[130] and the Federalists, beaten
into a disunited minority, refused to put up a candidate. This
apparently left the field wide open to John Lansing, with John Broome
for lieutenant-governor.

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

For many years the Lansing family had been prominent in the affairs of
the State and influential in the councils of their party. The
Chancellor, 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 of
Congress under the Confederation, judge and chief justice of the
Supreme Court, and finally chancellor. Indeed, so long as he did the
bidding of the Clintons he kept rising; but the independence that
early characterised his action at Philadelphia in 1787 and at
Poughkeepsie in 1788 became more and more pronounced, until it
separated him at last from the faction that had steadily given him
support. Perhaps his nearest approach to a splendid virtue was his
stubborn independence. Whether this characteristic, amounting almost
to stoical indifference, led to his murder is now a sealed secret. All
that we know of his death is, that he left the hotel, where he lived
in New York, to mail a letter on the steamer for Albany, and was never
afterward seen. That he was murdered comes from the lips of Thurlow
Weed, who was intrusted with the particulars, but who died with the
secret untold. Lansing disappeared in 1829 and Weed died in 1882, yet,
after the lapse of half a century, the latter did not feel justified
in disclosing what had come to him as a sort of father confessor,
years after the tragedy. "While it is true that the parties are beyond
the reach of human tribunals and of public opinion," he said, "yet
others immediately associated with them, and sharing in the strong
inducement which prompted the crime, survive, occupying high positions
and enjoying public confidence. To these persons, should my proof be
submitted, 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. It
has been truly said of him that he seemed to have no delights off the
bench except in such things as in some way related to the business
upon it. He had the unwearied application of Kent, coupled with the
ability to master the most difficult details, and, although he lacked
Livingston's culture, he was as resolute, and, perhaps, as restless
and suspicious; but it is doubtful if he possessed the trained
sagacity, the native shrewdness, and the diplomatic zeal to have
negotiated the Louisiana treaty. Lansing began the study of law in
1774, and from that moment was wedded to its principles and constant
in his devotions. His mysterious murder must have been caused by an
irresistible longing to trace things to their source, bringing into
his possession knowledge of some missing link or defective title,
which would throw a great property away from its owner, but which, by
his 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 his
seventy-sixth year when the fatal blow came, yet so vigorous that old
age 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 a
political office that would probably end in three years; but he
finally consented upon representations that he alone could unite his
party. Scarcely, however, had his name been announced before a caucus
of Republican legislators named Aaron Burr, with Oliver Phelps of
Ontario for lieutenant-governor--nominations quickly ratified at
public meetings in New York and Albany. Among Burr's most conspicuous
champions were Erastus Root of Delaware, James Burt of Orange, Peter
B. Porter of Ontario, and Marinus Willett of New York.

If it is surprising that these astute and devoted friends did not
appreciate, in some measure, at least, the extent to which popular
esteem had been withdrawn from their favourite, it is most astonishing
that Burr himself did not recognise the strength of the
Clinton-Livingston-Spencer machine as it existed in 1804. Its managers
were skilled masters of the political art, confident of success,
fearless of criticism, unscrupulous in methods, and indefatigable in
attention to details. They controlled the Council of Appointment, its
appointees controlled the Assembly, and the Assembly elected the
Council, an endless chain of links, equally strong and equally
selfish. To make opposition the more fruitless, the distrust of Burr,
hammered into the masses by Cheetham's pen, practically amounted to a
forfeiture of party confidence. One cannot conceive a more inopportune
time for Burr to have challenged a test of strength, yet Lansing's
selection had hardly sounded in the people's ears before Burr's
"Little Band," burning with indignation and resentment at his
treatment, gathered about the tables in the old Tontine Coffee House
at Albany and launched him as an independent candidate.

Rarely has a candidate for governor encountered greater odds; but with
Burr, as afterward with DeWitt Clinton, it was now or never. In one of
his 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 a
Federalist machine and the powerful backing of Hamilton. But in 1804
Burr found himself without a party, without a machine, and bitterly
opposed by Hamilton.

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

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

Hamilton journeyed to Albany in February, 1804, to argue the case of
Harry Croswell, so celebrated and historic because of Hamilton's
argument. Croswell, the editor of the _Balance_, a Federalist
newspaper published at Hudson, had been convicted of libelling
President Jefferson. Chief Justice Lewis, before whom the case was
originally tried, declined to permit the defendant to prove the truth
of the alleged libel. To this point, in his argument for a new trial,
Hamilton addressed himself, contending that the English doctrine was
at variance with common sense, common justice, and the genius of
American institutions. "I have always considered General Hamilton's
argument in this cause," said his great contemporary, Chancellor Kent,
"as the greatest forensic effort he ever made. He had come prepared
to discuss the points of law with a perfect mastery of the subject. He
believed that the rights and liberties of the people were essentially
concerned. There was an unusual solemnity and earnestness on his part
in this discussion. He was at times highly impassioned and pathetic.
His whole soul was enlisted in the cause, and in contending for the
rights of the jury and a free press, he considered that he was
establishing the surest refuge against oppression. He never before in
my hearing made any effort in which he commanded higher reverence for
his principles, nor equal admiration of the power and pathos of his
eloquence."[133] Such a profound impression did his argument make,
that, although the Court declined to depart from the settled rule of
the common law, the Legislature subsequently passed a statute
authorising the truth to be given in evidence, and the jury to be the
judges 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 for
preferring Chancellor Lansing to Aaron Burr for governor. There was
something new in these reasons. In 1801 he preferred Jefferson to Burr
because the latter, as he wrote Gouverneur Morris, "has no principles,
public or private; could be bound by no argument; will listen to no
monitor but his ambition; and for this purpose will use the worst
portion of the community as a ladder to climb to permanent power, and
an instrument to crush the better part. He is sanguine enough to hope
everything, daring enough to attempt everything, wicked enough to
scruple 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 in
New England, led by Pickering in the United States Senate and Roger
Griswold in the House, thought a dissolution of the Union inevitable
to save Federalism, and for months the project had been discussed in
a stifled, mysterious manner. "It (separation) must begin in
Massachusetts," wrote Pickering to George Cabot, "but New York must be
the centre of the confederacy."[135] To Rufus King, Pickering became
more specific. "The Federalists have in general anxiously desired the
election of Burr--and if a separation should be deemed proper, the
five New England States, New York and New Jersey, would naturally be
united."[136] But King disapproved disunion. "Colonel Pickering has
been talking to me about a project they have for a separation of the
States and a northern confederacy," he said to Adams of Massachusetts;
"and he has also been this day talking with General Hamilton. I
disapprove entirely of the project, and so, I am happy to tell you,
does General Hamilton."[137] But the conspirators were not to be
quieted by disapproving words. Griswold, in a letter to Oliver
Wolcott, declared Burr's election and consequent leadership of the
Federalist party "the only hope which at this time presents itself of
rallying in defence of the Northern States,"[138] and in order not to
remain longer inactive, he entered into a bargain with Burr, of which
he 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 England
Federalism_, p. 354.]

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

It was plain to Hamilton that these timid conspirators wanted a bold
chief to lead them into secession, and that since he would have
nothing 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 to
defeat incipient disunion, and in the Lewis Tavern conference he
argued that Burr, a Democrat either from principle or calculation,
would remain a Democrat; and that, though detested by leading
Clintonians, it would not be difficult for a man of his talents,
intrigue and address, possessing the chair of government, to rally
under his standard the great body of the party, and such Federalists
as, from personal goodwill or interested motives, may give him
support. The effect of his elevation, with the help of Federalists
would, therefore, be to reunite, under a more adroit, able and daring
chief, not only the now scattered fragments of his own party, but to
present to the confidence of the people of Federalist New England the
grandson of President Edwards, for whom they had already a strong
predilection. Thus he would have fair play to disorganise the party of
Jefferson, now held in light esteem, and to place himself at the head
of a northern party favouring disunion.

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

[Footnote 140: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 7, p. 325. "The
struggle for control between Hamilton and the conspirators lasted to
the eve of the election,--secret, stifled, mysterious; the intrigue of
men afraid to avow their aims, and seeming rather driven by their own
passions 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 chances
brightened by the sudden withdrawal of Lansing, because the latter
would not allow the Clintons to dictate his appointments. This was a
great surprise to Republicans and a great grief to Hamilton--the more
so since it was not easy to find an available successor. The mention
of DeWitt Clinton raised the cry of youth; Ambrose Spencer had too
recently come over from the Federalists; Morgan Lewis lacked capacity
and fitness. Thus the contention continued, but with a leaning more
and more toward Morgan Lewis, a brother-in-law of Chancellor and
Edward Livingston.

Lewis' youth had promised a brilliant future. He graduated with high
honours at Princeton, and when the guns of Bunker Hill waked the
country he promptly exchanged John Jay's law office for John Jay's
regiment. In the latter's absence he retained command as major until
ordered to the northern frontier, when he suddenly dropped into a
place as assistant quartermaster-general, useful and important enough,
but stripped of the glory usually preferred by the hot blood of a
gallant youth. In time, the faithful, efficient quartermaster became a
plodding, painstaking lawyer, a safe, industrious attorney-general,
and a dignified, respectable judge; but he had not distinguished
himself, nor did he possess the striking, showy characteristics of
mind or manner often needed in a doubtful and bitterly contested
campaign. Heretofore place had sought him by appointment. He became
attorney-general when Aaron Burr gave it up for the United States
Senate; and a year later, by the casting vote of Governor Clinton, the
Council made him a Supreme Court judge. In 1801 the chief-justiceship
dropped into his lap when Livingston went to France and Lansing became
chancellor, just as the chancellorship would probably have come to him
had Lansing continued a candidate for governor. In 1803 he wanted to
be mayor of New York.

But with all his ordinariness no one else in sight seemed so available
a candidate for governor. The Livingstons, already jealous of DeWitt
Clinton's growing influence, secretly nourished the hope that Lewis
might develop sufficient independence to check the young man's
ambition. On the other hand, DeWitt Clinton, equally jealous of the
power 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 Clinton
declined," wrote Hamilton to Rufus King, "I began to consider Burr as
having a chance of success. It was still my reliance, however, that
Lansing would outrun him; but now that Chief Justice Lewis is his
competitor, 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 bargains
and intrigues until the game was bagged, now relied upon him with
confidence to bring victory out of the known discord and jealousy of
his 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 he
contemplated, gave Burr the support of Lansing's sympathy and a clear
field 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 and
saintly ancestry, his freedom from family connections to quarter upon
the public treasury, and his honest endeavour to free himself from
debt by disposing of his estate. Especially in New York City did he
meet with encouragement. His headquarters in John Street overflowed
with ward workers and ward heelers, eager to elect the man upon whom
they could rely for favours and with whom they doubtless sincerely
sympathised. It was the contest of April, 1800, over again, save that
Hamilton did not speak or openly oppose.

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

But Burr, too, had powerful abettors. In Orange and Dutchess he had
always been a favourite; in Delaware, Erastus Root gave all his
influence and all his gifts with the devotion that animated John
Swartout and Marinus Willett in New York; in Ontario, Oliver Phelps,
the great land speculator, endowed with an unconquerable energy and
the strategy of a tactician, was backed by Peter B. Porter, the young
and exceedingly popular clerk of that county, soon to be dismissed for
his independence; in Albany, John Van Ness Yates, remembering Burr's
support of his father's candidacy in 1789, also came to his
assistance. Zealous and active, however, as these and other friends
were, they were few and weak compared to the army of office-holders
shouting and working for Morgan Lewis. When the returns, therefore,
were in, although Burr carried New York by one hundred, he lost the
State by over eight thousand.[142] A comparison of the vote with the
senatorial returns of 1803 showed that for every Republican voting for
Burr, 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 in
purse, disowned by his party, and distrusted by a large faction of the
leading Federalists, he was without hope of recovery so long as
Hamilton blocked the way. There is no evidence that Burr ever saw
Hamilton's confidential letters to Morris and other trusted Federal
leaders, or knew their contents, but he did know that Hamilton
bitterly opposed him, and that his influence was blighting. To get rid
of him, therefore, Burr now seems to have deliberately determined to
kill him.[143]

[Footnote 143: "That all Hamilton's doings were known to Burr could
hardly be doubted. He was not a vindictive man, but this was the
second 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 own
leadership when pitted against Hamilton's in the late election, and he
knew, too, that Pickering, Griswold, and other leading Federalists had
separated from Hamilton in the hope of making Burr himself the chief
of a Northern confederacy. Burr never cared for the past,--the present
and future were his only thoughts; but his future in politics depended
on his breaking somewhere through the line of his personal enemies;
and Hamilton stood first in his path, for Hamilton would certainly
renew at every critical moment the tactics which had twice cost Burr
his prize."--Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, pp.
185, 186.]

While in Albany in February to argue the Croswell case, Hamilton had
dined with John Taylor, in company with Dr. Charles D. Cooper, who
wrote a friend that, in the course of the dinner, Hamilton had
declared, in substance, that he looked upon Burr as a dangerous
man--one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government. "I
could detail to you," continued Cooper, "a still more despicable
opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr." This letter
found its way into the newspapers, and in a note, dated June 18, 1804,
Burr called Hamilton's attention to the words "more despicable," and
added: "You must perceive, sir, the necessity of a prompt and
unqualified acknowledgment or denial of the use of the expression
which 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 a
challenge. Two days later, Hamilton replied, declining to make the
acknowledgment or denial, since he could attach no meaning to the
words used in the letter, nor could he consent to be interrogated as
to the inferences drawn by third parties, but he was ready to avow or
disavow any definite opinion with which he might be charged. "I trust
on further reflection," concluded Hamilton, "you will see the matter
in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstances
and 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," was
more offensive than his initial letter. After replying to it, Hamilton
prepared a note to be informally communicated to Burr, in which he
stated that if the latter chose to inquire into the purport of any
conversation between himself and Dr. Cooper, he would be able to reply
with truth that it turned wholly on political topics, and had no
relation to Burr's private character, adding that he was ready to make
an equally frank answer with regard to any other conversation which
Burr would specify.[146] When Burr pronounced this honourable
proposition "a mere evasion," his purpose was as evident as it became
on June 27th, the day he sent the challenge.

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

Hamilton's acceptance of the challenge was inevitable. For a hundred
years men have regretted and mourned that he did not dare to stand
alone against duelling, as he had dared to stand alone for economic
and patriotic principles against the clamour of mobs and the malice of
enemies. But absurd and barbarous as was the custom, it flourished in
Christian America, as it did in every other Christian country, in
spite of Christian ethics; and it would not permit a proud, sensitive
nature, jealous of his honour, especially of his military honour, to
ignore it. Lorenzo Sabine's list of duellists includes a score of
prominent Englishmen, Frenchmen and Americans, many of them
contemporary with Hamilton, and some of them as profoundly admired,
who succumbed to its tyranny. Proof of his valour at Monmouth and at
Yorktown would no more placate the popular contempt and obloquy sure
to follow an avoidance of its demands than would the victory at
Waterloo have excused Wellington had he declined to challenge Lord
Winchilsea. All this did not make duelling right, but it excuses a
noble 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 in
some parts of America, perhaps, though now universally execrated by
Christian people and pronounced murder by their laws. Even at that
time Hamilton held it in abhorrence. In a paper drawn for publication
in the event of death, he announced his intention of throwing away his
fire, and in extenuation of yielding, he adds: "To those who, with me,
abhorring the practice of duelling, may think that I ought on no
account to have added to the number of bad examples, I answer that my
relative situation, as well in public as in private, enforcing all the
considerations which constitute what men of the world denominate
honour, imposed on me, as I thought, a peculiar necessity not to
decline the call. The ability to be in the future useful, whether in
resisting mischief, or effecting good, in those crises of our public
affairs which seem likely to happen, would probably be inseparable
from a conformity with public prejudice in this particular."[147] The
pathway of history is strewn with the wrecks of customs and
superstitions which have held men in their grip, compelling obedience
and demanding regularity; but no custom ever had a firmer hold upon
gifted men than duelling, making them its devotees even when their
intellects condemned it, their hearts recognised its cruelty, and
their 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 was
deferred until Wednesday, July 11th. In the meantime the principals
went about their vocations with apparent indifference to the coming
event. On the evening of July 4th, Hamilton and Burr attended the
annual dinner of the Society of the Cincinnati, of which the former
had succeeded Washington as president. The occasion was remembered as
the gayest and most hilarious in the society's history. Hamilton
leaped upon the table and sang "The Drum," an old camp song that
became historic because of his frequent rendition of it. It was
recalled afterward that Burr withdrew before the festivities had
ended. On Saturday evening Hamilton dined Colonel Trumbull, one of
Washington's first aides, and on Monday attended a reception given by
Oliver Wolcott, John Adams' secretary of the treasury. Tuesday evening
he prepared the paper already quoted, and addressed a letter to
Theodore Sedgwick, one of Pickering's sternest conspirators, warning
him against disunion. "Dismemberment of our empire," he said, "will be
a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any
counterbalancing good; administering no relief to our real disease,
which is democracy--the poison of which, by a subdivision, will only
be the more concentred in each part, and consequently the more
virulent."[148]

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

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

It was seven o'clock Wednesday morning, a hot July day, that Hamilton
crossed the Hudson to Weehawken, with Pendleton, his second, and Dr.
Hosack, Burr and Van Ness having preceded them. It took but a moment
to measure ten paces, load the pistols, and place the principals in
position. 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 examination
showed that the ball had penetrated the right side. Burr, sheltered by
Van 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, catching
sight of a pistol near him, cautioned them to take care of it. "It is
undischarged 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 neared
the wharf, he asked that Mrs. Hamilton be sent for. "Let the event be
gradually broken to her," he said, "but give her hopes." Thus he
lingered for thirty-one hours in great agony, but retaining his
self-command to the last, and dying in the midst of his stricken
family and sorrowing friends.

If Washington and Lincoln be excepted, it is doubtful if an American
was ever more deeply mourned. Had he been President, he could not have
been buried with greater pomp, or with manifestations of more profound
sorrow. Although he had been hated by his enemies, and at times
misunderstood by some of his friends, at his death the people, without
division, instantly recognised that his life had been passionately
devoted to his country, and they paid him the tribute only accorded
the memory of a most illustrious patriot. Such demonstrations were not
confined 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, an
expression of sympathy found record. It was the consensus of opinion
that the life which began in January, 1757 and ended in July, 1804,
held in the compass of its forty-seven years the epitome of what
America meant for Americans in the days of its greatest peril and its
greatest glory. "Had he lived twenty years longer," said Chancellor
Kent, "I have very little doubt he would have rivalled Socrates or
Bacon, or any other of the sages of ancient or modern times, in
researches after truth and in benevolence to mankind. The active and
profound statesman, the learned and eloquent lawyer, would probably
have disappeared in a great degree before the character of the sage
and philosopher, instructing mankind by his wisdom, and elevating the
country 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 announced
there came a cry of execration on his murderer, which the publication
of the correspondence intensified. A coroner's jury pronounced him a
murderer, the grand jury instructed the district attorney to
prosecute, and the Vice President found it necessary to take refuge in
concealment until the first fury of the people had subsided.
Cheetham's pen, following him remorselessly, charged that he ransacked
the newspapers for the grounds of a challenge; that for three months
he daily practised with a pistol; and that while Hamilton lay dying,
he sat at the table drinking wine with his friends, and apologising
that he had not shot him through the heart.

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

Within two years Burr was arrested for treason, charged with an
attempt to place himself at the head of a new nation formed from the
country of the Montezumas and the valley of the Mississippi, and,
although he was acquitted, his countrymen believed him guilty of a
treasonable ambition. In the State where he had found his chief
support, he ever after ranked in infamy next to Benedict Arnold.
Thenceforth he became a stranger and a wanderer on the face of the
earth. His friends left him and society shunned him. "I have not
spoken to the damned reptile for twenty-five years," said former
Governor 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, and
thinks only of the lonely man who lived to lament it. He was in his
eighty-first year when he died. On his return from Europe in 1812,
only one person welcomed him. This was Matthew L. Davis, his earliest
political friend and biographer. Burr made Davis his literary
executor, and turned over to him the confidential female
correspondence that had accumulated in the days of his popularity as
United States senator and Vice President, and that he had carefully
filed and indorsed with the full name of each writer. The treachery,
falsehood, and desertion with which these letters charged him, seemed
to this unnatural man to add to their value, and he gave them to his
executor without instructions, that the extent of his gallantries, his
power of fascination, and the names of the gifted and beautiful
victims of his numerous amours might not become a secret in his grave.
One can conceive nothing baser. The preservation of letters to satisfy
an erotic mind is low enough, but deliberately to identify each
anonymous or initialled letter with the full name of the writer, for
the use of a biographer, is an act of treachery of which few men are
capable. To the credit of Davis, these letters were either returned to
their writers or consigned to the flames.

Burr was a politician by nature, habit and education. In his younger
days 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, his
natural gifts, supplemented by industry and perseverance, and a very
attractive presence, made him a conspicuous member of the New York bar
and of the United States Senate. He was, however, the ardent champion
of nothing that made for the public good. Indeed, the record of his
whole life indicates that he never possessed a great thought, or
fathered an important measure. Throughout the long, and, at times,
bitter controversy over the establishment of the Union, his silence
was 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 he
was the most famous and the most flattered, he described himself as
most unhappy. So long, though, as Theodosia lived, he was never alone.
When she died, he suffered till the end. There has hardly ever been in
the world a more famous pair of lovers than Burr and his gifted, noble
daughter, and there is nothing in history more profoundly melancholy
than the loss of the ship, driven by the pitiless wind of fate, on
which Theodosia had taken passage for her southern home. Yet one is
shocked at the unnatural parent who instructs his daughter to read, in
the event of his death in the duel with Hamilton, the confidential
letters which came to him in the course of his love intrigues and
affairs of gallantry. It imports a moral obliquity that, happily for
society, is found in few human beings. As he lived, so he died, a
strange, lonely, unhappy man, out of tune with the beautiful world in
which he was permitted to exist upward of four score years. He had
done a great deal of harm, and, except as a Revolutionary soldier, no
good whatever.




CHAPTER XIII

THE CLINTONS AGAINST THE LIVINGSTONS

1804-1807


When Morgan Lewis began his term as governor tranquillity
characterised public affairs in the State and in the nation. The
Louisiana Purchase had strengthened the Administration with all
classes of people; Jefferson and George Clinton had received 162
electoral votes to 14 for Pinckney and Rufus King; Burr had gone into
retirement and was soon to go into obscurity; the Livingstons, filling
high places, were distinguishing themselves at home and abroad as able
judges and successful diplomatists; DeWitt Clinton, happy and
eminently efficient as the mayor of New York, seemed to have before
him a bright and prosperous career as a skilful and triumphant party
manager; while George Clinton, softened by age, rich in favouring
friends, with an ideal face for a strong, bold portrait, was basking
in the soft, mellow glow that precedes the closing of a stormy life.
Never before, perhaps never since, did a governor enter upon his
duties, neither unusual nor important, under more favourable auspices;
yet the story of Lewis' administration is a story of astonishing
mistakes and fatal factional strife.

The Governor inaugurated his new career by an unhappy act of
patronage. The appointment of Maturin Livingston, his son-in-law, and
the 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 was
unpopular in his manners, deficient in a knowledge of law, without
industry, and given to pleasure rather than business, but, because of
his relationship, the Governor forced him into that responsible
position. In like manner, although until then no change had occurred
within the party for opinion's sake, Lewis voted for the removal of
Peter B. Porter, the young and popular clerk of Ontario County.
Porter's youth indicated an intelligence that promised large returns
to his country and his party, and the Governor lived long enough to
see him honourably distinguished in Congress, highly renowned when his
serious career began on the Niagara frontier in the War of 1812, and,
afterward, richly rewarded as secretary of war in the Cabinet of John
Quincy Adams. But in 1805 the Governor cheerfully voted for his
removal, thus establishing the dangerous precedent that a member of
one's political household was to be treated with as little
consideration 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 as
a fitting preface to his policy in relation to the incorporation of
the Merchants' Bank of New York, a policy that proved fatal to his
ambition and to the influence of the Livingstons. Already doing
business under the general laws, two Republican Legislatures had
refused to incorporate the Merchants' Bank. But during the legislative
session of 1805 the bank people determined to have their way, and in
the efforts that followed they used methods and means common enough
afterward, but probably unknown before that winter. Although in no
wise connected with the scandal growing out of the controversy, Lewis
favoured the incorporation of the bank. On the other hand, DeWitt
Clinton opposed it, maintaining that two banks in New York City were
sufficient. However, the Governor, backed by the Federalists and a
small Republican majority, was successful. In the Council of Revision,
Ambrose Spencer opposed the act of incorporation on the ground that
existing banks, possessing five million dollars of capital, with
authority to issue notes and create debts to the amount of fifteen
million more, were sufficient, especially as the United States had
suffered an alarming decrease of specie, and as no one save a few
individuals, inspired solely by cupidity, had asked for a new bank.
Spencer, however, relied principally in his attack upon affidavits of
Obadiah German, the Republican leader of the Assembly, and Stephen
Thorn of the same body, charging that Senator Ebenezer Purdy, the
father of the measure, had offered them large rewards for their votes,
German having Purdy's admission that he had become convinced of the
propriety of incorporating the bank after a confidential conference
with its directors. From this it was to be inferred, argued Spencer,
that before such improper means were made use of, Purdy himself, whose
vote was necessary to its passage, was averse to its incorporation.
"To sanction a bill thus marked in its progress through one branch of
the Legislature with bribery and corruption," concluded the Judge,
"would be subversive of all pure legislation, and become a reproach to
a government hitherto renowned for the wisdom of its councils and the
integrity of its legislatures."[152] But Spencer's opposition and
Purdy's resignation, to avoid an investigation, did not defeat the
measure, 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 flagrant
partiality shown Lewis' family in the unpopular appointment of Maturin
Livingston, his son-in-law, displeased him, and the removal of Porter
seemed to him untimely and vindictive. In killing Hamilton, Clinton
reasoned, Burr had killed himself politically, and out of the way
himself there was no occasion to punish his friends who would now
rejoin and strengthen the Republican party. Clinton, however, remained
passive in his opposition until the incorporation of the bank
furnished a plausible excuse for an appeal to the party; then, with a
determination to subjugate the Livingstons, he caused himself and his
adherents to be nominated and elected to the State Senate upon the
platform that "a new bank has been created in our city, and its
charter granted to political enemies." It was a bold move, as stubborn
as it was dangerous. Clinton had little to gain. The Livingstons were
not 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 New
Orleans; and the Chancellor, having returned from France, was without
ambition to remain longer in the political arena. Even the
brothers-in-law were soon to disappear. John Armstrong was in France;
Smith Thompson, who was to follow Brockholst upon the bench of the
United States Supreme Court, refused to engage in party or political
contests, and the gifts of Tillotson and Lewis were not of quality or
quantity to make leaders of men. On the other hand, Clinton had much
to lose by forcing the fight. It condemned him to a career of almost
unbroken opposition for the rest of his life; it made precedents that
lived to curse him; and it compelled alliances that weakened him.

Lewis resented Clinton's imperious methods, but he made a fatal
mistake in furnishing him such a pretext for open opposition. He ought
to have known that in opposing the Merchants' Bank, Clinton
represented the great majority of his party which did not believe in
banks. Undoubtedly Clinton's interest in the Manhattan largely
controlled his attitude toward the Merchants', but the controversy
over the latter was so old, and its claims had been pressed so
earnestly by the Federalists in their own interest, that the question
had practically become a party issue as much as the contest over the
Bank of the United States. Already two Republican Legislatures had
defeated it, and in a third it was now being urged to success with the
help of a solid Federalist vote and a system of flagrant bribery, of
which the Governor was fully advised. A regard for party opinion, if
no higher motive, therefore, might well have governed Lewis' action.
After the fight had been precipitated, resulting in a warfare fatal to
Lewis, the Governor's apologists claimed that in favouring the bank
he had simply resisted Clinton's domination. The Governor may have
thought so, but it was further evidence of his inability either to
understand 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 the
gifts of a master and the capacity of a statesman. Lewis seems to have
had neither gifts nor capacity.

In January, 1806, DeWitt Clinton, securing a majority of the Council
of Appointment by the election of himself and two friends, sounded the
signal of attack upon the Governor and his supporters. He substituted
Pierre C. Van Wyck for Maturin Livingston and Elisha Jenkins for
Thomas Tillotson. The Governor's friends were also evicted from minor
office, only men hostile to Lewis' re-election being preferred.
Nothing could be less justifiable, or, indeed, more nefarious than
such removals. They were discreditable to the Council and disgraceful
to DeWitt Clinton; yet sentiment of the time seems to have approved
them, regarding Clinton's conduct merely as a stroke of good politics.
In the midst of this wretched business it is pleasant to note that
Jenkins' transfer from comptroller to secretary of state opened a way
for the appointment of Archibald McIntyre, whose safe custody of the
purse in days when economies and husbandries were in order,
distinguished him as a faithful official, and kept him in office until
1821.

After such drastic treatment of the Governor, it is not without
interest to think of Lewis in Albany and Clinton in New York keeping
their eyes upon the election in April, 1806, both alike hopeful of
finding allies in the party breakup. The advantage seemed to be wholly
with the Mayor and not with the Governor. Indeed, Republicans of all
factions were so well assured of Clinton's success that it required
the faith of a novice in politics to believe that Lewis had any
chance. But DeWitt Clinton had to deal with two classes of men,
naturally and almost relentlessly opposed to him--the friends of Burr
and the Federalists. It was of immense importance that the former
should stand with him, since the Federalists were certain to side with
the Lewisites or "Quids," as the Governor's friends came to be known,
and to secure such an advantage Clinton promptly made overtures to the
Burrites, of whom John Swartout, Peter Irving and Matthew L. Davis
were the leaders.

There is some confusion as to details, but Davis is authority for the
statement that in December, 1805, Theodorus Bailey, as Clinton's
agent, promised to aid Burr's friends through the Manhattan Bank, to
recognise them as Republicans, to appoint them to office on the same
footing with the most favoured Clintonian, and to stop Cheetham's
attacks in the _American Citizen_. Clinton pronounced the story false,
but it was known that the Manhattan Bank loaned eighteen thousand
dollars to a prominent Burrite; that on January 24, 1806, Clinton met
Swartout, Irving and Davis at the home of Bailey; and that afterward,
on February 20, leading Clintonians banqueted the Burrites at Dyde's
Hotel in the suburbs of New York in celebration of their union. There
were many reasons for maintaining the profoundest secrecy as to this
alliance and Dyde's Hotel had been selected for the purpose of
avoiding publicity, but the morning's papers revealed the secret with
an exaggerated account of their doings and sayings. Immediately, other
Burrites, joining the Lewisites at Martling's Long-room, a popular
meeting-place, organised a protestant faction, afterward known as
Martling Men, whose enmity was destined to follow Clinton to his
downfall.

As election day approached the Quids made a decisive struggle against
Clinton. They rehearsed the charges of "Aristides;" they denounced him
as cold and imperious; they charged that he had an almost boundless
political ambition; that he maintained his own councils regardless of
his associates, and accepted no suggestion not in harmony with his own
policy. The Martling Men accused him of duplicity, and of a desire
only for place and pay. In aid of Lewis, Chancellor Lansing took this
opportunity of revealing the secret that led him to withdraw from the
gubernatorial race in 1804, charging that George Clinton had sought
"to pledge him to a particular course of conduct in the administration
of the government of the State." When the latter denied the statement,
Lansing, becoming more specific, affirmed that the venerable statesman
had mentioned DeWitt Clinton as a suitable person for chancellor. It
is not surprising, perhaps, that DeWitt Clinton's reply that if
tendered the office he would have declined it, fell upon incredulous
ears, since the young man at that very moment was holding three
offices and drawing three salaries.

But the contest did not become seriously doubtful until the Quids
received the active support of the Federalists, just then led by
William W. Van Ness, who seems to have leaped into prominence as
suddenly as did "Aristides," his cousin. If we may estimate the man by
the praises of his contemporaries, William W. Van Ness' eloquence
delighted the Assembly of which he had become a member in 1805, not
more than his pointed and finished wit charmed every social gathering
which he honoured with his presence. Indeed, as a popular orator he
seems to have had no rival. Though his passion for distinction was too
ardent and his fondness for sensual pleasure immoderate, sober minded
men were carried away with the fascinating effervescence of his public
utterances and the brilliancy of his conversation. He had a commanding
presence, almost a colossal form, and a voice marvellous for its
strength and for the music of its intonations. He was neither profound
nor learned. The common school at Claverack, where he was born in
independence year, furnished him little more than the rudiments of
English, and at the age of twenty he closed the door to further
advancement by prematurely burdening himself with a family; yet he
seemed to know without apparent effort everything that was necessary
to know, and to exert a gentle, unconscious, unpretending power that
was resistless. A sweetness of temper and a native dignity of manner
cast a grace and charm about him which acted as a spell upon all who
came within its influence. Hammond, the historian, thought him the
possessor of every gift that nature and fortune could bestow--wit,
beauty, good nature, suave manners, eloquence, and admirable
conversation. Such a combination gave him leadership, and he led his
followers solidly to Lewis, with the result that the coalition of
Federalists and Quids won out by a small majority.

When the Legislature assembled, in January, 1807, the intense
bitterness of the fight exhibited itself in the defeat of Solomon
Southwick for clerk of the Assembly. Southwick possessed the amiable,
winning qualities that characterised William W. Van Ness. He was
associated with his brother-in-law in the management of the Albany
_Register_, and from his earliest youth had been as zealous a
Republican as he was warm and disinterested in his friendships. To
friend and foe he was alike cordial and generous. He possessed an open
mind, not so eloquent as Van Ness, and less brilliant, perhaps, in
conversation; but the fluent splendour of his speech and the beauty of
his person and manners went as far toward the attainment of his
ambition. He had been elected clerk of the Assembly continuously since
1803, until his popularity among the members, whom he served with
uniform politeness and zeal, seemed proof against the attacks of any
adversary. Just now, however, the enemies of DeWitt Clinton were the
opponents of Solomon Southwick, while his rival, Garret Y. Lansing,
the nephew of the Chancellor, had become the bitterest and most
formidable enemy the Clintons had to encounter. Popular as he was,
Southwick could not win against such odds, although it turned out that
a change of four votes would have elected him.

A Lewis Council of Appointment made a clean sweep of the Governor's
enemies and of DeWitt Clinton's friends. Clinton himself gave up the
mayoralty of New York, Maturin Livingston again assumed the duties of
recorder, and Thomas Tillotson was restored to the office of secretary
of state. Perhaps Clinton thought he stood too high to be in danger
from Lewis' hand. If he did he found out his mistake, for Lewis
struck him down in the most unsparing and humiliating way. Public
affront was added to political deprivation. Without warning or
explanation, the first motion put at the first meeting of the new
Council, on February 6, 1807, made him the first sacrifice. Had he
been a justice of the peace in a remote western county he could not
have been treated more rudely; and, it may be added, if better reason
than that already existing were needed to seal the fate of Lewis,
Clinton's removal furnished it. New York has seldom been roused to
greater passion by a governor's act. It could even then be said of
Clinton that his name was associated with every great enterprise for
the public good. Less than a year before, in his efforts to educate
the children of the poor, unprovided for in parochial schools, he had
laid the foundation of the public school system, heading the
subscription list for the purchase of suitable quarters. In spite of
his faults he was a great executive, and before the sun went down on
the day of his removal a large majority of the Republican members of
the 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 of
keeping it in the family, and offered it to Smith Thompson, both of
whose wives were Livingstons; but only once in forty years did
Thompson's love for the judiciary give way to political preferment,
and then Martin Van Buren defeated him for governor. The mayoralty
finally went to Marinus Willett, an officer of distinguished service
in the Revolutionary war, whose gallantry at Fort Schuyler in the
summer of 1777 won him a sword from Congress and the admiration of
General Washington. But the steadfast, judicious qualities that
commended him as a soldier seem to have forsaken him as a politician.
He supported Burr, he followed Lewis, and he finally ran for
lieutenant-governor against DeWitt Clinton, the regular nominee of his
party, losing the election by a large majority; yet his amiability and
war 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 the
Revolution, even though he forfeited the confidence of his party.

Clinton, who had kept his head cool in victory, did not lose it in
defeat; but the Governor found himself in an awkward and humiliating
position. Although the Federalists had made it possible for him to
organise the Legislature and elect a friendly Council, he dared not
appoint one of them to office, and the few ambitious Republicans who
had marshalled under his standard proved inferior, inexperienced, or
indiscreet. Only one Federalist fared well, and he succeeded in spite
of Lewis. William W. Van Ness aspired to the Supreme Court judgeship
made vacant by Brockholst Livingston's appointment to the Supreme
Court of the United States. The Governor, favouring, of course, a
member of his own family, proposed Maturin Livingston. To this Thomas
Thomas of the Council agreed, but Edward Savage proposed John
Woodworth; John Nicholas inclined to Jonas Platt, and James Burt, the
fourth member of the Council, preferred Van Ness. Platt was a
Federalist, and in his way a remarkable man. His father, Zephaniah
Platt, served in the Continental Congress, and as judge of the Circuit
Court 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 the
western frontier, settling in Herkimer County, at Whitesboro. He had
already served one term in the Legislature and one in Congress, and
was destined to receive other honourable preferment. But just now
Nicholas, his political backer, a recent comer from Virginia, who had
served with him in Congress, was no match for the adroit Burt, whose
shrewd management in the interest of Aaron Burr had recently sent
Theodorus Bailey to the United States Senate over John Woodworth. Burt
convinced Nicholas that Platt's candidacy would result in the election
of Livingston or Woodworth, and having thus destroyed the Herkimer
lawyer, he appealed to Savage to drop Woodworth in favour of Van
Ness. Savage was a Republican of the old school, a supporter of George
Clinton, an opponent of the Federal Constitution, who had apparently
followed Lewis for what he could make out of it; but he was indisposed
to add to the sin of rebellion against DeWitt Clinton the folly of
voting for Maturin Livingston, and so he joined Burt and Nicholas in
support of Van Ness. Thus it happened that the popular young orator
became a member of the Supreme Court at the early age of thirty-one,
being the youngest member of the court, save Daniel D. Tompkins, to
serve on the old, conservative Council of Revision.

News of this bad business intensified the angry feeling against the
Governor. A place on the Supreme Court, valued then even more highly
than now, had been lost to the party because of his arrogant and
consuming nepotism, and men turned with enthusiasm to Daniel D.
Tompkins, whose nomination for governor brought him champions that had
heretofore avoided all appearance of violent partisanship. Tompkins
was 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 to
the Presidency, upon which his eye was already fixed, might have
opened easily and surely. But the bitterness of the Livingstons and
the unfriendly disposition of the Federalists compelled him to flank
the difficulty by presenting a candidate for governor who was void of
offence. If it was humiliating to admit his own ineligibility, it was
no less so to meet the new condition, for Lewis' election in 1804 had
discovered the scarcity of available material, and developed the
danger of relying upon another to do his bidding. Just now Clinton
wanted a candidate with no convictions, no desires, no ambitions, and
no purposes save to please him. There were men enough of this kind,
but they could neither conceal their master's hand, nor command the
suffrages of a majority on their own account. In this crisis,
therefore, he selected, to the surprise of all and to the disgust of
some, Daniel D. Tompkins, the young and amiable justice of the Supreme
Court, who had taken the place of James Kent on the latter's promotion
to chief justice.

Thus it happened that the day which witnessed DeWitt Clinton's removal
from the New York mayoralty, welcomed into larger political life this
man of honourable parentage, who was destined to play a very
conspicuous part in affairs of state. Daniel D. Tompkins, a youth of
promise and a young man of ripening wisdom, had been for some years in
the public eye, first as a member of the constitutional convention of
1801, afterward as a successful candidate for Congress, and later as
a judge of the Supreme Court. His rise had been phenomenally rapid. He
passed from the farm to the college at seventeen, from college to the
law office at twenty-one, from the law office to the constitutional
convention at twenty-seven, and thence to Congress and the Supreme
Court at thirty. He was now to become governor at thirty-three. But
with all his promise and wisdom and rapid advancement, no one dreamed
in 1807 that he was soon to divide political honour and power with
DeWitt Clinton, five years his senior.

Tompkins was on the farm when Clinton was in Columbia College; but if
the plow lengthened his days, study shortened his nights, and five
years 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 entered
the Legislature, the latter had only opened a law office. Then, but
four years later, they met in the constitutional convention, Clinton
on the winning side and Tompkins on the right side. The purpose of
this convention, it will be recalled, had been to give each member of
the Council of Appointment the power to nominate candidates for
office--Clinton holding that the Council had the right to nominate as
well as to confirm appointments; Tompkins, with barely a dozen
associates, took the ground, maintained by Governors Clinton and Jay,
that its power was limited to confirmation. This position showed the
nerve as well as the independence of the younger man, and he was able
proudly to refer to it when, twenty years later, the constitutional
convention of 1821, inspired by the popular contempt, achieved the
abolition of the Council, and with it the political corruption and
favouritism to which it had given rise.

The record of New York politics is a record of long and bitter
contests between these chiefs of two antagonistic Republican factions.
What the struggle between Stalwarts and Half Breeds was to our own
time, the struggle between Clinton and Tompkins was to our ancestors
of two and three generations ago. Two men could hardly be more
sharply contrasted. The one appeared cold and reserved, the other most
gracious and gentle; Clinton's self-confidence destroyed the fidelity
of those who differed in opinion, Tompkins' urbanity disarmed their
disloyalty; Clinton was unrelenting, dogged in his tenacity, quick to
speak harshly, moving within lines of purpose regardless of those of
least resistance. Although he often changed his associates, like Lord
Shaftesbury, he never changed his purposes. Tompkins, always firm and
dignified, was affable in manner, sympathetic in speech, overflowing
with good nature, and unpretending to all who approached him. It used
to be said that Tompkins made more friends in refusing favours than
Clinton 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, curly
hair, 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 with
lips firmly set. It was a strong face. A dullard could read his
character at a glance. To his intimate friends Clinton was undoubtedly
a social, agreeable companion; but the dignified imperiousness of his
manner and the severity of his countenance usually overcame the
ordinary visitor before the barriers of his reserve were broken.
Tompkins, on the contrary, carried the tenderness of a wide humanity
in his face.

It was hardly creditable to Clinton's knowledge of human nature that
he selected Daniel D. Tompkins for a gubernatorial candidate, if he
sought a man whom he might control. The memory of the constitutional
convention, or a glance into the history of the elder Tompkins, who
had stood firm and unyielding in the little settlement of Fox Meadows
in Winchester after the American defeat on Long Island, when all his
neighbours save two had faltered in the cause of independence, would
have enlightened him respecting the Tompkins character. The farmer
boy's determined, patient preparation for public life, and his
fortitude in the face of conscious disadvantages, ought also to have
suggested that the young man was made of sterner stuff than the
obedient Theodorus Bailey. Still more surprising is it that Clinton
should overlook, or insufficiently consider the fact that Tompkins was
now 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 already
been apprised, and whose bitter hostility he was about to experience.
If he thought to disarm the enmity of Minthorne by helping the
son-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 for
taking this Hercules, whose political direction was conspicuously
inevitable from the first. But Clinton wanted an assured victor
against Morgan Lewis and the Livingstons, with their Federalist
supporters, and, although some people inclined to the opinion that
Tompkins had already been promoted too rapidly, Clinton believed his
services on the bench had made him the most available man in the
party. For three years this young judge, substituting sympathy for
severity, had endeared himself to all who knew him. The qualities of
fairness and fitness which Greek wisdom praised in the conduct of life
were characteristic of his life. From what we know of his work it is
fair to presume, had he tarried upon the bench until 1821, he would
have 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 for
re-election. The Clinton address gave no reason for preferring
Tompkins 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, the
result was as gratifying to Clinton as it was disastrous to
Lewis.[153] It was not a sweeping victory, such as Lewis had won over
Burr three years before, for the former's weakness was less offensive
than the latter's wickedness, but it launched the successful candidate
on his long period of authority, which was not to be ended until he
was 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 at
a time when England and the United States were about to quarrel over
the former's insistence on impressing American seamen into its
service, thus giving the people something to think about save offices,
and dividing them again sharply into two parties. Indeed, while the
election was pending in April, three deserters from the _Melampus_, a
British sloop-of-war, by enlisting on the _Chesapeake_, a United
States frigate of thirty-eight guns, became the innocent cause of
subjecting the United States to gross insult. The American government,
smarting under England's impressment of its seamen, refused to
surrender these deserters, inquiries showing that they were coloured
men of American birth, two of whom had been pressed into the British
service from an American vessel in the Bay of Biscay. When the
_Chesapeake_ sailed, therefore, the _Leopard_, an English man-of-war
mounting fifty guns, followed her to the high seas and demanded a
return of the deserters. Receiving a prompt refusal, the Englishman
raked 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 in
the use of ordnance, her decks littered, appliances for reloading were
wanting, and at the supreme moment neither priming nor match could be
found. Under these distressing circumstances, the boarding officer of
the _Leopard_ took the deserters and sailed for Halifax. The sight of
the dismantled _Chesapeake_, with its dead and dying, aroused the
people irrespective of party into demanding reparation or war. "This
country," wrote Jefferson, "has never been in such a state of
excitement since the battle of Lexington."[154] Immediately the most
exposed ports were strengthened, and the States were called upon to
organise 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 York
Legislature assembled in the following January, England had published
its Orders in Council, forbidding all neutral trade with France.
Napoleon had also promulgated his Milan Decree, forbidding all neutral
trade with England, and the Congress of the United States, with closed
doors, in obedience to the recommendation of the President, had
ordered an embargo forbidding all foreign-bound American vessels to
leave United States ports.

For several years American commerce, centring chiefly in New England
and New York, and occupying a neutral position toward European
belligerents, had enjoyed unparalleled prosperity. Reaching all parts
of 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, using
neutral flags, and finding other subterfuges for new restrictions. The
embargo 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 shipowners
resisted it, charging that Napoleon's Decree had provoked the British
Orders, and that if the former would recede, the latter would be
modified. It revived the old charge of Jefferson's enmity to commerce.
In the excitement, DeWitt Clinton opposed it, and Cheetham, with his
bitter, irritating pen, sustained him. He thought American commerce
might be left to solve the difficulty for itself, by allowing
merchants to arm their vessels or otherwise encounter the risks and
perils at their own discretion, rather than be compelled to abandon
the highway of nations to their British rivals, whose sole purpose, he
maintained, was to drive us from the ocean and capture French supplies
being transported in French vessels.

But the Republicans in Congress stood firmly by the embargo, holding
that if George Canning would modify the Orders in Council, which were
intended to drive American commerce from the ocean, Napoleon would
modify his decrees, which were provoked by the British Orders. It was
not a question of avoiding sacrifices, said Governor Tompkins, in his
speech to the Legislature, in January, 1808, but whether one sacrifice
might not better be borne than another. The belligerents had issued
decrees regardless of our rights. If we carried for England, France
would confiscate; if for France, England would confiscate. England
exacted tribute, and insisted upon the right of search; France
demanded forfeiture if we permitted search or paid tribute; between
the two the world was closed to us. But the belligerents needed our
wheat and breadstuffs, and while the embargo was intended only for a
temporary expedient, giving the people time for reflection, and
keeping our vessels and cargoes from spoliation, it must prevail in
the end by making Europe feel the denial of neutral favours. "What
patriotic citizen," he concluded, "will murmur at the temporary
privations and inconveniences resulting from this measure, when he
reflects upon the vast expenditure of national treasure, the sacrifice
of the lives of our countrymen, the total and permanent suspension of
commerce, the corruption of morals, and the distress and misery
consequent upon our being involved in the war between the nations of
Europe? The evils which threaten us call for a magnanimous confidence
in the efforts of our national councils to avert them, and for a firm,
unanimous determination to devote everything that is dear to us to
maintain our right and national honour."[155]

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

Governor Tompkins' views, sustained by decided majorities in both
branches of the Legislature, hastened DeWitt Clinton's change of
attitude; and, to the great disgust of Cheetham, he now swung into
line. Deceived by the first outcry against Jefferson's policy, Clinton
had presided at an opposition meeting, while Cheetham, following his
lead, had assailed it in the _American Citizen_. In the same spirit
George Clinton, the Vice President, imprudently and impulsively
attacked it in letters to his friends; but DeWitt Clinton, seeing his
mistake, quickly jumped into line with his party, leaving Cheetham and
his uncle to return as best they could. It was an ungracious act,
since Cheetham, who had devoted the best of his powers in justifying
the conduct of Clinton, was now left in the air, without the means of
gracefully getting down.

Meantime, the new Council of Appointment, elected in February, and
controlled by DeWitt Clinton, had reversed the work of Lewis. Marinus
Willett surrendered the mayoralty to DeWitt Clinton, Maturin
Livingston gave up the recordership, Thomas Tillotson turned over the
secretaryship of state to Elisha Jenkins, Sylvanus Miller again became
surrogate of New York, and John Woodworth was dismissed from the
office of attorney-general. Under the Constitution, the Legislature
elected the treasurer of the State, an office which Abraham G.
Lansing, brother of the Chancellor and father of Garrett, had held
continuously since the defalcation of McClanan in 1803. Lansing was
wealthy, and, like his brother, a man of the highest character for
integrity and correct business methods, but he had followed Lewis to
defeat and now paid the penalty by giving place to David Thomas, who,
like McClanan, was also to prove a defaulter. Thus, within a year
after Tompkins' inauguration, an entire change of persons holding
civil offices in the State had taken place, the Governor shrewdly
strengthening himself by assuming to have helped the winners, and
weakening Clinton by permitting the disappointed to charge their
failure to the Mayor.

The nomination of a Republican candidate to succeed Jefferson, gave
Tompkins further opportunity of strengthening himself at the expense
of DeWitt Clinton. For months the latter had been urging the claims of
George Clinton for President, on the ground of the Vice President's
hitherto undisputed right to promotion, and because Virginia had held
the office long enough. But a congressional caucus, greatly to the
disgust of Monroe and the Clintons, and without the knowledge of the
Vice President, hastily got together according to the custom of the
day and nominated James Madison for President and George Clinton for
Vice President. The disappointed friends of Monroe and Clinton charged
that the caucus was irregular, only eighty-nine out of one hundred and
thirty-nine Republican representatives and senators having attended
it, and could they have agreed upon a candidate among themselves
Madison must have been beaten. Leading Federalists waited until late
in April for DeWitt Clinton to make some arrangement which their party
might support, but, while Federalists waited, the threatened
Republican bolt wasted itself in a fruitless endeavour to unite upon a
candidate for first place. Monroe's friends would not have George
Clinton, whom they pronounced too old and too infirm, and Clinton's
friends declined to accept Monroe, who was objectionable, if for no
other reason, because he was a Virginian. Finally, the Federalists
nominated Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina for President and
Rufus King of New York for Vice President, making Madison's election
absolutely certain.

This ought to have ended the strife in Republican ranks. Under similar
circumstances any ordinary politician would have hastened to
re-establish himself with his party. But DeWitt Clinton, carrying the
contest to the New York Legislature, called to appoint presidential
electors, insisted that the vote of the State be given to his uncle.
The strong affection for the venerable statesman insured the
suggestion favourable consideration by a large portion of the
Republican party, but Tompkins assailed it with unanswerable
argument. Without being of the slightest use to George Clinton, he
contended, such a course would exhibit an unhappy division in
Republican ranks, excite the jealousy of Madison's friends, impair the
influence of New York Republicans with the Administration, and make
them appear ridiculous to their brethren in other States. This was the
talk of a wise politician. The contest was squarely between James
Madison, regularly nominated by the method then accepted, and Charles
C. Pinckney, the candidate of the Federalists; and a vote for Clinton
meant a Republican vote thrown away out of pique. DeWitt Clinton
understood this; but he could not curb a disposition to have things
his way, and, upon his insistence, it was finally agreed that each
elector should vote his preference. Under this arrangement, George
Clinton received six votes out of the nineteen, Ambrose Spencer
leading the minority. Of the votes cast for President, Madison
received 122, Clinton 6, and Pinckney 48; for Vice President, George
Clinton had 113, Rufus King 48, John Langdon of New Hampshire 9, and
Madison and Monroe three each, the votes of Judge Spencer and his five
associates.

Within a twelvemonth DeWitt Clinton had plainly made a series of
serious mistakes. He had opposed the embargo, he had antagonised
Madison, who still resented the Clintons' opposition to the Federal
Constitution, and he had forced a discovery of Tompkins' superior
management and political wisdom. To add to his embarrassment, the
Lewisites, the Burrites, and the Martling Men now openly charged him
with hostility to Madison and with insincere support of Jefferson and
Tompkins, since he continued on friendly terms with Cheetham, who
still bitterly opposed the embargo. If these three political groups of
men, having a bond of union in their common detestation of DeWitt
Clinton, could have found a leader able to marshal them, they must
have compassed the latter's political overthrow long before he
prostrated himself. Already it was whispered that Tompkins approved
their attacks, a suspicion that found many believers, since Minthorne
had set to work to destroy Clinton. But the Governor was too wise to
be drawn openly into gladiatorial relations with DeWitt Clinton at
this time, although, as it afterward appeared, Madison and Tompkins
even then had an understanding to which Clinton was by no means a
stranger.

Clinton, however, continued seemingly on good terms with Tompkins; and
to disprove the attacks of the Martling Men he introduced a series of
resolutions in the State Senate, to which he had been elected in the
preceding April, approving the administration of President Madison and
pledging support to Governor Tompkins. To make his defence the more
complete, he backed the resolutions with an elaborately prepared
speech, in which he bitterly assailed the Federalists, who, he
declared, thought it "better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."
Clinton may be excused for getting in accord with his party; but since
his change disclosed an absence of principle, it was bad manners, to
say the least, to denounce, with Miltonic quotation, those who
consistently held to the views formerly entertained by himself. Of
Clinton it could scarcely be said, that he was a favourite in the
Legislature. He frequently allowed his fierce indignation to get the
better of his tongue. His sharp sarcasms, his unsparing ridicule, and
his heedless personalities, sometimes withered the effect of his
oratory; yet it is quite certain that the fury of his assaults and the
exuberance of his anger aroused the keenest interest, and that when
the Martling Men finally prevented his return to the Legislature his
absence was generally regretted.

Clinton's speech did not convince Federalists that embargo was the
product of profound statesmanship. Abraham Van Vechten, the leader of
the Federalists in the Legislature, was a powerful and logical
reasoner, and an orator of singular eloquence. His success as an
advocate at the bar followed him to the Assembly, and in every debate
he proved a formidable antagonist. He had a gift of sarcasm that made
an adversary exceedingly uncomfortable; and as he shattered the
reasoning of Clinton, he exposed the imperious and domineering
trimmer to ridicule and jest. Van Vechten ranked among the ablest men
of New York. His tall, erect, and dignified figure was well known
throughout the State, and although he did not assume to lead his
party, the Federalists recognised his right to share in its
leadership. Governor Jay offered him a place on the Supreme bench; but
he preferred the bar and the brief sessions of the Legislature.

By the side of Van Vechten sat Daniel Cady, at that time thirty-six
years of age, already renowned as a lawyer, the rival of Ogden Hoffman
and Marcus T. Reynolds, and, in the estimation of his contemporaries,
one of the most generous and gifted men of his time. Three terms in
the Legislature and one in Congress measured, until his election to
the Supreme Court in 1847, his career in public life; but brief as was
this service, his great ability adorned the State and strengthened his
party. His distinguished daughter, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, whose
achievements covered more than half of the last century, represented
in a marked degree his gifts, his accomplishments, and the sweetness
of his nature.

Under the lead of Van Vechten and Cady, the Federalists tormented
DeWitt Clinton and the friends of embargo, by contrasting the busy
wharves in 1807, covered with bales of cotton, barrels of flour, and
hogsheads of sugar, with the stagnation that characterised all avenues
of commerce in 1809. Ropewalks were deserted, sailmakers idle, draymen
without business, and sailors without bread. If England bled, they
declared, the United States bled faster. An ocean whitened with
American sails had been turned over to British ships which were
absorbing the maritime trade. France showed an indifference to
America's commerce and England boasted an independence of America's
trade. As a weapon of coercion, exclaimed Cady, embargo has been a
failure--as a measure of defence it has been suicidal. What would
happen if our ships were suffered to go to Europe and the Indies? Some
would reach Europe and find a market; others would go to England,
obtain a license to sail to a Baltic port, and then sell at great
profit. Out of a hundred ships, two would probably be seized by the
French. Better to lose two by seizure than the destruction of all by
embargo.

Obadiah German had much to say in defence of the justice and prudence
of the embargo. There was nothing brilliant about German; but ample
evidence of his parliamentary ability lines the pathway of his public
career. Without eloquence or education, he had the full courage of his
convictions and an intellectual vigour sufficient to back them. He
came to the Legislature in 1798, and, in 1809, very unexpectedly
succeeded Samuel L. Mitchill as United States senator. Later he served
one term as speaker of the Assembly. Just now he was the recognised
leader 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 Van
Vechten. Sanford was the pet of the Martling Men and the enemy of
DeWitt Clinton. He had been appointed United States attorney upon the
resignation of Edward Livingston in 1803, holding the office until his
election to the United States Senate to succeed Obadiah German in
1815. In the meantime he served two terms in the Assembly, one of them
as speaker, and three terms in the State Senate. Afterward, he became
chancellor for two or three years, and then took another term as
United States senator. His activity gave him strength, and his loyalty
to the Martling Men, now known as Tammany, supplied him with backers
enough to keep him continuously in office for thirty years. Despite
his titles of Senator and Chancellor, however, and his long public
service, he did not leave a memory for eloquence, scholarship, or for
great ability; though he was a ready talker and a willing friend,
quick to catch the favouring breeze and ready to adopt any political
method that promised success. In upholding embargo, Sanford admitted
its seriousness, but emphasised its necessity. He recalled how England
had searched our ships, impressed our seamen, killed our citizens,
and insulted our towns. The ocean, he argued, had become a place of
robbery and national disgrace, since Great Britain, by its orders in
Council, had provoked France into promulgating the Berlin Decree of
November, 1806, and the Milan Decree of December, 1807, which
denationalised any ship that touched an English port, or suffered an
English search, or paid an English tax--whether it entered a French
port, or fell into the power of a French privateer. Thus, since
England had blockaded one-half of Europe and France the other half, he
thought it time for dignified retirement, until England felt the need
of additional supplies, and France awoke to the loss of its luxuries.

At the close of the spirited debate, DeWitt Clinton's resolutions were
adopted by both houses--in the Senate without a division; in the
Assembly by a vote of sixty-one to forty-one. But almost before the
result was announced, American wheat dropped from two dollars to
seventy cents a bushel, turning the election of April, 1809, into a
Federalist victory. It was a great surprise to Tompkins and his party,
whose only gleam of hope grew out of the failure of the Federalists to
return senators from the middle and eastern districts, thus
preventing, as they assumed, a Federalist majority in the new Council
of Appointment and a wholesale removal of Republican officials. But
the Federalists understood their work. After welcoming to the
speakership their old friend, William North of Duansburgh, who had
served in the same capacity in 1795 and again in 1796, the Assembly
elected to the Council, two Federalists and two Republicans, including
Robert Williams of the middle district. Williams had been a Lewisite,
a Burrite, and a Clintonian. With the help of a Federalist governor in
1799, he became sheriff of Dutchess County, and, although he bore the
reputation of a trimmer, he seems to have concealed the real baseness
of his character until the meeting of the new Council, when his
casting vote turned out of office every Republican in the State. By
this treachery his son-in-law, Thomas J. Oakley, of whom we shall hear
much 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 the
moment of his apostacy Robert Williams, classified by his neighbours
with Judas Iscariot and ignored by men of all parties, passed into
obscurity.




CHAPTER XV

TOMPKINS DEFEATS JONAS PLATT

1810


Though DeWitt Clinton again lost the mayoralty of New York, he was
still in the Senate; and to maintain an appearance of friendship with
the Governor, he wrote the address to the people, signed by the
Republican members of the Legislature, placing Tompkins in the race
for re-election. The Federalists, encouraged by their gains in April,
1809, had with confidence nominated Jonas Platt for governor, and
Nicholas Fish for lieutenant-governor. Fish is little known to the
present generation except as the father of Hamilton Fish, the able
secretary of state in President Grant's Cabinet; but in his day
everybody knew of him, and everybody admitted his capacity and
patriotism. His distinguished gallantry during the Revolution won him
the confidence of Washington and the intimate friendship of Hamilton,
after whom he named his illustrious son. For many years he was
adjutant-general of the State, president of the New York Society of
the Cincinnati, and a representative Federalist. It is said that Aaron
Burr felt rebuked in his presence, because he recognised in him those
high qualities of noble devotion to principle which the grandson of
Jonathan Edwards well knew were wanting in his own character. Just now
Fish was fifty-two years old, a member of the New York Board of
Aldermen, and an inveterate opponent of Republicanism, chafing under
DeWitt Clinton's dictatorship in the State and Tammany's control in
the city.

Jonas Platt had borne an important part in propping up falling
Federalism. He was a born fighter. Though somewhat uncouth in
expression and unrefined in manner, he had won for himself a proud
position at the bar of his frontier home, and was rapidly writing his
name high on the roll of New York statesmen. He had proved his
popularity by carrying his senatorial district in the preceding
election; and he had demonstrated his ability as a debater by replying
to the arguments of DeWitt Clinton with a power that comes only from
wide information and a consciousness of being in the right. He could
not be turned aside from the real issue. Whatever or whoever had
provoked the British Orders in Council, he declared, one thing was
certain, those orders could not have driven American commerce from the
ocean had not the embargo established British commerce in its place.
This was the weak point in the policy of Jefferson, and the strong
point in the argument of Jonas Platt. Five hundred and thirty-seven
vessels, aggregating over one hundred and eighty thousand tons, had
been tied up in New York alone; and the public revenues collected at
its custom house had dropped from four and a half millions to nothing.
History concedes that embargo, since it required a much greater
sacrifice at home than it caused abroad, utterly failed as a weapon
for coercing Europe; and with redoubled energy and prodigious effect,
Platt drove this argument into the friends of the odious and
profitless measure, until the Governor's party in the election of 1809
had gone down disastrously.

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

In the legislative session of 1810, however, Jonas Platt developed
neither the strength nor the shrewdness that characterised his conduct
on the stump during the campaign of 1809. William Erskine, the British
minister, a son of the distinguished Lord Chancellor, whose attachment
to America was strengthened by marriage, had negotiated a treaty with
the United States limiting the life of the Orders in Council to June
10, 1809. This treaty had been quickly disavowed by the English
government, and, in referring to it in his message, Governor Tompkins
accused England of wilfully refusing to fulfil its stipulations. "With
Great Britain an arrangement was effected in April last," wrote the
Governor, "which diffused a lively satisfaction through the nation,
and presaged a speedy restoration of good understanding and harmony
between the two countries. But our hopes were blasted by an unexpected
disavowal of the agreement, and an unqualified refusal to fulfil its
stipulations on the part of England. Since the recall of the minister
who negotiated the arrangement, nothing has occurred to brighten the
prospect of an honourable adjustment of our differences. On the
contrary, instead of evincing an amicable disposition by substituting
other acceptable terms of accommodation in lieu of the disavowed
arrangement, the new minister has persisted in impeaching the veracity
of our Administration, which a sense of respect for themselves, and
for the dignity of the nation they represent, forbade them to brook."

There was nothing in this statement to rebuke. Young Erskine had been
displaced by an English minister who had acquired the reputation of
being an edged-tool against neutral nations, a curiously narrow,
hide-bound politician, whose language was as insolent as his manners
were offensive. The Governor's reference, therefore, had not been too
severe, nor had his statement overleaped the truth; yet Jonas Platt
attacked it with great asperity, arraigning the national
administration and charging that the country had more cause for war
with France than with Great Britain. This was both unwise and
untenable. The Governor had aimed his criticism at France as well as
at England. He spoke of one as controlling the destinies of the
European continent, of the other as domineering upon the ocean, and of
both as overleaping "the settled principles of public law, which
constituted the barriers between the caprice, the avarice, or the
tyranny of a belligerent, and the rights and independence of a
neutral." But Jonas Platt, betrayed by his prejudices against
Jefferson and France, went on with an argument well calculated to give
his opponents an advantage. His language was strong and clear, his
sarcasm pointed; but it gave DeWitt Clinton the opportunity of
charging Federalists with taking sides with the British against their
own country.

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

When DeWitt Clinton, therefore, charged the party of Jonas Platt with
taking the side of the British against their own country, the debate
revived old tales of cruelty and massacre, growing out of England's
alliance with the Indians in the early days of the Revolution; and it
gave John Taylor opportunity to recount the horrors which he had
witnessed in the days of his country's extreme peril. Taylor was
sixty-eight years old. For nearly twenty years he had been a member of
the Legislature, and was soon to be lieutenant-governor for nearly ten
years more. Before the Revolutionary war, he served in the Provincial
Congress; and in Arnold's expedition to Canada, in 1775, he had
superintended the commissary department, contributing to the comfort
of the shattered remnant who stood with Montgomery on the Plains of
Abraham 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 kept
growing with his growing years. "For a good old gentlemanly vice,"
says Byron, "I think I must take up with avarice." Taylor did not wait
to be an old gentleman before adopting "the good old gentlemanly
vice," but it did not seem to hurt him with the people, for he kept on
getting rich and getting office. He was formed to please. His tall,
slender form, rising above the heads of those about him, made his
agreeable manners and easy conversation the more noticeable, gaining
him the affection of men while challenging their admiration for his
ability.

In 1760, Taylor had followed the British army to Oswego, and there
acquired a knowledge of the Indian language. He knew of the alliance
between the British and Indians in 1776, and had witnessed the
horrible massacres growing out of these treaty relations. The most
tragic stories of Indian atrocities begin with the payment of bounties
by the British for the scalps of women and children, and for the
capture of men and boys who would make soldiers. Often guided by
Tories, the fierce Mohawks sought out the solitary farmhouse, scalped
the helpless, and, with a few prisoners, started back on their lonely
return journey to Canada, hundreds of miles through the forest, simply
to receive the promised reward of a few Spanish dollars from their
British allies. When DeWitt Clinton, therefore, charged the
Federalists with loving the English more than their own country, John
Taylor won the Senate by recalling Indian atrocities set on foot by
British officers, and often carried out with the assistance of British
Tories, now members of the Federalist party. Daniel Parrish, a senator
from the eastern district, having more courage than eloquence, came to
Platt's support with the most exact and honest skill, repelling the
insinuations of Clinton, and indignantly denying Taylor's tactful
argument. But when Taylor, pointing his long, well-formed index finger
at the eastern senator, expressed surprise and grief to hear one plead
the English cause whose father had been foully murdered by an Indian
while under British pay and British orders, Parrish lost his temper
and Platt his cause.

It was a sad day for Platt. So successfully did Taylor revive the old
Revolutionary hatred of the British that the Herkimer statesman's
arraignment of Governor Tompkins, offered as a substitute for DeWitt
Clinton's friendly answer, was rejected by a vote of twenty-three to
six. Coming as it did on the eve of the gubernatorial election it was
too late to retrieve his lost position. Moreover, the repeal of the
embargo had materially weakened the Federalists and correspondingly
strengthened the Republicans, since the commerce of New York quickly
revived, giving employment to the idle and bread to the hungry. The
conviction deepened, also, that a Republican administration was
sincerely impartial in sentiment between the two belligerents, and
that the present foreign policy, ineffective as it might be, fitted
the emergency better than a bolder one. Added to this, was the keen
desire of the Republicans to recover the offices which had been lost
through the apostacy of Robert Williams; and although the Federalists
struggled like drowning men to hold their ill-gotten gains, the strong
anti-British sentiment, backed by a determination to approve the
policy of Madison, swept the State, re-electing Governor Tompkins by
six thousand majority[156] and putting both branches of the
Legislature in control of the Republicans. Surely, Jonas Platt was
never 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 of
Appointment, chosen soon after the Legislature convened in January,
1811, began removing officials with a fierceness that in our day would
have brought shame and ruin upon any administration. It was a Clinton
Council, and only Clintonians took office. Jacob Radcliff again turned
over the New York mayoralty to DeWitt Clinton; Abraham Van Vechten
gave up the attorney-generalship to Matthias B. Hildreth; Daniel Hale
surrendered the secretaryship of state to Elisha Jenkins; Theodore
V.W. Graham bowed his adieus to the recordership of Albany as John Van
Ness Yates came in; and James O. Hoffman, Cadwallader D. Colden, and
John W. Mulligan, as recorder, district attorney, and surrogate of New
York, respectively, hastened to make way for their successors. As soon
as an order could reach him, Thomas J. Oakley, surrogate of Dutchess
County, vacated the office that the treachery of his father-in-law had
brought 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 at
the following election in April. John Broome had been distinguished
since the olden days when the cardinal policy of New York was the
union of the Colonies in a general congress. He had belonged to the
Committee of Fifty-one with John Jay, to the Committee of One Hundred
with James Duane, and to the Committee of Observation with Philip
Livingston. After the Revolution, he became president of the Board of
Aldermen, treasurer of the Chamber of Commerce, and, in 1789, had
stood for Congress against James Lawrence, the trusted adjutant-general
of Washington. Although Broome's overwhelming defeat for Congress in
no wise reflected upon his character as a patriot and representative
citizen, it kept him in the background until the Federalists had
frittered away their power in New York City. Then he came to the front
again, first as state senator, and afterward, in 1804, as
lieutenant-governor; but he never reached the coveted governorship. In
that day, as in this, the office of lieutenant-governor was not
necessarily a stepping stone to higher preferment. Pierre Van
Cortlandt served with fidelity for eighteen years without getting the
long wished-for promotion; Morgan Lewis jumped over Jeremiah Van
Rensselaer in 1804; and Daniel D. Tompkins was preferred to John
Broome in 1807. Indeed, with the exception of Enos T. Throop, Hamilton
Fish, David B. Hill, and Frank W. Higgins, none of the worthy men who
have presided with dignity over the deliberations of the State Senate
have ever been elected governor.

DeWitt Clinton now wished to succeed Broome; and a large majority of
Republican legislators quickly placed him in nomination. Clinton had
first desired to return to Albany as senator, as he would then have
possessed the right to vote and to participate in debate. But the
Martling Men, who held the balance of power, put forward Morgan Lewis,
his bitterest enemy. It was a clever move on the part of the
ex-Governor. Clinton had literally driven Lewis from the party, and
for three years his name remained a reminiscence; but, with the
assistance of Tammany, he now got out of obscurity by getting onto the
ticket with Governor Tompkins. To add, too, to Clinton's chagrin,
Tammany also put up Nathan Sanford for the Assembly, and thus closed
against him the door of the Legislature. But to carry out his
ambitious scheme--of mounting to the Presidency in 1812--Clinton
needed to be in Albany to watch his enemies; and, although he cared
little for the lieutenant-governorship, the possession of it would
furnish an excuse for his presence at the state capital.

The announcement of DeWitt Clinton's nomination raised the most
earnest outcries among the Martling Men. They had endeavoured to
defeat his reappointment to the mayoralty; but their wild protests had
fallen upon deaf ears. Indeed, the hatred of Minthorne, the intriguing
genius of Teunis Wortman, and the earnestness of Matthew L. Davis,
seemed only to have been agencies to prepare the way for Clinton's
triumphant restoration. Now, however, these accomplished political
gladiators proposed to give battle at the polls, and if their
influence throughout the State had been as potent as it proved within
the wards of New York City, the day of DeWitt Clinton's destiny must
have been nearly over.

Since its organisation in 1789, the Society of St. Tammany had been an
influential one. It was founded for charitable purposes; its
membership was made up mostly of native Americans, and its meetings
were 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 far
into the nineteenth century. Originally, Federalists and
anti-Federalists found a welcome around Tammany's council fire; and
its bucktail badge, the symbol of liberty, hung from the hat of
Clintonian and Hamiltonian alike. But toward the end of Washington's
second administration the society became thoroughly partisan and
thoroughly anti-Federalist, shifting its wigwam to the historic "Long
Room," at the tavern of Abraham Martling, a favourite hostlery which
the Federalists contemptuously called "the Pig-Pen." Then it was, that
Aaron Burr made Tammany a power in political campaigns. He does not
seem to have been its grand sachem, or any sachem at all; nor is it
known that he ever entered its wigwam or affiliated as a member; but
its leaders were his satellites, who began manufacturing public
opinion, manipulating primaries, dictating nominations, and carrying
wards.

Out of Burr's candidacy for President sprang Tammany's long and bitter
warfare against DeWitt Clinton. The quarrel began in 1802 when Clinton
and Cheetham charged Burr with intriguing to beat Jefferson; it grew
in bitterness when Clinton turned Burr and the Swartouts out of the
directorate of the Manhattan Bank; nor was it softened after the
secret compromise, made at Dyde's Hotel, in February, 1806. Indeed,
from that moment, Tammany seemed the more determined to harass the
ambitious Clinton; and, although his agents, as late as 1809, sought
reconciliation, the society expelled Cheetham and made Clinton an
object of detestation. Cheetham, who died in 1810, did not live to
wreak full vengeance; but he did enough to arouse a shower of
brick-bats which broke the windows of his home and threatened the
demolition of the _American Citizen_.

Though Cheetham's decease relieved Tammany of one of its earliest and
most vindictive assailants, the political death of DeWitt Clinton
would have been more helpful, since Clinton's opposition proved the
more harmful. As mayor he lived like a prince distributing bounty
liberally among his supporters. He was lavish in the gift of lucrative
offices, lavish in the loan of money, and lavish in contributions to
charity. His salary and fees were estimated at twenty thousand
dollars, an extravagant sum in days when eight hundred dollars met the
expense of an average family, and the possessor of fifty thousand
dollars was considered a rich man. Besides, his wife had inherited
from her father, Walter Franklin, a wealthy member of the Society of
Friends, an estate valued at forty thousand dollars, making her one of
the richest women in New York.

But Clinton had more than rich fees and a wealthy wife. The foreign
element, especially the Irish, admired him because, when a United
States senator, he had urged and secured a reduction of the period of
naturalisation from fourteen years to five; and because he relieved
the political and financial distress of their countrymen, by aiding
the repeal of the alien and sedition laws. For a score of years,
America had invited to its shores every fugitive from British
persecution. But the heroes of 'Ninety-eight, who had escaped the
gibbet, and successfully made their way to this country through the
cordon of English frigates, were welcomed with laws even more
offensive than the coercion acts which they had left behind. The last
rebellious uprising to occur in Ireland under the Georges, had sent
Thomas Addis Emmet, brother of the famous and unfortunate Irish
patriot, a fugitive to the land of larger liberty. To receive this
brother with laws that might send him back to death, was to despise
the national sentiment of Irishmen; and the men, Clinton declared, who
had been indisposed or unable to take account of the force of a
national sentiment, were not and never could be fit to carry on the
great work of government.

Thoughtful, however, as DeWitt Clinton had been of the oppressed in
other lands, he lacked what Dean Swift said Bolingbroke needed--"a
small infusion of the alderman." If he thought a man stupid he let him
know it. To those who disagreed with him, he was rude and overbearing.
All of what is known as the "politician's art" he professed to
despise; and while Tammany organised wards into districts, and
districts into blocks, Clinton pinned his faith on the supremacy of
intellect, and on office-holding friends. The day the news of his
nomination for lieutenant-governor reached New York, Tammany publicly
charged him with attempting "to establish in his person a pernicious
family aristocracy;" with making complete devotion "the exclusive test
of merit and the only passport to promotion;" and with excluding
himself from the Republican party by "opposing the election of
President Madison." There was much truth in some of these charges.
Clinton had quarrelled with Aaron Burr; he had overthrown Morgan
Lewis; and he was ready to defeat Daniel D. Tompkins. Even Cheetham
had left him some months before his death, and Richard Riker, who
acted as second in the duel with John Swartout, was soon to ignore the
chilly Mayor when he passed. The estrangement of these friends is
pathetic, yet one gets no melancholy accounts of Clinton's troubles.
The great clamour of Tammany brought no darkening clouds into his
life. He was soon to learn that Tammany, heretofore an object of
contempt, was now a force to be reckoned with, but he did not show any
qualms of uneasiness even if he felt them.

Tammany bolted Clinton's nomination, selecting for its candidate
Marinus Willett, its most available member, and most brilliant
historic character. Before and during the Revolution, Willett did much
to make him a popular hero. He served the inefficient Abercrombie in
his unsuccessful attack on Ticonderoga in 1758; he was with the
resolute Bradstreet at the brilliant charge of Fort Frontenac; he led
the historic sortie at Fort Schuyler on the 7th of August, 1777. Men
were still living who saw his furious assault upon the camp of
Johnson's Greens, so sudden and sharp that the baronet himself, before
joining 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 and
the personal baggage of Barry St. Leger. The tale was strange enough
to seem incredible to minds more sober than those of the Tammany
braves, who listened with pride to the achievements of their sachem.
With two hundred and fifty men and an iron three-pounder, Willett had
fallen so unexpectedly upon the English and Indians, that the advance
guard, panic-stricken, suddenly disappeared--officers, men, and
savages--leaving twenty-one wagon loads of rich spoil. This heroic
deed was a part of Willett's stock in trade, and, although he was
wobbly in his politics, the people could not forget his courage and
good judgment in war. But Willett's influence was confined to the
wards of a city. The rural counties believed in New York's mayor
rather 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 popular
candidacy of Nicholas Fish; but, in spite of Tammany, he was able to
go to Albany, and to begin work upon a scheme which, until then, had
been only a dream. It was to be a gigantic struggle. Lewis and the
Livingstons opposed him, Tammany detested him, Tompkins was jealous of
him, Spencer deserted him; but he had shown he knew how to wait; and
when 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 incorporate
banks in New York were characterised by such an utter disregard of
moral methods, that the period was long remembered as a black spot in
the history of the State. Under the lead of Hamilton, Congress
incorporated the United States Bank in 1791; and, inspired by his
broad financial views, the Legislature chartered the Bank of New York
in the same year, the Bank of Albany in 1792, and the Bank of
Columbia, located at Hudson, in 1793. These institutions soon fell
under the management of Federalists, who believed in banks and were
ready to aid in their establishment, so long as they remained under
Federalist control.

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

In his partisan zeal Burr began the practice of deception. The
Republicans needed a bank. The only one in New York City was
controlled by the Federalists, who also controlled the Legislature,
and the necessities of the rising party, if not his own financial
needs, appealed to Burr's clever management. Under the cover of
chartering a company to supply pure water, and thus avoid a return of
the yellow fever which had so recently devastated the city, he asked
authority to charter the Manhattan Company, with a capital of two
million dollars, provided "the surplus capital might be employed in
any way not inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of the United
States and of the State of New York." The people remembered the
terrible yellow fever scourge, and the Legislature considered only the
question of relieving the danger with pure and wholesome water; and,
although the large capitalisation aroused suspicion in the Senate, and
Chief Justice Lansing called it "a novel experiment,"[157] the bill
passed. Thus the Manhattan Bank came into existence, while wells,
brackish and unwholesome, continued the only sufficient source of
water supply.

[Footnote 157: "This, in the opinion of the Council, as a novel
experiment, the result whereof, as to its influence on the community,
must be merely speculative and uncertain, peculiarly requires the
application of the policy which has heretofore uniformly
obtained--that the powers of corporations relative to their money
operations, should be of limited instead of perpetual duration."--Alfred
B. 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 the
opposition of their own party, obtained a charter for the State Bank,
by selling stock to Republican members of the Legislature, with an
assurance that it could be resold at a premium as soon as the
institution had an existence. There was a ring of money in this
proposition. Such an investment meant a gift of ten or twenty dollars
on each share, and immediately members clamoured, intrigued, and
battled for stock. The very boldness of the proposition seemed to save
it from criticism. Nothing was covered up. To put the stock at a
premium 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 in
broad daylight without a challenge. At the present time a legislator
could not carry a district in New York if it were known that his vote
had been secured by such ill-gotten gains. Yet the methods of the
Republican promoters of the State Bank seem not to have brought a
blush to the cheek of the youngest legislator. No one of prominence
took exception to it save Abraham Van Vechten, and he was less
concerned about the immorality of the thing than the competition to be
arrayed against the Federalist bank in Albany. Even Erastus Root, then
just entering his first term in Congress, saw nothing in the
transaction to shock society's sense of propriety or to break the
loftiest code of morality. "There was nothing of mystery in the
passage of the bank," he wrote. "The projectors sought to push it
forward by spreading the stock among the influential Republicans of
the State, including members of the Legislature, and carry it through
as a party measure. It was argued by the managers of the scheme that
the stock would be above par in order to induce the members of the
Legislature to go into the measure, but nothing in the transaction had
the least semblance of a corrupt influence. No one would hesitate from
motives of delicacy, to offer a member, nor for him to take, shares in
a 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 such
a monstrous doctrine. His life had been pure and noble. He was a
sincere lover of his country; a statesman of high purpose, and of the
most commanding talents. No one ever accused him of any share in this
financial corruption. Yet a more Machiavellian opinion could not have
been uttered. On principle, Republican members of the Legislature
opposed banks, and that principle was overcome by profits; in other
words, members must be bought, or the charter would fail. That the
stock did go above par is evident from Root's keen desire to get some
of it. As an influential Republican, he was allowed to subscribe for
fifty 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 nothing
for outsiders. Subsequently the directors sent Root a certificate for
eight shares, and John Lamb, an assemblyman from Root's home, gave up
eight more; but the Delaware congressman, angry because deprived of
his fifty shares, refused to accept any. "I had come prepared to take
the fifty," he wrote, "and in a fit of more spunk than wisdom, I
rejected 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 the
Merchants' Bank of New York City. But the Legislature, largely
Republican, was led by DeWitt Clinton, now at the zenith of his power,
who resented its establishment because it must become a competitor of
the Manhattan, an institution that furnished him fat dividends and
large influence. Clinton had undoubtedly acquired a reputation for
love of gain as well as of power, but he had never been charged, like
John Taylor, with avarice. He spent with a lavish hand, he loaned
liberally to friends, and he borrowed as if the day of payment was
never to come; yet he had no disposition to help opponents of a bank
that must cripple his control and diminish his profits. In this
contest, too, he had the active support of Ambrose Spencer, who fought
the proposed charter in the double capacity of a stockholder in the
Manhattan and the State, and a member of the Council of Revision.
Three banks, with five millions of capital and authority to issue
notes and create debts for fifteen millions more, he argued, were
enough for one city. He had something to say also about "an alarming
decrease 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 Spencer
in their opposition. But Lewis would not play second fiddle in any
game with Clinton, and so when he discovered that Clinton opposed the
bank, he yielded party principle to personal prejudice and favoured
it. 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 large
rewards and rich benefits. As a statesman, Purdy seems to have been
without any guiding principle, or any principle at all. He toiled and
pushed and climbed, until he had landed in the Senate; then he pulled
and bargained and promised until he became a member of the Council of
Appointment, and, later, chairman of the legislative caucus that
nominated Chancellor Lansing for governor; but not until the
Merchants' Bank wanted a charter did Purdy find an opportunity to
develop those aldermanic qualifications which distinguish him in
history. He was getting on very well until he had the misfortune to
confide his secret to Stephen Thorn, a senator from the eastern
district, and Obadiah German, the well-known assemblyman from
Chenango, whose views were not as liberal as Erastus Root's. "No one
would hesitate, from motives of delicacy, to offer a member shares in
a bank," said Root. This was Purdy's view also; but Thorn and German
thought such an offer had the "semblance of a corrupt influence," and
they made affidavits that Purdy had attempted to corrupt their votes.
According to these affidavits the Senator promised German fifty shares
of stock, with a profit of twenty dollars a share, and Thorn thirty
shares, with a profit of twenty-five dollars a share. Similar
affidavits were made by other members.

Erastus Root took exception to such transactions. "The Merchants' Bank
in 1805," he says, "had powerful opposition to encounter, and, of
course, made use of powerful means to accomplish the object. Then the
shares and the assurance became down-right corruption."[161] But it is
not easy to observe the difference between the methods of the State
Bank managers, which Root affirms "had not the least semblance of a
corrupt influence," and those of the Merchants' Bank, which he
pronounces "down-right corruption," except that the one was open
bribery and the other secret bribery. In either case, votes were
obtained by the promise of profits. It is likely the methods of the
Merchants' 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 its
charter. This aroused the public conscience, and in the following
winter the Legislature provided suitable punishment for the crime of
bribery.

[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 suggest
another bank. Then the Federalists sought a charter for the Bank of
America, with a capital of six millions, to be located in New York
City. The applicants proposed to pay the school fund four hundred
thousand dollars, the literature fund one hundred thousand, and the
State one hundred thousand, provided no other bank be chartered for
twenty years. In addition to this extravagant bonus, its managers
agreed to loan the State one million dollars at five per cent. for the
construction of canals, and one million to farmers at six per cent.
for the improvement of their real estate. This bold and liberal
proposal recalls John Law's South Sea Bubble of the century before;
for, although the Bank of America sought no monopoly and promised the
payment of no national debt, it did seem to be aiming its flight above
the clouds, since, counting the Manhattan at two, the united capital
of the banks of the State did not exceed five millions. The promoters,
anticipating an outcry against the incorporation of such a gigantic
institution, employed David Thomas of Washington and Solomon Southwick
of Albany to visit members of the Legislature at their homes with the
hope of enlisting their active support.

It is doubtful if two men better equipped to supply the necessary
legislative majority could have been found in the State. Both were
stalwart Republicans, possessing the confidence of DeWitt Clinton and
an extensive acquaintance among local party managers. Thomas had
caution and rare sagacity. Indeed, his service of four years in the
Legislature and eight years in Congress had added to his political
gifts such shrewdness and craft that he did not scruple, on occasion,
to postpone or hasten an event, even though such arrangement was made
at the expense of some one else. This characteristic had manifested
itself in the removal of Abraham G. Lansing as treasurer of state. The
Chancellor's brother, by long service, had won the confidence of the
people as a keeper of the State's money, and, although his family had
followed the fortunes of Governor Lewis, it did not occur to the
Legislature to dispossess him of his office until David Thomas wanted
a position. Then, the silent, crafty Washingtonian developed so
artfully the iniquity of Lansing's political perfidy that he succeeded
in obtaining the office for himself. It was because of this
craftiness, this unscrupulous use of every weapon of political
warfare, 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 caution
of Thomas, but nature had given him the appearance and manners which
well fitted him for the task of attracting those who came within the
range of his influence. He was singularly handsome and graceful. No
stranger came near him without feeling an instant desire to know him.
He was all the more attractive because there seemed to be nothing
artificial or made up about him. He had his intimates, but with an
unstudied and informal dignity, he was hail-fellow with every one,
keeping none at a distance, and concealing his real feelings behind no
mask of conventionalism. It was said of him at this time that he knew
more men personally than any other citizen in the State. He had been
four times elected clerk of the Assembly, he had served as sheriff of
his county, and he was now sole editor and proprietor of the Albany
_Register_, the leading and most influential Republican paper. To
ability as a writer he also added eloquence of speech. Southwick could
not be called a great orator, but he had grace, wit, imagination, and
a beauty of style that appealed to the hearts and sympathies of his
hearers. In the conduct of his business affairs, nobody could be more
careful, more methodical, more precise. Indeed, we may take it for
granted, without any biographical information on the subject, that in
1811 Solomon Southwick was on the road to the highest honours in the
gift of his State.

But his connection with the Bank of America covered him with suspicion
from which he never entirely recovered. It must have occurred to him,
when accepting the bank's retainer, that his opposition to the
Merchants' Bank would be recalled to the injury of his consistency. In
1805, he had boldly declared in the _Register_ that any Republican who
voted for a Federalist bank was justly censurable; in 1812, he so far
changed his mind as to hold that any one "who supports or opposes a
bank upon the grounds of Federalism or Republicanism, is either
deceiver or deceived, and will not be listened to by any man of sense
or experience." A little later in the contest, when partisan fury and
public corruption were the opposing forces, several sub-agents of the
bank were indicted for bribery, among them a former clergyman who was
sent to the penitentiary. Then it was whispered that David Thomas,
following the example of Purdy in 1805, had scattered his
purchase-money everywhere, sowing with the sack and not with the hand.
Finally, Casper M. Rouse, a senator from Chenango, accused Thomas of
offering him ten shares of stock, with a profit of one thousand
dollars, adding that Thomas had told him to call upon Southwick in
Albany. Southwick had evidently fallen into bad company, and, although
Rouse disclaimed having seen the Albany journalist, a week or two
later Alexander Sheldon, speaker of the Assembly, made a charge
against Southwick similar to Rouse's accusation against Thomas. Both
men were indicted, but the jury preferred accepting the denial of the
defendants, since it appeared that Rouse and Sheldon, instead of
treating the accused as bribers and men unworthy of confidence, had
maintained their former relations with them, subsequently voting for
Thomas for treasurer of state, and for Southwick as regent of the
State University. As positive proof of bribery was limited in each
case to the prosecuting witness, we may very well accept the
defendants' repeated declarations of their own integrity and
uprightness, although the conditions surrounding them were too
peculiar not to leave a stigma upon their memory.

These charges of crime, added to the bank's possession of a solid
majority in both branches of the Legislature, aroused the opposition
into a storm of indignation and resentment. Governor Tompkins had
anticipated its coming, and in a long, laboured message, warned
members 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 the
injury of other creditors, tend to the subversion of government by
vesting in the hands of the wealthy and aristocratic classes powerful
engines to corrupt and subdue republican notions, relieve the wealthy
stockholder 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 hollow
pretences" of applicants, insisting that the gratification of
politicians ought not to govern them, nor the "selfish and
demoralising distribution of the stock." "Nor ought we to be
unmindful," he continued, "that the prominent men who seek the
incorporation of new banks, are the very same men who have deeply
participated in the original stock of most of the previously
established banks. Having disposed of that stock at a lucrative
advance, and their avidity being sharpened by repeated gratification,
they become more importunate and vehement in every fresh attempt to
obtain an opportunity of renewing their speculations." As if this were
not reason enough, he exhorted them not to be deceived by the apparent
unanimity of sentiment about the capital, since it "is no real
indication of the sentiments of the community at large," but so to
legislate as "to retain and confirm public confidence, not only in the
wisdom, but also in the unbending independence and unsullied integrity
of the Legislature."[162]

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

The Governor's arguments were supplemented by others from Ambrose
Spencer, whose bank holdings seemed more likely than ever to suffer if
this gigantic combination succeeded. Spencer's opposition to the
Merchants' Bank in 1805 had been earnest, but now his whole soul was
aflame. To counteract the influence of Southwick's _Register_, he
established the Albany _Republican_, which ceased to exist at the end
of the campaign, but which, during its brief life, struck at every
head that favoured the bank. Its editorials, following the line of his
objections in the Council of Revision, lifted into prominence the
injurious effect likely to flow from such an alarming extension of
banking capital at a time when foreign commerce was stagnant, and when
the American nation was on the eve of a war in defence of its
commercial rights. This was mixed with a stronger personal refrain,
discovering the danger to his bank-holdings and revealing the
intensity of a nature not yet inured to defeat. A bank controlling
three times as much capital as any other, he argued, with unlimited
power to establish branches throughout the State, must be a constant
menace to minor institutions, which were established under the
confidence of governmental protection and upon the legislative faith
that no further act should impair or destroy their security. "A power
thus unlimited," he declared, "may be exercised not only to prejudice
the interests, but to control the operations, destroy the
independence, and impair the security of every bank north of the city
of New York. A bill thus improvisory and alarming, giving undefined
and unnecessary powers, and leaving the execution of those powers to a
few individuals, would materially weaken the confidence of the
community 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 stock
in the State Bank, of which he was president, made his opposition more
conspicuous 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 the
Senate with the grace of a younger man, his tall, spare form bending
like a wind-swept tree as he reasoned and coaxed. In the same group of
zealous opponents belonged Erastus Root, who had just entered the
Senate, and whose speech against the Bank of America was distinguished
for its suppressed passion and its stern severity. He had waked up, at
last, to the scandalous barter in bank charters.

There was, however, one Republican in Albany whose course excited more
serious censure than was meted out to all others. At a moment when the
methods of bank managers aroused the most bitter hostility of his
closest political allies, DeWitt Clinton became conspicuous by his
silence. At heart he opposed the Bank of America as bitterly as
Ambrose Spencer and for the same reasons; nor did he recognise any
difference in the conditions surrounding it and those which existed in
1805 when he drove Ebenezer Purdy from the Senate; but, consumed with
a desire to get a legislative indorsement for President, before
Madison secured a congressional nomination, he refused to take sides,
since the bank people, who dominated the Legislature, refused such an
indorsement until the passage of their charter. In vain did Spencer
threaten and Taylor plead. He would vote, Clinton said, against the
bank if opportunity presented, but he would not be drawn into the
bitter contest; he would not denounce Southwick; he would not judge
Thomas; he would not even venture to criticise the bank. For fourteen
years Clinton and Spencer had been fast political friends; but now,
at the supreme moment of Clinton's ambition, these brothers-in-law
were to fall under the guidance of different stars.

Governor Tompkins, whose desire to enter the White House no longer
veiled itself as a secret, understood the purpose and importance of
Clinton's silence, and to give President Madison an advantage, he used
a prerogative, only once exercised under the Constitution of 1777, to
prorogue the Legislature for sixty days. Ostensibly he did it to
defeat the bank; in reality he desired the defeat of Clinton. It is
not easy to appreciate the wild excitement that followed the
Governor's act. It recalled the days of the provincial governors, when
England's hand rested heavily upon the liberties of the people; and
the friends of the bank joined in bitter denunciation of such a
despotic use of power. Meantime, a congressional caucus renominated
Madison. But whatever the forced adjournment did for Clinton, it in no
wise injured the bank, which was chartered as soon as the Legislature
reassembled on May 21.

While the Bank of America was engrossing the attention of the
Legislature and the nomination of a presidential candidate convulsed
Congress, George Clinton closed his distinguished career at Washington
on the 20th of April, 1812. If he left behind him a memory of long
service which had been lived to his own advantage, it was by no means
lived to the disadvantage of his country or his State. He did much for
both. Perhaps he was better fitted for an instrument of revolution
than a governor of peace, but the influence which he exercised upon
his time was prodigious. In the two great events of his life--the
revolt of the Colonies and the adoption of a Federal Constitution--he
undoubtedly swayed the minds of his countrymen to a degree unequalled
among those contemporaries who favoured independence and state
supremacy. He lacked the genius of Hamilton, the scholarly, refined
integrity of Jay, and the statesmanship of both; but he was by odds
the 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 progress
which encouraged them to work out a national existence, broad enough
and strong enough to satisfy the ambition of a great nation a century
after its birth; Clinton was satisfied to conserve what he had,
unmoved by the great possibilities even then indistinctly outlined to
the eye of the statesman whose vision was fixed intently upon an
undivided America. But Clinton wisely conserved what was given to his
keeping. As he grew older he grew more tolerant and humane,
substituting imprisonment for the death penalty, and recommending a
complete revision of the criminal laws. His administration, too, saw
the earliest attempts made in a systematic way toward the spread of
education among the multitudes, his message to the Legislature of 1795
urging a generous appropriation to common schools. This was the first
suggestion of state aid. Colleges and seminaries had been remembered,
but schools for the common people waited until Clinton had been
governor for eighteen years.




CHAPTER XVIII

CLINTON AND THE PRESIDENCY

1812


For many years DeWitt Clinton had had aspirations to become a
candidate for President. He entered the United States Senate in 1802
with such an ambition; he became mayor of New York in 1803 with this
end in view; he sought the lieutenant-governorship in 1811 for no
other purpose; and, although he had never taken a managing step in
that direction, looking cautiously into the future, he saw his way and
only waited for the passing of the Vice President. DeWitt Clinton,
whatever his defects of character and however lacking he may have been
in an exalted sense of political principle, appears to have been
sincere in his anxiety to elevate his uncle to the presidential chair.
During Jefferson's administration his efforts seem never to have been
intermitted, and only when the infirmities of advanced age admonished
him that George Clinton's life and career were nearly at an end, did
his mind and heart, acquiescing in the appropriation of his relative's
mantle, seize the first opportunity of satisfying his unbounded
ambition.

The opening presented in the spring of 1812 was not an unattractive
one. A new party, controlled by a remarkable coterie of brilliant
young men from the South, whose shibboleth was war with England, had
sprung up in Congress, and, by sheer force of will and intellect, had
dragged to the support of its policies the larger part of the
Republican majority.[164] President Madison was thoroughly in
sympathy with these members. He thought war should be declared before
Congress adjourned, and, to hasten its coming, he had recommended an
embargo for sixty days. "For my own part," he wrote Jefferson, "I look
upon a short embargo as a step to immediate war, and I wait only for
the Senate to make the declaration."[165] This did not sound like a
peace voice; yet the anti-English party felt little cordiality for
him. His abilities, as the event amply proved, were not those likely
to wage a successful war. He was regarded as a timid man, incapable of
a burst of passion or a bold act. In place of resolute opinion he
courted argument; with an inclination to be peevish and fretful, he
was at times arrogantly pertinacious. Although his health, moreover,
was delicate and he looked worn and feeble, he exhibited no
consciousness of needing support, declining to reconstruct his Cabinet
that abler men might lend the assistance his own lack of energy
demanded. As time went on Republicans would gladly have exchanged him
for a stronger leader, one better fitted by character and temperament
to select the men and find a way for a speedy victory. It was no less
plain that the conservatives thoroughly disliked him, and if they
could have wrought a change without disrupting the party, it would
have suited their spirit and temper to have openly opposed his
renomination.

[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 the
Delaware. 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 with
confidence to his well known character for firmness and nerve. Of
Clinton, it may be justly said, that he seems most attractive, not as
a politician, not as a mayor solicitous for the good government of a
growing city, not as a successful promoter of the canal, but as a
rugged, inflexible, determined, self-willed personality. Perhaps not
many loved him, or longed for his companionship, or had any feeling of
tenderness for him; yet, in spite of his manners or want of manners,
there was a fascination about the man that often disarmed censure and
turned the critic into a devotee. At this time he undoubtedly stood at
the head of his party in the North. He was still young, having just
entered his forties, still ambitious to shine as a statesman of the
first magnitude. An extraordinary power of application had equipped
him with the varied information that would make him an authority in
the national life. Even his enemies admitted his capacity as a great
executive. He had sometimes been compelled, for the sake of his own
career, to regulate his course by a disregard of party creed,
especially at a time when the principles of Republicanism were
somewhat undefined in their character; but amid all the doubts and
distractions of a checkered, eventful political career he was known
for his absolute integrity, his clear head, and his steady nerve. His
very pride made it impossible for him to condescend to any violation
of a promise.

Clinton's New York party friends naturally desired a legislative
indorsement for him before Congress could act. But Governor Tompkins'
sudden adjournment of the Legislature had stripped him of that
advantage, and three days before the houses reassembled, on May 18,
Madison was renominated by a congressional caucus, seventeen senators
and sixty-six representatives, including three from New York, taking
part in its proceedings. Eleven days later, ninety out of ninety-five
Republican members of the New York Legislature voted in caucus to
support Clinton.[166] If the Madison caucus doubted the wisdom of its
action, the Clinton caucus was no less uncertain of the expediency of
its decision. Governor Tompkins opposed it; the Livingstons assailed
it; the Martling Men, led by Sanford and Lewis, refused to attend;
Ambrose Spencer and John Taylor went into it because they were
driven; and Erastus Root, in maintaining that Clinton could not, and
as a Federal candidate ought not, to succeed, clearly voiced the
sentiment of a large minority. In short, the most prominent men in the
State opposed the nomination, knowing that Republicans outside of New
York could not support it because of its irregularity.

[Footnote 166: "This unusual unanimity among the New York Republicans
pointed to a growing jealousy of Virginia, which threatened to end in
revival of the old alliance between New York and New England."--Henry
Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 6, p. 215. "George
Clinton, who had yielded unwillingly to Jefferson, held Madison in
contempt."--_Ibid._, Vol. 4, p. 227.]

But, at the supreme moment, events greatly favoured Clinton. Pierre
Van Cortlandt, Obadiah German, and other members of Congress appeared
upon the scene, bringing the story of Madison's unpopularity and
bearing letters from Gideon Granger, the postmaster-general, urging
the support of Clinton. Granger belonged to Connecticut, and, except
William Eustis, about to retire as an inefficient secretary of war,
was the only cabinet officer from a northern State. He knew that not a
dozen northern members of Congress sincerely favoured war, and that
not a man in the party save Madison himself, sincerely favoured the
President's renomination; but he also knew that the South had
determined to force the issue; and so in a powerful document he
demanded the nomination of a man who, when conflict came, could
shorten it by a vigorous administration. This appeal lifted the
Clinton movement above the level of an ordinary state nomination.

On the day of his selection, DeWitt Clinton believed his chances more
than even. Though the declaration of war had popularised Madison in
the South and West, and, in a measure, solidified the Republicans in
the North, the young aspirant still counted on a majority of
malcontents and Federalists. The best obtainable information indicated
that three Republicans in Massachusetts would unite with the
Federalists in choosing Clinton electors; that the rest of New England
would act with Massachusetts; and that Clinton would also obtain
support in Maryland, Ohio, North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, and,
possibly, Virginia. "If Pennsylvania should be combined," Clinton said
to Gouverneur Morris, "I would come out all right." As late, too, as
the middle of September, Rufus King ventured the opinion to
Christopher Gore that while North Carolina was still uncertain,
Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland would probably become Clintonian,
although Pennsylvania and Vermont would be "democratic and
Madisonian."

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

[Footnote 167: "No canvass for the Presidency was ever less creditable
than that of DeWitt Clinton in 1812. Seeking war votes for the reason
that he favoured more vigorous prosecution of the war; asking support
from peace Republicans because Madison had plunged the country into
war without preparation; bargaining for Federalist votes as the price
of bringing about a peace; or coquetting with all parties in the
atmosphere of bribery in bank charters--Clinton strove to make up a
majority which had no element of union but himself and money."--Henry
Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 6, p. 410.]

In opening the interview, Morris simply read the resolutions prepared
for a peace meeting. "Then Clinton observed," says Rufus King, "that
he did not differ from us in opinions respecting public affairs, and
that 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 against
England leading some of them to approve the war--time was necessary to
bring them to one opinion. Disastrous events had already happened, and
owing to the incapacity of the national administration still further
misfortunes would occur, and would serve to produce an union of
opinion respecting the war; that for these reasons the proposed peace
meeting should be deferred four or five weeks; in the interim he would
confer with his friends for the purpose of bringing about a common
opinion, 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's
incapacity made it impossible for him longer to continue his party
relation; and he pledged his honour that the breach between them was
irreparable. Yet, on account of his friends as well as his own
account, he said, he deemed it expedient to avoid publicity on the
subject. He spoke of Spencer with bitterness, styling him "his
creature," whom Armstrong governed, and who, in turn, influenced
Tompkins and John Taylor. "Armstrong," he repeated, "while engaged in
measures to procure a peace meeting in Dutchess County over which he
had promised to preside, had been bought off by the miserable
commission of a brigadier-general."[169]

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

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

This resolution was largely due to the eloquence of Harrison Gray
Otis. He urged that the defeat of Madison would speedily lead to a
peace, for which the door stood open in the repeal of the Orders in
Council. Rufus King insisted that the name all had in mind be given in
the resolution; although, he admitted, no one knew whether Clinton
would pursue a policy different from Madison's. No man in the country,
he said, was more equivocal in his character. He had disapproved the
embargo and then receded from his opinion; and, to restore himself to
the confidence of his party, he had published a tirade against the
Federalists. "If we succeed in promoting his election," thundered the
orator, "I fear we may place in the chair a Cæsar Borgia instead of a
James Madison."[170] These were bitter words, recalling Hamilton's
famous criticism of Aaron Burr, but they were spoken without the
wealth of Hamilton's experience to support them. That Clinton would
sacrifice his own interests and his own ambition for the sake of any
political cause no one could believe; that he had played fast and
loose for a time with the great question of embargo was too well known
to be denied; but that anything had occurred in his public career to
justify Rufus King's simile, his worst enemies could not seriously
credit. Even Christopher Gore was compelled to admit that the Federal
leaders of Massachusetts "are favourably impressed with the character
and views of Clinton. Indeed, since last spring I have scarcely heard
any one speak of him but extolled the excellence of his moral
character and the purity of his present political views."[171] To this
King simply replied: "I stated my sentiments to the meeting, a great
majority 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 a
political organiser. Opposing him, he had the whole power of state and
national administrations, and the most prominent men of the party, led
by Erastus Root. Besides, a new Legislature, elected in the preceding
April, had a Republican majority on joint ballot divided between
Clintonians and Madisonians; and, still further to perplex the
situation, twenty Republican assemblymen absolutely refused to vote
unless Madison were given a fair division of the electors. This meant
the surrender of one elector out of three, an arrangement to which
Clinton 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 crisis
brought with it the man demanded. During recent years a new and very
remarkable figure in political life had been coming to the front.
Martin Van Buren, afterward President of the United States, was
establishing his claim to the position of commanding influence he was
destined to hold during the next three decades. His father, an
innkeeper in the village of Kinderhook, gave him a chance to learn a
little English at the common schools, and a little Latin at the
academy. At the age of fourteen, he began sweeping an office and
running errands for a country attorney, who taught him the law. Then
he went to New York City to finish his education in the office of
William P. Van Ness, an old Columbia County neighbour, at that time
making his brilliant and bitter attack as "Aristides" upon the
Clintons and the Livingstons. A year later, in 1803, Van Buren
celebrated his twenty-first birthday by forming a partnership in
Kinderhook with a half-brother, James J. Van Alen, already established
in the practice. In 1808, he became surrogate; and when the
Legislature convened in November, 1812, he took a seat in the Senate,
the youngest man save one, it is said, until then elected to that
body.

Martin Van Buren had shown unusual sagacity as a politician. Born
under conditions which might have disheartened one of different mould,
bred in a county given up to Federalism, and taught in the law for six
years by an uncompromising follower of Hamilton, he nevertheless held
steadfastly to the Jeffersonian faith of his father. Nor would he be
moved in his fealty to the Clintons, although Van Ness, his
distinguished law preceptor, worshipped Burr and hated his enemies. As
a very young man, Van Buren was able to see that the principles of
Republicanism had established themselves in the minds of the great
majority of the people interested in political life, and if he had
been persuaded that Aaron Burr and his Federalist allies were to be
restored to power in 1804, he was far too shrewd to be tempted by the
prospects of such a coalition. He had also shown, from his first
entrance into politics, a remarkable capacity for organisation. He had
courage, a social and cheerful temper, engaging manners, and
extraordinary application. He also had the happy faculty of guiding
without seeming to dictate; he could show the way without pushing one
along the path. Finally, back of all, was the ability that soon made
him the peer of Elisha Williams, the ablest lawyer in a county famous
for its brilliant men, enabling him quickly to outgrow the
professional limitations of Kinderhook, and to extend his practice far
beyond the limits of the busy city of Hudson.

Martin Van Buren cannot be ranked as a great orator. He spoke too
rapidly, and he was wanting in imagination, without which eloquence of
the highest character is impossible. Besides, although his head was
well formed and his face singularly attractive, his small figure
placed him at a disadvantage. He possessed, however, a remarkable
command of language, and his graceful, persuasive manner, often
animated, sometimes thrilling, frequently impassioned, inspired
confidence in his sincerity, and easily classed him among the ablest
speakers. His best qualities consisted in his clearness of exposition,
his masterly array of forcible argument, his faculty for balancing
evidence, for acquiring and comparing facts, and for appreciating
tendencies.

When Van Buren entered the State Senate he was recognised as the
Republican leader of his section. A recent biographer says that his
skill in dealing with men was extraordinary, due no doubt to his
temper 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 to
any one who studied this phase of his character as if, in some early
moment of destiny, his whole nature had been bathed in a cool, clear,
and unruffled depth, from which it drew this lifelong serenity and
self-control."[173] Any intelligent observer of public life must have
felt that Martin Van Buren was only at the opening of a great
political career. Inferior to DeWitt Clinton in the endowments which
obtain for their possessor the title of a man of genius, he could,
though thirteen years younger, weigh the strength of conflicting
tendencies in the political world with an accuracy to which Clinton
could not pretend.

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

On reaching Albany, in November, 1812, Van Buren saw the electoral
situation at a glance; and naturally, almost insensibly, he became
Clinton's representative. He slipped into leadership as easily as
Bonaparte stepped into the history of Europe, when he seized the fatal
weakness in the well defended city of Toulon. Van Buren had approved
embargo, non-intercourse, and the war itself. The discontent growing
out of Jefferson's severe treatment of the difficulties caused by the
Orders in Council and the Berlin and Milan Decrees, seems never to
have shaken his confidence in Republican statesmanship, or aroused
the slightest animosity against the congressional caucus nominee for
President. But he accepted Clinton as the regular and practically the
unanimous nominee of the Republican members of a preceding
Legislature. Although Madison's nomination had come in the way then
accepted, he had a stronger sense of allegiance to the expressed will
of his party in the State. His adversaries, of whom he was soon to
have many, charged him with treachery to the President and to the
party. There came a time when it was asserted, and, apparently, with
some show of truth, that he had neither the courage nor the heart to
keep the side of his convictions boldly and finally; that he was
always thinking of personal interests, and trying to take the position
which promised the greatest advantage and the greatest security. We
shall have occasion, in the course of these pages, to study the basis
of such criticism. But, in the present crisis, had he not been
thoroughly sincere and single-hearted, he could easily have thrown in
his fortunes with the winning side; for at that time he must have had
little faith in the chances of Clinton's election. Vermont had been
given up, Pennsylvania was scarcely in doubt, and the South showed
unmistakable signs of voting solidly for Madison.[174]

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

Van Buren's work not only encouraged several Federalists to vote for
Clinton electors, but it compelled the Madisonians not to vote at all.
It seemed easy, when a master hand guided the helm, to bring order out
of chaos. Upon joint ballot, the Clintonian electors received
seventy-four votes to the Federalists' forty-five; twenty-eight blanks
represented the Madison strength. Van Buren, however, could not
control in other States. If some one in Pennsylvania, of equal tact in
the management of men, could have supplemented his work, Clinton must
easily 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 the
votes were counted, it appeared that Clinton had carried New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, 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 Clinton
had failed to foresee that there is something captivating to a
spirited people about the opening of a new war. He had also failed to
notice that military failures could not affect Madison's strength. The
surrender of Detroit, Dearborn's blunder in wasting time, and the
inefficiency of the secretary of war had raised a storm of public
wrath sufficient to annihilate Hull and to shake the earth under
Eustis; but it passed harmlessly over the head of the President. The
foreign policy of Jefferson and Madison, approved by the Republican
party, was on trial, and the defeat of the Administration meant a want
of confidence in the party itself. Here, then, was a contingency
against which Clinton had never thought of providing, and, as so often
happens, the one thing not taken into consideration, proved decisive
in the result.




CHAPTER XIX

QUARRELS AND RIVALRIES

1813


After Clinton's loss of the Presidency, it must have been clear to his
friends and enemies alike that his influence in the Republican party
was waning. A revolution in sentiment did not then sweep over the
State with anything like the swiftness and certainty of the present
era of cheap newspapers and rapid transit. Yet, in spite of his
genius, which concealed, and, for a time, checked the suddenness of
his fall, the rank and file of the party quickly understood what had
happened. Friends began falling away. For several months Ambrose
Spencer had openly and bitterly denounced him, and Governor Tompkins
took a decisive part in relieving his rival of the last hope of ever
again reckoning on the support of Republicans.

The feeling against Clinton was intensified by the common belief that
the election of Rufus King, as United States senator to succeed John
Smith, on March 4, 1813, paid the Federalists their price for choosing
Clinton electors. The Republicans had a majority on joint ballot, and
James W. Wilkin, a senator from the middle district, was placed in
nomination; but when the votes were counted King had sixty-four and
Wilkin sixty-one. It looked treacherous, and it suggested gross
ingratitude, since Wilkin had presided at the legislative caucus which
nominated Clinton for President; but, as we have seen, events had been
moving in different ways, events destined to produce a strange crop of
political results. In buying its charter, the Bank of America had
contracted to do many things, and the election of a United States
senator was not unlikely among its bargains. This theory seems the
more probable since Clinton, whom Rufus King had denounced as a
dangerous demagogue, would have preferred putting King into a position
of embarrassment more than into the United States Senate. Wilkin
himself so understood it, or, at least, he believed that the Bank, and
not Clinton, had contributed to his defeat, and he said so in a letter
afterward found among the Clinton papers.

Hostile Republicans were, however, now ready to believe Clinton guilty
of any act of turpitude or ingratitude; and so, on February 4, when a
legislative caucus renominated Daniel D. Tompkins for governor by
acclamation, Clinton received only sixteen votes for lieutenant-governor.
There is no evidence that Van Buren took part in Clinton's
humiliation; but it is certain he did not act with all the fairness
that might have been expected. He could well have said that Clinton
was no worse than the majority of his party who had nominated him;
that his aim, like theirs, was a vigorous prosecution of the war in
the interest of an early peace; that he had no intention of separating
himself from the Republican party, and that his renomination for
lieutenant-governor would reunite the party, making it more potent to
create and support war measures. But Van Buren himself was not beyond
danger. Tammany's mutterings and Spencer's violent denunciations
threatened to exclude others from the party, and to escape their
hostility, this rising young statesman found it convenient to drop
Clinton and shout for Tompkins. A less able and clear-headed man might
have gone wrong at this parting of the ways, just as did Obadiah
German and other friends of Clinton; but Van Buren never needed a
guide-post to point out to him the safest political road to travel.
The better to prove his party loyalty, he consented to draft the usual
grandiloquent address issued by the legislative caucus to Republican
electors, always a sophomoric appeal, but quite in accord with the
rhetoric of the time. If any doubt existed as to the orthodoxy of Van
Buren's Republicanism, this address must have dissipated it. It
sustained the general government by forcible argument, and it appealed
with fervid eloquence and deep pathos to the patriotism of the people
to continue their support of the party.

How great a part Clinton was yet to play in the history of his State
no one could foresee. Much speculation has been indulged by writers as
to the probable course of history had he been elected President, but
the mere fact that he was able to inspire so small a fraction of his
party with full faith in his leadership is decisive evidence that he
was not then the man of the hour. It is certain that his enemies
believed his political life had been brought to an ignoble close.
Clinton probably felt that he would have no difficulty in living down
the opprobrium put upon him by partisan hostility; and to prove that
he was still in the political arena, a little coterie of distinguished
friends, led by Obadiah German and Pierre Van Cortlandt, made a circle
about him. From this vantage ground he defied his enemies, attacking
Madison's conduct of the war with great severity, and protesting
against the support of Tompkins and Taylor as the mere tools of
Madison.

Clinton's usual good fortune also attended him. As we have seen, the
April elections in 1812 returned a Federalist Assembly, which selected
a Council of Appointment opposed to Clinton's removal from the
mayoralty. It displaced everybody else throughout the State.
Clintonians and Madisonians alike suffered, including the able and
distinguished Thomas Addis Emmet, an ardent friend of Clinton who had
been urged to accept the attorney-generalship after the death of
Matthias B. Hildreth in the preceding August. But Clinton had the
support of Jonas Platt, the leading member of the Council, and Platt
refused to permit his removal. Doubtless the latter hoped to fill up
the Federalist ranks with Clintonian recruits; and so with greater
confidence than usual the Federalists, when their turn came, nominated
Stephen Van Rensselaer for governor and George Huntington of Oneida
County for lieutenant-governor.

Aside from the result of the elections of the preceding November,
which had given Federalists twenty out of thirty congressmen, it is
difficult to understand upon what the party of Hamilton really based
its confidence. Before the campaign was a month old, it must have been
evident that the defeated candidate for President had as little
influence as Van Rensselaer, who, as a major-general of militia in
command at Fort Niagara, was a miserable failure. After shivering with
fear for sixty days lest Hull's fate overtake him, Van Rensselaer,
apparently in sheer desperation, had suddenly ordered a small part of
his force across the river to be shot and captured in the presence of
a 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 and
incompetent man with high pretensions." Jefferson thought Hull ought
to be "shot for cowardice" and Van Rensselaer "broke for
incapacity."[175]

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

But the Federalists, unmindful of the real seriousness of that
disaster, contested the election with unusual vehemence, until the
best informed men of both parties conceded their advantage. The
Government's incapacity was abundantly illustrated in the failure of
its armies and in the impoverished condition of its treasury, and if
the home conditions had been disturbed by distress, the confidence of
the Federalists must have been realised. The people of the State,
however, had seen and felt nothing of actual warfare. In spite of
embargoes and blockades, ample supplies of foreign goods had continued
to arrive; and, except along the Niagara frontier, occupied by a few
hundred scattered settlers, the farms produced their usual harvests
and the industries of life were not impaired. Under these conditions,
the voters of the country districts saw no reason for defeating a
governor whom they liked, for a man whose military service added
nothing to his credit or to the lustre of the State. So, when the
election storm subsided, it was found, to the bitter mortification of
the Federalists, that while the chief towns, New York, Hudson and
Albany, were strong in opposition, Tompkins and Taylor had triumphed
by 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. The
Assembly 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 of
those men not infrequently observed in public life, who, without
conspicuous ability, have a certain knack for the management of men,
and are able to acquire influence and even a certain degree of fame by
personal skill in manipulating patronage, smoothing away difficulties,
and making things easy. Nature had not only endowed him with a genius
for political diplomacy, but good fortune had favoured his march to
popularity by disassociating him with any circumstances of birth or
environment calculated to excite jealousy or to arouse the suspicion
of the people. He was neither rich nor highly connected. The people
knew him by the favourite title of the "farmer's boy," and he never
appeared to forget his humble beginnings. "He had the faculty," says
James Renwick, formerly of Columbia College, who knew him personally,
"of never forgetting the name or face of any person with whom he had
once conversed; of becoming acquainted and appearing to take an
interest in the concerns of their families; and of securing, by his
affability and amiable address, the good opinion of the female sex,
who, although possessed of no vote, often exercise a powerful indirect
influence." Thus, while still in the early prime of life, he had risen
to a position in the State which, even in the case of men with
superior intellectual endowments, is commonly the reward of maturer
years and longer experience.

From the moment Tompkins became governor in 1807 the strongest
ambition of his mind was success in the great game of politics; and,
although never a good hater, his capacity for friendship depended
upon whether the success of his own career was endangered by the
association. Having laid Clinton in the dust, his eye rested upon John
Armstrong, 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 first
he was a malcontent, grumbling at Madison, and condemning the conduct
of public affairs generally; but, after the declaration of war, he
supported the Administration, and, on July 6, 1812, to the surprise
and indignation of Clinton, he accepted a brigadiership, with command
of New York City and its defences. Then came the period of danger and
urgency following the surrender of Detroit, and Armstrong, on the 6th
of February, 1813, to the great embarrassment of Tompkins, obtained
quick promotion to the head of the war department.

There seems to have been no reason why Tompkins should have harboured
the feeling of rivalry toward Armstrong that he cherished for Clinton.
The former was simply a pretentious occupier of high places, without
real ability for great accomplishment. His little knowledge of the
theory and practice of war was learned on the staff of General Gates,
who, Bancroft says, "had no fitness for command and wanted personal
courage." It was while Armstrong was dwelling in the tent of this
political, intriguing adventurer, that he wrote the celebrated
"Newburgh Letters," stigmatised by Washington. These events, coupled
with his want of scruples and known capacity for intrigue and
indolence, made him an object of such distrust that the Senate, in
spite of his social and political connections, barely confirmed him.

Could Tompkins, looking two years into the future, have foreseen
Armstrong passing into disgraceful retirement after the capture of the
city of Washington, he might easily have dismissed all rivalry from
his mind; but just now the two men who seemed to stand most in his way
were Armstrong and Spencer. He thought Spencer in too close and
friendly alliance with Armstrong, and that Armstrong, whose strength
in the State greatly depended upon Spencer's influence, was the only
obstacle in his path to the White House. Thus there arose in his mind
a sentiment of rivalry for Armstrong, and a strong feeling of distrust
and dislike for Spencer. The latter, who now possessed little more
real liking for Tompkins than Clinton did, soon understood the
Governor's feeling toward him; and he also learned that Van Buren,
with an intellect for organisation and control far superior to
anything the Republicans of the State had heretofore known, had come
into the political game to stay.

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

Townsend had come into the Senate in 1810 as a Clinton Republican, but
his 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 and
Southwick, and whether or not the favours distributed by the Bank of
America actually became a part of his assets, the bank's opponents
took such violent exception to his vote that poor Townsend had little
to hope for from that faction of his party. It was commonly believed
at the time, therefore, that a desire to please Clinton and possibly
to gain the favour of Federalists in the event of their future
success, influenced him to support Platt, conditional on the retention
of Clinton. It is quite within the range of probability that some such
motive quickened his instinct for revenge and self-preservation,
although it led to an incident that must have caused Clinton keen
regret and mental anguish.

Townsend's Republican colleague in the Council was none other than
Morgan Lewis, who saw an opportunity of creating trouble by nominating
Richard Riker as an opposing candidate to Platt. Tompkins had
probably something to do with making this nomination--or, at all
events, with giving his friend Lewis the idea of bringing it forward
just then. Surely, they thought, Clinton would reverence Riker, who
acted as second in the Swartout duel and recently headed the committee
to promote his election to the Presidency. Clinton felt the sting of
his enemies. There was a time when Clinton had supported Tompkins
against Lewis; now Lewis, in supporting Tompkins against Clinton, was
thrusting the latter through with a two-edged knife; for if Townsend
voted for Riker, the Federalists would drop Clinton; if he voted for
Platt, Riker would drop him. In vain did Clinton wait for Riker to
suggest some avenue of escape. The plucky second wanted a judgeship
which meant years of good living, as much as Clinton wanted the
mayoralty that might be lost in another year. Clinton had not yet
drunk the dregs of the bitter cup. False friends and their unpaid
security debts were still to bankrupt him; but he had already seen
enough to know that the setting sun is not worshipped. Under these
circumstances his friendship for Riker was not strong enough to induce
him to throw away his last chance of holding the mayoralty and its fat
fees; and so when Townsend voted for Platt, Riker's affection for
Clinton turned to hate.




CHAPTER XX

A GREAT WAR GOVERNOR

1812-1815


The assumption of extraordinary responsibilities during the War of
1812, justly conferred upon Daniel D. Tompkins the title of a great
war governor. There is an essential difference between a war governor
and a governor in time of war. One is enthusiastic, resourceful, with
ability to organise victory by filling languishing patriotism with new
and noble inspiration--the other simply performs his duty, sometimes
respectably, sometimes only perfunctorily. George Clinton illustrated,
in his own person, the difference between a great war governor and a
governor in time of war. If he failed to win renown on the
battlefield, his ability to inspire the people with confidence, and to
bring glory out of threatened failure and success out of apparent
defeat, made him the greatest war governor the country had yet known.
Daniel D. Tompkins served his State no less acceptably. In the moment
of greatest discouragement he displayed a patriotic courage in
borrowing money without authority of law that made his Administration
famous.

Yet Tompkins' patriotism scarcely rose to that sublime height which
suffers its possessor unselfishly to advance a rival even for the
public welfare. There is no doubt of DeWitt Clinton's conspicuous
devotion to the interests of his country throughout the entire war. He
exceeded his power as mayor in inducing the Common Council to borrow
money on the credit of the city and loan it to the United States; at
the supreme moment of a great crisis, when the national treasury was
empty and a British fleet threatened destruction to the coast, an
impressive address which he drafted, accompanied by a subscription
paper which he headed, resulted in raising a fund of over one million
dollars for the city's defence. The genius of Clinton had never been
more nobly employed than in his efforts to sustain the war, winning
him universal esteem throughout the municipality for his patriotic
unselfishness and unlimited generosity. Tompkins must have known that
such 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 throw
up the cards because the chances of the game were going against him.
His was a fighting spirit, and his impulse was ever, like that of
Macbeth, to try to the last. But Tompkins could not fail to observe
the party's growing dislike for Clinton, and, much as he wanted
military success, he graciously declined Clinton's request, brought to
him by Thomas Addis Emmet, to be assigned to active service in the
field.

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

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

Dearborn submitted a plan of campaign, recommending that the main army
advance by way of Lake Champlain upon Montreal, while three corps of
militia should enter Canada from Detroit, Niagara and Sackett's
Harbour. This was as near as Dearborn ever came to a successful
invasion of Canada. War was declared on June 18, 1812, and July had
been frittered away before he left Albany. Meantime General Hull,
whose success depended largely upon Dearborn's vigorous support from
Niagara, having been a fortnight on British soil, now recrossed the
river and a few days later surrendered his army and Detroit to General
Brock. This tragic event aroused Dearborn sufficiently to send Stephen
Van Rensselaer to command the Niagara frontier, the feeble General
assuring the secretary of war that, as soon as the force at Lewiston
aggregated six thousand men, a forward movement should be made; but
Dearborn himself, with the largest force then under arms, took good
care to remain on Lake Champlain, clinging to its shores like a
barnacle, as if afraid of the fate visited upon the unfortunate Hull.
Finally, after two months of waiting, Van Rensselaer sent a thousand
men across the Niagara to Queenstown to be killed and captured within
sight of four thousand troops who refused to go to the help of their
comrades. Disgusted and defeated, Van Rensselaer turned over his
command to Brigadier-General Alexander Smith, a boastful Irish friend
of Madison from Virginia, who issued burlesque proclamations about an
invasion of Canada, and then declined to risk an engagement, although
he had three Americans to one Englishman. This closed the campaign of
1812.

With the hope of improving the military situation John Armstrong was
made secretary of war in place of William Eustis. Armstrong was never
a favourite. His association with Gates and his subsequent career in
France, made him an object of distrust. But, once in office, he picked
up the Eustis ravellings and announced a plan of campaign which
included an attack on Montreal from Lake Champlain; the destruction of
Kingston and York (Toronto) by the troops from Sackett's Harbour; and
the expulsion of the British from the Niagara frontier. The Kingston
part of the programme possessed genuine merit. Kingston commanded the
traffic of the St. Lawrence, between Upper and Lower Canada, and no
British force could maintain itself in Upper Canada without ready
communication with the lower province; but Dearborn decided to reverse
Armstrong's plan by taking York, afterward the Niagara frontier, and
then unite a victorious army against Kingston. Dearborn, to do him
justice, offered to resign, and Armstrong would gladly have gotten rid
of him, with Morgan Lewis and other incompetents. The President,
however, clung to the old men, making the spring and early summer
campaign 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, including
Pike, the best brigadier then in the service. But the British still
held Niagara; two brigade commanders had been sorely defeated; a third
had surrendered five hundred and forty men to a British lieutenant
with two hundred and sixty; and Sackett's Harbour, with its barracks
burned and navy-yard destroyed, had barely escaped capture, while
Kingston was unmolested and Dearborn totally incapacitated "with fever
and mortification."

It was now midsummer. Tompkins and a Republican Senate had been
re-elected, but the Federalists, whose policy was to obtain peace on
any terms, still held the Assembly. Just at this time, therefore,
success in the field would have been of immense value politically, and
as sickness had put Dearborn out of commission, it gave Armstrong an
opportunity of promoting Winfield Scott and Jacob Brown, both of whom
had shown unusual ability in spite of the shameless incapacity of
their seniors. The splendid fighting qualities of Jacob Brown had
saved Sackett's Harbour; and the brilliant pluck of Winfield Scott had
withstood a force three times his own until British bayonets pushed
him over the crest of Queenstown Heights. Armstrong, however, had a
liking for James Wilkinson. They had been companions in arms with
Gates at Saratoga, and, although no one knew better than Armstrong the
feebleness of Wilkinson's character, he assigned him to New York after
the 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 had
recently been several times court-martialled, once for being engaged
in a treasonable conspiracy with Spain, again as an accomplice of
Aaron Burr, and finally for corruption; and, although each time he had
been acquitted, his brother officers regarded him with suspicion and
contempt. Nevertheless, this man, fifty-six years of age, and broken
in health as well as character, was substituted for Dearborn and
ordered to take Kingston; and Wade Hampton, one year his senior,
without a war record, and not on speaking terms with Wilkinson, was
ordered to Plattsburg to take Montreal. Folly such as this could only
end in disaster. Whatever Armstrong suggested Wilkinson opposed, and
whatever Wilkinson advised Hampton resented; but Wilkinson so far
prevailed, that, before either expedition started, it was agreed to
abandon Kingston; and before either general had passed far beyond the
limits of the State, it was agreed to abandon Montreal, leaving the
generals and the secretary of war ample time to quarrel over their
responsibility for the failure. Wilkinson charged Hampton with
blasting the honour of the army, and both generals accused Armstrong
of purposely deserting them to shift the blame from himself. On the
other hand, Armstrong accepted Hampton's resignation, sneered at
Wilkinson 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 their
twelve thousand troops rested in winter quarters at French Mills and
Plattsburg--leaving the country between Detroit and Sackett's Harbour
with less than a regiment--the British were vigorously at work. They
pounced upon the Niagara frontier; reoccupied Fort George; carried
Fort Niagara with great slaughter; and burned Black Rock and Buffalo
in revenge for the destruction of Newark and Queenstown and the public
buildings at York. This ended the campaign of 1813.

On the high seas, however, the American navy, so small that England
had scarcely known of its existence, was redeeming the country from
the disgrace its generals had brought upon it. There are some battles
of that time, fought out in storm and darkness, which taught Americans
the real pleasures of war, and turned the names of vessels and their
brave commanders into household words; but not until Oliver H. Perry,
an energetic young officer, was ordered from Newport to the Niagara
frontier, in the spring of 1813, did conditions change from sacrifice
and disgrace to real success. Six vessels were at that time building
at Erie; and three smaller craft rested quietly in the navy-yard at
Black Rock. Perry's orders included the union of these fleets,
carrying fifty-four guns and five hundred men, and the destruction of
six British vessels, carrying sixty-three guns and four hundred and
fifty men. Six months of patient labour on both sides were required to
put the squadrons into fighting condition; but when, on the afternoon
of September 10, Perry had fought the fight to a finish, the British
squadron belonged to him. The War of 1812 would be memorable for this,
if it were for nothing else; and the indomitable Perry, whose stubborn
courage had wrested victory from what seemed inevitable defeat, is
enthroned among the proudest names of the great sea fighters of
history.

After Wilkinson, Morgan Lewis, and other incompetent generals had
retired in disgrace, Armstrong recognised the genius of Jacob Brown
and Winfield Scott. Brown was of Quaker parentage, a school teacher by
profession, and a farmer by occupation. After founding the town of
Brownsville, he had owned and lived on a large tract of land near
Sackett's Harbour, and for recreation he had commanded a militia
regiment. In 1811, Tompkins made him a brigadier, and when the contest
opened, he found his true mission. He knew nothing of the technique of
war. Laying out fortifications, policing camps, arranging with
calculating foresight for the far future, did not fall within his
knowledge; but for a fighter he must always rank in history with John
Paul Jones; and as a leader of men he had hardly a rival in those
days. Soldiers only wanted his word of command to undertake any
enterprise, no matter how hopeless. Winfield Scott, who understood
Brown's limitations, said there was nothing he could not do if he only
got a fair opportunity. Armstrong commissioned him a major-general in
place of Wilkinson, and assigned Scott to a brigade in his command.
These officers, full of zeal and vigor, infused new life into an army
that had been beaten and battered for two years. In twelve weeks,
during July, August, and September, the British met stubborn
resistance at Chippewa, Lundy's Lane, Fort Erie, and Black Rock, and a
repulse as disgraceful as it was complete at Plattsburg. But before
Brown could establish the new order of things along the whole Canadian
border, the British took Oswego, with its abundant commissary
supplies, and their navy inflicted a wound, in the destruction of the
_Chesapeake_ and the _Argus_, that turned the Perry huzzas into
suppressed lamentations.

Following this calamity, occurred the April elections of 1814. The
uncertain temper of the people gave Tompkins little to expect and much
to fear. He believed it had only needed a bold and spirited forward
movement to demonstrate that the United States was in a position to
dictate terms to England; but existing conditions indicated that
England would soon dictate terms to the United States. Tompkins may be
fairly excused, therefore, if he failed to discern in the struggle for
political supremacy the slightest indication of that victory so long
prayed for. Events, however, had been working silently--differently
than either Federalist or Republican guessed; and, to the utter
amazement of all, the war party swept the State, electing assemblymen
even in New York City, twenty out of thirty congressmen, and every
senator, save one. Under these circumstances Tompkins lost no time in
summoning, in September, an extra session of the newly elected
Legislature, which began turning out war measures like cloth from a
loom. It raised the pay of the militia above that of the regular army;
it encouraged privateering; it authorised the enlistment of twelve
thousand men for two years and two thousand slaves for three years; it
provided for a corps of twenty companies for coast defence; it assumed
the State's quota of direct tax, and it reimbursed Governor Tompkins
for personal expenditures incurred without authority of law. Some of
these measures were drastic, especially the conscription bill; but the
act showing the determination of the Republican party to fight the
war to a finish, was that allowing slaves to enlist with the consent
of their masters, and awarding them freedom when honourably mustered
out of service.

There was certainly much need for an active and vigorous Legislature
in the fall of 1814. Washington had been captured and burned;
Armstrong, threatened with removal, had resigned in disgrace; the
national treasury was empty; and every bank between New Orleans and
Albany had suspended specie payment, with their notes from twenty to
thirty per cent. below par. Although, in ten weeks, from July 3 to
September 11, the British had met a bloody and unparalleled check from
an 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 thousand
regular troops. On the other hand, Macomb had only fifteen hundred men
at Plattsburg, Brown less than two thousand at Fort Erie, and Izard
about four thousand at Buffalo.

To make bad matters worse, the New England Federalists were renewing
their talk of a dissolution of the Union. "We have been led by the
terms of the Constitution," said Governor Strong of Massachusetts,
addressing the Legislature on October 5, 1814, "to rely on the
government of the Union to provide for our defence. We have resigned
to that government the revenues of the State with the expectation that
this object would not be neglected. Let us, then, unite in such
measures for our safety as the times demand and the principles of
justice and the law of self-preservation will justify."[178] Answering
for the Legislature, which understood the Governor's words to be an
invitation to resume powers the State had given up when adopting the
Constitution, Harrison Gray Otis reported that "this people, being
ready and determined to defend themselves, have the greatest need of
those resources derivable from themselves which the national
government has hitherto thought proper to employ elsewhere. When this
deficiency becomes apparent, no reason can preclude the right of the
whole people who were parties to it, to adopt another."[179] The
report closed by recommending the appointment of delegates "to meet
and confer with delegates from the States of New England or any of
them," out of which grew the celebrated Hartford Convention that met
on the 15th of December. The report of this convention, made on the
24th of the same month, declared that a severance of the Union can be
justified only by absolute necessity; but, following the Virginia
resolution of 1798, it confirmed the right of a State to "interpose
its authority" for the protection of its citizens against
conscriptions and drafts, and for an arrangement with the general
government to retain "a reasonable portion" of the revenues to be used
in its own defence and in the defence of neighbouring States. In other
words, it favoured the establishment of a New England confederacy.
Thus, after ten years, the crisis had come which Pickering, the storm
petrel, desired to precipitate in the days when Hamilton declined to
listen 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 really
sympathised with their eastern brethren. Those who did, like
Gouverneur Morris, proclaimed their views in private and confidential
letters. "I care nothing more for your actings and doings," Morris
wrote Pickering, then in Congress. "Your decree of conscription and
your levy of contributions are alike indifferent to one whose eyes are
fixed on a star in the east, which he believes to be the dayspring of
freedom and glory. The traitors and madmen assembled at Hartford will,
I believe, if not too tame and timid, be hailed hereafter as the
patriots and sages of their day and generation."[180] Looking back on
the history of that portentous event, one is shocked to learn that men
like Morris could have sympathy with the principle sought to be
established; but if any leading New York Federalist disapproved the
convention'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 James
Lloyd, recently United States senator from Massachusetts. To John
Randolph's letter, remonstrating against the Hartford Convention,
Lloyd advised the Virginians to coerce Madison into retirement, and to
place Rufus King in the Presidency as the alternative to a fatal
issue. The assertion of such an alternative showed how desperate the
situation was believed by the moderate Federalists to be."--Henry
Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 8, p. 306.]

The violent methods of New England governors in withdrawing their
militia from the service of the United States, coupled with the action
of the New York Federalists in calling a state convention to determine
what course their party should pursue, were well calculated to arouse
Governor Tompkins, who welcomed the privilege of upholding the general
government. He did not minimise the gravity of the situation. Perhaps
he 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 a
patriotic Legislature and the nucleus of an invincible army under
trained leadership. But if the war had continued, and, as the
Washington authorities anticipated, the British had prevailed at New
Orleans, he would have found a New England confederacy to the east of
him as well as an army of English veterans on the north.

The conditions that faced Madison made peace his last hope. American
commissioners were already in Europe; but as month after month passed
without agreement, the darkest hour of the war seemed to have settled
upon the country. Suddenly, on the 4th of February, 1815, the
startling and glorious news of General Jackson's decisive victory at
New Orleans electrified the nation. A week later, a British sloop of
war sailed into New York harbour, announcing that the treaty of Ghent
had been signed on the 24th of the preceding December. Instantly
Madison's troubles disappeared. The war was over, the Hartford
commissioners were out of employment, and the happy phrase of Charles
J. Ingersoll of Pennsylvania became the popular summing up of the
treaty--"not an inch ceded or lost." Jackson's victory had not entered
into the peace negotiations; but intelligent men knew that the superb
fighting along the Canadian frontier during the campaign of 1814, had
had much to do in bringing about the result. Beginning with the battle
of Chippewa, where equal bodies of troops met face to face, in broad
daylight, on an open field, without advantage of position, the
American army faced British troops with the skill and desperate
courage that characterised the struggle between the North and the
South 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 never
been more nobly employed, and, although he was sometimes swayed by
prejudice and the impulses of his personal ambition, he did enough to
show 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 the
way for a Republican Council of Appointment, composed of Jonathan
Dayton, representing the southern district, Lucas Elmendorff the
middle, Ruggles Hubbard the eastern, and Ferrand Stranahan the
western. Elmendorff had been two years in the Assembly, six years in
Congress, and was now serving the first year of a single term in the
State Senate; but like his less experienced colleagues he was on the
Council simply to carry out the wishes of the leaders. It had been
three years since Republicans had tasted the sweets of office, and a
hungrier horde of applicants never besieged the capital. Yet so
dextrous had politicians become in making changes from one party to
the other, that the Council's work must have ended in a week had not
the jealousies, until now veiled by the war, quickly developed into a
conflict destined to reconcile Ambrose Spencer and DeWitt Clinton, and
to rivet the friendly relations between Governor Tompkins and Martin
Van Buren.

Van Buren desired to become attorney-general. He had been
conspicuously prominent almost from the day he entered the Senate;
and, after the Republicans recovered control of the Assembly, he was
the acknowledged legislative leader of his party. By his persuasive
eloquence, his gift of argument, and his political tact in obtaining
supporters, he secured the passage of a "classification bill" which
divided the military population of the State into twelve thousand
classes, each class being required to furnish one able-bodied soldier
by voluntary enlistment, by bounty, or by draft. "This act," declared
Thomas H. Benton, years afterward, "was the most energetic war measure
ever adopted in the country."[182] There appears to be a general
agreement among writers who have commented upon the character of Van
Buren and his work at this period of his career, that, next to the
Governor among civilians, Van Buren was most entitled to the gratitude
of his party and his State. Besides, his smooth and pleasing address
had become more fascinating the longer he continued in the Senate,
until his influence among legislators was equalled only by the kindly
and sympathetic Tompkins, whose success in the war had won him a place
in the hearts of men similar to that enjoyed by George Clinton after
the 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 his
preferment. He saw in the brilliant young legislator an obstacle to
his own influence; and to break his strength at the earliest moment he
advocated for attorney-general the candidacy of John Woodworth.
Woodworth was filling the position when the Federalists installed
Abraham Van Vechten; his right to restoration appealed with peculiar
force 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 to
please Spencer. This left the Council a tie. There can be no question
that Tompkins was in thorough accord with Van Buren's wishes, and that
he regarded Spencer with almost unqualified dislike, but he was a
candidate for President and naturally preferred keeping out of
trouble. Nevertheless, when it required his vote to settle the
controversy he gave it ungrudgingly to Van Buren. In selecting a
secretary of state, the Governor applied the same rule. Spencer's
friend, Elisha Jenkins, had previously held the office, and, like
Woodworth, desired reinstatement; but Tompkins--tossing Jenkins aside
and ignoring Samuel Young, speaker of the Assembly, who was promised
and expected the office--insisted upon Peter B. Porter, now a hero of
the Niagara frontier.

Spencer had long realised that Tompkins was turning against him. It is
doubtful if the Governor ever felt a personal liking for this
political meddling judge, although he accepted his services during the
war with a certain degree of confidence. But now that hostilities were
at an end, he proposed to distribute patronage along lines of his own
choosing. Porter had recently been elected to Congress, and his
presence in Washington would help the Governor's presidential
aspirations, especially if the young soldier's friendship was sealed
in advance by the unsolicited honour of an appointment as secretary of
state. For the same reason, he desired the election of Nathan Sanford
to the United States Senate to succeed Obadiah German. Spencer
favoured John Armstrong, late secretary of war, and when the latter
was thrust aside as utterly undesirable, the Judge announced his own
candidacy. But Van Buren, resenting Spencer's opposition, skilfully
resisted his claims until he grew timid and declined to compete "with
so 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 and
controlled Stranahan; the Martling Men demanded it and controlled
Dayton; but Elmendorff and Hubbard hesitated, and Tompkins disliked
giving the casting vote. The Governor realised that no statesman had
lived in his day in whom the people had shown greater confidence; and,
in spite of the present clamour, he knew that the iron-willed Mayor
still possessed the friendship of the best men and ripest scholars in
the State. DeWitt Clinton was seen at his best, no doubt, by those who
knew him in private life, among his books; and, though his strong
opinions and earnest desire to maintain his side of the controversy,
brought him into frequent antagonisms, his guests were encouraged to
give free utterance to their own ideas and views.

These same qualities made him an active, restless leader of men in the
world of politics. No doubt many hated him, for he made enemies more
easily than friends; but neither enemy nor friend could deny the great
natural capacity which had gradually gained a commanding place for him
in public life. Tompkins must have felt that it was only a question of
time when Clinton would again win the confidence of the people and
make his enemies his footstool. What, therefore, to do with him was a
serious question. Chained or unchained he was dangerous. The free
masonry of intellect and education gave him rank; and if compelled to
surrender the mayoralty he might, at any moment, take up some work
which would bring him greater fame and influence. Nevertheless,
Tompkins felt compelled to reach some decision. The Martling Men were
insistent. They charged that Clinton, inspired by unpatriotic motives
in the interest of Federalism, had opposed the war, and was an enemy
of his party; and in demanding his removal they threatened those who
caused delay. Van Buren could probably have relieved Tompkins by
influencing Elmendorff, but Van Buren, like Tompkins, was too shrewd
to rush into trouble.

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

No doubt Ruggles Hubbard had a sincere attachment for Clinton. In
supporting his presidential aspirations Hubbard visited Vermont, where
he exercised his companionable gifts in an effort to obtain for
Clinton the vote of that State. But Hubbard had neither firmness nor
strength of intellect. Irregular in his habits, lax in his morals, a
spendthrift and an insolvent, he could not resist the incessant
attacks upon Clinton, nor the offer of the shrievalty of New York,
with its large income and fat fees. When, therefore, Elmendorff
finally evidenced a disposition to yield, Hubbard made the vote for
Clinton'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 Peter
Stuyvesant, but only one in the long list, averaging a tenure of three
years each, served longer than DeWitt Clinton. Richard Varick, the
military secretary of Schuyler and Washington, and the distinguished
associate of Samuel Jones in revising the laws of the State, held the
mayoralty from 1789 to 1801, continuing through the controlling life
of the Federalist party and the closing years of a century full of
heroic incident in the history of the city. But DeWitt Clinton,
holding office from 1803 to 1815--save the two years given Marinus
Willett and Jacob Radcliff--saw the city's higher life keep pace with
its growth and aided in the forces that widened its achievement and
made it a financial centre. It must have cost this master-spirit of
his age a deep sigh to give up a position in which his work had been
so wise and helpful. His situation, indeed, seemed painfully gloomy;
his office was gone, his salary was spent, and his estate was
bankrupt. It is doubtful if a party leader ever came to a more
distressing period in his career; yet he preserved his dignity and
laughed at the storm that howled so fiercely about him. "Genuine
greatness," he said, in a memorial address delivered about this time,
"never appears in a more resplendent light, or in a more sublime
attitude, than in that buoyancy of character which rises superior to
danger and difficulty."

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

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

For the moment, every one seemed to be carried away by the fascination
of the man. His friends asserted that he was always right and always
successful; that patriotism had guided him through the long,
discouraging war, and that, swayed neither by prejudice, nor by the
impulses of personal ambition, in every step he took and every measure
he recommended, he was actuated by the most unselfish purpose. Of
course, this was the extravagance of enthusiastic admirers; but it was
founded on twelve years of public life, marked by success and by few
errors of judgment or temper. Even Federalists ceased to be his
critics. It is not easy to parallel Governor Tompkins' standing at
this 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 daring
executive; a statesman of high purpose if not of the most commanding
talents.

There was one man, however, with whom he must reckon. Ambrose Spencer
not only loved power, but he loved to exercise it. He lacked the
address of Tompkins, and, likewise, the vein of levity in the
Governor's temperament that made him buoyant and hopeful even when
most eager and earnest; but he was bold, enterprising, and of
commanding intellect, with a determination to do with all his might
the part he had to perform. His failure to become United States
senator, and the appointment of Van Buren and Porter in place of
Woodworth and Elisha Jenkins, rankled in his bosom. That was his first
defeat. More than this, it proved that he could be defeated. Since
DeWitt Clinton's defection in 1812, he had been the most powerful
political factor in the State, a man whom the Governor had found it
expedient to tolerate and to welcome.

The events of the past year had, however, convinced Spencer that
nothing was to be gained by longer adherence to Tompkins, whom he had
now come to regard with distrust and dislike. When, therefore, a
candidate for President began to be talked about he promptly favoured
William H. Crawford. The Georgia statesman, high tempered and
overbearing, showed the faults of a strong nature, coupled with an
ambition which made him too fond of intrigue; but Gallatin declared
that he united to a powerful mind a most correct judgment and an
inflexible integrity. In the United States Senate, with the courage
and independence of Clay and the intelligence of Gallatin, he had been
an earnest advocate of war and a formidable critic of its conduct.
Compared to Monroe he was an intellectual giant, whose name was as
familiar in New York as that of the President, and whose character was
vastly more admired. In favouring such a candidate it may be easily
understood how the influence of a man like Spencer affected other
state leaders. Their dislike of the Virginian was as pronounced as in
1812, while their faith in the success of Tompkins, of whom Southern
congressmen knew as little as they did of DeWitt Clinton four years
before, was not calculated to inspire them with the zeal of
missionaries. Spencer's bold declaration in favour of Crawford,
therefore, hurt Tompkins more than his hesitation to support his
brother-in-law in 1812 had damaged Clinton.

In the early autumn of 1814, the President had invited the Governor to
become his secretary of state. Madison had been naturally drawn
toward Tompkins, who had shown from his first entrance into public
life a remarkable capacity for diplomatic management; and, although he
had none of the higher faculties of statesmanship, the President
probably saw that he would make just the kind of a minister to suit
his purposes. Armstrong had not done this. Although a man of some
ability and military information, Armstrong lacked conventional
morals, and was the possessor of objectionable peculiarities. He never
won either the confidence or the respect of Madison. He not only did
harsh things in a harsh way, but he had a caustic tongue, and a tone
of irreverence whenever he estimated the capacity of a Virginia
statesman. On the other hand, Tompkins had gentleness, and that
refined courtesy, amounting almost to tenderness, which seemed so
necessary in successfully dealing with Madison.

The desire to be first in every path of political success had become
such a passion in Tompkins' nature that the question presented by the
President's invitation found an answer in the immediate impulses of
his ambition. No doubt his duties as Governor and the importance of
his remaining through the impending crisis appealed to him, but they
did not control his answer. He wanted to be President, and he was
willing to sacrifice anything or anybody to secure the prize. So, it
is not surprising that he declined Madison's gracious offer, since the
experience of Northern men with Virginia Presidents did not encourage
the 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 the
Virginia statesman and the other men who controlled congressional
caucuses, he would undoubtedly have entered Madison's Cabinet. As the
ranking, and, save Monroe, the oldest of the President's advisers, he
would have had two years in which to make himself popular, a
sufficient time, surely, for one having the prestige of a great war
governor, with gentleness of manner and sweetness of temper to disarm
all opposition and to conciliate even the fiercest of politicians.
Fifteen years later Martin Van Buren resigned the governorship to go
to 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 Tompkins
his successor. He had little liking for his jealous secretary of state
who had opposed his nomination in 1808, criticised the conduct of the
war, and forced the retirement of cabinet colleagues and the removal
of favourite army officers--who had, in a word, dominated the
President until the latter became almost as tired of him as of
Armstrong. But, as the time approached for the nomination of a new
Executive, Madison's jealous regard for Virginia, as well as his
knowledge of Monroe's fitness, induced him to sustain the candidate
from his own State. This was notice to federal office-holders in New
York to get into line for the Virginian; and very soon some of
Tompkins' closest friends began falling away. To add to the Governor's
unhappiness, the Administration, repeating its tactics toward the
Clintons in 1808 and 1812, began exalting his enemies. In sustaining
DeWitt Clinton's aspirations Solomon Southwick had actively opposed
the Virginia dynasty and bitterly assailed Tompkins and Spencer for
their desertion of the eminent New Yorker. For three years he had
practically excluded himself from the Republican party, criticising
the war with the severity of a Federalist, and continually
animadverting upon the conduct of the President and the Governor; but
Monroe's influence now made this peppery editor of the _Register_
postmaster at Albany, turning his paper into an ardent advocate of the
Virginian's promotion. The Governor, who had openly encouraged such a
policy when DeWitt Clinton sought the Presidency, now felt the
Virginia 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 something
of national politics since he advocated the candidacy of DeWitt
Clinton so enthusiastically four years before. He knew the Governor
was seriously bent upon being President, and that his friends
throughout the State were joining in the bitterness of the old Clinton
cry that Virginia had ruled long enough--a cry which old John Adams
had taken up, declaring that "My son will never have a chance until
the 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 was
personally unknown to the country; Crawford and Monroe were national
leaders of wide acquaintance, who practically divided the strength of
their party. Could Van Buren have made Tompkins the President, he
would have done so without hesitation; but he had little disposition
to tie himself up, as he did with Clinton in 1812, and let Crawford,
with Spencer's assistance, take the office and hand the patronage of
New York over to the Judge. The Kinderhook statesman, therefore,
declared for Tompkins, and carried the Legislature for him in spite of
Spencer's support of Crawford; then, with the wariness of an old
campaigner, he prevented New York congressmen from expressing any
preference, although three-fourths of them favoured Crawford. When the
congressional caucus finally met to select a candidate, Van Buren had
the situation so muddled that it is not known to this day just how the
New York congressmen did vote. Monroe, however, was not unmindful of
the service rendered him. After the latter's nomination, Tompkins was
named for Vice President; and if he did not resent taking second
place, as George Clinton did in 1808, it was because the Vice
Presidency offered changed conditions, enlarged acquaintance, and one
step 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 with
the rivers and lakes of New York, did not talk of a continuous passage
by water from Lake Erie to the sea. As early as 1724, when Cadwallader
Colden was surveyor-general of the colony, he declared the opportunity
for inland navigation in New York without a parallel in any other part
of the world, and as the Mohawk Valley, reaching out toward the lakes
of Oneida and Cayuga, and connecting by easy grades with the Genesee
River beyond, opened upon his vision, it filled him with admiration.
Even then the thrifty settler, pushing his way into the picturesque
country of the Iroquois, had determined to pre-empt the valleys whose
meanderings furnished the blackest loam and richest meadows, and whose
gently receding foot-hills offered sites for the most attractive homes
in the vicinity of satisfactory and enduring markets. It was this
scene that impressed Joseph Carver in 1776. Carver was an explorer. He
had traversed the country from New York to Green Bay, and looking back
upon the watery path he saw nothing to prevent the great Northwest
from being connected with the ocean by means of canals and the natural
waterways of New York. In one of the rhetorical flights of his young
manhood, Gouverneur Morris declared that "at no distant day the waters
of the great inland seas would, by the aid of man, break through their
barriers and mingle with those of the Hudson." George Washington had
visions 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, was
yet far, very far, away. In 1768, long after "Old Silver Locks" had
become the distinguished lieutenant-governor, he induced Sir Henry
Moore, the gay and affable successor of Governor Monckton, to ascend
the Mohawk for the supreme purpose of projecting a canal around Little
Falls. Sixteen years later, in 1784, the Legislature tendered
Christopher Colles the entire profits of the navigation of the river
if he would improve it; yet work did not follow words. It was easy to
see what might be done, but the man did not appear who could do it. In
1791, George Clinton took a hand, securing the incorporation of a
company to open navigation from the Hudson to Lake Ontario. The
company completed three sections of a canal--aggregating six miles in
length, with five leaky locks--at a cost of four hundred thousand
dollars, but the price of transportation was not cheapened, nor the
time shortened. This seemed to end all money effort. Other canal
companies were organised, one to build between the Hudson and Lake
Champlain, another to connect the Oswego River with Cayuga and Seneca
lakes; but the projects came to nothing. Finally, in 1805, the
Legislature authorised Simeon DeWitt, the surveyor-general, to cause
the several routes to be accurately surveyed; and, after he had
reported the feasibility of constructing a canal without serious
difficulty from Lake Erie to the Hudson, a commission of seven men,
appointed in 1810, estimated the cost of such construction at five
million dollars. It was hoped the general government would assist in
making up this sum; but it soon became apparent that the war, into
which the country was rapidly drifting, would use up the national
surplus, while rival projects divided attention and lessened the
enthusiasm. Efforts to secure a right of way, developed the avarice of
landowners, who demanded large damages for the privilege. Thus,
discouragement succeeded discouragement until a majority of the
earlier friends of the canal gave up in despair.

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

This involuntary leisure gave Clinton just the time needed to hasten
the work which was to transmit his name to later generations. Bitterly
mortified over his defeat, he retired to a farm at Newton on Long
Island, where he lived for a time in strict seclusion, indulging, it
was said, too freely in strong drink. But if Clinton lacked patience,
and temporarily, perhaps, the virtue of temperance, he did not lack
force of will and strength of intellect. He corresponded with men of
influence; sought the assistance of capitalists; held public meetings;
and otherwise endeavoured to enlist the co-operation of people who
would be benefited, and to arouse a public sentiment which should
overcome doubt and stir into activity men of force and foresight.
Writing from Buffalo, in July, 1816, he declared that "in all human
probability, 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 and
embarrassments" from the great drop at Lockport to the waters of the
Mohawk at Utica, he again refers to the future Queen City of the Lakes
with prophetic power. "Buffalo is to be the point of beginning, and in
fifty years it will be next to New York in wealth and population."[186]

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

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

It is doubtful if any statesman endowed with less genius than Clinton
could have kept the project alive during this period of indifference
and discouragement. Even Thomas Jefferson doubted the feasibility of
the plan, declaring that it was a century in advance of the age. "I
confess," wrote Rufus King, long after its construction had become
assured, "that looking at the distance between Erie and the Hudson,
and taking into view the hills and valleys and rivers and morasses
over which the canal must pass, I have felt some doubts whether the
unaided resources of the State would be competent to its
execution."[187] But Clinton had a nature and a spirit which inclined
him to favour daring plans, and he seems to have made up his mind that
nothing should hinder him from carrying out the enterprise he had at
heart.

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

In the end, he compelled the acceptance of his project by a stroke of
happy audacity. A great meeting of New York merchants, held in the
autumn of 1815, appointed him chairman of a committee to memorialise
the Legislature. With a fund of information, obtained by personal
inspection of the route, he set forth with rhetorical effect and great
clearness the inestimable advantages that must come to city and to
State; and, with the ease of a financier, inspired with sounder views
than had been observed in the care of his own estate, he demonstrated
the manner of securing abundant funds for the great work. "If the
project of a canal," he said, in conclusion, "was intended to advance
the views of individuals, or to foment the divisions of party; if it
promoted the interests of a few at the expense of the prosperity of
the many; if its benefits were limited to place, or fugitive as to
duration; then, indeed, it might be received with cold indifference or
treated with stern neglect; but the overflowing blessings from this
great fountain of public good and national abundance will be as
extensive as our own country and as durable as time. It may be
confidently asserted that this canal, as to the extent of its route,
as to the countries which it connects, and as to the consequences
which it will produce, is without a parallel in the history of
mankind. It remains for a free state to create a new era in history,
and to erect a work more stupendous, more magnificent, and more
beneficial 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 vent
to acclamations of joy; and Clinton was welcomed whenever and wherever
he appeared. These marks of public favour were by no means confined to
the 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 and
estimates, receive grants and donations, and report to the next
Legislature.

It was a great triumph for Clinton. He went to Albany a political
outcast, he returned to New York gilded with the first rays of a new
and rising career, destined to be as remarkable as the most romantic
story belonging to the early days of the last century. To make his
success the more conspicuous, it became known, before the legislative
session ended, that his quarrel with Spencer had been settled.
Spencer's wife, who was Clinton's sister, had earnestly striven to
bring them together; but neither Spencer nor Clinton was made of the
stuff likely to allow family affection to interfere with the promotion
of their careers. As time went on, however, it became more and more
evident to Spencer that some alliance must be formed against the
increasing influence of Van Buren and Tompkins; and, with peace once
declared with Clinton, their new friendship began just where the old
alliance left off. In an instant, like quarrelling lovers,
estrangement was forgotten and their interests and ambitions became
mutual. Of all Clinton's critics, Spencer had been the meanest and
fiercest; of all his friends, he was now the warmest and most
enthusiastic. To turn Clinton's enemies into friends was as earnestly
and daringly undertaken by Spencer, as the old-time work of turning
his friends into enemies; and before the summer of 1816 had advanced
into the sultry days of August, Spencer boldly proclaimed Clinton his
candidate for governor to take the place of Tompkins, who was to
become Vice President on the 4th of March, 1817. It was an audacious
political move; and one of less daring mind might well have hesitated;
but it is hardly too much to say of Spencer, that he combined in
himself all the qualities of daring, foresight, energy, enterprise,
and cool, calculating sagacity, which must be united in order to make
a consummate political leader.

Tompkins, like Jefferson, had never taken kindly to the canal project.
In his message to the Legislature, in February, 1816, he simply
suggested that it rested with them to determine whether the scheme was
sufficiently important to demand the appropriation of some part of the
revenues of the State "without imposing too great a burden upon our
constituents."[188] The great meetings held in the preceding autumn
had forced this recognition of the existence of such a project; but
his carefully measured words, and his failure to express an opinion as
to its wisdom or desirability, chilled some of the enthusiasm formerly
exhibited for him. To add to the people's disappointment and chagrin,
the Governor omitted all mention of the subject on the 5th of
November, when the Legislature assembled to choose presidential
electors--an omission which he repeated on the 21st of January, 1817,
when the Legislature met in regular session, although the construction
of a canal was just then attracting more attention than all other
questions before the public. If Clinton failed to realise the loss of
popularity that would follow his loss of the Presidency in 1812,
Tompkins certainly failed to appreciate the reaction that would follow
his repudiation of the canal.

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

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

Talk of Clinton's candidacy was very general when the Legislature
assembled, in January, 1817; and, although Van Buren had hitherto
attached little importance to it, the discovery that a strong and
considerable part of the Legislature, backed by the stalwart Spencer,
now openly favoured the nomination of the canal champion, set him to
work planning a way of escape. His suggestion that Tompkins serve as
governor and vice president found little more favour than the scheme
of allowing Lieutenant-Governor Taylor to act as governor; for the
former plan was as objectionable to Tompkins and the people, as the
latter was plainly illegal. It is doubtful if Van Buren seriously
approved either expedient; but it gave him time to impress upon party
friends the objections to Clinton's restoration to power. He did not
go back to 1812. That would have condemned himself. But he recalled
the ex-Mayor's open, bitter opposition to Tompkins in 1813, and the
steady support given him by the Federalists. In proof of this
statement he pointed to the present indisposition of Federalists to
oppose Clinton if nominated, and their avowed declarations that
Clinton's views paralleled their own.

Van Buren had shown, from his first entrance into public life, a
remarkable faculty for winning men to his own way of thinking. His
criticism of Clinton was now directed with characteristic sagacity and
skill. His argument, that the object of those who sustained Clinton
was to establish a conspiracy with the Federalists at home and
abroad, for the overthrow of the Republican party in the nation as
well as in the State, seemed justified by the open support of William
W. Van Ness, the gifted young justice of the Supreme Court. Further to
confirm his contention, Jonas Platt, now of the Supreme bench, and
Jacob Rutsen Van Rensselaer of Columbia, a bold, active, and most
zealous partisan, who had served in the Legislature and as secretary
of state, made no secret of their intention to indorse Clinton's
nomination, and, if necessary, to ride over the State to secure his
election. Under ordinary circumstances nothing could discredit the
Clinton agitation, with the more reasonable part of the Republican
legislators, more than Van Buren's charge, strengthened by such
supporting evidence.

The canal influences of the time, however, were too strong for any
ingenuity of argument, or adroitness in the raising of alarm, to
prevail; and so the skilful manager turned his attention to Joseph G.
Yates, a judge of the Supreme Court, as an opposing candidate who
might be successful. Yates belonged to the old-fashioned American type
of handsome men. He had a large, shapely head, a prominent nose, full
lips, and a face cleanly shaven and rosy. His bearing was excellent,
his voice, manner, and everything about him bespoke the gentleman; but
neither in aspect nor manner of speech did he measure up to his real
desire for political preferment. Yet he had many popular qualities
which commended him to the rank and file of his party. He was a man of
abstemious habits and boundless industry, whose courtesy and square
dealing made him a favourite. Few errors of a political character
could be charged to his account. He had favoured Clinton for
President; he had supported Tompkins and the war with great zeal, and,
to the full extent of his ability and influence, he had proved an
ardent friend of the canal policy.

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

Peter B. Porter was more willing. He belonged to the Tompkins-Van
Buren faction which nourished the hope that the soldier, who had
recently borne the flag of his country in triumph on several
battlefields, would carry off the prize, although the caucus was to
convene in less than forty-eight hours. There could be no doubt of
General Porter's strength with the people. He had served his State and
his country with a fidelity that must forever class his name with the
bravest 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 a
hunt through the forests of the Niagara frontier, his easy, familiar
manners surrounded him with hosts of friends. The qualities that made
him a famous soldier made him, also, a favoured politician. As county
clerk, secretary of state, and congressman, he had taken the keenest
interest in the great questions that agitated the political life of
the opening century; and as a canal commissioner, in 1811, he had
supported DeWitt Clinton with all the energy of an enthusiast.

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

It is possible, had the nomination been left exclusively to Republican
members of the Legislature, as it had been for forty years, Porter
might have been the choice of his party. Spencer, however, evidently
feared Van Buren's subtle control of the Legislature; for, early in
the winter, he began encouraging Republicans living in counties
represented by Federalists, to demand a voice in the nominating
caucus. It was a novel idea. Up to this time, governors and
lieutenant-governors had been nominated by members of the Legislature;
yet the plan now suggested was so manifestly fair that few dared
oppose it. Why should the Republicans of Albany County, it was asked,
be denied the privilege of participating in the nomination of a
governor simply because, being in a minority, they were unrepresented
in the Legislature? There was no good reason; and, although Van Buren
well understood that such counties would return delegates generally
favourable to Clinton, he was powerless to defeat the reform. The
result was the beginning of nominating conventions, composed of
delegates selected by the people, and the nomination of DeWitt
Clinton.

The blow to Van Buren was a severe one. "An obscure painter of the
Flemish school," wrote Clinton to his friend and confidant, Henry
Post, "has made a very ludicrous and grotesque representation of Jonah
immediately after he was ejected from the whale's belly. He is
represented as having a very bewildered and dismal physiognomy, not
knowing from whence he came nor to what place bound. Just so looks Van
Buren, the leader of the opposition party."[189] Yet Van Buren seems
to have taken his defeat with more serenity and dignity than might
have been expected. Statesmen of far nobler character have allowed
themselves to indulge in futile demonstrations of disappointment and
anger, but Van Buren displayed a remarkable evenness of temper. He
advocated 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 were
bitter anti-Clintonians whose support was largely due to Van Buren.

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

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

Refusing to accept DeWitt Clinton, Tammany made Peter B. Porter its
candidate for governor. There is ample evidence that Porter never
concealed the chagrin or disappointment of defeat; but, though the
distinguished General must have known that his name was printed upon
the Tammany ticket and sent into every county in the State, he did not
co-operate with Tammany in its effort to elect him. Other defections
existed in the party. Peter R. Livingston seemed to concentrate in
himself all the prejudices of his family against the Clintons. Moses
I. Cantine of Catskill, a brother-in-law of Van Buren, though perhaps
incapable of personal bitterness, opposed Clinton with such zeal that
he refused to vote either for a gubernatorial candidate, or for the
construction of a canal. Samuel Young, who seemed to nourish a
deep-seated dislike of Clinton, never tired of disparaging the
ex-Mayor. He apparently took keen pleasure in holding up to ridicule
and in satirising, what he was pleased to call his ponderous
pedantries, his solemn affectation of profundity and wisdom, his
narrow-mindedness, and his intolerable and transparent egotism. But
the canal sentiment was all one way. With the help of the Federalists,
who declined to make an opposing nomination, Clinton swept the State
like a cyclone, receiving nearly forty-four thousand votes out of a
total of forty-five thousand.[190] Porter had less than fifteen
hundred. Clinton's inauguration as governor occurred on the first day
of July, 1817, and three days later he began the construction of the
Erie canal.

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




CHAPTER XXIII

BUCKTAIL AND CLINTONIAN

1817-1819


DeWitt Clinton had now reached the highest point in his political
career. He was not merely all-powerful in the administration, he was
the administration. He delighted in the consciousness that he was
looked up to by men; that his success was fixed as a star in the
firmament; and that the greatest work of his life lay before him. He
was still in the prime of his days, only forty-eight years old, with a
marvellous capacity for work. It is said that he found a positive
delight in doing what seemed to others a wearisome and exhaustive tax
upon physical endurance. "The canal," he writes to his friend, Henry
Post, in the month of his inauguration, "is in a fine way. Ten miles
will be completely finished this season, and all within the estimate.
The application of the simple labour-saving machinery of our
contractors has the operation of magic. Trees, stumps, and everything
vanish before it."[191] The exceptional work and responsibility put
upon him during the construction of his "big ditch," as his enemies
sarcastically called it, might well have made him complain of the
official burdens he had to bear; but neither by looks nor words did he
indicate the slightest disposition to grumble. Nature had endowed him
with a genius for success. He loved literature, he delighted in
country life, he was at home among farmers, and with those inclined to
science he analysed the flowers and turned with zest to a closer study
of rocks and soils. No man ever enjoyed more thoroughly, or was
better equipped intellectually to undertake such a career as he had
now entered upon. His audacity, too, amazed his enemies and delighted
his friends.

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

But Clinton had learned nothing of the art of political management
either in his retirement or by experience. He was the same
domineering, uncompromising, intolerant dictator, helpful only to
those who continually sounded his praises, cold and distant toward
those who acted with independence and spirit. He had made his enemies
his footstool; and he now assumed to be the recognised head of the
party whose destinies were in his keeping and whose fortunes were
swayed by his will. It is, perhaps, too much to say that this was
purely personal ambition. On the contrary, Clinton seems to have acted
on the honest conviction that he knew better than any other man how
New York ought to be governed, and the result of his effort inclines
one to the opinion that he was right in the belief. At all events, it
is not surprising that a man of his energy and capacity for onward
movement should refuse to regulate his policy to the satisfaction of
the men that had recently crushed him to earth, and who, he knew,
would crush him again at the first opportunity. In this respect he was
not different from Van Buren; but Van Buren would have sought to
placate the least objectionable of his opponents, and to bring to his
support men who were restless under the domination of others.

Clinton, however, did nothing of the kind. He would not even extend
the olive branch to Samuel Young after the latter had quarrelled with
Van Buren. He preferred, evidently, to rely upon his old friends--even
though some of their names had become odious to the party--and upon a
coterie of brilliant Federalists, led by William W. Van Ness, Jonas
Platt, and Thomas J. Oakley, with whom he was already upon terms of
confidential communication. He professed to believe that the
principles of Republican and Federalist were getting to be somewhat
undefined in their character; and that the day was not far off, if,
indeed, it had not already come, when the Republican party would
break into two factions, and, for the real business of statesmanship,
divide the Federalists between them. Yet, in practice, he did not act
on this principle. To the embarrassment of his Federalist friends he
failed to appoint their followers to office, making it difficult for
them to explain why he should profit by Federalist support and turn a
deaf ear to Federalist necessities; and, to the surprise of his most
devoted Republican supporters, he refused to make a clean sweep of the
men in office whom he believed to have acted against him. He quickly
dropped the Tammany men holding places in New York City, and
occasionally let go an up-state politician at the instance of Ambrose
Spencer, but with characteristic independence he disregarded the
advice of his friends who urged him to let them all go.

Meanwhile, a change long foreseen by those who were in the inner
political circle was rapidly approaching. At no period of American
history could such a man as Clinton remain long in power without
formidable 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 upon
him. For a long time it had been a question whether it was to be
Clinton and Van Buren, or Van Buren and Clinton. Van Buren had been
growing every day in power and influence. Seven years before Elisha
Williams had sneered at him as Little Matty. "Poor little Matty!" he
wrote, "what a blessing it is for one to think he is the greatest
little fellow in the world. It would be cruel to compel this man to
estimate himself correctly. Inflated with pride, flattered for his
pertness, caressed for his assurance, and praised for his
impertinence, it is not to be wondered that in a market where those
qualifications pass for evidence of intrinsic merit he should think
himself great." Williams, great and brilliant as he was, could not
bear with patience the supremacy which Van Buren was all too certainly
obtaining. He struggled against him, intrigued against him, and
finally hated and lampooned him, but the superiority of Van Buren's
talents as a managing politician was destined to make him pre-eminent
in the State and in the nation.

That Van Buren was not always honourable, the famous Fellows-Allen
contest had recently demonstrated. Henry Fellows, a Federalist
candidate for assemblyman in Ontario County, received a majority of
thirty votes over Peter Allen, a Republican; but because the former's
name appeared in his certificate as Hen. Fellows, the Bucktails,
guided by Van Buren, seated Allen, whose vote was absolutely needed to
elect a Republican Council of Appointment. Writing "Hen." for Henry
was not error; it was not even an inadvertence. Van Buren knew that it
stood for Henry as "Wm." did for William, or "Jas." for James. But Van
Buren wanted the Council. It cannot be said that this action was
inconsistent 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 upon
some of his contemporaries that he was a stranger to a high standard
of political morality.

Probably DeWitt Clinton would have taken similar advantage. But in
practical politics Clinton was no match for the Kinderhook statesman.
Van Buren studied the game like a chess-player, taking knights and
pawns with the ease of a skilful mover. Clinton, on the other hand,
was an optimist, who believed in his destiny. In the performance of
his official duties he mastered whatever he undertook and relied upon
the people for his support; and so long as he stood for internal
improvements and needed reform in the public service, he did not rely
in 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 absolute
impartiality. A comprehension that sound finance had much to do with
domestic prosperity, entered into his review of the financial
situation--in its relation to the construction of the canals--indicating
fulness of information and great clearness as to existing conditions.
Clinton was honestly proud of his canal policy; more than once he
declared, with exultation, that nothing was more certain to promote
the prosperity of the State, or to secure to it the weight and
authority, in the affairs of the nation, to which its wealth and
position entitled it. Seldom in the history of an American
commonwealth has a statesman been as prophetic. But in managing the
details of party tactics--in dealing with individuals for the purpose
of controlling the means that control men--he conducted the office of
governor much as he did his candidacy for President in 1812, without
plan, and, apparently, without organisation. With all his courage,
Clinton must have felt some qualms of uneasiness as one humiliation
followed another; but if he felt he did not show them. Conscious of
his ability, and of his own great purposes, he seems to have borne his
position with a sort of proud or stolid patience.

This inattention or inability to attend to details of party management
became painfully apparent at the opening of the Legislature in
January, 1818. Van Buren and his friends had agreed upon William
Thompson for speaker of the Assembly. Thompson was a young man, warm
in his passions, strong in his prejudices, and of fair ability, who
had served two or three terms in the lower house, and who, it was
thought, as he represented a western district, and, in opposition to
Elisha Williams, had favoured certain interests in Seneca County
growing out of the location of a new courthouse, would have greater
strength than other more prominent Bucktails. It was known, also, that
Thompson had taken a violent dislike to Clinton and could be relied
upon to advance any measure for the latter's undoing. To secure his
nomination, therefore, Van Buren secretly notified his partisans to be
present at the caucus on the evening before the session opened.

The Clintonians had talked of putting up John Van Ness Yates, son of
the former Chief Justice, a ready talker, companionable and brilliant,
a gentleman of fine literary taste, with an up-and-down political
career due largely to his consistent following of Clinton. But the
Governor now wanted a stronger, more decided man; and, after advising
with Spencer, he selected Obadiah German, for many years a leader in
the Assembly, and until recently a member of the United States Senate,
with such a record for resistance to Governor Tompkins, and active
complicity with the Federalists who had aided his election to the
Assembly, that the mere mention of his name to the Bucktails was like
a firebrand thrown onto the roof of a thatched cottage. German
himself doubted the wisdom of his selection. He was an old-time
fighter, preferring debate on the floor to the wielding of a gavel
while other men disputed; but the Governor, with sublime faith in
German's fidelity and courage, and a sublimer faith in his own power
to make him speaker, turned a deaf ear to the assemblyman's wishes.
Had Clinton now conferred with his friends in the Legislature, or
simply urged their presence at the caucus, he might easily have
nominated German in spite of his record. On the contrary, he did
neither, and when the caucus met, of the seventy-five members present,
forty-two voted for Thompson and thirty-three for German. When too
late Clinton discovered his mistake--seventeen Clintonians had been
absent and all the Bucktails present. The great Clinton had been
outwitted!

The hearts of the Bucktails must have rejoiced when they heard the
count, especially as the refusal of the Clintonians to make the
nomination unanimous indicated an intention to turn to the Federalists
for aid. This was the one error the Bucktails most desired Clinton to
commit; for it would stamp them as the regular representatives of the
party, and reduce the Clintonians to a faction, irregular in their
methods and tainted with Federalism. It is difficult to realise the
arguments which could persuade Clinton to take such a step. Even if
such conduct be not considered a question of principle, and only one
of expediency, he should have condemned it. Yet this is just what
Clinton did not do. After two days of balloting he disclosed his hand
in a motion declaring Obadiah German the speaker, and sixty-seven
members, 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, on
January 8, 1818, "but adjourned without choosing a speaker. The next
day, after a short struggle, Mr. German was chosen by the aid of some
of the Federalists. I regret to say that there are some of the Federal
gentlemen and influential ones, too, who are deeply pledged to support
the wanderings fortunes of Mr. Clinton. On this point the Federal
party must, if it has not already, divide. Once separated there can be
no 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 a
United States senator must, if these gentlemen persist, decide the
matter irrevocably. Mr. W. Duer, Van Vechten, Bunner, Hoffman, and
myself are opposed to Mr. W. Van Ness, Oakley, and J. Van Rensselaer.
Mr. Clinton has found means to flatter these gentlemen with the
prospect of attaining their utmost wishes by adhering to and
supporting his administration."[192]

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

Clinton committed the second great error of his life when he consented
to bolt the caucus nominee of his party. It was an act of conscious
baseness. He had not manfully put forward his strength. Instead of
managing, he temporised; instead of meeting his adversaries with a
will, he did nothing, while they worked systematically and in silence.
Even then he need not have entered the caucus; but, once having
voluntarily 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 assembled
the Bucktails in force neither justifies nor palliates it; for the
slightest management on Clinton's part would have controlled the
caucus by bringing together fifty members instead of thirty-three, and
the slightest inquiry would have discovered the weakness of having
only thirty-three present instead of fifty.

Clinton professed to believe that the Federalists no longer existed as
a party; and it is probably true that he desired to create a party of
his own out of its membership, strengthened by the Clintonians, and to
leave Tammany and its Bucktail supporters to build up an opposition
organisation. But in this he was in advance of his time. Though the
day was coming when a majority of the Clintonians and Federalists
would make the backbone of the Whig party in the Empire State, a new
party 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 had
sincerely desired a new organisation, he should have disclaimed all
connection with the Republican or Federalist, and planted his standard
on the cornerstone of internal improvements, prepared to make the
sacrifice that comes to those who are tired of existing conditions and
eager for new policies and new associations. But Clinton was neither
reformer nor pioneer. He loved the old order of things, the Council of
Appointment, the Council of Revision, the Constitution of 1777 as
amended by the convention of 1801, and all the machinery that gave
power to the few and control to the boss. He had been born to power.
From his first entrance into the political arena he had exercised
it--first with the help of his uncle George, afterward with the
assistance of his brother-in-law, Ambrose Spencer; and now that he had
swung back into power again by means of his canal policy, he had no
disposition to let go any part of it by letting go the Republican
party. What Van Buren got from him he must take by votes, not by
gifts.

Clinton's flagrant violation of the caucus rule, that a minority must
yield to the majority, not only broke the Republican party into the
famous factions known as Clintonians and Bucktails; it alarmed local
leaders throughout the State; made the rank and file distrustful of
the Governor's fealty, and consolidated his enemies, giving them the
best of the argument and enabling Van Buren to build up an
organisation against which the Governor was ever after compelled to
struggle with varying fortune. Indeed, in the next month, Van Buren so
managed the selection of a Council that it gave Clinton credit for
controlling appointments without the slightest power of making them,
so that the disappointed held him responsible and the fortunate gave
him no thanks. Following this humiliation, too, came the election, by
one majority, of Henry Seymour, a bitter opponent of Clinton, to the
canal commissionership made vacant by the resignation of Joseph
Ellicott. The Governor's attention had been called to the danger of
his candidate's defeat; but with optimistic assurance he dismissed it
as impossible until Ephraim Hart, just before the election occurred,
discovered that the cunning hand of Van Buren had accomplished his
overthrow. "A majority of the canal commissioners are now politically
opposed to the Governor," declared the Albany _Argus_, "and it will
not be necessary for a person who wishes to obtain employment on the
canal as agent, contractor or otherwise, to avow himself a
Clintonian." This exultant shout meant that in future only
anti-Clintonians would make up the army of canal employees.

But a greater _coup d'état_ was to come. Van Buren understood well
enough that Clinton's strength with the people was not as a politician
or Republican leader, but as a stubborn, indefatigable advocate of the
canal; and that, so long as the Bucktails opposed his scheme, their
control of appointments could not overthrow him. Van Buren, therefore,
determined to silence this opposition. Just how he did it is not of
record. It was said, at the time, that a caucus was held of Clinton's
opponents; but, however it was done, it must have required all Van
Buren's strength of will and art of persuasion to sustain him in the
midst of so many difficulties--difficulties which were greatly
increased by the unfriendly conduct of Erastus Root, and two or three
senators from the southern district, including Peter Sharpe,
afterward speaker of the Assembly. Yet the fact that he accomplished
it, and with such secrecy that Clinton's friends did not know how it
was brought about, showed the quiet and complete control exercised by
Van Buren over the members of the Bucktail party. The _National
Advocate_, edited by Mordecai Manesseh Noah, a conspicuous figure in
politics for forty years and one of the most unrelenting partisans of
his day, had supported Tammany in its long and bitter antagonism to
the canal with a malevolence rarely equalled in that or any other day.
He measured pens with Israel W. Clarke of the Albany _Register_, who
had so ably answered every point that Noah charged their authorship to
Clinton himself. But after Van Buren had spoken, the _Advocate_,
suddenly, as if by magic, changed its course, and, with the rest of
the Bucktail contingent, rallied to the support of Clinton's pet
scheme with arguments as sound and full of clear good sense as the
Governor himself could wish. The people, however, had good reason to
know that statesmen were not all and always exactly as they professed
to be; and the immediate effect of the Bucktail change of heart
amounted to little more than public notice that the canal policy was a
complete success, and that Tammany and its friends had discovered that
further opposition was useless.




CHAPTER XXIV

RE-ELECTION OF RUFUS KING

1819-1820


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

John C. Spencer needed no introduction or advertisement as the son of
Ambrose Spencer. He was a man of large promise. Everything he did he
did well, and he had already done much. Though scarcely thirty-four
years of age, he had established himself as a leading lawyer of the
Commonwealth, whose strong, vigorous English in support of the war had
found its way into Parliament as an unanswerable argument to Lord
Liverpool's unwise policy, winning him an enviable reputation as a
writer. Skilful in expression, adroit in attack, calm and resourceful
in argument, with the sarcasm of the younger Pitt, he had presented
American rights and British outrages in a clearer light than others,
arousing his countrymen very much as the letters of Junius had
quickened English political life forty years before. He made it plain
that England's insistence upon the right to stop and search an
American vessel, and England's persistent refusal to recognise a
naturalised American citizen on board an American vessel, were the
real causes of quarrel. "There is not an individual," said a leading
British journal, "who has attended at all to the dispute with the
United States, who does not see that it has been embittered from the
first, and wantonly urged on by those who, for the sake of their own
aggrandisement, are willing to plunge their country into all the evils
portrayed by the American writer."

A single term in Congress had placed Spencer in the ranks of the
leaders. He was trenchant in speech, forceful on paper, and helpful in
committee. Intellectually, he took the place of the distinguished
South Carolinian, just then leaving Congress to become Monroe's
secretary of war, whose thin face and firm mouth resembled the New
Yorker's. Spencer, like Calhoun, delighted in establishing by the
subtlest train of philosophical reasoning the delicate lines that
exposed sophistry and error, and made clear the disputed point in law
or in legislation. The rhetorical drapery that gave Samuel Young such
signal success found no place in Spencer's arguments or in his
pamphlets; but to a logic that deeply penetrated his subject he added
an ethical interest which captivated the mind, as his reasoning
illuminated and made plain. He was a born fighter. Like his father, he
asked no quarter and he gave none. His eye had the expression one sees
in hawks and game-cocks. At twenty-eight, as district attorney of the
five western counties of the State, he had become a terror to
evil-doers, and it is said of him, at his old home in Canandaigua,
that men, conscious of their innocence, preferred appealing to the
mercy of the court than endure prosecution at his hands. Possibly he
possessed the small affections which Disraeli thought necessary to be
coupled with large brains to insure success in public life, yet his
nature, in every domestic and social relation, was the gentlest and
simplest. DeWitt Clinton did not always approve Spencer's political
course. He thought him "an incubus on the party," "the political
millstone of the west," and he attributed the occasional loss of
Ontario and neighbouring counties "to his deleterious management." The
austerity and haughtiness of his manner naturally lessened his
popularity, just as his caustic pen and satirical tongue made him
bitter enemies; but his strong will and imperious manner were no more
offensive than Clinton's. Like Clinton, too, Spencer was ill at ease
in a harness; he resented being lined up by a party boss. But, at the
time he was talked of for United States senator, the intelligent
action and tireless industry upon which his fame rests, had so
impressed men, that they overlooked unpopular traits in their
admiration for his great ability. People did not then know that he was
to sit in the Cabinet of a President, and be nominated to a place upon
the Supreme bench of the United States; but they knew he was destined
to become famous, because he was already recognised as a professional
and political leader.

The genius of Samuel Young had also left its track behind. He was not
a great lawyer, but his contemporaries thought him a great man. He
combined brilliant speaking with brilliant writing. The fragments of
his speeches that have been preserved scarcely hint at the
extraordinary 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 trained
orator, rivalling the forceful declamation of Erastus Root, the mellow
tones and rich vocabulary of William W. Van Ness, and the smoothness
of Martin Van Buren. But, if his speeches equalled his pamphlets, the
judgment of his contemporaries must be accepted without limitation.
Chancellor Kent objected to giving joint stock companies the right to
engage in privateering, a drastic measure passed by the Legislature of
1814 in the interest of a more vigorous prosecution of the war; and in
his usual felicitous style, and with much learning, the stubborn
Federalist pronounced the statute inconsistent with the spirit of the
age and contrary to the genius of the Federal Constitution. Young
replied to the great Chancellor in a series of essays, brilliant and
readable even in a new century. He showed that, although America had
been 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, scudding
before the wind, defying capture, running blockades, destroying
commerce, and bearing the stars and stripes to the ends of the
earth--had dealt England the most staggering blow ever inflicted upon
her supremacy of the sea. This was plain talk and plain truth; and it
made the speaker of the Assembly known throughout the State as "the
sword, the shield, and the ornament of his party." Young was as
dauntless as Spencer, and, if anything, a more distinguished looking
man. He was without austerity and easy of approach; and, although
inclined to reticence, he seemed fond of indulging in jocular remarks
and an occasional story; but he was a man of bad temper. He fretted
under opposition as much as Clinton, and he easily became vindictive
toward opponents. This kept him unpopular even among men of his own
faction. Clinton thought him "much of an imbecile," and suggested in a
letter 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's
Magazine_, Vol. 50, p. 417.]

The Bucktails had no serious expectation either of nominating or
electing Samuel Young to the United States Senate. They knew the
Clintonians had a majority, and their purpose, in attending the
caucus, was simply to prevent a nomination. No sooner had the meeting
assembled, therefore, than several Bucktails attacked the Governor,
reproaching him for the conduct of his followers and severely
criticising his political methods and character. To this German
retorted with great bitterness. German made no pretensions to the gift
of oratory; he had neither grace of manner nor alluring forms of
expression. On the contrary, there was a certain quality of antagonism
in his manner, as if he took grim satisfaction in letting fly his
words, seemingly almost coldly indifferent to their effect; and on
this occasion his sledge-hammer blows gave Peter R. Livingston,
evidently acting by prearrangement, abundant chance for forcing a
quarrel. In the confusion that followed, the caucus hastily adjourned
amid mutual recriminations. When too late to mend matters the
Clintonians discovered the trick. They had the majority and could
easily have named Spencer as the candidate of the party, but in the
excitement of German's speech and Livingston's attack they lost their
heads. Thus ended forever all caucus relationship between these
warring factions, and henceforth they were known as two distinct
parties.

At the joint session of the Legislature, on February 2, 1819, the
Clintonians gave Spencer sixty-four votes, while Young received
fifty-seven, and Rufus King thirty-four. "A motion then prevailed to
adjourn," wrote John A. King to his father, "so that this Legislature
will make no choice." Young King, a member of the Assembly, was
looking after his father's re-election to the Senate. He deeply
resented Clinton's control of the Federalists, because it made his
father a leader only in name; and to show his dislike of Federalist
methods he associated and voted with the Bucktails. Nor did the father
dislike Clinton less than the son. Rufus King had felt, what he was
pleased to call "the baleful influence of the Clintons," ever since
his advent into New York politics. They had opposed the Federal
Constitution which he, as a delegate from Massachusetts, helped to
frame; they assisted Jefferson in overwhelming Hamilton; and they
benefited by the election trick which defeated John Jay. For more than
two decades, therefore, Rufus King had watched their control by
methods, which a man cast in a mould that would make no concessions to
his virtue, could not approve. Under his observation, DeWitt Clinton
had grown from young manhood, ambitious and domineering, accustomed to
destroy the friend who got in his way with as much ease, apparently,
as he smote an enemy. Hence King regarded him much as Hamilton did
Aaron Burr; and against his candidacy for President in 1812, he used
the argument that the great Federalist had hurled against the
intriguing New Yorker in 1801. He rejoiced that Clinton lost the
mayoralty in 1815; that he was defeated for elector in 1816; and he
deeply regretted his election as governor in 1817.

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

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

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

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

Van Buren wanted to share in the division of the Federalists; and to
refuse them a United States senator, when Clinton had recently given
them an attorney-general, an influential, and, at that time, a most
lucrative office, struck him as poor policy--especially since John A.
King and other estimable gentlemen had evidenced a disposition to join
them. Two weeks before the Legislature assembled, therefore, an
unsigned letter, skilfully drawn, found its way into the hands of
every Bucktail, summing up the reasons why they could properly support
Rufus King. After recalling his Revolutionary services, this anonymous
writer declared that support of King could not subject Bucktails to
the suspicion of a political bargain, since the Senator had neither
acted with the Federalists who had shown malignity against the
Administration, nor with that numerous and respectable portion who
ignorantly thought the war impolitic; but rather with those who aided
in forcing England to respect the rights of American citizens. It was
a cunning letter. There was rough and rasping sarcasm for the
Clintonians; an ugly disregard for the radical Federalist; a kind word
for the mere party follower, and winning speech for the gifted sons
who had risen superior to inherited prejudices. The concluding
declaration to the Bucktails was that King merited support because he
and his friends opposed Governor Clinton's re-election, the assertion
being justified by reference to John King's vote against German and
the 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 Van
Buren had shaped its character and inspired its winning qualities. It
had the instant effect that Van Buren plainly invoked for it--the
unanimous election of Rufus King. Perhaps, on the whole, nothing in
Van Buren's official life showed greater political courage or
discernment. It is not so famous as his Sherrod Williams letter of
1836, or the celebrated Texas letter with which he faced the crisis of
1844, but it ranks with the public utterances of those years when he
took the risk of meeting living issues that divided men on small
margins. There was a strength and character about it that seemed to
leave men powerless to answer. Clintonians objected to King, many
Bucktails opposed him, Van Ness declared that he could easily be
defeated, Thomas J. Oakley recognised him as the candidate of a man
who spoke of Clinton and his Federalist allies as profligates and
political blacklegs. Yet they all voted for Rufus King. Van Buren made
up their minds for them; and, though protesting against the duplicity
of Bucktail, the cowardliness of Federalist, and the timidity of
Clintonian, each party indorsed him, while proclaiming him not its
choice.

But Rufus King was not an ordinary candidate. His great experience and
exalted character, coupled with his discriminating devotion to the
best interests of the country, yielded strength that no other man in
the State could command. He was now about sixty years of age, and, of
living statesmen, he had no superior. His life had been a pure one,
and his public acts and purposes, measured by the virtues of
patriotism, honesty and integrity, entitled him to the respect and
lasting gratitude of his fellow citizens. The taste for letters which
characterised his Harvard College days, followed him into public
affairs, and if his style lacked the simplicity of Madison's and the
prophetic grasp and instinctive knowledge of Hamilton, he shared their
clearness of statement and breadth of view. He displayed similar
capacity in administration and in keeping abreast of the times.
Although a lifelong member of the Federal party, whose leadership in
New York he inherited upon the death of its great founder, he
supported the War of 1812 with zeal, giving no countenance to the
Hartford Convention if he did not openly oppose it, and promising
nothing in the way of aid that he did not amply and promptly fulfil.
At the supreme moment of the crisis, in 1814, when the general
government needed money and the banks would loan only upon the
indorsement of the Governor, he pledged his honour to support Tompkins
in whatever he did.

To the society of contemporaries, regardless of party, King was always
welcome. He disliked a quarrel. It seemed to be his effort to avoid
controversy; and when compelled to lead, or to participate
conspicuously in heated debate, he carefully abstained from giving
offence. Benton bears testimony to his habitual observance of the
courtesies of life. Indeed, his urbanity made a deep impression upon
all his colleagues. Yet King was not a popular man. The people thought
him an aristocrat; and, although without arrogance, his appearance and
manner gave character to their opinion. His countenance inclined to
austerity, forbidding easy approach; his indisposition to talk lent an
air of reserve, with the suggestion of coldness, which was unrelieved
by the touch of amiability that commended John Jay to the affectionate
regard of men. It was his nature to be serious and thoughtful. Among
friends he talked freely, often facetiously, becoming, at times,
peculiarly instructive and fascinating, as his remarkable memory gave
up with accuracy and facility the product of extensive travel, varied
experiences, close observation, and much reading. His statements,
especially those relating to historical and political details, were
rarely questioned. We read that he was of somewhat portly habit, above
the middle size, strongly made, with the warm complexion of good
health, large, attractive eyes, and a firm, full mouth; that, although
men no longer chose to be divided sharply by marked distinction of
attire, he always appeared in the United States Senate in full dress,
with short clothes, silk stockings and shoes--having something of
pride and hauteur in his manner that was slightly offensive to plain
country gentlemen, as well as inconsistent with the republican idea of
equality. Wealthy, he lived at Jamaica, in a stately mansion,
surrounded by noble horse chestnut trees, an estate known as King
Park, and kept at public expense as a typical Long Island colonial
homestead.

It is possible that the extension of slavery into Missouri influenced
King's return to the United States Senate; for the election occurred
in the midst of that heated contest, a contest in which he had
already taken a conspicuous part in the Fifteenth Congress, and in
which he was destined to earn, in still greater degree, the
commendation of friends, outside and inside the Senate, as the
champion of freedom. But whatever the cause of his election, it is
certain that it was free from suspicion, other than that he preferred
Van Buren to Clinton--a choice which necessarily created the
impression that King's prejudice against Clinton resulted more from
jealousy than from aversion to his character. No doubt Clinton's
ability to dominate Federalist support, in spite of King's opposition,
wounded the latter's pride and created a dislike which gradually
deepened into a feeling of resentment. It had practically left him
without a party; and he turned to Van Buren very much as Charles James
Fox turned to Lord North in 1782. He cheerfully accepted the most
confidential relations with the Kinderhook statesman, and when, a year
or two later, Van Buren joined him in the United States Senate, Benton
observed the deferential regard paid by Van Buren to his venerable
colleague, and the marked kindness and respect returned by King. Yet
King did not openly ally himself with the Bucktails. They could rely
with certainty upon his support to antagonise Clinton, but he declined
to join a party whose character and principles did not promise such
companionship 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 the
year for the selection of another governor, and the Bucktails, very
weary of Clinton, were anxious for a change. For all practical
purposes Bucktails and Clintonians had now become two opposing
parties, Van Buren's removal as attorney-general, by the Council of
1819, ending all semblance of friendship and political affiliation.
This Council was known as "Clinton's Council;" and, profiting by the
lesson learned in 1817, Clinton had made a clean sweep of the men he
believed to have acted against him. He gave Van Buren's place to
Thomas J. Oakley, and Peter A. Jay, eldest son of John Jay, who had
rendered valuable assistance in promoting the construction of the
canal, he made recorder of New York City, an office which Richard
Riker had held since 1815. These appointments naturally subjected the
Governor to the criticism of removing Republicans to make places for
Federalists. But the new officers were Clinton's friends, while Riker,
at least, had been an open enemy since Jonas Platt's appointment to
the Supreme bench in 1814. Jay's appointment was also a thrust at the
so-called "high-minded" Federalists, composed of the sons of Alexander
Hamilton, 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 "an
arch scoundrel," "the prince of villains," and "a confirmed
knave;"[196] yet Clinton put off the moment of his removal from week
to week, very much as Tompkins hesitated to remove Clinton from the
mayoralty; that is, not so much to save the feelings of Van Buren as
to avert the hostility of James Tallmadge and John C. Spencer, both of
whom sought the office. Tallmadge had recently returned from Congress
full of honours because of his brilliant part in the great debate on
the Missouri Compromise, and he now confidently expected the
appointment. The moment, therefore, the Council, at its meeting in
July, 1819, named Oakley, Tallmadge ranged himself squarely among
Clinton's enemies. Van Buren had expected dismissal, and he seems to
have taken it with the outward serenity and dignity that characterised
the departure of Clinton from the mayoralty in 1815; but in
confidential communications to Rufus King, he spoke of Clinton and his
friends as "very profligate men," "politician blacklegs," and "a set
of desperadoes."[197]

[Footnote 196: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper's
Magazine_, 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 man
sufficiently popular to oppose DeWitt Clinton in the gubernatorial
contest. He was remembered as the great War Governor; and the up-state
leaders, representing the old war party, thought he could rally and
unite the opposing factions better than any one else. In some respects
Tompkins' position in 1820 was not unlike that of John A. Andrew in
Massachusetts in 1870, the great war governor of the Civil War. His
well-doing in the critical days of the contest had passed into
history, making his accomplishment a matter of pride to the State, and
giving him an assured standing. Everybody knew that he had raised
troops after enlistments had practically stopped elsewhere; that he
had bought army supplies, equipped regiments, constructed
fortifications, manned forts, fitted out privateers, paid bills from
funds raised on his individual indorsement, and worked with energy
while New England sulked. When the grotesque treaty of Ghent closed
the war, the Governor's star shone brightly in the zenith. At this
time, therefore, Daniel D. Tompkins was undoubtedly the most popular
man 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 refused
it, than with Governor Clinton, who granted it. It is not easy to say
just wherein lay the charm of his wonderful personality. His voice was
rich and mellow; his face, prepossessing in repose, expressed sympathy
and friendship; while his manner, gentle and gracious without
unnaturalness, appealed to his auditor as if he of all men, was the
one whom the Governor wished to honour. His success, too, had been
marvellous. He had carried the State by the largest majority ever
given to a governor up to that time; larger than Jay's triumphant
majority in 1798; larger than George Clinton's in 1801 after the
election of Jefferson and the organisation of the Republican party;
larger even than the surprising vote given Morgan Lewis in 1804, when
Alexander 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 showed
a shortage. He had failed to take vouchers during the war, and it was
thought not unlikely that he had paid for army supplies out of his own
money, and for family supplies out of the State's money; but no one
believed him guilty of intentional misconduct. Nevertheless, his
accounts, after the comptroller had audited them, after a commission
of expert accountants had sought for missing vouchers, and after
friends had made explanations, were still $120,000 short. By an act,
approved April 13, 1819, the Legislature authorised the comptroller to
balance this shortage by allowing Tompkins a premium of twelve per
cent. on $1,000,000, and people thought nothing more about it until
Tompkins presented an account, demanding a premium of twenty-five per
cent., 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 on
Tompkins' personal responsibility, and out of this a correspondence
was conducted with much asperity. Archibald McIntyre, the comptroller
since 1806, possessed the absolute confidence of the people; and when
his letters became public a suspicion that the Vice President might be
wrong was quickly encouraged by the friends of Clinton. This suspicion
was increased as soon as the Legislature of 1820 got to work. It was
intent on mischief. By a fusion of Clintonians and Federalists John C.
Spencer became speaker of the Assembly, and to cripple Tompkins, who
had now been nominated for governor, Jedediah Miller of Schoharie
offered a resolution approving the conduct of the Comptroller in
settling the accounts of the former Governor. This precipitated a
discussion which has rarely been equalled in Albany for passion and
brilliancy. A coterie of the most skilful debaters happened to be
members of this Assembly; and for several weeks Thomas J. Oakley, John
C. Spencer, and Elisha Williams sustained the Comptroller, while
Erastus Root, Peter Sharpe, and others pleaded for Tompkins.

Meanwhile, on the 9th of March, a Senate committee, with Van Buren as
chairman, reported that the Comptroller ought to have allowed Tompkins
a premium of twelve and a half per cent. on $1,000,000, leaving a
balance 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 the
Comptroller be sustained, or should the report of Van Buren's
committee be accepted? It was a long drop from $130,000 claimed by
Tompkins to $11,780.50 awarded him by Van Buren, yet it was better to
take that than accept a settlement which made him a defaulter, and the
Senate approved the Van Buren report. But Thomas J. Oakley, chairman
of the Assembly committee to which it was referred, did not propose to
let the candidate for governor escape so easily. In an able review of
the whole question he sustained the Comptroller, maintaining that the
Vice President must seek relief under the law like other parties, and
instructing the Comptroller to sue for any balance due the State,
unless Tompkins reimbursed it by the following August. This ended
legislation for the session.

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

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

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

To this most adroit and cunning letter Rufus King replied on the last
day of the month: "The Vice President left us to-day at noon; on his
way he stopped at the Senate and we had a short conference.... I
observed as between him and Mr. Clinton my apprehension was that a
majority, possibly a large majority of Federalists would vote for Mr.
Clinton; adding that between the Secretary of the Navy and Mr. Clinton
I was persuaded that a majority of the Federalists would prefer the
Secretary.... Apologising for the frankness with which I expressed my
opinion, I added that I hoped he would wait until he reached New York
before he decided; perhaps he would think it best to delay his answer
until he arrived in Albany; one thing I considered absolutely
necessary--that his accounts should be definitely closed before
election. He answered that he was going immediately to Albany with
four propositions which would lead to a final settlement; that he
might think it best to delay his answer to the nomination until he
should reach Albany. I said in conclusion that my earnest wish was the
exclusion of Mr. Clinton, and my preference (knowing the personal
sacrifice he would make in consenting to his own nomination) that the
candidate selected should be the man who, in the opinion of those most
capable to decide, will be the most likely to accomplish the
work."[200]

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

Rufus King certainly did his work well. He had abundantly discouraged
him as to the Federalists and had fully advised him as to the
importance of settling his accounts; but all to no purpose. Two days
later Thompson wrote Van Buren that the Vice President "will stand."
The Kinderhook statesman, however, disinclined to give it up, asked
the 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 are
still entertained that the Vice President's decision may yet yield to
the wishes of many of his oldest friends. Those, however, who know him
best have no such hopes. Judge Yates has said that he never refused an
offer of any sort in his life."[201] And so it proved in this
instance. Tompkins was immovable. Like a race horse trained to
running, 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 Rufus
King_, 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 of
his strength in a legislative caucus, Clinton was renominated with
John Taylor at a meeting of the citizens of Albany. He had a following
and a large one, but it was without cohesion or discipline. Men felt
at liberty to withdraw without explanation and without notice. Within
eight months after his election as a Clintonian senator, Benjamin
Mooers of Plattsburg accepted the nomination for lieutenant-governor
on the ticket with Governor Tompkins, apparently without loss of
political prestige, or the respect of neighbours. The administration
at Washington recognised the Bucktails as the regular Republican
party, and showered offices among them, until Clinton later made it a
matter of public complaint and official investigation. Other
disintegrating influences were also at work. The "high minded"
Federalists, in a published document signed by forty or fifty leading
men, declared the Federal party dissolved and annihilated, and
pronounced the Clinton party simply a personal one. To belong to it
independence must be surrendered, and to obtain office in it, one must
laud its head and bow the knee, a system of sycophancy, they said,
disgusting all "high minded" men. But DeWitt Clinton's strength was
not in parties nor in political management. He belonged to the great
men of his time, having no superior in New York, and, in some
respects, no equal in the country. He possessed a broader horizon, a
larger intellect, a greater moral courage, than most of his
contemporaries. It is probably true that, like a mountain, he appeared
best at a distance, but having confidence in his ability and
integrity, people easily overlooked his rough, unpopular manners. The
shrewd, sagacious Yankee farmers who were filling up the great western
counties of Ontario and Genesee believed in him. The Bucktails did not
know, until the eastern and western districts responded with five
thousand eight hundred and four majority for Clinton, as against four
thousand three hundred and seventy-seven for Tompkins in the middle
and southern districts, what a capital cry Clinton had in the canal
issue; what a powerful appeal to selfish interests he could put into
voice; and what a loud reply selfish interests would make to the
appeal. It was not, in fact, a race between parties at all; it was not
a question of shortage or settlement. It is likely the shortage
affected the result somewhat; but the majority of over fourteen
hundred meant approval of Clinton and his canal policy rather than
distrust of Tompkins and his unsettled accounts. The question in 1820
was, shall the canal be built? and, although the Bucktails had ceased
their hostility, the people most interested in the canal's
construction wanted Clinton to complete what he had so gloriously and
successfully begun.

The campaign was fought out with bitterness and desperation until the
polls closed. No national or state issue divided the parties. In fact,
there were no issues. It was simply a question whether Clinton and his
friends, or Tompkins and the Bucktails should control the state
government. The arguments, therefore, were purely personal. Clinton's
friends relied upon his canal policy, his honesty, and his
integrity--the Bucktails insisted that Clinton was no longer a
Republican; that the canal would be constructed as well without him
as with him, and that his defeat would wipe out factional strife and
give New York greater prominence in the councils of the party. "For
the last ten days," wrote Van Buren to Rufus King, on April 13, "I
have scarcely had time to take my regular meals and am at this moment
pressed by at least half a dozen unfinished concerns growing out of
this intolerable political struggle in which we are involved."[202]
Nevertheless, he had no doubt of Tompkins' election. "I entertain the
strongest convictions that we shall succeed,"[203] he wrote later in
the month. On the other hand, Clinton was no less certain. In his
letters to Henry Post he is always confident; but at no time more so
than now. "The canal proceeds wondrously well," he says. "The Martling
opposition has ruined them forever. The public mind was never in a
better train for useful operations. John Townsend has just come from
the west. There is but one sentiment."[204] Yet, when the battle
ended, it looked like a Clintonian defeat and Bucktail victory; for
the latter had swept the Legislature, adding to their control in the
Senate and capturing the Assembly by a majority of eighteen over all.
It was only the presence of Tompkins among the slain that transferred
the real glory to Clinton, whose majority was fourteen hundred and
fifty-seven in a total vote of ninety-three thousand four hundred and
thirty-seven. This exceeded any former aggregate by nearly ten
thousand.[205]

[Footnote 202: Charles R. King, _Life and Correspondence of Rufus
King_, 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 his
unsettled accounts had occasioned whispered slanders that crushed him.
After his angry controversy with Comptroller McIntyre, in the
preceding year, he seriously considered the propriety of resigning as
Vice President; for he sincerely believed his figures were right and
that the Comptroller's language had classed him in the public mind
with what, in these latter days, would be called "grafters." "Our
friend on Staten Island is unfortunately sick in body and mind,"
Clinton wrote to Post in September, 1819. "His situation upon the
whole is deplorable and calculated to excite sympathy."[206] It was,
indeed, a most unfortunate affair, for the State discovered, years
after it was too late, that it did owe the War Governor ninety-two
thousand dollars.

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

Tompkins' public life continued four years longer. In the autumn of
1820, the Legislature balanced his accounts and the country re-elected
him Vice President. The next year his party made him a delegate to the
constitutional convention, and the convention made him its president;
but he never recovered from the chagrin and mortification of his
defeat for the governorship. Soon after the election, melancholy
accounts appeared of the havoc wrought upon a frame once so full of
animal spirits. He began to drink too freely even for those days of
deep drink. His eye lost its lustre; deep lines furrowed the round,
sunny face; the unruffled temper became irritable; and, within three
months after the close of his second term as Vice President, before he
had entered his fifty-second year, he was dead.




CHAPTER XXVI

THE ALBANY REGENCY

1820-1822


When the Legislature assembled to appoint presidential electors in
November, 1820, Bucktail fear of Clinton was at an end for the
present. Before, his name had been one to conjure with; thenceforth it
was to have no terrors. He had, indeed, been re-elected governor, but
the small majority, scarcely exceeding one per cent. of the total
vote, showed that he was now merely an independent, and a very
independent member, of the Republican party. To the close of his
career he was certain to be a commanding figure, around whom all party
dissenters would quickly and easily rally; but it was now an
individual figure, almost an eccentric figure, whose work as a
political factor seemed to be closed.

Yet Clinton was not ready to go into a second retirement. On the
theory, as he wrote Henry Post, that "the meekness of Quakerism will
do in religion, but not in politics,"[207] he looked about him for
something to arouse public attention and to excite public indignation,
and, for the want of a better subject, he charged the Monroe
administration with interference in the recent state election. Post
advised caution; but Clinton, stung by the defeat of his friends and
by his own narrow escape, had become possessed with the suspicion that
federal officials had used the patronage of the government against
him. So, in his speech to the Legislature in November, he protested
against the outrage. "If the officers under the appointment of the
federal government," he declared, "shall see fit as an organised and
disciplined corps to interfere in state elections, I trust there will
be found a becoming disposition in the people to resist these alarming
attempts upon the purity and independence of their local
governments."[208] Clinton had no evidence upon which to support this
charge. It was, at best, only a suspicion based upon his own methods;
but the Senate demanded proof, and failing to get specifications, it
declared it "highly improper that the Chief Magistrate of the State
should incriminate the administration of the general government,
without ample testimony in his possession." The resolutions closed
with an expression of confidence in the patriotism and integrity of
the government.

[Footnote 207: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper's
Magazine_, 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 general
government in our elections," he wrote on November 19. "Our friends
must be up and doing on this subject. It is all important."[209] Eight
days later he stirred up Post again. "What is the annual amount of
patronage of the national government in this State?" he asked.[210]
"Knowing the accuracy of your calculations, I rely much on you." Then
he developed his plan: "The course of exposition ought, I think, to be
this--to collect a voluminous mass of documents detailing facts, and
to form from them a lucid, intelligible statement. On the
representation of facts recourse must also be had to inferences, and
it ought also to unite boldness and prudence."[211] It is evident that
thus far inferences outnumbered facts, for far into December Clinton
was still calling upon his friends to collect testimony. "Go on with
your collection of proofs," he wrote. "I think with a little industry
this matter will stand well."[212]

[Footnote 209: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper's
Magazine_, 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 fully
established that the naval storekeeper at Brooklyn, and other federal
officials were offensive partisans, just as they had been under
Clinton's control, and just as they have been ever since. The
Bucktails saw distinctly enough that the State could not be aroused
into indignation by such a mass of documents; but there was one letter
from 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 of
Bucktail newspapers in the interior of the State, which provoked much
criticism. How the Governor got it does not appear, but it gives a
glimpse of Van Buren's political methods that is interesting. "Unless
we can alarm them (the Clintonians) by two or three prompt removals,"
he says, "there is no limiting the injurious consequences that may
result from it."

Soon after, two of the postmasters were removed. If the charge was
true, that postmasters were preventing the circulation of Bucktail
newspapers, Van Buren's course was very charitable. Evidently he did
not want places for his friends so much as a proper delivery of the
mails; for otherwise he would have insisted upon the removal of all
offenders. The gentle suggestion that the removal of two or three
would be a warning to others, explains how this devout lover of men
lived through a long life on most intimate terms with his neighbours.
If such conditions existed under the modern management of the
Post-Office Department, every wrong-doer would be summarily dismissed,
regardless of party or creed. Van Buren's methods had no such drastic
discipline; yet his letter became the subject of much animadversion by
the Clintonians, not so much because they disapproved the suggestion
as because Van Buren wrote it. "It is very important to destroy this
prince of villains," Clinton declared, in a letter to Post of December
2, 1820.[213]

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

Clearly discerning Van Buren as his most formidable competitor for
political leadership, Clinton's letters to Post from 1817 to 1824
abound in vituperative allusions, as, for example: "Whom shall we
appoint to defeat the arch scoundrel Van Buren?" November 30, 1820.
"Of his cowardice there can be no doubt. He is lowering daily in
public opinion, and is emphatically a corrupt scoundrel," August 30,
1820. "Van Buren is now excessively hated out of the State as well as
in 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 his
politics he is a confirmed knave." And again: "With respect to Van
Buren, there is no developing the man. He is a scoundrel of the first
magnitude, ... without any fixture of principle or really of virtue."
"Van Buren must be conquered through his fears. He has no heart, no
sincerity."]

Like many other brilliant political leaders, Van Buren was somewhat
thin-skinned; he happened, too, to be out of the State Senate, and
thus was compelled to endure, in silence, the attacks of the
opposition. It is believed that at this time, Van Buren had a strong
inclination to accept a Supreme Court judgeship, and thus withdraw
forever from political life. But the fates denied him any chance of
making this serious anti-climax in his great political career. While
the green bag message convulsed the Clintonians with simulated
indignation, the Bucktails declared him, by a caucus vote of
fifty-eight to twenty-four, their choice for United States senator in
place of Nathan Sanford, whose term expired on March 4, 1821.

It appeared then as it appears now, that Martin Van Buren was "the
inevitable man." He was thirty-nine years of age, in the early
ripeness of his powers, a leader at the bar, and the leader of his
party. He had accumulated from his practice the beginnings of the
fortune which his Dutch thrift and cautious habits made ample for his
needs. The simple and natural rules governing his astute political
leadership seemed to leave him without a rival, or, at least, without
an opponent who could get in his way. Times had changed, too, since
the days when United States senators resigned to become postmasters
and mayors of New York. A seat in the United States Senate had become
a great honour, because it was a place of great power and great
influence; and in passing from Albany to Washington Van Buren would
add 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 cross
his purposes. But Clinton's scheme had no place in the plans of
Bucktails. "I am afraid Van Buren will beat Sanford for senator," he
wrote Post as early as the 30th of December, 1820. "He will unless his
friends stand out against a caucus decision."[214] This is what
Clinton wanted the twenty-four Sanford delegates to do, and, to
encourage such a bolt, he compelled every Federalist and Clintonian,
save one, to vote for him, although Sanford represented Tammany and
its bitter hostility to Clinton. But the Bucktails had at last
established a party organisation that could not be divided by Clinton
intrigue, and Van Buren received the full party vote.

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

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

The removal of Hawley, McIntyre, and Van Rensselaer produced a greater
sensation throughout the State than any previous dismissals, except
that of DeWitt Clinton from the mayoralty in 1815. Gideon Hawley had
held the office of school superintendent for nine years, organising
the State into school districts, distributing the school fund
equitably, and perfecting the work, so that the entire system could be
easily handled by a superintendent. In 1818, he reported five thousand
schools thus organised, with upward of two hundred thousand pupils in
attendance for a period of four to six months each year. He did this
work on a salary of three hundred dollars--only to receive, at last,
in place of thanks so richly deserved, the unmerited rebuke of a
summary dismissal.

The removal of Archibald McIntyre made a sensation almost as great.
For fifteen years, McIntyre had been such an acceptable comptroller
that the waves of factional and party strife had broken at his feet,
leaving him master of the State's finances. The Lewisites retained him
in 1807; the Federalists kept him in 1809; the Republicans continued
him in 1811; the Federalists again spared him in 1813; while the
frequent changes that followed Clinton's downfall left him
undisturbed. He took no part in political contests. It was his duty to
see that the State's money was paid according to law, and he so
conducted the office; but the Bucktails deeply resented his treatment
of the Vice President, and a swift removal was the penalty. In some
degree McIntyre may have been responsible for the defeat of Tompkins.
The perfervid strength of his convictions as to the injustice of the
Vice President's claim betrayed him into an intemperance of language
that suggests over-zeal in a public official. In refusing, too, to
balance the Vice President's accounts, as the Legislature clearly
intended, and as he might have done regardless of the Vice President's
additional claim, he seems to have assumed an unnecessary
responsibility, and to have learned what many men have experienced in
public life, that nothing is so dangerous as being too faithful. But
McIntyre may have had no reason to regret his removal. He was
immediately returned to the Legislature as a senator, and the next
year appointed agent for the state lotteries, a business that enabled
him in a few years to retire with an independent fortune.

It is unnecessary to introduce here a full list of the new
office-holders; but there came into notice at this time three young
lawyers who subsequently occupied a conspicuous place in the history
of their State and country. Samuel A. Talcott took the place of Thomas
J. Oakley as attorney-general; William L. Marcy became adjutant-general
in place of Van Rensselaer, and Benjamin F. Butler was appointed
district attorney of Albany County. Marcy was then thirty-five years
of age, Talcott thirty-two, and Butler twenty-six. Talcott was tall
and commanding, with high forehead and large mellow blue eyes that
inspired confidence and admiration. His manners combined dignity and
ease; 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 a
Websterian head, though the large, firm mouth and admirably moulded
chin rather recalled those of Henry Clay. The face would have been
austere, forbidding easy approach, except for the good-natured twinkle
in the eye and a quiet smile lingering about the mouth. Marcy was
above the ordinary height, with square, powerful shoulders, and
carried some superfluous flesh as he grew older; but, at the time of
which we are writing, he was as erect as the day he captured St.
Regis. Butler was slighter than Marcy, and shorter than Talcott, but
much larger than Van Buren, with fulness of form and perfect
proportions. He had an indescribable refinement of face which seemed
to come from the softness of the eye and the tenderness and
intellectuality of the mouth, which reflected his gentle and generous
spirit.

At the time of Talcott's appointment, though he had not distinguished
himself as a legal competitor of Van Buren, he displayed the gentle
manners and amiable traits that naturally commended him to one of Van
Buren's smooth, adroit methods. The Kinderhook statesman had, however,
in selecting him for attorney-general, looked beyond the charming
personality to the rapidly developing powers of the lawyer, who was
even then captivating all hearers by the strength of his arguments and
the splendour of his diction. Contemporaries of Talcott were fond of
telling of this remarkable, almost phenomenal gift of speech. One of
them mentions "those magical transitions from the subtlest argument to
the deepest pathos;" another describes him as "overpowering in the
weight of his intellect, who produced in the minds of his audience all
the sympathy and emotion of which the mind is capable." William H.
Dillingham, a classmate and lifelong friend, declared that the
extraordinary qualities which marked his career and so greatly
distinguished him in after life--towering genius, astonishing facility
in acquiring knowledge, and surpassing eloquence, were developed
during his college days. The life of Talcott recalls, in its brilliant
activity, the dazzling legal career of Alexander Hamilton. Wherever
the greatest lawyers gathered he was in their midst, the "Erskine of
the bar." At his last appearance in the Supreme Court of the United
States he opposed Daniel Webster in the "Sailors' Snug Harbor" case.
"Beginning in a low and measured tone," says Bacon, in his _Early Bar
of Oneida County_, "he gathered strength and power as he proceeded in
his masterly discourse, and for five hours held the breathless
attention of bench and bar and audience, in an argument which the
illustrious Marshall declared had not been equalled in that court
since the days of the renowned William Pinckney."

Benjamin F. Butler was very much like Talcott in gentleness of manner
and 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 of
county judge. But there was no more reason to expect Medad Butler to
bring an illustrious son into the world than there was that his
neighbour, Abraham Van Buren, should be the father of the eighth
President of the United States. Thirteen years divided the ages of Van
Buren and Butler; and, while the latter attended the district school
and aided his father about the store, Van Buren was practising law and
talking politics with Butler's father. Young Butler was not a dreamer.
He had no wild ambition to be great, and cherished no thought of
sitting in cabinets or controlling the policy of a great party; but
his quiet, respectful manners and remarkable acuteness of mind
attracted Van Buren. When Van Buren went to Hudson as surrogate of the
county, Butler entered the Hudson academy. There he distinguished
himself, as he had already distinguished himself in the little
district school, acquiring a decided fondness for the classics. His
teachers predicted for him a brilliant college career; but, whatever
his reasons, he gave up the college, and, at the age of sixteen,
entered Van Buren's law office and Van Buren's family. On his
admission to the bar, in 1817, he became Van Buren's partner at
Albany.

Though Talcott began life a Federalist, in the party breakup he joined
the Bucktails, with Butler and Van Buren. It seemed to be a love
match--the relations between Talcott and Butler. They were frequently
associated in the most important cases, the possession of scholarly
tastes being the powerful magnet that drew them together. Talcott, at
Williams College, had evidenced an astonishing facility for acquiring
knowledge; Butler, after leaving the academy, had continued the study
of the languages until he could read his favourite authors in the
original with great ease. This was their delight. Neither of them took
naturally to public service, though offices seemed to seek them at
every turn of the road--United States senator, judge of the Supreme
Court, 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 Federalist
teacher sent him away from school at fourteen years of age, because of
his love for Jeffersonian principles and his fondness for argument.
The early years of this Massachusetts lad seem to have been strangely
varied and vexed. He was the leader of a band of noisy, roguish boys
who made the schoolroom uncomfortable for the teacher, and the
neighbourhood uncomfortable for the parents. Neither the father nor
his wife appear to have had any idea of their good fortune. Mrs. Marcy
once declared him the worst boy in the country. He showed little
disposition to study and less inclination to work; yet it was noticed
that he read all the books to be found in the homes of his playfellows
and in the libraries of the district. The character of the books made
no 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 favourite
volumes. When, at last, he met Salem Towne, his earliest, and, in a
sense, his best education began. Towne recognised the latent genius of
the lad and told him of it, encouraging him to enter college and the
law. Marcy used often to declare, in later years, that he owed
everything he ever gained in life to the influence and example of
Salem Towne. The affectionate regard which Marcy felt for his boyhood
friend, a regard which endured until the day of his death, belongs to
the chapter of pathetic incidents in Marcy's life.

Soon after leaving Brown University, Marcy settled in Troy and became
violently hostile to DeWitt Clinton. After Clinton's downfall, he was
appointed recorder of Troy; and after Clinton's restoration, he was
promptly removed. Just now he was trying to practise law, and to edit
the 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 and
inactive, and people thought he lacked the industry and energy so
necessary to success in any profession; but when the _Budget_
appeared, its editorials made men read and reflect. It was the skill
with which he marshalled facts in a gentle and winning style that
attracted 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 in
the War of 1812, bravely leading the attack on Queenstown Heights and
holding his ground until dislodged by superior force; but, it was said
in reply, that Marcy had the honour of capturing the first British
fort and the first British flag of the war. The fight was not a bloody
encounter like the Queenstown engagement; yet, for men new to war, it
evidenced coolness and great courage. A detachment of British soldiers
had taken a position at St. Regis, seven miles from the American camp.
Selecting one hundred and seventy picked men, Lieutenant Marcy
cautiously approached the fort at night, overpowered the guards on the
outposts, surprised the sentries at the entrance, broke down the
gates, and charged the enemy in the face of a volley of musketry. When
it was over he had the fort, a file of prisoners, several stands of
arms, and a flag. Van Buren thought this record was good enough.

The appointment of Talcott, Marcy, and Butler changed the existing
political system. Prior to their activity, the distribution of
patronage depended largely upon the local boss. His needs determined
the men who, regardless of their personal fitness, should be given
office. But Talcott and his colleagues introduced new methods, with a
higher standard of political morality, and a better system of party
discipline. They refused to tolerate unworthy men, and when the little
souls stormed and raged, their wise counsels silenced the selfish and
staggered the boss. Gradually, their control of patronage and of the
party's policy became so absolute that they were called the "Albany
Regency." It was, at first, simply a name given them by Thurlow
Weed;[215] there was neither organisation nor legal authority. Power
came 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 number
among its members men of character and great influence. Roger Skinner,
a United States district judge, was an early member of it; so were
Edwin Croswell of the Albany _Argus_, and Benjamin Knower, the state
treasurer. At a later day came John A. Dix, Azariah C. Flagg, Silas
Wright, and Charles E. Dudley. In his autobiography, Thurlow Weed says
he "had never known a body of men who possessed so much power and used
it so well." They had, he continues, "great ability, great industry,
indomitable courage, and strict personal integrity."[216] But the men
who organised the Regency, giving it power and the respect of the
people, by refusing to do what their fine sense of honour did not
approve, were Talcott, Marcy, and Butler. It was as remarkable a trio
as 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 something
peculiarly touching. Talcott died suddenly at the early age of
forty-five, leaving the members of the New York bar as sincere
mourners. Butler, after the highest and purest living, died at
fifty-nine, just as he landed in France to visit the scenes of which
he had read and dreamed. Marcy, at sixty-two, having recently retired
as President Pierce's secretary of state, was found lifeless, lying
upon his bed, book in hand. He had been reading, as he had read since
childhood, 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 seemed
fitting that the highest mountain-peak in the State by bearing his
name 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 rich
country beyond Seneca Lake, found many reasons for settling in central
and western New York. Out of this section the Legislature organised
twelve new counties in 1812. The sixteen counties that existed in the
State, in 1790, had increased to fifty-five in 1820. Settlers had
rapidly filled up the whole region. New York City, according to the
third census, had 123,706 inhabitants, and, of these, only 5390 were
unnaturalised foreigners. Indeed, the population of the State, in
1820, was made up largely of native Americans; and the descendants of
English families outnumbered those of the Dutch.

Administrative reform had not, however, kept pace with the increase in
population. The number of freeholders qualified to vote for senator
and governor, was, relatively, no larger; the power of the Council of
Appointment had become odious; the veto of the Council of Revision
distasteful; and the sittings of the Supreme Court infrequent. It was
said that the members of the Council of Revision, secure from removal,
had resisted the creation of additional judges, until the speedy
administration of justice was a lost art. Gradually, the spirit that
demanded independence, in 1776, began to insist upon a broader
suffrage and additional rights. The New Englanders in the central,
western, and northern parts of the State had very pronounced
sentiments upon the subject of reform. They sympathised little with
the views of the landowning and conservative classes that largely
controlled the making of the Constitution of 1777. The people of New
York City, as well, who had increased over fifty per cent. in twelve
years, clamoured for a radical change in conditions that seemed to
them to have no application to life in a republic.

Nevertheless, the politicians were slow in recognising the necessity
of amending the State Constitution. Although trouble increased from
year to year, governors avoided recommendations; and legislators
hesitated to put in motion the machinery for correcting abuses. After
Clinton had defeated Tompkins for governor, in 1820, however, the
agitation suddenly blazed into a flame. Tammany resolved in favour of
a convention having unlimited powers to amend the Constitution.
Following this suggestion, Governor Clinton, in his speech to the
Legislature in November, 1820, recommended that the question be
submitted to the people. But the Bucktails, indifferent to the views
of their opponents, pushed through a bill calling for a convention
with unlimited powers, whose work should subsequently be submitted in
gross to the people for ratification or rejection.

Governor Clinton preferred a convention of limited powers, a
convention that could not abolish the judiciary or turn out of office
the only friends left him. Nevertheless, it was not easy for a
governor, who loved popularity, to take a position against the
Bucktail bill; for the popular mind, if it had not yet formally
expressed itself on the subject, was well understood to favour a
convention. When, therefore, the bill came before the Council of
Revision, Clinton thought he had taken good care to have a majority
present to disapprove it, without his assistance. Van Ness and Platt
were absent holding court; but, of the others, Joseph C. Yates, the
only Bucktail on the bench, was presumably the only one likely to
favour it. Chancellor Kent, in giving his reasons for disapproving the
measure, contended that the Legislature had no constitutional
authority to create a convention of unlimited powers, and, if it did,
it should require the convention to submit its amendments to the
people separately and not in gross. Spencer agreed with the
Chancellor. Yates, as expected, approved the bill, but there was
consternation 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 recalls
the mistake of the historic conclave which elected a Pope whom the
cardinals believed too feeble to have any will of his own, but who
suddenly became their master. One can easily understand Clinton's
dilemma. He wanted the bill disapproved without his aid; Woodworth's
action compelled him to do the very thing he had planned to avoid. To
the day of his death, Clinton never got over the affront. "Yates and
Woodworth were both frightened and have damned themselves," he wrote
Henry Post, on the 27th of November, 1820. "The latter supposed also
that he would distinguish himself by his independence. I don't know a
fellow more intrinsically despicable. I intend the first convenient
opportunity to cut him to the quick. Y---- is a miserable fellow--the
dupe of his own vanity and the tool of bad principles!"[218]
Woodworth's action was severely criticised; and when, shortly
afterward, 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 the
purity of his motives.

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

After Clinton had voted in the Council, the convention bill, thus
vetoed, did not get the necessary two-thirds support. At the regular
session of the Legislature, which began in January, 1821, an amendment
was accepted submitting to the people the simple question of a
convention or no convention. Of the one hundred and forty-four
thousand votes cast, one hundred and nine thousand favoured a
convention. Delegates were then elected; and the convention, having
been organised, continued in session from August 28 to November 10,
1821.

This convention passed into history as a remarkable gathering of
distinguished persons. With a few exceptions, all the men then living,
whose names have figured in these pages, took an active part in its
deliberations; and by their eloquence and ability contributed to a
constitution which was to answer the purposes of a rapidly growing
State for another quarter of a century. John Jay, the constitution-maker
of 1777, then seventy-six years of age, who still lived upon his farm,
happy in his rustic tastes and in his simple pleasures, was
represented by his gifted son, Peter A. Jay of Westchester; Daniel D.
Tompkins came from Richmond; Rufus King from Queens; Nathan Sanford
and Jacob Radcliff from New York; James Kent, Ambrose Spencer, Abraham
Van 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 James
Tallmadge and Peter R. Livingston from Dutchess. There was one new
name among them--Samuel Nelson of Cortland, a young man, yet destined
to become a well-known and influential chief justice of the State, and
an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. The
Federalists of Albany did not return Martin Van Buren, who now made
his home in their city; but the people of Otsego honoured themselves
and greatly strengthened the convention by making him their
representative. He was clearly its leader. Root and Young did more
talking, 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 without
influence. They could talk and vote, but the convention was a Bucktail
body, in which the election of delegates, the choice of a president,
the appointment of committees, the selection of chairmen, and the
transaction of business were made party questions. The vote of sixteen
to ninety-four for Daniel D. Tompkins, for president, showed Bucktail
delegates overwhelmingly in the majority. Of the chairmen of the ten
standing committees, all were prominent Bucktail leaders, save Rufus
King, who had practically ceased to act with the Federalists of his
State, and James, Tallmadge, who ended his affection for DeWitt
Clinton when the latter preferred Thomas J. Oakley for attorney-general.

The convention's work centred about three great principles--broader
suffrage, enlarged local government, and a more popular judiciary
system. There was no difficulty in abolishing the Councils of
Appointment and of Revision; in clothing the governor with power of
veto; in fixing his term of office at two years instead of three; and
in making members of the Legislature ineligible for appointment to
office. But, on the questions of suffrage and the judiciary, the
convention was thrown into weeks of violent debate, memorable by
prophecies never fulfilled, and by criticism that the future quickly
disproved. In respect to the suffrage, there were practically three
different views. A few members favoured freehold qualifications; a
larger number believed in universal suffrage; while others stood
between the two, desiring the abolition of a freehold qualification,
yet opposing universal suffrage and wishing to place some restrictions
on the right to vote. Erastus Root and Samuel Young ably represented
the second class; Ambrose Spencer and the Federalists were intensely
loyal to a freehold qualification; and Van Buren, backed probably by a
majority of the convention, presented the compromise view.

Preliminary to the great debate, a lively skirmish occurred over the
limitation of suffrage to the white voter. Strangely enough, this
proposition was sustained by Erastus Root, the ardent champion of
universal suffrage and the abolition of slavery; and it was opposed
with equal warmth by Peter A. Jay and the Federalists, who advocated a
freehold qualification. Van Buren did not speak, but he voted for the
resolution, to eliminate the word "white," which was carried by a
close vote--sixty-three to fifty-nine. Then it was proposed that
coloured voters should be freeholders. Again the advocates of
universal suffrage favoured the proposition, and the friends of a
freehold qualification opposed it; but this time the convention
decided against the negro, thirty-three to seventy-one. New York was
slow to give equal suffrage to the blacks. Nearly three-fourths of the
voters of the State withheld it in 1846; and, six years after
President Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, when the black soldier
had served his country throughout the Civil War with a fidelity and
courage that awoke the strongest emotions of a patriotic people, it
was again refused.

The debate, however, which aroused the greatest interest, and in which
members of the convention most generally participated, sprang from
Ambrose Spencer's proposition limiting to freeholders the right to
vote for senators. It must have occurred to the Chief Justice that the
convention was against him, because its committee had unanimously
agreed to abolish the freehold qualification; and, further, because
the convention, by its action on the negro question, had demonstrated
its purpose to wipe out all property distinctions among white voters;
yet Spencer, at this eleventh hour, proposed to re-establish a
freehold difference between senators and assemblymen. The Chief
Justice, with all his faults, and they were many and grave, had in him
the capacity of a statesman; but it was a statesman of fifty years
before. He had learned little by experience. The prejudices of Jay and
other patriots of the Revolution, still lingered in his mind, arousing
painful apprehensions of what would happen if the exclusive privileges
of landowners should disappear, and robbing him of that faith in the
people which made Erastus Root the forerunner of the broad suffrage
that obtains to-day. Chancellor Kent backed Spencer's proposition in
an abler speech than that made by the Chief Justice himself. Kent was
an honourable, upright statesman, who, unlike Spencer, had never
wavered in his fealty to that federalism which had been learned at the
feet of John Jay and Alexander Hamilton; but, like Spencer, he had
failed to discover that the people, jealous of their rights and
liberties, could be trusted regardless of property holdings. "By the
report before us," he said, "we propose to annihilate, at one stroke,
all property distinctions, and to bow before the idol of universal
suffrage. That extreme democratic principle has been regarded with
terror by the wise men of every age, because in every European
republic, ancient and modern, in which it has been tried, it has
terminated disastrously, and been productive of corruption, injustice,
violence, and tyranny. And dare we flatter ourselves that we are a
peculiar people, who can run the career of history exempted from the
passions which have disturbed and corrupted the rest of mankind? If we
are like other races of men, with similar follies and vices, then I
greatly fear that our posterity will have reason to deplore in
sackcloth 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 and
all their energy against Spencer's proposition, it was Martin Van
Buren's speech which made the deepest impression. It cannot be said
that the latter's remarks defeated the amendment, because the vote of
nineteen to one hundred, showed no one behind the Chief Justice's
proposal save himself and a few Federalists. But Van Buren greatly
strengthened the report of the committee, which gave a vote to every
male citizen twenty-one years old, who had resided six months in the
State and who had within one year paid taxes or a road assessment, or
had been enrolled and served in the militia. Although, said Van Buren,
this report is on the verge of universal suffrage, it did not cheapen
the invaluable right, by conferring it indiscriminately upon every
one, black or white, who would condescend to accept it. He was
opposed, he said, to a precipitate and unexpected prostration of all
qualifications, and looked with dread upon the great increase of
voters in New York City, believing that such an increase would render
elections a curse rather than a blessing. But he maintained that the
events of the past forty years had discredited the speculative fears
of Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison; that venality in voting, in spite
of property qualifications, already existed in grossest forms in
parliamentary elections in England, and that property had been as safe
in those American communities which had given universal suffrage as in
the few which retained a freehold qualification. Then, with great
earnestness, his eye resting upon the distinguished Chancellor, he
declared that whenever the principles of order and good government
should yield to principles of anarchy and violence, all constitutional
provisions would be idle and unavailing.

It was a captivating speech. There was little rhetoric and less
feeling. Van Buren took good care to show his thorough knowledge of
the subject, and, without the use of exclamations or interrogations,
he pointed out the unwisdom of following the constitution-makers of
1777, and the danger of accepting the dogma of universal suffrage. The
impression we get from the declaration of some of those who heard it,
is that Van Buren surpassed himself in this effort. He seems to have
made a large majority of the convention happy because he said just
what they wanted to know, and said it in just the way they wanted to
hear it. It must be admitted, too, that the evils which he prophesied,
if universal suffrage were given to New York City, have been too
unhappily verified. With the defeat of Spencer's proposition, the
suffrage question quickly settled itself along the lines of the
committee's report.

The judiciary article excited less debate but more feeling. Delegates
brooded over the well known fact that judges had become political
partisans, opposed to increasing their number to meet the growing
demands of business, and anxious to retain the extraordinary power
given them under the Constitution of 1777. Whenever a suggestion was
made to retain these judges, therefore, it provoked bitter opposition
and denunciation. A few men in the convention had very fierce
opinions, seasoned with a kind of wit, and of these, the restless
energy of Erastus Root soon earned for him considerable notoriety.
Indeed, it passed into a sort of proverb that there were three parties
in the convention--the Republicans, the Federalists, and Erastus Root.
It is not so clear that he had as much influence as his long
prominence in public life would seem to entitle him; but when he did
happen to stand with the majority, he pleased it with his witty
vehemence more than Peter R. Livingston did with his coarse
vituperation. In the debate on the judiciary, however, abuse and
invective were not confined to Root and Livingston. Abraham Van
Vechten and some of those who acted with him, employed every means in
their power to defeat the opponents of the judges, although they
scarcely equalled the extra-tribunal methods of their adversaries.

The contest opened as soon as the chairman of the judiciary committee
reported in favour of a vice chancellor, from whom appeals should be
taken to the chancellor; and of a superior court of common pleas,
having practically the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which should
form a part of the Court for the Correction of Errors. This meant the
continuation of the old judges. Immediately, Erastus Root offered a
substitute, abolishing the existing courts, and creating a new Supreme
Court, with a corps of _nisi prius_ district judges. Root's plan also
provided for the transfer of the equitable powers of the Court of
Chancery to the courts of common law. This was the extreme view.
Although the convention, or at least a majority of it, might wish to
get rid of the old Supreme Court judges, it was plainly unwilling to
let go the Court of Chancery. So it rejected the Root substitute by a
vote of seventy-three to thirty-six, and the report of the judiciary
committee by seventy-nine ayes to thirty-three noes. But the attack
thus daringly begun by Root, was steadily maintained. Martin Van
Buren, who figured as a sort of peacemaker, proposed the retention of
the Chancery and Supreme Courts, and the creation of circuit judges.
This proposition went to a special committee, which presented two
reports--one for the preservation of the Court of Chancery and the
Supreme Court, the other for the creation of a Court of Chancery, a
Supreme Court, and courts of common pleas. It was plain that the
second of these was Root's former substitute, with the Court of
Chancery continued, and, in support of it, he now arraigned the
political conduct of the judges with a severity that was speedily
rebuked. Root was radical or nothing. He hated Spencer, he despised
Van Ness, and he disliked James Kent and Jonas Platt; and with an
exuberance of apparent anger he demanded the abolition of their courts
and the creation of others in no wise different.

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

The convention had now been in session over two months, and this most
troublesome question seemed no nearer settlement than on the opening
day. As in the suffrage debate, there were three factions--one
determined to get rid of Chancellor Kent and the five Supreme Court
judges; another, less numerous, desirous of continuing them all in
office, and a third, probably composed of a majority of the
convention, who wished to save the chancellor and lose the others.
Finally, on the first day of November, ten days before adjournment, a
proposition appeared to create a Supreme Court to consist of a chief
justice and two justices, and to divide the State into not less than
four or more than eight districts, as the Legislature should decide,
in each of which a district judge should be appointed, with the tenure
and powers of Supreme Court judges. It was also provided that such
equity powers should be vested in the district judges, in courts of
common pleas, or in other subordinate courts, as the Legislature might
direct, subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the chancellor. This
was practically Root's old proposition in another form, and its
reappearance made it the more certain that a majority of the
convention 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 plans
might result in no action, had taken no part in the debates on the
judiciary. Now, however, Ambrose Spencer, with doubtful propriety,
broke the silence. His friends feared the assaults of Root and Peter
R. Livingston might drive him into a fierce retort, and that he would
antagonise the convention if he did not also weary it. But he did
nothing of the kind. He spoke with calmness and excellent taste,
saying that he favoured the appointment of circuit judges who should
aid the Supreme Court in the trial of issues of fact, and who should
also be members, _ex-officio_, of the Court of Errors; that he had
little or no personal interest in the question since he should very
soon be constitutionally ineligible to the office; that for eighteen
years he had tried to discharge his duties with fidelity and
integrity, and that he should leave the bench conscious of having done
no wrong if he had not always had the approval of others. He seemed to
capture the convention for a moment. His tones were mellow, his
manner gentle, and when he suggested leaving Albany on the morrow to
resume his labours on the bench, his remarks took the form of a
farewell speech, which added a touch of pathos. Indeed, the Chief
Justice had proved so wise and discreet that Henry Wheaton thought it
an opportune time to propose an amendment to the proposition before
the convention, providing that the present justices hold office until
their number be reduced to three, by death, resignation, removal, or
by age limitation. This brought the convention face to face with the
question of retaining the old judges, stripped of all other
provisions, and the result was awaited with great interest. It was Van
Buren'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 prominent
Bucktails who hoped, with Van Buren, that the convention would not
ruin 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 doubtless
have cheerfully heard from the Chancellor and other members of the
court, but it could not surrender the principle over which sixty days
had been spent in contention. When, therefore, the roll was called,
Wheaton's amendment was rejected by a vote of sixty-six to
thirty-nine. Then came the call on the original proposition, to have
Supreme and District Courts, which disclosed sixty-two ayes and
fifty-three noes. If the weakness of the noes on the first vote was a
disappointment, the strength of the noes on the second vote was a
surprise. A change of only five votes was needed to defeat the
proposition, and these might have been reduced to three had Daniel D.
Tompkins, who favoured Van Buren's idea, and the four judges who
refrained 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 continue
the judges in office.

Martin Van Buren, as chairman of the committee to consider the
question of filling offices, reported in favour of abolishing the
Council of Appointment, and of electing state officers by the
Legislature, justices of the peace by the people, and military
officers, except generals, by the rank and file of the militia.
Judicial officers, with surrogates and sheriffs, were to be appointed
by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, while courts were
authorised to select county clerks and district attorneys. To the
common councils of cities was committed the duty of choosing mayors
and clerks. In his statement, Van Buren said that of the eight
thousand two hundred and eighty-seven military officers in the State,
all would be elected by the rank and file, except seventy-eight
generals; and of the six thousand six hundred and sixty-three civil
officers, all would be elected by the people or designated as the
Legislature should direct, except four hundred and fifty-three. To
provide for these five hundred and thirty-one military and civil
officers, the committee thought it wise to have the governor appoint
and the Senate confirm them. The constitutions recently formed in
Kentucky, Louisiana, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, he said, had
such a provision--similar, in fact, to that in the Federal
Constitution--and, although this method was open to objection, the
committee was unable to devise a better system.

Aside from James Tallmadge, who thought the Legislature should have
nothing to do with the patronage of government, this report called out
little opposition, so far as it provided for the election of state
officers by the Legislature, military officers by the militia, and the
appointment of higher military and judicial officers by the governor.
Van Buren had made it plain, by his exhaustive argument, that
constitution-makers, seeking the latest expression of the people's
will, could devise no better plan, and that experience in the newest
States having the same system, had developed no serious objection.
There was a readiness, also, to accept the recommendation allowing the
Legislature to designate the manner of selecting the three thousand
six hundred and forty-three notaries public, commissioners of deeds,
and other minor officers. But a buzz of disapproval ran through the
convention when the article providing for the election of justices of
the peace was reached. It was evident from the outset, that a
concerted movement was on foot among Republican leaders to establish,
at the seat of government, a central appointing power of large
authority, and the appointment of justices of the peace was peculiarly
essential to its strength. A justice was of more importance then than
now. He was usually the strongest character in his vicinage, and
whether he followed the plow, or wore upon the bench the homely
working clothes in which he tended cattle, he was none the less
familiar with the politics of every suitor in his court. In the
absence of higher courts, neighbours were compelled to go before him,
and in settling their troubles, it was usually understood that he held
the scales of justice without being blindfolded.

Van Buren did not conceal his hostility to the election of these
justices. If he had developed radical tendencies in the suffrage
debate, he now exhibited equally strong conservative proclivities in
limiting the power of the voter. His vigorous protests in the
committee-room against the election of surrogates, sheriffs and county
clerks had defeated that proposition, and in referring to the section
of the report making justices of the peace elective, he said it had
been a source of sincere regret that the committee overruled him. But
a majority of the committee, he continued, in his smooth and adroit
manner, had no strong personal predilections on the question of the
election of sheriffs and surrogates, and if, on a fair and deliberate
examination, it should be thought better to have these officials
elected by the people, they would cheerfully acquiesce in that
decision. This was the quintessence of diplomacy. He knew that Erastus
Root and Samuel Young insisted upon having these officers elected,
and, to secure their opposition to the election of justices of the
peace, he indicated a willingness to be convinced as to the expediency
of electing sheriffs and surrogates.

To bring the question of electing or appointing justices of the peace
squarely before the convention, Van Buren, at a later day, introduced
a resolution providing that the board of supervisors in every county
should, at such time as the Legislature directed, recommend to the
governor a list of persons equal in number to the justices of the
peace in such county; that the respective courts of common pleas of
the several counties should also recommend a like number, and from the
lists so recommended the governor should appoint. In the event of
vacancies, like recommendations were to be made. The governor was also
authorised to remove a justice upon the application in writing of the
body recommending his appointment. This scheme was not very
magnificent. It put the responsibility of selection neither upon
supervisors, courts, nor governor, although each one must act
independently of the other, but it gave the governor a double chance
of appointing men of his own political faith. This was Van Buren's
purpose. He believed in a central appointing power, which the Albany
Regency might control, and, that such power should not be impotent,
these minor and many magistrates, thickly distributed throughout the
State, with a jurisdiction broad enough to influence their
neighbourhoods, became of the greatest importance. To secure their
appointment, therefore, Van Buren was ready to sacrifice the
appointment of sheriffs, with their vast army of deputies.

Van Buren's scheme was ably resisted. Rufus King, who was counted a
Bucktail but until now had taken little part in debate, spoke against
it with all the sincere emotion of one whose mind and heart alike were
filled with the cause for which he pleaded. He thought justices should
be elected. Each locality knew the men in whom it could trust to
settle its disputes, and farmers as well as townspeople should be
allowed to select the arbitrator of all their petty quarrels and
disagreements. It was the very essence of home rule. In vigorous
English Ambrose Spencer, William W. Van Ness, and Jacob R. Van
Rensselaer supported the Senator, while Ogden Edwards of New York
City, an able representative of Tammany, burning with a sense of
injustice, violently assailed the proposed plan. "The unanimous vote
of this convention," he said, "had shown that the Council of
Appointment was an evil. A unanimous sentence of condemnation has been
passed upon it, and I had not expected so soon to find a proposition
for its revival."

Probably no stranger scene was ever witnessed in a parliamentary body
than Erastus Root and Samuel Young, two radical legislators, advocates
of universal suffrage, and just now especially conspicuous because of
their successful support of the election of sheriffs and county
clerks, arguing with zeal and ability for the appointment of justices
of the peace. It seemed like a travesty, since there was not an
argument in favour of electing sheriffs that did not apply with added
force to the election of justices. The convention stood aghast at such
effrontery. It is impossible to read, without regret, of the voluntary
stultification of these orators, pleading piteously for the
appointment of justices of the peace while declaiming with passionate
righteousness against the appointment of sheriffs. With acidulated
satire, Van Ness, enrapturing his hearers by his brilliancy, held them
up to public ridicule if not to public detestation. But Van Buren's
bungling proposition, though once rejected by a vote of fifty-nine to
fifty-six, was in the end substantially adopted, and it remained a
part of the amended constitution until the people, very soon satisfied
of its iniquity, ripped it out of the organic law with the same
unanimity that their representatives now abolished the Councils of
Appointment and of Revision. Could Van Buren have had his way, the
Council of Appointment would have been changed only in name.

The work of the convention concluded, a motion for the passage of the
Constitution as a whole developed only eight votes in the negative,
though twenty-four members, including the eight delegates from Albany
and Columbia Counties, four from Montgomery, Jonas Platt of Oneida,
and Peter A. Jay of Westchester, because it extended and cheapened
suffrage, refused to sign it. Other objections were urged. Ezekiel
Bacon of Utica, explaining his affirmative vote, thought it worse
than the existing Constitution of 1777; yet he approved it because the
provision for amendment afforded the people a means of correcting
defects with reasonable facility, without resorting to the difficult
and dangerous experiment of a formal convention.

The Constitution, however, in spite of the opposition, was
overwhelmingly ratified. The vote for it was 74,732; against it
41,043. And it proved better than even its sponsors prophesied. It
abolished the Councils of Appointment and of Revision; it abolished
the power of the governor to prorogue the Legislature; it abolished
the property qualification of the white voter; it extended the
elective franchise; it made a large number of officers elective; it
modified the management of the canals and created a canal board; it
continued the Court of Errors and Impeachments; it reorganised the
judicial department, making all judges, surrogates, and recorders
appointive by the governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate;
it made state officers, formerly appointed by the Council, elective by
joint ballot of the Senate and Assembly; and it gave the power of veto
exclusively to the governor, requiring a two-thirds vote of the
Legislature to overcome it. No doubt it had radical defects, but with
the 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 to
November, and reduced the gubernatorial term from three years to two,
thus ending Governor Clinton's administration on January 1, 1823. As
the time approached for nominating his successor, it was obvious that
the Bucktails, having reduced party discipline to a science and
launched the Albany Regency upon its long career of party domination,
were certain to control the election. Indeed, so strong had the party
become that a nomination for senator or assemblyman was equivalent to
an election, and the defeat of John W. Taylor of Saratoga for speaker
of the Seventeenth Congress showed that its power extended to the
capital of the nation. Taylor's ability and splendid leadership, in
the historic contest of the Missouri Compromise, had made him speaker
during the second session of the Sixteenth Congress; but Bucktail
resentment of his friendly attitude toward Clinton, in 1820, changed a
sufficient number of his New York colleagues to deprive him of
re-election. It was not until the Nineteenth Congress, after the power
of the Albany Regency had been temporarily broken by the election of
John Quincy Adams to the Presidency, that Taylor finally received the
reward to which he was so richly entitled.

At this moment of the Regency's domination, Joseph C. Yates showed
himself the coming man. Though it was the desire of his party that he
take the nomination for governor in 1820, the cautious, modest Justice
of the Supreme Court had discreetly decided not to sacrifice himself
in the year of DeWitt Clinton's greatest strength. Conscious of his
own popularity with the people, he was prepared to wait. But he had
not to wait long. During the last two years of Clinton's
administration, Yates had distinguished himself in the Council of
Revision, by voting for the bill creating a constitutional
convention--a vote which was applauded by Van Buren, although overcome
by Clinton; and when the time approached for the selection of another
gubernatorial candidate, he rightly saw that his hour was come. Yates
was not cut out for the part which a strange combination of
circumstances was to allow him to play. He was a man of respectable
character, but without remarkable capacity of any kind. He had a
charming personality. He was modest and mild in his deportment, and
richly gifted with discretion, caution, and prudence. Vindictiveness
formed no part of his disposition. The peculiar character of his
intellect made him a good Supreme Court judge; but he lacked the
intellectual energy and courage for an executive, who must thoroughly
understand the means of getting and retaining public support.

A majority of the leading politicians of the party, appreciating
Yates' mental deficiencies, ranged themselves on the side of Samuel
Young, who enjoyed playing a conspicuous part and liked attacking
somebody. Young was not merely a debater of apparently inexhaustible
resource, but a master in the use of parliamentary tactics and
political craft. His speeches, or such reports of them as exist, are
full 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 and
illiberal, often rude, treatment of opponents prevented him from
obtaining all the influence which would otherwise have been fairly due
to his talents and his political and personal integrity.

There were, also, other aspirants. Daniel D. Tompkins, preferring
governor to Vice President, was willing to be called; and Peter B.
Porter, Erastus Root, and Nathan Sanford, figured among those whose
names were canvassed. The contest, however, soon settled down between
Yates and Young, with the chances decidedly in favour of the former.
People admired Young and were proud of him--they thoroughly liked
Yates and trusted him. If Young had possessed the kindly, sympathetic
disposition of Yates, with a tithe of his discretion, he would have
rivalled Martin Van Buren in influence and popularity, and become a
successful candidate for any office in the gift of the voters; but,
with all his splendid genius for debate and eloquent speaking, he was
neither a patient leader nor a popular one. When the Republican
members of the Legislature got into caucus, therefore, Joseph C. Yates
had a pronounced majority, as had Erastus Root for lieutenant-governor.

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

Although Clinton's canal policy, upon the success of which he had
staked his all, was signally vindicating itself in rapidity of
construction, and the very moderate estimate of cost, his friends did
not hesitate to advise him that his re-election to the governorship
was impossible. It was a cold proposition for a man to face who had
inaugurated a system of improvement which would confer prosperity and
wealth 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 his
ambition. But his friends were right. Through his management, or want
of management, the Clintonians had ceased to exist as an organisation,
and his supporting Federalists, as evidenced by the election of
delegates to the constitutional convention in 1821, had passed into a
hopeless minority. "Governor Clinton, though governor," said Thurlow
Weed, "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 expects
to succeed in public life. Clinton had now been governor for five
consecutive years. His motives had undoubtedly been pure and
patriotic, and he had within his control the means of a great office
to influence people in his favour; yet a cold exterior, an arrogant
manner, and a disposition to rule or ruin, had cooled his friends and
driven away the people until opponents took little heed of his
existence.

No doubt Clinton had good reason to know that the statesmen of that
time were not exactly what they professed to be. He was well aware
that many of them, like John Woodworth, Ambrose Spencer, and James
Tallmadge, had played fast and loose as the chances of Bucktail and
Clintonian had gone up or gone down; and, although he gracefully
declined to become a candidate for re-election, when convinced of the
utter hopelessness of such a race, his brain was no less active in the
conception of plans which should again return him to power. As early
as October, 1822, he wrote Post: "The odium attached to the name of
Federalist has been a millstone round the neck of true policy. It is
now almost universally dropped in this district, in the district of
which Oneida County is part, and in the Herkimer County meeting. I
hail this as an auspicious event. Names in politics as well as science
are matters of substance, and a bad name in public is as injurious to
success as a bad name in private life. The inferences I draw from the
signs of the times are: First, the ascendancy of our party from the
collisions of parties. In proportion as they quarrel with each other
they will draw closer to us. The last hate being the most violent will
supersede the former antipathy. Second, the old names as well as the
old lines of party will be abolished. Third, nominations by caucuses
will be exploded. Fourth, Yates, Van Buren, etc., will go down like
the stick of a rocket. Our friends are up and doing in Ulster."

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

In the absence of a Clintonian or Federalist opponent, Solomon
Southwick announced himself as an independent candidate. His was a
strange story. He had many of the noblest qualities and some of the
wildest fancies, growing out of an extravagant imagination that seemed
to control his mind. Among other things, he opened an office for the
sale of lottery tickets, reserving numbers for himself which had been
indicated in dreams or by fortune-tellers, with whom he was in
frequent consultation. Writing of his disposition to hope for aid from
the miraculous interposition of some invisible power, Hammond says:
"He was in daily expectation that the next mail would bring him news
that he had drawn the highest prize in the lottery; and I have known
him to borrow money of a friend under a solemn pledge of his honour
for its repayment in ten days, and have afterward ascertained that his
sole expectation of redeeming his pledge depended on his drawing a
prize when the next lottery in which he was interested should be
drawn."[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_ clearly
indicates; but erroneous judgment and defective impulses resulted in
misfortunes which finally darkened and closed his life in adversity if
not in poverty. As a young man he had been repeatedly elected clerk of
the Assembly, and had afterward served as sheriff, as state printer,
and, finally, as postmaster. In the meantime, he became the first
president of the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank, making money easily and
rapidly, living extravagantly, giving generously, and acquiring great
political influence. But his trial for bribery, of which mention has
been made, his removal as state printer, and his defalcation as
postmaster, prostrated him financially and politically. In the hope of
retrieving his fortunes he embarked in real estate speculation, thus
completing his ruin and making him still more visionary and fantastic.
Nevertheless, he struggled on with industry and courage for more than
twenty years, occasionally coming into public or political notice as a
writer of caustic letters, or as a candidate for office.

In 1822, the wild fancy possessed Southwick of becoming governor, and
to preface the way for his visionary scheme he applied to a bright
young journalist, the editor of the Manlius _Republican_, to canvass
the western and southwestern counties of the State. Thurlow Weed at
this time was twenty-six years old. He had worked on a farm, he had
blown a blacksmith's bellows, he had shipped as a cabin-boy, he had
done chores at a tavern, he had served as a soldier, and he had
learned the printer's trade. For twenty years he lived a life of
poverty, yet of tireless industry, with a simplicity as amazing as his
genius. The only thing of which he got nothing was schooling. His
family 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 the
hope of "bettering his condition," he moved five times in ten years,
getting so desperately poor at last that a borrowed two-horse sleigh
carried all his worldly goods, including a wife and five children.
Joel Weed was, perhaps, as unfortunate a man as ever brought an
illustrious son into the world. He was neither shiftless nor
worthless, but what others did he could not do. He never took up land
for himself because he had nothing to begin with. A neighbour who
began 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 revelled
in the mountains and streams interspersed along the routes of the
family's frequent movings; his taste for adventure made the sloop's
cabin a home, and his love for reading turned the blacksmith shop and
printing office into a schoolroom. As he read he forgot that he was
poor, forgot that he was ragged, forgot that he was hungry. In his
autobiography he tells of walking bare-footed six miles through the
snow to borrow a history of the French Revolution, and of reading it
at night in the blaze of a pitch-pine knot. Men found him lovable. He
was large and awkward; but even as a boy there was a charm of manner,
a tender, sympathetic nature, a sweet, sparkling humour, and a
nobility of character that irresistibly drew people to him. In many
respects his boyhood resembled Lincoln's, and, though he lived in some
of the evil days of the last century, his youth, like Lincoln's,
escaped pollution. At the age of twelve, as an apprentice in a weekly
newspaper office at Onondaga Hollow, he read and filed every exchange
paper, familiarising himself with discussions in Congress, and
imbibing a deadly hatred of England because of Indian barbarities
excited by British agents, and cruelties to American seamen impressed
by British officers. With the true instinct of his fine nature, he
made his friends and companions among the wisest and highest of his
time, although he loved all company that was not vicious and depraved.
He knew Gerrit Smith in 1814; a few months' stay, as a journeyman
printer, 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 of
decided literary tastes, and for thirty years president of the New
York City Bank, began in Albany in 1816. Thus, in whatever town he
worked or settled, the prominent men and those to grow into prominence
became his intimates. He had women friends, too, as wisely chosen as
the men, but Catherine Ostrander was the star of his life. He tells a
touching little story of this Cooperstown maiden. Their engagement
occurred in his seventeenth year, but her parents, objecting to the
roving, unsettled youth, he proposed three years of absolute
separation, and if then no change had come to her affections she
should write and tell him so. In his hours of poverty, he was cheered
by the thought of her, and when, at last, her letter came, he hastened
to claim her as his bride. At the conclusion of the ceremony, he had
money 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, and
less money; but it had also classified him politically. He had never
been a Federalist, nor could he be called a Clintonian, although his
belief in canal improvement led him to the support of Governor Clinton
and earned for him the opposition of the Bucktails. Like his father he
worked without success, and then moved on to Albany; but he left
behind him a coterie of distinguished Chenango friends who were ever
after to follow his leadership. At Albany, he began to earn eighteen
dollars a week as a journeyman printer on the _Argus_. The Bucktails
forced him out and he went on to Manlius, resurrecting the _Times_, an
old Federalist paper, which he called the _Republican_.

It was at this time that Southwick sought him. "He was insanely
anxious to be governor," says Weed, "and all the more insane because
of its impossibility. He had been editing with great industry and
ability the _Ploughboy_ and the _Christian Visitant_, and beguiled
himself with a confident belief that farmers and Christians,
irrespective of party, would sustain him. He provided me with a horse
and wagon, and gave me a list of the names of gentlemen on whom I was
to call, but I soon discovered that my friend's hopes and chances were
not worth even the services of a horse that was dragging me through
the mud. Years afterward I learned that in politics, as almost in
everything else, Mr. Southwick was blinded by his enthusiasm and
credulity."[221]

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

But Southwick was not the only blinded one in 1822. On the 10th of
January, Governor Clinton wrote Henry Post "that Yates and Van Buren
are both prostrate, and the latter particularly so."[222] Later in the
year, on August 21, he declared: "Yates is unpopular, and Southwick
will beat him in this city and in Schenectady."[223] In the next
month, September 21, he is even more outspoken. "Yates is despised and
talked against openly. Savage and Skinner talk plainly against him,
and he is the subject of commonplace ridicule."[224] Clinton was the
last person to abandon hope of Yates' defeat; and yet Yates' election
could, without exaggeration, be declared practically unanimous.[225]
Republican legislative candidates fared equally well. Clintonians and
Federalists were entirely without representation in the Senate, and in
the Assembly their number was insufficient to make their presence
appreciable.

[Footnote 222: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper's
Magazine_, 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 votes
cast.--_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, crushing
victories that precede a radical change; and the confidence with which
the victors used their power hurried on the revolution prophesied in
Clinton's clever letter to Post. The blow did not, indeed, come at
once. The legislators, meeting in January, 1823, proceeded cautiously,
agreeing in caucus upon the state officers whom the Legislature, under
the amended Constitution, must now elect. John Van Ness Yates, the
Governor'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 he
was a Clintonian; but forty years of honourable, efficient, quiet
service finally appealed to a Republican Legislature with all the
force that it had formerly appealed to the Skinner Council. There was
more of a contest over the comptrollership. James Tallmadge suddenly
blossomed into a rival candidate. Tallmadge, like John W. Taylor, won
his spurs as a leader of the opposition to the Missouri Compromise. He
had been an ardent supporter of Clinton until the latter preferred
Thomas J. Oakley as attorney-general; then he swung into communion
with the Bucktails. He was impulsively ambitious, sensitive to
opposition, fearless in action, and such an inveterate hater that he
could not always act along lines leading to his own preferment.

Under the new Constitution, county judges, surrogates, and notaries
public were selected from the dominant party with more jealous care
than by the old Council; and if Yates failed to observe the edict of
the Regency, the Senate failed to confirm his appointees. Hammond, the
historian, gives an instance of its refusal to confirm the
reappointment of a bank cashier as a notary public because of his
politics. But the really absorbing question was the appointment of
Supreme Court judges. Though there was no objection to Nathan Sanford
for chancellor, since he would not take office until the retirement of
James Kent, in August, by reason of age limitation, the spirit shown
in the constitutional convention, toward the old Supreme Court judges,
pervaded the Senate. The Governor, who had served with Ambrose Spencer
since 1808, and with Platt and Woodworth from the time of their
elevation to the court, was prompted, perhaps through his kindly
interest in their welfare, to nominate them for reappointment, but the
Senate rejected them by an almost unanimous vote. If the Governor had
now let the matter rest, he would doubtless have escaped the serious
charge of insincerity. The next day, however, without giving the
rejected men opportunity to secure a rehearing, he nominated John
Savage, Jacob Sutherland, and Samuel R. Betts. The suddenness of these
second nominations seemed to indicate a greater desire to continue
cordial relations with the Senate than to help his former associates.
Whatever the cause, though, Ambrose Spencer never forgave him; nor did
he outlive Samuel Young's criticism of playing politics at the expense
of his old comrades upon the bench.

With the exception of Ambrose Spencer, who was destined to be
remembered for a time by friends and enemies, the old judges of the
Supreme Court may now be said to drop out of state history. Spencer
lived twenty-five years longer, until 1848, serving one term in
Congress, one term as mayor of Albany, and finally rounding out his
long life of eighty-three years as president of the national Whig
convention at Baltimore in 1844; but his political and public
activity, as a factor to be reckoned with, ceased at the age of
fifty-eight. The close of his life was spent in happy quietude among
his books, and in the midst of new-found friends in the church, with
which he united some six or eight years before his death. Jonas Platt
returned to Clinton County, and, for a time, practised his profession
with great acceptance as an advocate; but as a master-politician he,
like Spencer, was out of employment forever. At last, he, too, retired
to a farm, and with composure awaited the end that came in 1834.
William W. Van Ness was destined to go earlier. Not seeking
reappointment to the bench, he settled in New York, with apparently
forty years of life before him, his genius in all the glow of its
maturity marking him for greater political success than he had yet
achieved; yet, within a year, on February 27, 1823, death found him
while he sought health in a Southern State. He was only forty-seven
years old at the time. Disease and not age had thrown him. Born in
1776, he had won for himself the proudest honours of the law, and
written his name high up on the roll of New York statesmen.

Governor Yates had thus far travelled a difficult and dusty road. In
the duty of organising the government, which, under the new
Constitution fell to him, and in making appointments, he received the
censure and was burdened with the resentment of the mortified and
disappointed. His opponents, with the hearty and poorly concealed
approval of Young's friends, made it their business to create a public
opinion against him. They assailed him at all points with ridicule,
with satire, with vituperation, and with personal abuse. They seemed
to lie in wait to find occasion for attacking him, exaggerating his
weaknesses and minimising his strength. But the blunder that broke his
heart, and sent him into unexpected and sudden retirement, was his
opposition to a change in the law providing for the choice of
presidential electors by the people. The demand for such a measure
grew out of a divided sentiment between William H. Crawford, then
secretary of the treasury, John Quincy Adams, secretary of state, and
Henry Clay, speaker of the national House of Representatives, the
leading candidates for President. There was, as yet, no real break in
the Republican party. No national question had appeared upon which
the nation was divided; and, although individuals in the South took
exception to protective duties, the party had made no claim that the
tariff system of 1816 was either inexpedient or unconstitutional. The
selection of a candidate for President had, however, become intensely
personal, dividing the country into excited factions equivalent to a
division of parties. In New York, Van Buren and the Albany Regency
favoured Crawford; James Tallmadge, Henry Wheaton, Thurlow Weed and
others preferred Adams; and Samuel Young, Peter B. Porter and their
friends warmly supported Clay. The heated contest extended to the
people, who understood that the choice of Crawford electors by the
Legislature would control the election for the Georgian, while a
change in the law would give Adams or Clay a chance. To insure such a
change, the opponents of Crawford, calling themselves the People's
party, made several nominations for the Assembly, and among those
elected 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 had
already made himself prominent, not merely as a politician of general
ability, but as a reporter of the United States Supreme Court, whose
conscientious and intelligent work was to link his name forever with
the jurisprudence of the country. During the War of 1812, Wheaton had
edited the _National Advocate_, writing a series of important papers
on neutral rights; and, subsequently, he had become division
judge-advocate of the army, and justice of the marine court of New
York City. From the constitutional convention of 1821, he stepped into
the Assembly of 1824, where, in the debates over the choice of
electors by the people, his ready eloquence made him a valuable ally
for Tallmadge and a formidable opponent to Flagg. His ambition to
shine as a statesman, and an extraordinary power of application,
equipped him with varied information, and made him an authority on
many subjects. He joined Benjamin F. Butler in the revision of the
statutes of the State, and was associated with Daniel Webster in
settling the limits of the bankruptcy legislation of the state and
federal governments. Just now he was still a young man, only in his
thirty-ninth year; but those who had seen his keen, clever articles on
neutral rights, polished and penetrating in style, and who heard his
skilful and fearless advocacy of the people's right to choose
electors, were not surprised to learn of his appointment, in later
life, as a lecturer at Harvard, or to read his great work on the
_Elements of International Law_, published in 1836. As a reward for
the part he took in the election of 1824, President Adams sent him to
Denmark, from whence he went to Prussia--these appointments keeping
him abroad for twenty years.

John Van Ness Yates urged his uncle to recommend a change in the law
regulating the choice of electors; and if the Governor had possessed
the political wisdom necessary in such an emergency, he would
doubtless have taken the suggestion. But Yates thought it wise to
follow the Regency; the Regency thought it wise to follow Van Buren;
and Van Buren opposed a change, as prejudicial to Crawford's
interests. The result was a bungling attempt on the part of the
Governor to evade the direct expression of an opinion. Finally,
however, he said that as Congress was likely soon to present an
amendment to the Constitution for legislative sanction, it was
inadvisable "under existing circumstances" to change the law "at this
time."[226] This was neither skilful nor truthful. Congress had no
thought of doing anything of the kind, and, if it had, men knew that
an amendment could not be secured in time to operate at the coming
election. 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 authorising
the people to choose electors naturally excited a long and bitter
debate, in which Azariah C. Flagg represented the Regency. Flagg was
a printer by trade, the publisher of a Republican paper at Plattsburg,
and a veteran of the War of 1812. He was not prepossessing in
appearance; his diminutive stature, surmounted by a big, round head
gave him the appearance of Atlas with the world upon his shoulders.
His voice, too, was shrill and unattractive; but he suddenly evinced
shrewdness and address in legislative tactics that greatly worried his
opponents and pleased his friends. A majority of the Assembly,
however, afraid of their excited and indignant constituents, finally
passed the bill. When it reached the Senate, the supporters of
Crawford 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 against
it, while the frequenters of public places denounced them as
"traitors, villains, and rascals," with the result that most of them
were consigned to retirement during the remainder of their lives. "The
impression here is that Van Buren and his junto are politically dead,"
wrote DeWitt Clinton to Henry Post on the 17th of February, 1824. "The
impression will produce the event."[227]

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

In the midst of this excitement, came the selection of a candidate for
governor, to be elected in the following November. Yates had done the
bidding of the Regency and Flagg demanded his renomination, but the
men who supported a change in the mode of choosing electors declared
that 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 be
sacrificed for his fidelity," retorted Flagg, "I am ready to suffer
with him." From a sentimental standpoint, this avowal was most
creditable and generous, but it had no place in the councils of
politicians to whom sentiment never appeals when the shrouded figure
of defeat stands at the open door. Just now, too, their fears
increased as evidence accumulated that Samuel Young would certainly be
offered a nomination by the People's party, and would certainly accept
it, if he were not quickly nominated by the Regency Republicans. When
the legislators went into caucus on the 3d of April, 1824, therefore,
the friends of Van Buren were ready to throw over Yates and to accept
Young, with Erastus Root for lieutenant-governor.

Three days afterward, the most influential and active friends of John
Quincy Adams and Henry Clay decided that a state convention--consisting
of as many delegates as there were members of the Assembly, to be
chosen by voters opposed to William H. Crawford for President and in
favour of restoring the choice of presidential electors to the
people--should assemble at Utica, on September 21, 1824, to nominate
candidates for governor and lieutenant-governor. It had long been a
dream of Clinton to have nominations made by delegates elected by the
people. That dream was now to be realised, and the door to a new
political era opened.

Though Clinton had announced a determination to support Andrew
Jackson, he displayed no zeal in the state contest, and contented
himself with writing gossipy letters to Post and in watching the rapid
growth of the Erie canal. As early as 1819, the canal had been opened
between Utica and Rome, and from the Hudson to Lake Champlain. The
middle section, recently completed, was now actively in use between
Utica and Montezuma. In little more than a year, the jubilee over the
letting in of the waters of Lake Erie would deaden the strife of
parties with booming of cannon and expressions of joy. Throughout all
the delays and vexations of this wonderful enterprise, DeWitt Clinton
had been the great inspiring force, and, although for several years
the board of canal commissioners had been reorganised in the interest
of the Bucktails, not a whisper was heard intimating any desire or
intention to interfere with him. When it was known, however, that
James Tallmadge had been agreed upon as the candidate of the People's
party for governor, the Regency, in order to split his forces,
determined upon Clinton's removal from all participation in the
management of the canal. If Tallmadge voted for such a resolution,
reasoned the Van Buren leaders, it would alienate the political
friends with whom he was just now acting; if he voted against it, he
would alienate Tammany.

It was a bold game of politics, and a dangerous one. The people did
not 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 Van
Buren's history exhibits a more foolish disregard of public sentiment,
or led to a greater disaster. But the Regency, blinded by its
overwhelming victory at the last election, was prepared to pay a
gambler's price for power, and, in the twinkling of an eye, before the
Assembly knew what had happened, the Senate removed Clinton from the
office of canal commissioner, only three votes being recorded for him.
Thurlow Weed happened to be a witness of the proceeding, and, rushing
to the Assembly chamber, urged Tallmadge to resist its passage through
the house. "I knew how bitterly General Tallmadge hated Mr. Clinton,"
he says, "but in a few hurried and emphatic sentences implored him not
to be caught in the trap thus baited for him. I urged him to state
frankly, in a brief speech, how entirely he was estranged personally
and politically from Mr. Clinton, but to denounce his removal during
the successful progress of a system of improvement which he had
inaugurated, and which would confer prosperity and wealth upon the
people and enrich and elevate our State, as an act of vandalism to
which he could not consent to be a party. I concluded by assuring him
solemnly that if he voted for that resolution he could not receive the
nomination for governor."[228]

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

But Tallmadge remained dumb. Gamaliel H. Barstow, formerly a
Clintonian, walked out of the chamber. Other old friends showed
indifference. Only Henry Cunningham of Montgomery, entering the
chamber while the clerk was reading the resolution, eloquently
denounced it. "When the miserable party strifes shall have passed by,"
he said, in conclusion; "when the political jugglers who now beleaguer
this capital shall be overwhelmed and forgotten; when the gentle
breeze shall pass over the tomb of that great man, carrying with it
the just tribute of honour and praise which is now withheld, the pen
of the future historian will do him justice, and erect to his memory a
monument of fame as imperishable as the splendid works that owe their
origin to his genius and perseverance."[229] One or two others spoke
briefly in Clinton's behalf, and then the resolution passed--ayes
sixty-four, noes thirty-four. Among the ayes were Tallmadge and
Wheaton.

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

Had Clinton been assassinated, the news could not have produced a
greater shock. Scarcely had the Assembly adjourned, before the
citizens of Albany--rushing into the vacant chamber and electing the
old and venerable John Taylor, the former lieutenant-governor, for
chairman--expressed their indignation in denunciatory speeches and
resolutions. In New York City, a committee of twenty-five, headed by
Thomas Addis Emmet, called in person upon Clinton to make known the
feeling of the meeting. Everywhere throughout the State, the removal
awakened a cyclone of resentment, the members who voted for it being
the storm-centres. At Canandaigua, personal indignities were
threatened.[230] "Several members," says Weed, "were hissed as they
came out of the capitol. Tallmadge received unmistakable evidence, on
his way through State Street to his lodgings, of the great error he
had committed. His hotel was filled with citizens, whose rebukes were
loudly heard as he passed through the hall to his apartment, and as he
nervously paced backward and forward in his parlour, 'the victim of
remorse that comes too late,' he perceived both the depth and the
darkness 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 for
governor. Clintonian papers urged it, and personal friends wrote and
rode over the State in his interest. Clinton himself became sanguine
of success. "Tallmadge can scarcely get a vote in his own county," he
wrote Post on the 21st of April. "He is the prince of rascals--if
Wheaton does not exceed him."[232]

[Footnote 232: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper's
Magazine_, Vol. 50, p. 569. Clinton seems to have taken a particular
dislike to Henry Wheaton. Elsewhere, he writes to Post: "There is but
one opinion about Wheaton, and that is that he is a pitiful
scoundrel."--_Ibid._, p. 417.]

Meanwhile, a sensation long foreseen by those in the Governor's inner
circle, was about to be sprung. Yates was not a man to be rudely
thrust out of office. He knew he had blundered in opposing an
electoral law, and he now proposed giving the Legislature another
opportunity to enact one. The Regency did not believe there would be
an extra session, because, as Attorney-General Talcott suggested, the
power to convene the Legislature was a high prerogative, the exercise
of which required more decision and nerve than Yates possessed; but,
on the 2nd of June, to the surprise and consternation of the Van Buren
leaders, Yates issued a proclamation reconvening the Legislature on
August 2. It was predicated upon the failure of Congress to amend the
Constitution, upon the recent defeat of the electoral bill in the
Senate, and upon the just alarm of the people, that "their undoubted
right" of choosing presidential electors would be withheld from them.
Very likely, it afforded the Governor much satisfaction to make this
open and damaging attack upon the Regency. He had surrendered
independence if not self-respect, and, in return for his fidelity, had
been ruthlessly cast aside for his less faithful rival. Yet his
purpose was more than revenge. Between the Clintonian prejudice
against Tallmadge, and the People's party's hatred of Clinton, the
Governor hoped he might become a compromise candidate at the Utica
convention. The future, however, had no place for him. He was
ridiculed the more by his enemies and dropped into the pit of oblivion
by his former friends. Nothing in his public life, perhaps, became him
so well as his dignified retirement at Schenectady, amid the scenes of
his youth, where he died at the age of sixty-nine, leaving a place in
history not strongly marked.

Yates' extra session lasted four days and did nothing except to snub
the Governor and give the eloquent Tallmadge, amidst tumultuous
applause from the galleries, an opportunity of annoying the Regency by
keeping up the popular excitement over a change in the choice of
electors until the assembling of the Utica convention. As the days
passed, 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 Tallmadge
a favourite for second place. This, the eloquent gentleman
peremptorily refused, until an appeal for harmony, and the suggestion
that Adams' election might open to him a broader field for usefulness
than that of being governor, produced the desired change. Probably
Tallmadge felt within himself that he was not destined to a great
political career. In any case, he finally accepted the offer with
perfect good humour, giving Weed a brief letter consenting to the use
of his name as lieutenant-governor. With this the young journalist
arrived at Utica on the morning of convention day.

There were one hundred and twenty-two delegates in the convention, of
whom one-fourth belonged to the People's party. These supported
Tallmadge for governor. When they discovered that Tallmadge's vote to
remove Clinton had put him out of the race, they suggested John W.
Taylor; but a delegate from Saratoga produced a letter in which the
distinguished opponent of the Missouri Compromise declined to become a
candidate. This left the way open to DeWitt Clinton, and, as he
carried off the nomination by a large majority, with Tallmadge for
lieutenant-governor by acclamation, many representatives of the
People's party walked out of the hall and reorganised another
convention, resolving to support Tallmadge, but protesting against the
nomination of Clinton--"a diversion," says Weed, "which was soon
forgotten 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 the
most stirring ever witnessed in the State. In a fight, Samuel Young
and DeWitt Clinton were at home. They neither asked nor gave quarter.
There is no record that their fluency or invective did more than add
to the excitement of the campaign; but each was well supplied with
ready venom. Young was rhetorical and dramatic--Clinton energetic and
forceful. People, listening to Young, rocked with laughter and
revelled in applause as he pilloried his opponents, the ferocity of
his attacks being surpassed only by the eloquence of his periods. With
Clinton, speaking was serious business. He lacked the oratorical gift
and the art of concealing the labour of his overwrought and too
elaborate sentences; but his addresses afforded ample evidence of the
capacity and richness of his mind. In spite of great faults, both
candidates commanded the loyalty of followers who swelled with pride
because of their courage and splendid ability. The confidence of the
Regency and the usual success of Tammany at first made the friends of
Clinton unhappy; but as the campaign advanced, Young discovered that
the Regency, in insisting on the choice of electors by the
Legislature, had given the opposition the most telling cry it could
possibly have found against him; that the popular tumult over
Clinton's removal was growing from day to day; and that his opponents
were banded together against him on many grounds and with many
different purposes. Two weeks before the election, it was evident to
every one that the Regency was doomed, that Van Buren was
disconcerted, and that Young was beaten; but no one expected that
Clinton's majority would reach sixteen thousand,[234] or that
Tallmadge would run thirty-two thousand ahead of Erastus Root. The
announcement came like a thunderbolt, bringing with it the
intelligence that out of eight senators only two Regency men had been
spared, while, in the Assembly, the opposition had three to one. In
other 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.--_Civil
List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166.]

Samuel Young's political fortunes never recovered from this encounter
with the illustrious champion of the canals. He was much in office
afterward. For eight years he served in the State Senate, and once as
lieutenant-governor; for a quarter of a century he lived on, a
marvellous orator, whom the people never tired of hearing, and whom
opponents never ceased to fear; but the glow that lingers about a
public man who had never been overwhelmed by the suffrage of his
fellow-citizens was gone forever.




CHAPTER XXX

VAN BUREN ENCOUNTERS WEED

1824


Political interest, in 1824, centred in the election of a President as
well as a Governor. Three candidates,--William H. Crawford of Georgia,
John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, and Henry Clay of Kentucky,--divided
the parties in New York. No one thought of DeWitt Clinton. Very
likely, after his overwhelming election, Clinton, in his joy, felt his
ambition again aroused. He had been inoculated with presidential
rabies in 1812, and his letters to Henry Post showed signs of
continued madness. "I think Crawford is _hors de combat_," he wrote in
March, 1824. "Calhoun never had force, and Clay is equally out of the
question. As for Adams, he can only succeed by the imbecility of his
opponents, not by his own strength. In this crisis may not some other
person bear away the palm?"[235] Then follows the historic
illustration, indicating that the canal champion thought he might
become a compromise candidate: "Do you recollect the story of
Themistocles the Athenian? After the naval victory of Salamis a
council of generals was held to determine on the most worthy. Each man
was to write down two names, the first and the next best. Each general
wrote his own name for the first, and that of Themistocles for the
second. May not this contest have a similar result? I am persuaded
that with common prudence we will stand better than ever."[236]

[Footnote 235: DeWitt Clinton's Letters to Henry Post, in _Harper's
Magazine_, 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 honest
friend. Whatever demonstrations are made from other quarters are
dictated by policy and public sentiment."[237] He grows impatient with
Clay, indignant at the apparent success of Adams, and vituperative
over the tactics of Calhoun. "Clay ought to resign forthwith," he
writes on the 17th of April, 1824; "his chance is worse than nothing.
Jackson would then prevail with all the Western States, if we can get
New Jersey."[238] Four days later he was sure of New Jersey. "We can
get 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's
Magazine_, 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 the
candidate from South Carolina. "Calhoun is acting a treacherous part
to Jackson," he says, under date of July 23, "and is doing all he can
for Adams. Perhaps there is not a man in the United States more
hollow-headed and base. I have long observed his manoeuvres."[240] A
week later Clinton speaks of Calhoun as "a thorough-paced political
blackleg."[241] In August he gives Adams another slap. "The great
danger is that there will be a quarrel between the friends of Jackson
and Adams, and that in the war between the lion and the unicorn the
cur 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 judge
of all who did not sympathise with them. The four competing
candidates, Crawford, Clay, Calhoun, and Adams, could hardly be
paralleled, Clinton being judge, by an equal number of the twelve
Cæsars 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, the
ex-President, was 'a scamp.' Governor Yates is 'perfidious and weak.'
Henry Wheaton's 'conduct is shamefully disgraceful, and he might be
lashed naked round the world.' Chief Justice Ambrose Spencer is
classed as a minus quantity, and his son John C., 'the political
millstone of the West.' Peter B. Porter 'wears a mask.' Woodworth 'is
a weak man, with sinister purposes.' Root is 'a bad man.' Samuel Young
'is unpopular and suspicions are entertained of his integrity.' Van
Buren 'is the prince of villains.' The first impression produced is
one of astonishment that a man capable of such great things could ever
have taken such a lively interest, as he seemed to, in the mere
scullionery of politics."--John Bigelow, in _Harper's Magazine_,
March, 1875.]

Though Clinton and Jackson had long been admirers, there is no
evidence that, at this time, so much as a letter had passed between
them. One can easily understand, however, that a man of the iron will
and great achievement of the Tennesseean would profoundly interest
DeWitt Clinton. On the other hand, the proud, aspiring, unpliant man
whose canal policy brought national renown, had won the admiration of
Andrew Jackson. In 1818, at a Nashville banquet, he had toasted
Clinton, declaring him "the promoter of his country's best interests;"
and one year later, at a dinner given in his honour by the mayor of
New York, Jackson confounded most of the Bucktail banqueters and
surprised them all by proposing "DeWitt Clinton, the enlightened
statesman and governor of the great and patriotic State of New York."
The two men had many characteristics in common. Neither would stoop to
conquer. But the dramatic thing about Clinton's interest just now, was
his proclamation for Jackson, when everybody else in New York was for
some other candidate. The bitterness of that hour was very earnest.
Whatever chance existed for Jackson outside of the State, there was
not the slightest hope for him within it. Nevertheless, Clinton seemed
indifferent. He was a statesman without being a politician. He
believed in Jackson's star, and it was this prescience, as the sequel
showed, that was to give him, in spite of opponents, a sixth term as
governor.

Clinton's résumé of the political situation, written to Post, also
showed his unfailing knowledge of the conditions about to be enacted
at Albany. The Legislature which assembled in extra session, in
November, 1824, for the appointment of presidential electors, was the
same Assembly that had favoured the choice of electors by the people,
and the same Senate which had indefinitely postponed that measure by a
vote of seventeen to fourteen. The former struggle, therefore, was
immediately renewed in the legislative halls, with Martin Van Buren
confident of seventeen Crawford votes in the Senate, and enough more
in the Assembly, with the help of the Clay men, to give the Georgian a
majority on joint ballot.

The Adams men had less confidence, but no less shrewdness and skill. A
new Richmond had arrived on the field. Since his visitation through
the State two years before, in behalf of Solomon Southwick's candidacy
for governor, Thurlow Weed had been growing rapidly in political
experience. He left Manlius without a penny in the autumn of 1822 to
find work on the Rochester _Telegraph_, a Clintonian paper of small
pretensions and smaller circulation. Under its new manager, and with
the name of John Quincy Adams for President at the head of the
editorial page, it soon became so popular and belligerent that the
business men of Rochester sent Weed to Albany as their agent to secure
from the Legislature a charter for a bank. Upon his arrival at the
capital, the friends of the New England candidate welcomed him to the
great political arena in which he was to fight so long, so
brilliantly, and with such success.

It was at this period in his history, that Thurlow Weed's connection
with public life began, developing into that wonderful career which
made him one of the most influential writers and strongest
personalities of his day. He was not an orator; he was not even a
public talker. One attempt to speak met with failure so embarrassing
that 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 retained
so much of the serenity of a child, that he was ever ready to share
his purse and his mantle of pity with the unfortunate, brightening
their lives with a tender sympathy that endeared him to all. It was so
natural for him to guide wisely and noiselessly that he seemed
unconscious of his great gifts. Men in high places, often opulent and
happy in their ease, deferred to him with the confidence of pupils to
a beloved teacher. But he possessed more than philosophic wisdom. He
was sleepless and tireless. It was his custom to attend political
gatherings in all parts of the State, and to make the acquaintance of
men in that "inner circle," who controlled the affairs of party and
the destiny of aspiring statesmen. In 1822 he had toured the State in
the interest of Solomon Southwick. From April to December, in 1824, he
attended two extra sessions of the Legislature and a meeting of the
Electoral College, besides travelling twice throughout the State in
behalf of the candidacy of John Quincy Adams. Traversing New York,
over rough roads, before the days of canals and railroads, in the
heavy, 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's
devotion to party, and fidelity to men and principles, sent him on his
way with something of the freshness of boyhood still shining on his
face. He had his faults, but they were not of a kind to prevent men
from finding him lovable.

When Weed came to Albany, in November, 1824, as the advocate of John
Quincy Adams, the only hope of success was the union of the friends of
Clay and Adams, since only two electoral tickets, under the
Constitution, could be voted for. In the Senate, Crawford had
seventeen votes, and Adams and Clay seven each; in the Assembly, the
first ballot gave Crawford forty-three, Adams fifty, and Clay
thirty-two. Until some combination was made, therefore, a majority
could not be obtained for any candidate. To make such an union
required fine diplomacy between the Adams and Clay men; for it
appeared that Clay must have at least seven electoral votes from New
York in order to become one of the three candidates to be voted for in
the House of Representatives, should the election of President be
thrown into Congress. Fortunately for the Adams men, the Crawford
people also had their troubles, and to hold two senators in line they
placed the names of six moderate Clay men on their ticket. Thereupon,
at a secret meeting, the Adams and Clay leaders agreed to support
thirty Adams men and the six Clay men upon the Crawford ticket, the
friends of Adams promising, if Clay carried Louisiana, to furnish him
the needed seven votes. Naturally enough, the success of this
programme depended upon the utmost secrecy, since their ticket, with
the help of all the Clay votes that could be mustered, would not
exceed two majority. The better to secure such secrecy Weed personally
printed the ballots on the Sunday before the final vote on Tuesday.

There was another well-kept secret. Thurlow Weed had had his
suspicions turned into absolute evidence that Henry Eckford of New
York City, a wealthy supporter of Crawford, had furnished money to
influence three Adams men to vote for the Georgian. He had followed
their go-between from Syracuse to Albany, from Albany to New York, and
from New York back to Albany; he had heard their renunciation of Adams
and their changed sentiments toward Crawford; and he knew also that
the Adams ticket was lost if these three votes, or even two of them,
were cast for the Crawford ticket. Weed straightway proposed that the
dishonourable purposes of these men should be anticipated by an
immediate 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 the
initials of himself and Tallmadge. Conscious of their guilty purposes,
the timid souls consented to Wheaton's proposition and then kept their
pledges.

In the meantime, Van Buren's confidence in the weakness of the
Adams-Clay men was never for a moment shaken. Of the thirty-nine Clay
supporters in the Legislature, Crawford only needed sixteen; and
these, Samuel Young and his Clay friends, had promised to deliver.
There is no evidence that Van Buren had any knowledge of Weed's
management at this time; it so happened, by design or by accident,
that in their long careers they never met but once, and then, not
until after Van Buren had retired from the White House. But the
Senator knew that some hand had struck him, and struck him hard, when
Lieutenant-Governor Root drew from the box the first union ballot.
Instead of reading it, Root involuntarily exclaimed, "A printed split
ticket." Thereupon Senator Keyes of Jefferson County, sprang to his
feet, and, in a loud voice, shouted, "Treason, by God!" In the
confusion, Root was about to vacate the speaker's chair and return
with the senators to their chamber, when James Tallmadge, in a
stentorian voice, called for order. "I demand, under the authority of
the Constitution of the United States," he said, "under the
Constitution of the State of New York, in the name of the whole
American people, that this joint meeting of the two houses of the
Legislature shall not be interrupted in the discharge of a high duty
and a sacred trust."[243] This settled it. The count went on, but, so
nearly were the parties divided that only thirty-two electors, and
these on the union ticket, received votes enough to elect them. On the
second ballot, four Crawford electors were chosen. "Had our secret
transpired before the first ballot," says Weed, "such was the power of
the Regency over two or three timid men, that the whole Crawford
ticket 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 secret
caucus, Hammond[245] intimates that the Adams men did not keep faith
with the Clay men, since the four votes taken from Clay and given to
Crawford on the second ballot made Crawford, instead of Clay, a
candidate in the national House of Representatives. Other writers have
followed this opinion, charging the Adams managers with having played
foul with the Kentucky statesman. But Weed and his associates did
nothing of the kind. The agreement was that Clay should have seven
electoral votes from New York, provided he carried Louisiana, but as
Jackson carried that State, it left the Adams men free to give all
their votes to the New Englander. What would have happened had Clay
carried Louisiana is not so clear, for Weed admits that up to the time
news came that Louisiana had gone for Jackson, he was unable to find a
single Adams elector who would consent to vote for Clay, even to save
his 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 choice
of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives, are among the
most widely known events in our political history. New York remained,
throughout, the storm-centre of excitement. After a large majority of
its presidential electors had declared for Adams, thus throwing the
election into Congress, the result still depended upon the vote of its
closely divided delegation in the House. Of the thirty-four
congressmen, seventeen favoured Adams, sixteen opposed him, and
Stephen Van Rensselaer was doubtful. The latter's action, therefore,
became of the utmost importance, since, if he voted against Adams, it
would tie the New York delegation and exclude it from the count, thus
giving Adams twelve States instead of the necessary thirteen, and
making his election on a second ballot even more doubtful. This
condition revived the hopes of Van Buren and gave Clinton a chance to
work for Jackson.

Stephen Van Rensselaer,[246] born in 1764, had had a conspicuous and
in some respects a distinguished career. He was the fifth in lineal
descent from Killian van Rensselaer, the wealthy pearl merchant of
Amsterdam, known as the first Patroon, whose great manor, purchased in
the early part of the seventeenth century, originally included the
present counties of Albany, Rensselaer, and Columbia. Stephen
inherited the larger part of this territory, and, with it, the old
manor house at Albany. His mother was a daughter of Philip Livingston,
a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and his wife a daughter
of Philip Schuyler. This made him the brother-in-law of Alexander
Hamilton.

[Footnote 246: Thurlow Weed, in his _Autobiography_, says (p. 461):
"Of his estimable private character, and of the bounties and blessings
he scattered in all directions, or of the pervading atmosphere of
happiness and gratitude that his lifelong goodness created, I need not
speak, for they are widely known and well remembered."]

Stephen began filling offices as soon as he was old enough. For
several years he served in the Assembly and in the Senate. In 1795, he
became lieutenant-governor for two terms. George Clinton defeated him
for governor in 1801; but before Jay's term expired, he made him
commander of the State's cavalry. In 1812, at the outbreak of
hostilities with England, Governor Tompkins promoted him to be chief
of the state militia--an office which he resigned in disgust after the
disgraceful defeat at Queenstown Heights on the Niagara frontier,
because his troops refused to follow him. In 1810, he became a member
of the first canal commission, of which he was president for fifteen
years. Later, he served as a regent and chancellor of the State
University, and, in 1824, established the Troy Polytechnical
Institute. It was at this time he went to Congress, and while serving
his first term, held the casting vote that would elect a President of
the United States.

Rensselaer had been a Federalist of the Hamilton school, and, although
the Federal party had practically ceased to exist, he owed his
election to its former members. This was sufficient reason to believe
that he would not support Van Buren's candidate, and that his
predilections would incline him to take a President from the North,
provided Adams was _persona grata_ to the old Federalists. The latter
had never quite forgiven Adams for deserting them; and, having been
long excluded from power, they were anxious to know whether, if
elected, he would continue to proscribe them. Finally, when Daniel
Webster removed their doubts on this subject, Van Rensselaer still
hesitated on account of Clinton. He had a strong liking for the
Governor. They had served as canal commissioners, and their
association in the great work, then nearing completion, filled him
with admiration for the indomitable spirit exhibited by the
distinguished canal builder. His probable action, therefore, kept men
busy guessing. The suspense resembled that of the Tilden Hayes
controversy of 1877, for the result meant much to the several factions
in the State. Crawford's election would continue Van Buren and the
Regency in power; the choice of Jackson must make Clinton the supreme
dispenser of federal patronage; and Adams' success meant a better
opportunity for Thurlow Weed to form a new party.

Van Rensselaer did not talk. Experience had accustomed him to outside
pressure, and he now kept his head cool when Clinton and other
influential New Yorkers overwhelmed him with prayers and petitions. At
last, on the morning of February 9, 1825, he walked leisurely into the
hall 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 in
his lodgings. The galleries were packed with spectators, and the areas
thronged with judges, ambassadors, governors, and other privileged
persons. After the formal announcement, that no one had received a
majority of electoral votes for the Presidency, and that the House of
Representatives must elect a President from the three highest
candidates, the roll was called by States, and the vote of each State
deposited in a box by itself. Then the tellers, Daniel Webster and
John Randolph, opened the boxes and counted the ballots.

The report of the tellers surprised almost every one. A long contest
had been expected. Friends of Crawford hoped the House would weary
itself with many ballots and end the affair by electing him. But the
announcement gave Crawford only four States, Jackson seven, and Adams
thirteen--a majority over all. Then it was known that Van Rensselaer's
vote had given New York to Adams, and that New York's vote had made
Adams the President. For the moment, Van Buren was checkmated, and he
knew it.




CHAPTER XXXI

CLINTON'S COALITION WITH VAN BUREN

1825-1828


The election of John Quincy Adams as President of the United States
staggered the Regency and seriously threatened the influence of Martin
Van Buren. It was likely to close the portals of the White House to
him, and to open the doors of custom-houses and post-offices to his
opponents. More injurious than this, it established new party
alignments and gave great prestige at least to one man before
unrecognised as a political factor. The successful combination of the
Adams and Clay electors was the talk of the State; and, although
Thurlow Weed's dominant part in the game did not appear on the
surface, Van Buren and every intelligent political worker understood
that some strong hand had been at work.

The absence of available candidates, around whom he could rally his
shattered forces, cast the deepest shadow across Van Buren's pathway.
He had staked much upon Samuel Young's candidacy for governor, and
everything upon William H. Crawford's candidacy for President. But
Young fell under Clinton's overwhelming majority, and Crawford
exhibited a weakness that surprised even his inveterate opponents. In
the House of Representatives Crawford had carried but four out of the
twenty-four States. This seemed to leave Van Buren without a man to
turn to; while Clinton's early declaration for Andrew Jackson gave him
the key to the situation. Although Jackson, for whom eleven States had
given an electoral plurality, received the vote of but seven States in
the House, the contest had narrowed to a choice between Adams and
himself, making the popular General the coming man. Besides, Clinton
was very active on his own account. On the 26th of October, 1825, the
waters of Lake Erie were let into the Erie canal, and navigation
opened from the lake to the Hudson. It was a great day for the
Governor. A popular jubilation extended from Buffalo to New York, and,
amidst the roar of artillery and the eloquence of many orators, the
praises of the distinguished canal builder sounded throughout the
State and nation. To a man of intellect far lower than that of Martin
Van Buren, it must have been obvious that forces were at work in the
minds and hearts of people which could not be controlled by Regency
edicts or party traditions.

But the Kinderhook statesman did not despair. In the election to occur
in November he desired simply to strengthen himself in the
Legislature; and, with consummate skill, he sought to carry Republican
districts. National issues were to be avoided. So ably did Edwin
Croswell, the wise and sagacious editor of the Albany _Argus_, lead
the way, that not a word was written or spoken against the national
administration. This cunning play renewed the old charge of
"non-committalism,"[247] which for many years was used to
characterise Van Buren's policy and action; but it in no wise
disconcerted his plans, or discovered his intentions. All he wanted
now was the Legislature, and while the whole State was given up to
general rejoicing over the completion of the canal, the Regency
leaders, under the direction of the astute Senator, practised the
tactics which Van Buren had learned from Aaron Burr, and which have
come to be known in later days as a "political still-hunt." When the
contest ended, the Regency Republicans had both branches of the
Legislature by a safe working majority. This result, so overwhelming,
so sudden, and so entirely unexpected, made Clinton's friends believe
that his end had come.

[Footnote 247: "'I heard a great deal about Mr. Van Buren,' said
Andrew Jackson, who occupied a seat in the United States Senate with
him, 'especially about his non-committalism. I made up my mind that I
would take an early opportunity to hear him and judge for myself. One
day an important subject was under debate. I noticed that Mr. Van
Buren was taking notes while one of the senators was speaking. I
judged from this that he intended to reply, and I determined to be in
my seat when he spoke. His turn came; and he arose and made a clear,
straightforward argument, which, to my mind, disposed of the whole
subject. 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 the
charge of 'non-committalism' so much made against him. When he spoke
at all he spoke explicitly; and he plainly, though without acerbity,
exhibited his likes and dislikes. Van Buren scrupulously observed the
amenities of debate. He was uniformly courteous towards adversaries;
and the calm self-control saved him, as some great orators were not
saved, from a descent to the aspersion of motive so common and futile
in political debate."--_Ibid._, p. 152.]

Van Buren, however, had broader views. He knew that Andrew Jackson, as
a candidate for the Presidency, had little standing in 1824 until
Pennsylvania took him up, and he now believed that if New York
supported him, with the Keystone State, in 1828, the hero of New
Orleans must succeed Adams. To elect him President, therefore, became
the purpose of Van Buren's political life; and, as the first step in
that direction, he determined to make DeWitt Clinton his friend. The
Governor was Jackson's champion. He had declared for him in the early
days of the Tennesseean's candidacy, and to reach him through such an
outspoken ally would give Van Buren an open way to the hero's heart.

Accordingly, Van Buren insisted upon a conciliatory course. He sent
Benjamin Knower, the state treasurer and now a member of the Regency,
to inform Clinton that, if the Van Buren leaders could control their
party, he should have no opposition at next year's gubernatorial
election. Clinton and Bucktail, like oil and water, had refused to
combine until this third ingredient, that Van Buren knew so well how
to add, completed the mixture. Whether the coalition would have
brought Clinton the reward of success or the penalty of failure must
forever remain a secret, for the Governor did not live long enough to
solve the question. But in the game of politics he had never been a
match for Van Buren. He was a statesman without being a politician.

Just now, however, Clinton and Van Buren, like lovers who had
quarrelled and made up, could not be too responsive to each other's
wishes. To confirm the latter's good intentions, the Regency senators
promptly approved Clinton's nomination of Samuel Jones for chancellor
in place of Nathan Sanford, who was now chosen United States senator
to succeed Rufus King. It was bitter experience. The appointment
rudely ignored the rule, uniformly and wisely adhered to since the
formation of a state government, to promote the chief justice.

Besides, Jones had been a pronounced Federalist for a quarter of a
century. Moreover, he was a relative of the Governor's wife, and to
some men, even in that day, nepotism was an offence. But he was an
eminent lawyer, the son of the distinguished first comptroller, and to
make their consideration of the Governor's wishes more evident, the
senators confirmed the nomination without sending it to a committee.

A more remarkable illustration of Van Buren's conciliatory policy
occurred 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 canal
commissioner, denouncing it as "the offspring of that malignant and
insatiable spirit of political proscription which has already so
deeply stained the annals of the State," and the perpetrators as
"utterly unworthy of public confidence."[248] But the Senate confirmed
him without a dissenting vote. Later, when a vacancy occurred in the
judgeship of the eighth circuit by the resignation of William B.
Rochester, it seemed for a time as if the coalition must break. The
Regency wanted Herman J. Redfield, one of the seventeen senators whose
opposition to the electoral bill had caused his defeat; but the eighth
district was Clinton's stronghold, and if he nominated Redfield, the
Governor argued, it would deprive him of strength and prestige, and
seriously weaken the cause of Jackson. The Regency, accustomed to
remain faithful to the men who incurred popular odium for being
faithful to them, found it difficult, either to reconcile the
conditions with their wishes, or to compromise upon any one else.
Nevertheless, on the last day of the session, through the active and
judicious agency of Benjamin Knower, John Birdsall of Chautauqua
County, 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. He
entered the United States Senate in 1821, and, although observing the
decorum expected of a new member of that body, he displayed powers of
mind that distinguished him as a senator of more than ordinary
ability. He now became a parliamentary orator, putting himself at the
head of an anti-Administration faction, and developing the tact and
management of a great parliamentary leader. He had made up his mind
that nothing less than a large and comprehensive difference between
the two wings of the Republican party would be of any real use; so he
arraigned the Administration, with great violence, as un-Republican
and Federalistic. He took a definite stand against internal
improvements by the United States government; he led the opposition to
the appointment of American representatives to the Congress of Panama,
treating the proposed mission as unconstitutional and dangerous; and
he charged the Administration with returning to the practices of the
Federalist party, to which Adams originally belonged, declaring that
the presidential choice of 1825 was not only the restoration of the
men of 1798, but of the principles of that day; that the spirit of
encroachment had become more wary, but not more honest; and that the
system then was coercion, now it was seduction. He classed the famous
alien and sedition laws, of the elder Adams, with the bold avowal of
the younger Adams that it belonged to the President alone to decide
upon the propriety of a foreign mission. Thus, he associated the
administration of John Quincy Adams with the administration of his
father, insisting that if the earlier one deserved the retribution of
a Republican victory, the latter one deserved a similar fate.

Van Buren's language had the courteous dignity that uniformly
characterised his speeches. He charged no personal wrong-doing; he
insinuated no base motives; he rejected the unfounded story of the
sale of the Presidency to Adams; he voted for Clay's confirmation as
secretary of state, and, as a member of the senatorial committee, he
welcomed the new President upon his inauguration; but from the moment
John Quincy Adams became President, the Senator from New York led the
opposition to his administration with the astuteness of a great
parliamentary leader, determined to create a new party in American
politics. Van Buren also had some strong allies. With him, voted
Findlay of Pennsylvania, Holmes of Maine, Woodbury of New Hampshire,
Dickerson of New Jersey, and Kane of Illinois, besides twelve Southern
senators. But, from the outset, he was the leader. His speeches,
smooth and seldom impassioned, were addressed to the intellect rather
than to the feelings. He was the master of the art of making a
perfectly clear statement of the most complicated case, and of
defending his measures, point by point, with never-failing readiness
and skill throughout the most perplexing series of debates. He talked
to make converts, appealing to his colleagues with a directness well
calculated to bring to his side a majority of the waverers.

Van Buren's opposition to the Adams administration has been called
factious and unpatriotic. It was certainly active and continuous, and,
perhaps, now and then, somewhat more unscrupulous than senatorial
opposition is in our own time; but his policy was, unquestionably, the
policy of more modern political parties. His tactics created an
organisation which, inside and outside of the Senate, was to work
unceasingly, with tongue and pen, to discredit everything done by the
men in office and to turn public opinion against them. It was a part
of his plan not only to watch with jealous care all the acts of the
Administration, but to make the most of every opportunity that could
be used to turn them out of office; and when the Senate debate ended,
the modern Democratic party had been formed. Adams recorded in his now
famous diary that Van Buren made "a great effort to combine the
discordant elements of the Crawford and Jackson and Calhoun men into a
united opposition against the Administration." He might have added,
also, that the debate distinctly marked Van Buren's position in
history as a party-maker in the second great division of parties in
America.

Van Buren's coalition with DeWitt Clinton, however, came perilously
near prostrating them both. At their state convention, held at Utica,
in September, 1826, the Clintonians and the People's party renominated
Clinton for governor. In the following month, the Bucktails met at
Herkimer, and, if Van Buren could have had his way, the convention
would have indorsed Clinton. Finding such action inadvisable, however,
Van Buren secured the nomination of William B. Rochester, on the
theory that he was a good enough candidate to be beaten. Rochester was
not a man of marked ability. He had done nothing to make himself known
throughout the State; he did not even favour a state road through the
southern tier of counties. He was simply a lawyer of fair attainments
who had served a term in the Legislature, one in Congress, and two
years 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 for
governor than the Van Buren leaders anticipated. It became well known
that he was a supporter of the Adams administration, and that Henry
Clay regarded him with favour. Indeed, it was through the latter's
personal and political friendship that he secured the mission to
Panama. Thus, the feeling began to obtain that Rochester, although
the nominee of the Regency party, more nearly represented the
interests and principles of the Adams administration than DeWitt
Clinton, an avowed Jackson man, who had formed a coalition with Van
Buren. For this reason, Peter B. Porter, an ardent admirer of Clay,
and now a member of the People's party, entered with spirit into the
campaign, appealing to the Clintonians, a large majority of whom
favoured Adams, to resent Clinton's deal with Jackson's friends, and
vote for Rochester, whose election would insure the success of the
President, and bring credit to the people of the western counties,
already ambitious to give the State a governor. This potent appeal was
taken up throughout the State, influencing many Clintonians to support
Rochester, and holding in line scores of Bucktails who favoured Adams.

It was a critical moment for Van Buren. He was not only a candidate
for re-election to the United States Senate, but he had staked all
upon the overthrow of the Adams administration. Yet, the election of
his party's candidate for governor would in all probability overthrow
the Clinton-Van Buren coalition, giving the vote of the State to the
President, and possibly defeat his own re-election. It was a singular
political 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 and
Adams could not be hoodwinked. The canvass also developed combinations
that 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 been
Clinton's most bitter opponent. He opposed the canal, he ridiculed its
champion, and he lampooned its supporters; yet he now swallowed the
prejudices of a lifetime and indorsed the man he had formerly
despised. Van Buren, it may safely be said, was at heart quite as
devoted a supporter of the Governor, since the latter's re-election
would be of the greatest advantage to his own personal interests; but
whatever his defects of character, and however lacking he may have
been in an exalted sense of principle, Van Buren appeared to be
sincere in his devotion to Rochester. This was emphasised by the
support of the Albany _Argus_ and other leading Regency papers.

Nevertheless, the election returns furnished ample grounds for
suspicion. Steuben County, then a Regency stronghold, gave Clinton
over one thousand majority. Other counties of that section did
proportionately as well. It was explained that this territory would
naturally support Clinton who had insisted in his message that the
central and northern counties, having benefited by the Erie and
Champlain canals, ought to give Steuben and the southern tier a public
highway. But William B. Rochester went to his watery grave[249]
thirteen years afterward with the belief that Van Buren and his
confidential friends did not act in good faith.

[Footnote 249: Rochester was lost off the coast of North Carolina, on
June 15, 1838, by the explosion of a boiler on the steamer _Pulaski_,
bound from Charleston to Baltimore. Of 150 passengers only 50
survived.]

With the help of the state road counties, however, Clinton had a
narrow escape; the returns gave him only 3650 majority.[250] This
margin appeared the more wonderful when contrasted with the vote of
Nathaniel Pitcher, candidate for lieutenant-governor on the Rochester
ticket, who received 4182 majority. "Clinton luck!" was the popular
comment.

[Footnote 250: Clinton's vote was 99,785--a falling off of 3,667 from
1824, while Rochester's was 96,135, an increase of 9,042 over Young's
vote.--_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166.]

The closeness of the result prompted the friends of the President to
favour Rochester for United States senator to succeed Van Buren, whose
term expired on March 4, 1827. Several of the Adams assemblymen acted
with the Regency party, and it was hoped that through them a winning
combination might be made. But Van Buren had not been sleeping. He
knew his strength, and with confidence he returned to Washington to
renew his attacks upon the Administration. When, finally, the
election occurred, he had a larger majority than sanguine friends
anticipated. Three Clintonians in the Senate and two in the Assembly,
recognising the coalition of Van Buren and Clinton, cast their votes
for the former. In thanking the members of the Legislature for this
renewed expression of confidence, Van Buren spoke of the "gratifying
unanimity" of their action, declaring that it should be his "constant
and zealous endeavour to protect the remaining rights reserved to the
States by the Federal Constitution; to restore those of which they
have been divested by construction; and to promote the interests and
honour of our common country."

Thus, in much less than two years, Van Buren easily retrieved all, and
more, than he had lost by the election of Clinton and the defeat of
Crawford. His position was singularly advantageous. Whatever happened,
he was almost sure to gain. He stood with Clinton, with Jackson, and
with a party drilled and disciplined better than regular troops. In
his biography of Andrew Jackson, James Parton says of Van Buren at
this time: "His hand was full of cards, and all his cards were
trumps."[251] Andrew Jackson, who had been watching his career, said
one day to a young New Yorker: "I am no politician; but if I were a
politician, 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 his
re-election to the United States Senate. One after another, the men
who stood between him and the object of his ambition had gradually
disappeared. Ambrose Spencer was no longer on the bench, James
Tallmadge had run his political course, and Daniel D. Tompkins was in
his grave. Only DeWitt Clinton was left, and on February 11, 1828,
death very suddenly struck him down. Stalwart in form and tremendous
in will power, few dreamed that he had any malady, much less that
death was shadowing him. He was in his fifty-ninth year.

Of DeWitt Clinton it may fairly be said that "his mourners were two
hosts--his friends and his foes." Everywhere, regardless of party,
marks of the highest respect and deepest grief were evinced. The
Legislature voted ten thousand dollars to his four minor children, an
amount equal to the salary of a canal commissioner during the time he
had served without pay. Indeed, nothing was left undone or unsaid
which would evidence veneration for his memory and sorrow for his
loss. He had lived to complete his work and to enjoy the reward of a
great achievement. Usually benefactors of the people are not so
fortunate; their halo, if it comes at all, generally forms long after
death. But Clinton seemed to be the creature of timely political
accidents. The presentation of his canal scheme had made him governor
on July 1, 1817; and he represented the State when ground was broken
at Rome on July 4; his removal as canal commissioner made him governor
again in 1825; and he represented the State at the completion of the
work. On both occasions, he received the homage of the entire people,
not only as champion of the canal, but as the head of the Commonwealth
for which he had done so much.

There were those who thought the time of his death fortunate for his
fame, since former opponents were softened and former friends had not
fallen away. An impression also obtained that little was left him
politically to live for. New conditions and new men were springing up.
As a strict constructionist of the Federal Constitution, with a
leaning toward states' rights, he could not have followed Clintonians
into the Whig party soon to be formed, nor would he have been at home
among the leaders of the Jackson or new Democratic party, who were
unlikely 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 of
his own career. It is possible Van Buren might have supported him for
governor in 1828, but he would have had no hesitation in playing his
own part regardless of him. Had Clinton insisted, so much the worse
for Clinton. Of the two men, Van Buren possessed the advantage. He had
less genius and possibly less self-reliance, but in other respects--in
tact, in prudence, in self-control, in address--indeed, in everything
that makes for party leadership, Van Buren easily held the mastery.

Clinton's career was absolutely faultless in two aspects--as an honest
man, 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 men
seem to have a suit of armour in the form of coldness, brusqueness, or
rudeness, which they put on to meet the stranger, but which, when laid
aside, reveals simple, charming, and often boyish manners. Clinton had
such an armour, but he never put it off, except with intimates, and
not then with any revelation of warmth. He was cold and arrogant,
showing no deference even to seniors, since he denied the existence of
superiors. Nobody loved him; few really liked him; and, except for his
canal policy, his public career must have ended with his dismissal
from the New York mayoralty. It seemed a question whether he really
measured up to the stature of a statesman.

Nevertheless, the judgment of posterity is easily on the side of
Clinton's greatness. Thurlow Weed spoke of him as a great man with
weak points; and Van Buren, in his attractive eulogy at Washington,
declared that he was "greatly tempted to envy him his grave with its
honours." He may well have done so; for, although Van Buren reached
the highest office in the gift of the people, and is clearly one of
the ablest leaders of men in the history of the Empire State, his fame
does not rest on so sure a foundation. Clinton was a man of great
achievement. He was not a dreamer; nor merely a statesman with
imagination, grasping the idea in its bolder outlines; but, like a
captain of industry, he combined the statesman and the practical man
of affairs, turning great possibilities into greater realities. It
may be fairly said of him that his career made an era in the history
of his State, and that in asserting the great principle of internal
improvements 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 the
Republican party to come out plainly for Andrew Jackson for President.
The announcement, made by the general committee, which met in Tammany
Hall, declared that the Bucktails reposed full confidence in Andrew
Jackson's worth, integrity, and patriotism, and would support only
those who favoured him for President of the United States.

Peter B. Sharpe, a Tammany chief of courage, recently speaker of the
Assembly, voiced a faint protest; and later he summoned Marinus
Willett from his retirement to preside at an opposition meeting. It
was, no doubt, an inspiring sight to see this venerable soldier of the
Revolution, who had won proud distinction in that long and bloody war,
presiding at an assembly of his fellow citizens nearly half a century
afterward; it accentuated the fact that other heroes existed besides
the victor of New Orleans; but the Van Buren papers spoke in concert.
Within a week, the whole State understood that the election of 1827
must be conducted with express reference to the choice of Jackson in
1828.

The note of this bugle call, blown by Edwin Croswell, the famous
editor of the Albany _Argus_, resounded the enthusiasm of the party.
The ablest and most popular men, preliminary to the contest, were
selected for legislative places. Erastus Root was again nominated in
Delaware County; Robert Emmet, the promising son of the distinguished
Thomas Addis Emmet, and Ogden Hoffman, the eloquent and brilliant son
of Josiah Ogden Hoffman, who was to become the best criminal lawyer
of his day, found places on the ticket in New York City; Nathaniel P.
Tallmadge, heretofore an opponent of the Regency, but now to begin a
public career which finally placed him in the United States Senate for
twelve years, was brought out in Dutchess County; and Benjamin F.
Butler, whose revision of the state statutes had made him exceedingly
popular, accepted a nomination in the anti-Regency stronghold of
Albany.

Not to be outdone in the character or strength of their ticket, the
Adams men summoned their ablest and most eloquent campaigners to share
the 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. Gross
was rapidly forging to the front, and would doubtless have become one
of the most gifted and brilliant men in the State had he not fallen an
early 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 with
caricatures and lampoons, and bringing victory to the drilled and
disciplined forces which were now to follow, for half a score of
years, the fortunes of the New Orleans hero. From the moment Jackson
became the standard-bearer, the crowds were with him. Adams was
represented as cold and personally unpopular; Jackson as frank,
cordial in manner, and bravely chivalric. When everything in favour of
Adams 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 splendour
of the victory at New Orleans, threw their hats into the air for
Andrew Jackson. The eloquence of Williams could carry Columbia County;
Porter, ever popular and interesting, could sweep the Niagara
frontier; and Gross, with an illuminated rhetoric that lives to this
day in the memory of men who heard their fathers talk about it, had no
trouble in Essex; but from the Hudson to Lake Oneida the Jackson party
may be said to have carried everything by storm, electing its ticket
by over four thousand majority in New York City, and securing nearly
all the senatorial districts and the larger part of the Assembly. So
overwhelming was the victory that Van Buren had no trouble at the
opening 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 campaign
of 1828, Van Buren realised that the anti-masonic sentiment, which had
been rapidly growing since the abduction of William Morgan, had
developed into an influence throughout the western part of the State
that threatened serious trouble. Morgan was a native of Virginia, born
in 1776, a man of fair education, and by trade a stone-mason. Little
is known of his life until 1821, when he resided first in York,
Canada, and, a year later, in Rochester, New York, where he worked at
his trade. Then he drifted to LeRoy, in Genesee County, becoming an
active Free Mason. Afterward, he moved back to Rochester, and then to
Batavia, where he sought out David C. Miller, a printer, who agreed to
publish whatever secrets of Free Masonry Morgan would reveal. The
work, done by night and on Sundays, was finally interrupted on
September 11, 1826, by Morgan's arrest, on a trifling criminal charge,
and transfer to Canandaigua for examination. His acquittal was
immediately followed by a second arrest upon a civil process for a
small debt and by his imprisonment in the Canandaigua jail. When
discharged on the succeeding night, he was quickly seized, and, as it
subsequently appeared from the evidence taken at the trial of his
abductors, he was bound, gagged, thrust violently into a covered
carriage, driven by a circuitous route, with relays of horses and men,
to Fort Niagara, and left in confinement in the magazine. Here he
dropped out of view.

The excitement following the discovery of this crime was without a
parallel in the history of Western New York. Citizens everywhere
organised committees for the apprehension of the offenders; the
Governor offered a reward for their discovery; the Legislature
authorised the appointment of able lawyers to investigate; and
William 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 the
conspiracy. For three years the excitement continued without
abatement, until the whole State west of Syracuse became soaked with
deep and bitter feeling, dividing families, sundering social ties, and
breeding lawsuits in vindication of assailed character. Public
sentiment was divided as to whether Morgan had been put to death. Half
a century afterward, in 1882, Thurlow Weed published an affidavit,
rehearsing a statement made to him in 1831 by John Whitney, who
confessed that he was one of five persons who took Morgan from the
magazine and drowned him in Lake Ontario.[253]

[Footnote 253: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 332.]

The trouble stirred up by this unfortunate affair gradually drifted
into politics. In the spring of 1827, a disinclination had shown
itself among the people of Genesee County to support Free Masons for
supervisors or justices of the peace, and, although the leading men of
the western part of the State deprecated political action, the
pressure became so great that Free Masons were excluded from local
tickets in certain towns of Genesee and Monroe Counties. This course
was resented by their friends. In the summer of the same year, the old
treasurer of Rochester, who had been elected year after year without
opposition, was defeated. No one had openly opposed him, but a canvass
of the returns disclosed a silent vote which was quickly charged to
the Masons. This discovery, says Thurlow Weed, "was like a spark of
fire dropped into combustible materials." Immediately, Rochester
became the centre of anti-Masonry. In September, an anti-masonic
convention nominated a legislative ticket, which, to the amazement and
confusion of the old parties, swept Monroe County by a majority of
over seventeen hundred. Direction was thus given to the movement. In
the following year, when the state and national election was
approaching, it appeared that throughout "the infected district," as
it was called, the opponents of Masonry, although previously about
equally divided in political sentiment, had aligned themselves with
the Adams party, and that the Masons had affiliated with the followers
of Jackson. There was good reason for this division. The prominent men
in the anti-masonic body, for the most part, were not only leaders of
the Adams party, but, very early in the excitement, President Adams
took occasion to let it be known that he was not a Mason. On the other
hand, it was well understood that Jackson was a Mason and gloried in
it.

This was the situation when the Adams followers, who now called
themselves National Republicans, met in convention at Utica on July
22, 1828. The wise policy of nominating candidates acceptable to all
Anti-Masons was plain, and the delegates from the western half of the
State proposed Francis Granger for governor. Granger was not then a
political Anti-Mason, but he was clean, well-known, and popular, and
for two years had been a leading member of the Assembly. Thurlow Weed
said of him that he was "a gentleman of accomplished manners, genial
temperament, and fine presence, with fortune, leisure, and a taste for
public life."[254] Indeed, he appears to have felt from the first a
genuine delight in the vivid struggles of the political arena, and,
although destined to be twice beaten for governor, and once for Vice
President, he had abundant service in the Cabinet, in the Legislature,
and in Congress. Just then he was thirty-six years old, the leading
antagonist of John C. Spencer at the Canandaigua bar, and one whom
everybody regarded as a master-spirit. Dressed in a bottle-green coat
with gilt buttons, a model of grace and manhood, he was the attraction
of the ladies' gallery. He had youth, enthusiasm, magnificent gifts,
and a heart to love. All his resources seemed to be at instant
command, according as he had need of them. Besides, he was a born
Republican. Thomas Jefferson had made his father postmaster-general,
and during the thirteen years he held the office, the son was
studying at Yale and fighting Federalism.[255]

[Footnote 254: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 391.]

[Footnote 255: Writing of Granger, in January, 1831, Seward says: "I
believe I have never told you all I thought about this star of the
first magnitude in Anti-masonry, and the reason was that, with a
limited personal acquaintance, I might give you erroneous impressions
which I should afterward be unable to reverse. He is 'six feet and
well-proportioned,' as you well know, handsome, graceful, dignified,
and affable, as almost any hero of whom you have read; is probably
about thirty-six or seven years old. In point of talent he has a quick
and ready apprehension, a good memory, and usually a sound judgment.
Has no 'genius,' in its restricted sense, not a very brilliant
imagination, nor extraordinary reasoning faculties; has no deep store
of learning, nor a very extensive degree of information. Yet he is
intimately acquainted with politics, and with the affairs, interests,
and men of the State. He is never great, but always successful. He
writes with ease and speaks with fluency and elegance--never attempts
an argument beyond his capacity, and, being a good judge of men's
character, motives, and actions, he never fails to command admiration,
respect, and esteem. Not a man do I know who is his equal in the skill
of exhibiting every particle of his stores with great advantage. You
will inquire about his manners. His hair is ever gracefully curled,
his broad and expansive brow is always exposed, his person is ever
carefully dressed, to exhibit his face and form aright and with
success. He is a gallant and fashionable man. He seems often to
neglect great matters for small ones, and I have often thought him a
trifler; yet he is universally, by the common people, esteemed grave
and great. He is an aristocrat in his feelings, though the people who
know him think him all condescension. He is a prince among those who
are equals, affable to inferiors, and knows no superiors. In principle
he has redeeming qualities--more than enough to atone for his
faults--is honest, honourable, and just, first and beyond comparison
with other politicians of the day. You will ask impatiently, 'Has he a
heart?' Yes. Although he has less than those who do not know him
believe him to possess, he has much more than those who meet him
frequently, but not intimately, will allow him to have. He loves,
esteems, and never forgets his friends; but you must not understand me
that he possesses as confiding and true a heart as Berdan had, or as
you think I have, or as we both know Weed has. There is yet one
quality of Granger's character which you do not dream of--he loves
money 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 great
learning and an honoured member of the Republican party. But he was
sixty years old. With the exception of five years as secretary of the
navy, under Monroe, he had been continuously upon the bench for over a
quarter of a century, first as justice and chief justice of the
Supreme Court of the State, latterly as associate justice of the
United States Supreme Court. It was suggested, with some pertinency as
it afterward appeared, that the people of the State having declared in
the recently adopted Constitution, that a judge, holding office during
good behaviour, ought not to be a candidate for an elective office,
would resent such a nomination. It was further suggested, with even
greater force, that Thompson's nomination would offend the ultra
Anti-Masons and bring an independent ticket into the field, thus
dividing the Adams vote and giving the election to the Jackson
candidate. On the other hand, it was maintained with equal spirit
that the nomination of Granger, avowedly to secure the anti-masonic
vote, would offend the National Republicans and jeopardise the state
as well as the electoral ticket. It took a ballot to decide the
question, and Thompson won by a close vote. Francis Granger was then
nominated for lieutenant-governor by acclamation.

As predicted, several ultra anti-masonic editors in Genesee and
Ontario counties immediately denounced the nomination of Thompson. The
Adams people knew it portended danger; but Thompson would not withdraw
and the ultras would not relent. Thereupon, the anti-masonic
convention, already called to meet at Utica, added to the difficulty
of the situation by nominating Francis Granger and John Crary. Granger
had not solicited nomination, and now he was burdened with two. But
Thompson refused to relieve the embarrassment, and Crary proved
wickedly false to his agreement. The latter admitted that the union of
the Adams and anti-masonic forces would probably elect Granger for
lieutenant-governor, and he promised to withdraw as soon as Granger
should do so. Upon this Granger declined the anti-masonic nomination;
but the wily Van Buren, who was intently watching the embarrassment of
the National Republicans, took good care to have Crary remain and
Solomon Southwick substituted for Granger. The general sentiment of
the Anti-Masons did not respond to this movement. But the angry
feeling excited by Granger's declination, aided by Van Buren's
finesse, gave Southwick, who had acquired some credit with the
Anti-Masons by an early renunciation of his masonic ties, an
opportunity of advancing his visionary projects of personal ambition.
Thurlow Weed declared that the people had been "juggled" out of a
candidate for governor; but Weed did not know that Van Buren, needing
money to help along the jugglery, wrote James A. Hamilton, the son of
the great Federalist, that unless "you do more in New York than you
promised, our friends in Albany, at best poor, will break down." Crary
was one of the assemblymen who, in 1824, had boldly denounced the
removal of Clinton as a canal commissioner. After his broken promise
to Granger and his bargain with Van Buren, however, he ceased to be
called "Honest John Crary."

Before the meeting of the National Republican convention, Martin Van
Buren was announced as the Jackson candidate for governor. It was
well-known, at least to the Albany Regency, that if Jackson became
President, Van Buren would be his secretary of state. One can readily
understand that Van Buren would willingly exchange the Senate for the
head of the Cabinet, since the office of secretary of state had been
for twenty years a certain stepping-stone to the Presidency. Madison
had been Jefferson's secretary of state, Monroe had filled the exalted
place under Madison, and John Quincy Adams served Monroe in the same
capacity. But Van Buren's willingness to exchange the Senate, an arena
in which he had ranked among the ablest statesmen of the Republic, for
the governorship, was prompted by the force of circumstances and not
by choice. Jackson's election was believed to depend upon New York,
and the carrying of New York, to depend upon Van Buren. The latter, at
this time, was at the zenith of his popularity. His speeches had not
only stamped him as a genuine parliamentary debater, but had gained
for him the reputation of being the congressional leader and chief
organiser of the Jackson party. During his seven and a half years in
the Senate, his name was associated with every event of importance;
his voice was heard on one side or the other of every question that
interested the American people; and the force he brought to bear,
whether for good or evil, swayed the minds of contemporaries to an
unusual degree.

Van Buren looked his best in these days. His complexion was a bright
blonde, and he dressed with the taste of Disraeli. Henry B. Stanton
describes him as he appeared at church in Rochester on a Sunday during
the campaign. "He wore an elegant snuff-colored broadcloth coat with
velvet collar; his cravat was orange with modest lace tips; his vest
was of a pearl hue; his trousers were white duck; his silk hose
corresponded to the vest; his shoes were morocco; his nicely fitting
gloves were yellow kid; his long-furred beaver hat, with broad brim,
was of Quaker color. As he sat in the wealthy aristocratic church of
the town, in the pew of General Gould who had been a lifelong
Federalist and supporter of Clinton, all eyes were fixed upon the man
who 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 the
nomination or the election for governor--hence his visit to Rochester
and the western counties to study for himself the anti-masonic
situation. "The excitement has been vastly greater than I supposed,"
he wrote Hamilton. In order to find some way of pacifying it, he
turned aside to visit the home of his friend, Enos T. Throop, then
living 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 emphatic
address. Such a man was needed to strengthen the Jackson ticket, and
before Van Buren got home it was charged that he had secured Throop's
promise to stand for lieutenant-governor, with the assurance that
within three months after his inauguration, if everything went
according to programme, he should be the acting governor.

These tactics meant the turning down of Nathaniel Pitcher, the acting
governor in place of DeWitt Clinton. Pitcher had served four years in
the Assembly, one term in Congress, and as a delegate to the
convention in 1821. Though a man of limited education and strong
prejudices, with a depth of feeling that made him as vigorously
independent as he was rigidly honest, he proved his fitness for the
high office to which he had suddenly fallen heir by several excellent
appointments to the Superior Court, just then created for the city of
New York. He honoured himself further by restoring the rule, so rudely
broken by Clinton, of offering the chancellorship to Chief Justice
Savage, and, upon his declining it, to Reuben H. Walworth, then a
young and most promising circuit judge. Later in the year, he named
Daniel Mosely for the seventh circuit vacated by the resignation of
Enos T. Throop, soon to become lieutenant-governor. These appointments
marked him as a wise and safe executive. Van Buren understood this,
and his correspondence with Hamilton, and others, while absent in the
west, affords many interesting glimpses into his political methods in
their immodest undress. As the candidate for governor, he was very
active just now. His letters indicate that he gave personal attention
to the selection of all delegates, and that he wanted only those in
whom reliance could be absolutely placed. "Your views about the
delegates are correct," he says to Hamilton. "It would be hazarding
too much to make out a list." A list might contain names of men who
could not be safely trusted at such a supreme moment; and Van Buren
naturally desired that his nomination should be enthusiastically
unanimous. The slightest protest from some disappointed friend of
Nathaniel Pitcher, who was to be sacrificed for Throop, or of Joseph
C. Yates, who was spending his years in forced retirement at
Schenectady, would take away the glory and dull the effect of what was
intended to be a sudden and unanimous uprising of the people's free
and untrammelled delegates in favour of the senior United States
senator, the Moses of the newly-born Democratic party.

The anticipated trouble at the Herkimer convention, however, did not
appear. Delegates were selected to nominate Martin Van Buren and Enos
T. Throop, and, after they had carried out the programme with
unanimity, Pitcher ceased to act with the Jackson party. But the
contest between the opposing parties proved exceedingly bitter and
malevolent. It resembled the scandalous campaign of John Adams and
Thomas Jefferson in 1800, and the more recent Blaine and Cleveland
canvass of 1884. Everything that could be tortured into apparent wrong
was served up to listening thousands. Van Buren had about him the
genius of Edwin Croswell, the unerring judgment of Benjamin F. Butler,
the wisdom of William L. Marcy, the diplomacy of Benjamin Knower, and
the scintillating brilliancy of Samuel A. Talcott; but like McGregor,
Van Buren sat at the head of the table. He cautioned Noah, he
complimented Coleman, he kept Southwick and Crary on the anti-masonic
ticket, he selected the candidate for lieutenant-governor, he called
for funds, and he insisted upon making the Adams administration
odious. In referring to the President and his secretary of state, he
did not personally join in the cry of bargain and sale, of fraud and
corruption, of treachery and knavery; nor did he speak of them as "the
Puritan and the Blackleg;" but for three years his criticisms had so
associated the Administration with Federalism and the offensive alien
and sedition laws which Jefferson condemned and defeated in 1800, that
the younger Adams inherited the odium attached to his father a quarter
of a century before.

The National Republicans retaliated with statements no less base and
worthless, exhibiting Jackson as a military butcher and utterly
illiterate, and publishing documents assailing his marriage, the
chastity of his wife, and the execution of six militiamen convicted of
mutiny. Thurlow Weed, who conducted the Adams campaign in the western
part of the State, indulged in no personal attacks upon Jackson or his
wife, refusing to send out the documents known as "Domestic Relations"
and "Coffin Handbills." "The impression of the masses was that the six
militiamen deserved hanging," he says, in his autobiography, "and I
look back now with astonishment that enlightened and able statesmen
could believe that General Jackson would be injured with the people by
ruthlessly invading the sanctuary of his home, and permitting a lady
whose life had been blameless to be dragged forth into the arena of
politics."[257]

[Footnote 257: _Autobiography of Thurlow Weed_, p. 309.]

The result of the election for governor and lieutenant-governor was
practically settled by the nomination of an anti-masonic independent
ticket. Thurlow Weed advised Smith Thompson that votes enough to
defeat him would be thrown away upon Southwick. Van Buren wrote
Hamilton to "bet for me on joint-account five hundred dollars that
Thompson will be defeated, and one hundred dollars on every thousand
of a majority up to five thousand; or, if you can't do better, say
five hundred on the result and fifty on every thousand up to ten." The
returns justified his confidence. He received one hundred and
thirty-six thousand votes to one hundred and six thousand for Thompson
and thirty-three thousand for Southwick.[258] Francis Granger would
probably have received the aggregate vote of Thompson and Southwick,
or three thousand more than Van Buren. That Weed rightly understood
the situation is evidenced by his insistence that a candidate be
nominated acceptable to the Anti-Masons. "Van Buren's election," said
Thurlow Weed, in his autobiography, the tears of disappointment and
chagrin almost trickling down his cheeks when he wrote the words
nearly half a century afterward, "enabled his party to hold the State
for the twelve succeeding years."[259] But it was the last time, for
many years, that Thurlow Weed did not have his way in the party. It
was apparent that the opponents of Van Buren needed a leader who could
lead; and, although it took years of patient effort to cement into a
solid fighting mass all the heterogeneous elements that Clinton left
and Van Buren could not control, the day was destined to come when one
party flag floated over an organisation under the leadership of the
stately 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 National
Republicans, apparently it imparted increased confidence and vigour to
anti-Masonry. For a time, this movement resembled the growth of
abolitionism at a later day, people holding that a secret society,
which sought to paralyse courts, by closing the mouths of witnesses
and otherwise unnerving the arm of justice, threatened the existence
of popular government. The moral question, too, appealed strongly to
persons prominent in social, professional, and church life, who
increased the excitement by renouncing masonic ties and signifying
their conversion to the new gospel of anti-Masonry. Cadwallader D.
Colden, formerly the distinguished mayor of New York and a lawyer of
high reputation, wrote an effective letter against Free Masonry, which
was supplemented by the famous document of David Barnard, a popular
Baptist divine of Chautauqua County. Henry Dana Ward established the
_Anti-Masonic Review_ in New York City, and Frederick Whittlesey
became equally efficient and influential as editor of the Rochester
_Republican_.

But the man who led the fight and became the centre from which all
influences emanated was Thurlow Weed. Early in the struggle, as a
member of the Morgan committee, he investigated the crime of 1826.
Soon after, he founded the _Anti-Masonic Enquirer_ of Rochester, whose
circulation, unparalleled in those days, quickly included the western
and northern counties of New York, and the neighbouring States of
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Weed had been slow to yield to the
influences which carried the question into politics, but, once having
determined to appeal to the ballot-box, he set to work to strengthen
and enlarge the party. It became a quasi-religious movement, ministers
and churches, without any very far-reaching hopes and plans, labouring
to bring about a spirit which should induce men to renounce Masonry;
and in their zeal they worked with the singleness of thought and the
accepted methods that dominate the revivalist and temperance advocate.

The aim of Thurlow Weed was to reach the people, and it mattered not
how often he had to bear defeat, or the sneers of older politicians
and an established press; he flung himself into the work with an
indomitable spirit and an entire disregard of trouble and pain. Weed
was a born fighter. He saw no visions, he believed in no omens, and he
had no thought of bearing a charmed life; but he seems to have been
indifferent to changes of season or the assaults of men, as he
travelled from one end of the State to the other regardless of
inclement weather, answering attacks with rough and rasping sarcasms,
and meeting every crisis with the candour and courage of a John
Wesley. One reads in his autobiography, almost with a feeling of
incredulity, of the toil cheerfully borne and the privations eagerly
endured while the guiding member of the Morgan committee.

Weed proved a great captain, not only in directing and inspiring
anti-masonic movements, but in rallying to his standard a body of
young men destined to occupy conspicuous places in the State and in
the nation. Among those entering the Assembly, in 1829, were Philo C.
Fuller of Livingston and Millard Fillmore of Erie. When Weed first met
him, in 1824, Fuller was a law clerk in James Wadsworth's office, only
twenty-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 of
Weed, had been crowded with everything except schooling. He learned
the clothier's trade, he was apprenticed to a wool-carder, and he
served his time at the woodpile, in the harvest field, and as chore
boy. Only at odd moments did he get an education; but when he began
studying law and teaching school he quickly evidenced a strength of
intellect that distinguished him throughout life. Weed met him at an
Adams convention in Buffalo, in 1828, and so favourably impressed was
he 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 in
Congress, had the advantage of being well born and well educated. His
father, a distinguished physician of Connecticut, urged him to adopt
the profession of medicine, but when about ready for a degree, he
entered his brother's law office at Madison, New York, and, in 1815,
upon his admission to the bar, settled in Buffalo. He was then
twenty-two years old. Four years later he entered Congress. He had
earned this quick start by good ability; and so acceptably did he
maintain himself, that, in spite of the acrimony existing between
Clintonian and Bucktail, his name was regarded with much favour in
1825 as the successor of Rufus King in the United States Senate. Tracy
was a man of marked ability. Though neither brilliant nor
distinguished as a public speaker, he was a skilful advocate, easy and
natural; with the help of a marvellous memory, and a calm, philosophic
temperament, he ranked among the foremost lawyers of his day. Like
James Tallmadge, he was inordinately ambitious for public life, and
his amiability admirably fitted him for it; but like Tallmadge, he was
not always governed by principle so much as policy. He showed at times
a lamentable unsteadiness in his leadership, listening too often to
the whispers of cunning opponents, and too easily separating himself
from tried friends. In 1838, he practically left his party; and, soon
after, he ceased to practise his profession, burying a life which had
promised great usefulness and a brilliant career. In mien, size,
bearing, visage, and conversation he was the counterpart of Thomas
Jefferson when about the same age--a likeness of which Tracy was fully
conscious.

Tracy's nomination to the Senate in 1829 came as a great surprise and
a greater gratification. He had not taken kindly to the anti-masonic
party. Only the year before, he dissuaded John Birdsall from accepting
its nomination to Congress, because of the obloquy sure to follow
defeat; but its strength, evidenced in the campaign of 1828, opened
his eyes; and, while absent in Albany, unsuccessfully seeking a
judgeship from Governor Throop, Thurlow Weed had him nominated. On his
way home, he stopped at Rochester to call upon the great apostle of
anti-Masonry, reaching the house before sunrise. "He was wrapped in a
long camlet cloak," says Weed, "and wore an air of depression that
betokened 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 replied
in the negative, and I continued: 'We had a convention and nominated a
candidate for senator.' When he laughingly inquired, 'Who?' I said,
'Why, we nominated you.' He instantly jumped two feet from the floor
and whooped like an Indian. Then, with brightened countenance and
undisguised elation of spirit that he was to have a seat in the Senate
for four years, he informed me of his disappointment in not obtaining
either the judgeship, or the presidency of the branch of the United
States 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 in
Rochester. He dwelt in a cheap house in an obscure part of the
village. Sometimes he had to borrow clothes to be presentable. "One
day," says Henry B. Stanton, "I was standing in the street with him
and Frederick Whittlesey when his little boy came up and said:
'Father, mother wants a shilling to buy some bread.' Weed put on a
queer 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 a
silver dollar and gave the boy who ran off like a deer."[261] Yet, at
that moment, Weed with his bare arms spattered with printer's ink, was
the 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 election
of young men of large promise was just now on foot. The need of a
newspaper at Albany, to represent the sentiments of the Anti-Masons
had long been recognised; and, to enable Weed to establish it, he had
been re-elected to the Assembly in the autumn of 1829. In the course
of the winter the project quickly took shape; a fund of twenty-five
hundred dollars was subscribed; and on March 22, 1830, appeared the
first number of the Albany _Evening Journal_, in which were soon to be
published the sparkling paragraphs that made it famous.[262] Weed's
salary as editor was fixed at seven hundred and fifty dollars. The
paper was scarcely larger than the cloud "like a man's hand;" and its
one hundred and seventy subscribers, scattered from Buffalo to New
York, became somewhat disturbed by the acrimonious and personal
warfare instantly made upon it by Edwin Croswell of the _Argus_.

[Footnote 262: "Writing slowly and with difficulty, Weed was for
twenty years the most sententious and pungent writer of editorial
paragraphs on the American press."--Horace Greeley, _Recollections of
a Busy Life_, p. 312.]

Croswell and Weed had been boys together at Catskill. They were
neither intimates nor equals, although of the same age; for young
Croswell had the advantage of position and education given him by his
father, then publisher of the _Recorder_. To Weed, only such work came
as a bare-footed, ragged urchin of eleven was supposed to be capable
of doing. This was in 1808. The two boys did not meet again for twenty
years, and then only to separate as Hamilton and Burr had parted, on
the road to White Plains, in the memorable retreat from Manhattan in
September, 1776. But Croswell, retaining the quiet, studious habits
that characterised his youth, climbed rapidly. He had become editor
of the _Argus_, state printer, and one of the ablest and most zealous
members of the Albany Regency. He possessed a judgment that seemed
almost inspired, with such untiring industry and rare ability that for
years the Democratic press of the country looked upon the _Argus_ as
its guiding star.

Against this giant in journalism Thurlow Weed was now to be opposed.
"You have a great responsibility resting upon your shoulders," wrote
the accomplished Frederick Whittlesey, "but I know no man who is
better able to meet it."[263] This was the judgment of a man who had
personal knowledge of the tremendous power of Weed's pen. In his later
years, Weed mellowed and forgave and forgot, but when he went to
Albany, and for years before, as well as after, he seemed to enjoy
striking an adversary. An explosion followed every blow. His sarcasms
had needle-points, and his wit, sometimes a little gross, smarted like
the sting of wasps. Often his attacks were so severe and merciless
that 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's
fire. It is doubtful if the _Argus'_ publisher thought or cared much
about the character of the reply. Editors are not usually sensitive to
the stricture of others. But when Weed's retort came, the rival
writers remained without personal or business relations until, years
afterward, Croswell, financially crushed by the failure of the Albany
Canal Bank, and suspected of dishonesty, implored Weed's assistance to
avoid a criminal indictment. In the meantime subscriptions poured into
the _Journal_. The people recognised a fighter; the thoughtful
distinguished a powerful mind; and politicians discovered such a
genius for leadership that Albany became a political centre for the
National Republicans as it was for the Bucktails. Within ten years
after its establishment, the _Evening Journal_ had the largest
circulation of any political paper in the United States.

The birth year of the _Journal_ also witnessed a reorganisation of
the Anti-Masons. Heretofore, this party had declared only its own
peculiar principles, relying for success upon the aid of the National
Republicans; but, as it now sympathised with Henry Clay upon questions
of governmental policy, especially the protection of American
industry, it became evident that, to secure the greatest political
strength, its future policy must be ardent antagonism to the
principles of the Jackson party. Accordingly, at the Utica convention,
held in August, 1830, it adopted a platform substantially embracing
the views of the National Republicans. In acknowledgment of this
change, the Adams party accepted the nomination of Francis Granger for
governor and Samuel Stevens, a prominent lawyer of Albany City and the
son of a distinguished Revolutionary officer, for lieutenant-governor.

The Bucktails did not get on so smoothly at their convention, held at
Herkimer, on September 8. Erastus Root thought if Van Buren could
afford to take the nomination away from Acting Governor Pitcher, he
might deprive Enos T. Throop of the same honour. Throop, who was
acting governor in the place of Van Buren, had proved a feeble
executive. Besides, it could not be forgotten that Throop suffered Van
Buren to humiliate Pitcher simply to make his own election sure. But
Throop had friends if nothing else. On the first ballot, he received
seventy-eight votes to forty for Root. The wrangle over
lieutenant-governor proved less irritating, and Edward P. Livingston,
after several ballots, secured seventy-seven votes.

These contests created unusual bitterness. Root had the offer of
support from a working men's convention; and his failure to secure the
Herkimer nomination left the working men, especially in New York City,
in no mood to support the Bucktail choice. All this greatly encouraged
the Anti-Masons. Granger and Stevens commanded the cordial support of
the National Republicans, while Throop and Livingston were personally
unpopular. Throop had the manners of DeWitt Clinton without a tithe of
his ability, and Livingston, stripped of his family's intellectual
traits, exhibited only its aristocratic pride. But there were
obstacles in the way of anti-masonic success. Among other things,
Francis Granger had become chairman of an anti-masonic convention at
Philadelphia, which Weed characterised as a mistake. "The men from New
York who urged it are stark mad," he wrote; "more than fifty thousand
electors are now balancing their votes, and half of them want an
excuse to vote against you."[264] Whether this "mistake" had the
baleful influence that Weed anticipated, could not, of course, be
determined. The returns, however, proved a serious disappointment.[265]
Granger had carried the eighth or "infected district" by the
astounding majority of over seven thousand in each of the first five
districts. In the sixth district the anti-masonic vote fell over four
thousand. It was evident that the Eastern masons, who had until now
acted with the National Republicans, preferred the rule of the Regency
to 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, State
of 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 to
play, for the next forty years, a conspicuous part in the history of
his country. William Henry Seward was twenty-nine years old when
elected to the State Senate; but to all appearances he might have been
eight years younger. He was small, slender, boyish, punctilious in
attire, his blue eyes and finely moulded chin and mouth giving an
unconscious charm to his native composure, which attracted with a
magnetism peculiarly its own; but there was nothing in his looks or
manner to indicate that the chronicle of the century would record his
name among the country's most prominent statesmen. He had neither the
bold, full forehead of Marcy, nor the tall, commanding form of
Talcott, although the boyish face suggested the refinement of Butler's
features, softened by the blue eyes and light sandy hair. The only
noticeable feature was the nose, neither Roman nor Semitic, but long,
prominent and aggressive, with nostrils slightly distended. In after
years, the brow grew heavier, the eyes more deeply set, and the chin,
slightly drawn, gave greater prominence to the jaw and firmness to the
mouth.

In 1830, Seward had not yet made his great legal contest in the
Freeman case, setting up the then novel and unpopular defence of
insanity, and establishing himself as one of the ablest and grittiest
lawyers in the State. But early in that year, he made a speech, at an
anti-masonic conference, which won the confidence of the delegates
sufficiently to admit him to leadership with Thurlow Weed, Francis
Granger, John C. Spencer, Frederick Whittlesey, William H. Maynard,
and Albert H. Tracy. He was the youngest man in the council, younger
than Whittlesey, four years younger than Weed, and eight years younger
than Tracy. Granger and John C. Spencer belonged almost to an earlier
generation. Millard Fillmore was one year his senior; but Fillmore,
whose force and feeling made for conservatism, had not yet entered
that coterie of brilliant anti-masonic leaders.

Seward was neither precocious nor gifted beyond his years. He had
spirit and gifts, with sufficient temper and stubbornness to defend
him against impositions at home or in college; but the love for
adventure and the strenuous life, that characterised Weed's capricious
youth, were entirely absent. As a boy, Weed, untidy even to
slovenliness, explored the mountain and the valley, drifted among the
resolute lads of the town, and lingered in gardens and orchards,
infinitely lovable and capable of the noblest tenderness. On the
contrary, Seward was precise, self-restrained, possessing the gravity
and stillness of a youth who husbanded his resources as if conscious
of physical frailty, yet wholesome and generous, and once, at least,
splendidly reckless in his race for independence of a father who
denied him the means of dressing in the fashion of other college
students. By the time he reached the age of nineteen, he had run away
to Georgia, taught school six months, studied law six months, and
graduated with honour from Union College. Two years later, in 1822,
he was admitted to the bar, and, having accepted a partnership with
Elijah Miller, located at Auburn. To make this arrangement the more
binding, he married his partner's daughter and became a member of his
family.

Seward retained the political affiliations of his father, who was a
Republican and a Bucktail, until the journey on the canal to Auburn
opened his eyes to the importance of internal improvements. This so
completely changed him into a Clintonian, that, in the autumn of 1824,
he assailed the Albany Regency with great vigour and voted for DeWitt
Clinton for governor. Four years later, he presided over a state
convention of young National Republicans, favourable to the
re-election of John Quincy Adams; and then witnessed that party's
defeat and dispersion under the murderous fire of the Jackson forces,
aided by Southwick and Crary on the anti-masonic ticket. Seward had
not taken kindly to the anti-masonic party. What would have been his
final attitude toward it is problematical had he not fallen under the
influence of Weed. The first meeting of this illustrious pair, a very
casual meeting, occurred in the summer of 1824 while Seward was
passing through Rochester on his return from a visit to Niagara Falls.
A wheel of the coach came off, and among the curious who quickly
assembled "one taller and more effective, while more deferential and
sympathising than the rest," says Seward, in his autobiography, "lent
his assistance."[266] This was Thurlow Weed. "My acquaintance with
William H. Seward grew rapidly on subsequent occasions," adds Weed,
"when he was called to Rochester on professional business. Our views
in relation to public affairs, and our estimate of public men, rarely
differed, and in regard to anti-Masonry he soon became imbued with my
own 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. Tracy
listened to others and was lost; Fillmore finally preferred the
judgment of his associates in Washington, and is to-day without a
statue even in his own home; but Seward kept closely in touch with the
man whose political judgment inspired him with confidence. "Come now
and let us reason together," said Weed, and together these two friends
worked out the policy of success. "I saw in him, in a remarkable
degree," continued Weed, "rapidly developing elements of character
which could not fail to render him eminently useful in public life. I
discerned also unmistakable evidences of stern integrity, earnest
patriotism, and unswerving fidelity. I saw also in him a rare capacity
for intellectual labour, with an industry that never tired and
required no relaxation; to all of which was added a purity and
delicacy 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 party
because he thought it the only active political organisation opposed
to Jackson and Van Buren, whose policy seemed to him to involve "not
only the loss of our national system of revenue, and of enterprises of
state and national improvement, but also the future disunion of the
States, and ultimately the universal prevalence of slavery."[269] Once
an Anti-Mason, he became, like Weed, a zealous and aggressive member
of the party. He embodied its creed in resolutions, he attended its
first national convention at Philadelphia, he visited John Quincy
Adams at Quincy--just then an anti-masonic candidate for Congress--he
aided in the establishment of the Albany _Evening Journal_, and, a
little later, as a delegate to the party's second national convention
at Baltimore, he saw Chief Justice Marshall upon the platform, sat
beside Thaddeus Stevens, and voted for William Wirt as an anti-masonic
candidate for President. It was during his attendance upon the
Philadelphia convention that Thurlow Weed had him nominated, without
his knowledge, for state senator. "While stopping at Albany on my way
south," he says,[270] "Weed made some friendly but earnest inquiries
concerning my pecuniary ability, whether it was sufficient to enable
me to give a portion of my time to public office. When I answered my
ability was sufficient, but I had neither expectation nor wish for
office, he replied that he had learned from my district enough to
induce him to think it possible that the party might desire my
nomination 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, but
the greatest was the intelligence that enabled him to discern the
rising genius of a recruit to anti-Masonry whose name was to help make
illustrious 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 of
conditions and needs that must rank it among the ablest state-papers
in the archives of the capitol. Unlike some of his predecessors, with
their sentences of stilted formality, he wrote easily and with vigour.
His message, however, was marred by the insincerity which shows the
politician. He approved canals, but, by cunningly advising "the utmost
prudence" in taking up new enterprises, he coolly disparaged the
Chenango project; he shrewdly recommended the choice of presidential
electors by general ticket instead of by congressional districts,
knowing that opposition to the change died with DeWitt Clinton. With
full knowledge of what he himself had done, in the last campaign, in
urging upon John A. Hamilton the necessity of raising funds, he boldly
attacked the use of money in elections, proposing "the imposition of
severe penalties upon the advance of money by individuals for any
purposes connected with elections except the single one of printing."
It is not surprising, perhaps, that a man of Van Buren's personal
ambition found himself often compelled, for the sake of his own
career, to make his public devotion to principle radically different
from his practice; but it is amazing that he should thus brazenly
assume the character of a reformer before the ink used in writing
Hamilton 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 general
law for chartering banks without the payment of money bonus, and
declaring that the only concern of the State should be to make banks
and their circulation secure. In accord with this suggestion, he
submitted the "safety fund" project, subsequently enacted into law,
providing that all banks should contribute to a fund, administered
under state supervision, to secure dishonoured banknotes. There was a
great deal of force in Van Buren's reasoning, and the New York City
banks, which, at first, declined to recharter under the law, finally
accepted the scheme with apparent cheerfulness. Had the real test,
which came with the hard times of 1837, not broken it down, Van
Buren's confidence in the project might have continued. After that
catastrophe, which was destined to prove his Waterloo, he had
confidence in nothing except gold and silver.

As anticipated, Van Buren's inauguration as governor preceded his
appointment as secretary of state under President Jackson only seventy
days. It gave him barely time gracefully to assume the duties of one
position before taking up those of the other. But, in making the
change, he did not forget to keep an anchor to windward by having the
amiable and timid Charles E. Dudley succeed him in the United States
Senate. Dudley had the weakness of many cultured, charming men, who
are without personal ambition or executive force. He was incapable of
taking part in debate, or of exerting any perceptible influence upon
legislation in the committee-room. Nevertheless, he was sincere in his
friendships; and the opinion obtained that if Van Buren had desired
for any reason to return to the Senate, Dudley would have gracefully
retired in his favour.

The appointments of Green C. Bronson as attorney-general, and Silas
Wright as comptroller of state, atoned for Dudley's election; for they
brought conspicuously to the front two men whose unusual ability
greatly honoured the State. Bronson had already won an enviable
reputation at the bar of Oneida County. He was now forty years old, a
stalwart in the Jackson party, bold and resolute, with a sturdy
vigour of intellect that was to make him invaluable to the Regency. He
had been a Clintonian surrogate of his county and a Clintonian member
of the Assembly in 1822, but he had changed since then, and his
present appointment was to give him twenty-two years of continuous
public life as a Democrat, lifting him from justice to chief justice
of the Supreme Court, and transferring him finally to the Court of
Appeals.

Silas Wright was a younger man than Bronson, not yet thirty-five years
old; but his admittance to the Regency completely filled the great gap
left by Marcy's retirement. Like Marcy, he was large and muscular,
although with a face of more refinement; like Marcy, too, he dressed
plainly. He had an affable manner stripped of all affectation. From
his first entrance into public life, he had shown a great capacity for
the administration of affairs. He looked like a great man. His
unusually high, square forehead indicated strength of intellect, and
his lips, firmly set, but round and full, gave the impression of
firmness, with a generous and gentle disposition. There was no
evidence 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's
venerable life, when people used often to see him, white-haired and
bright-eyed, walking on Wall Street arm in arm with his son John, his
was still the face of a master diplomatist. Wright, on the other hand,
looked more like a strong, fearless business man. His manner of
speaking was not unlike Rufus King's. He spoke slowly, without
rhetorical embellishment, or other arts of the orator; but, unlike
King, he had an unpleasant voice; nevertheless, if one may accept the
opinion of a contemporary and an intimate, "there was a subdued
enthusiasm in his style of speaking that was irresistibly
captivating." The slightly rasping voice was "almost instantly
forgotten 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 as
surrogate of St. Lawrence County, afterward as state senator, and
later as a member of Congress. He had also increased his earnings at
the bar by holding the offices of justice of the peace, town clerk,
inspector of schools, and postmaster at Canton. From the outset, he
had allied himself with the Regency party, and, with unfailing
regularity he had supported all its measures, even those which his
better judgment opposed. His ability and gentle manners, too,
apparently won the people; for, although St. Lawrence was a Clintonian
stronghold, a majority of its voters believed in their young
office-holder--a fact that was the more noteworthy since he had broken
faith with them. In the campaign of 1823, he favoured the choice of
presidential electors by the people; afterward, in the Senate, he
voted against the measure. So bitter was the resentment that followed
this bill's defeat, that many of the seventeen senators, who voted
against it, ever afterward remained in private life. But Wright was
forgiven, and, two years later, sent to Congress, where his public
career really began. In a bill finally amended into the tariff act of
1828, he sought to remove the complaint of manufacturers that the
tariff of 1824 was partial to iron interests, and the criticism of
agriculturalists, that the woollens bill, of 1827, favoured the
manufacturer. In this debate, he gave evidence of that genius for
legislation which was destined soon to shine in the United States
Senate at a time when some of the fiercest political fights of the
century were being waged.

It is evident Van Buren did not appreciate the capacity of Silas
Wright in 1831; otherwise, instead of William L. Marcy, Wright would
have succeeded Nathan Sanford in the United States Senate.[272] Marcy
had made an excellent state comptroller; his able and luminous
reports had revealed the necessity of preserving the general fund, and
the danger of constructing additional lateral canals. As a judge of
the Supreme Court, also, his sound judgment had won him an enviable
reputation, especially in the trial of the Morgan abductors, which was
held at a time of great excitement and intense feeling. But, as a
United States senator, Marcy failed to realise the expectations of his
friends. Very likely two years were insufficient to test fairly his
legislative capacity. Besides, his services, however satisfactory,
would naturally be dwarfed in the presence of the statesmen then
engaged in the great constitutional debate growing out of the Foote
resolution, limiting the sale of public lands. Congress was rapidly
making history; and the Senate, lifted into great prominence by the
speeches of Webster and Hayne, had become a more difficult place than
ever for a new member. At all events, Marcy did not exhibit the
parliamentary spirit that seeks to lead, or which delights in the
struggles of the arena where national reputations are made. He,
moreover, had abundant opportunity. Thomas H. Benton says that the
session of 1832 became the most prolific of party topics and party
contests in the annals of Congress; yet Marcy was dumb on those
subjects that were interesting every one else.

[Footnote 272: "Marcy was the immediate predecessor of Wright as state
comptroller and United States senator. Each possessed rare talents,
but they were totally dissimilar in mental traits and political
methods. Both were statesmen of scrupulous honesty, who despised
jobbery. Marcy was wily and loved intrigue. Wright was proverbially
open 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 was
lustrous with forensic talents. A man's status in the United States
Senate is determined by the calibre and skill of the opponents who are
selected to cross weapons with him in the forum. Wright was
unostentatious, studious, thoughtful, grave. Whenever he delivered an
elaborate speech the Whigs set Clay, Webster, Ewing, or some other of
their leaders to reply to him."--H.B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_,
p. 39.]

Even when the great opportunity of Marcy's senatorial career was
thrust upon him--the defence of Van Buren at the time of the latter's
rejection as minister to Great Britain--he failed signally. The
controversy growing out of Jackson's cabinet disagreements, ostensibly
because of the treatment of Mrs. Eaton, wife of the Secretary of War,
but really because of Calhoun's hostility to Van Buren, due to the
President's predilections for him as his successor, had made it
evident to Van Buren that an entire reorganisation of the Cabinet
should take place. Accordingly, on April 11, 1831, he opened the way,
by voluntarily and chivalrously resigning. President Jackson soon
after appointed him minister to England, and Van Buren sailed for his
post. But when the question of his confirmation came up, in the
following December, Calhoun and his friends, joined by Webster and
Clay, formed a combination to defeat it. Calhoun's opposition was
simply the enmity of a political rival, but Webster sought to put his
antagonism on a higher level, by calling Van Buren to account for
instructions addressed to the American Minister at London in regard to
our commercial relations with the West Indian, Bahama, and South
American colonies of England.

In 1825 Parliament permitted American vessels to trade with British
colonies, on condition that American ports be opened within a year to
British vessels on the same terms as to American vessels. The Adams
administration, 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 American
Minister at London, to say to England that the United States had, as
the friends of the present administration contended at the time, been
wrong in refusing the privileges granted by the act of 1825, but that
our "views have been submitted to the people of the United States, and
the counsels by which your conduct is now directed are the result of
the judgment expressed by the only earthly tribunal to which the late
administration was amenable for its acts." In other words, Van Buren
had introduced party contests in an official dispatch, not brazenly or
offensively, perhaps, but with questionable taste, and, for this, the
great senators combined and spoke against him--Webster, Clay, Hayne,
Ewing of Ohio, Holmes of Maine, and seven others--"just a dozen and
equal to a full jury," wrote Benton. Webster said he would pardon
almost anything when he saw true patriotism and sound American
feeling, but he could not forgive the sacrifice of these to party.
Clay characterised his language as that of an humble vassal to a proud
and haughty lord, prostrating the American eagle before the British
lion. In the course of his remarks, Clay also referred, in an
incidental way, to the odious system of proscription practised in the
State of New York, which, he alleged, Van Buren had introduced into
the general government.

Only four senators spoke in Van Buren's defence, recalling the weak
protest made in the Legislature on the day of DeWitt Clinton's removal
as canal commissioner, but this gave William L. Marcy the greater
opportunity for acquitting himself with glory and vindicating his
friend. It was not a strong argument he had to meet. Van Buren had
been unfortunate in his language, although in admitting that the
United States was wrong in refusing the privileges offered by the
British law of 1825, he did nothing more than had Gallatin, whom Adams
sent to England to remedy the same difficulty. Furthermore, by
assuming a more conciliatory course Van Buren had been entirely
successful. To Webster's suggestion of lack of patriotism, and to
Clay's declaration that the American eagle had been prostrated before
the British lion, Marcy might have pointed to Van Buren's exalted
patriotism during the War of 1812, citing the conscription act, which
he drafted, and which Benton declared the most drastic piece of war
legislation ever enacted into law. To Clay's further charge, that he
brought with him to Washington the odious system of proscription, the
New York senator could truthfully have retorted that the system of
removals, inaugurated by Jackson, was in full swing before Van Buren
reached the national capital; that if he did not oppose it he
certainly never encouraged it; that of seventeen foreign
representatives, the Secretary of State had removed only four; and
that, in making appointments as governor, he never departed from the
rule of refusing either to displace competent and trustworthy men, or
to appoint the dishonest and incompetent. He could also have read
Lorenzo Hoyt's wail that Van Buren would "not lend the least weight of
his influence to displace from office such men as John Duer," Adams'
appointee as United States attorney at New York. But Marcy did nothing
of the kind. He made no use of the abundant material at hand, out of
which he might have constructed a brilliant speech if not a perfect
defence. Quite on the contrary he contented himself simply with
replying to Clay's slur. He defended the practice of political
proscription by charging that both sides did it. Ambrose Spencer, he
said, the man whom Clay was now ready to honour, had begun it, and he
himself "saw nothing wrong in the rule that to the victors belong the
spoils of the enemy."

If the conspiracy of distinguished statesmen to defeat Van Buren's
confirmation was shallow and in bad taste, Marcy's defence was
scarcely above the standard of a ward politician. Indeed, the
attempted defence of his friend became the shame of both; since it
forever fixed upon Marcy the odium of enunciating a vicious principle
that continued to corrupt American political life for more than half a
century, and confirmed the belief that Van Buren was an inveterate
spoilsman.[273]

[Footnote 273: "To this celebrated and execrable defence Van Buren
owes much of the later and unjust belief that he was an inveterate
spoilsman. Benton truly says that Van Buren's temper and judgment were
both 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's
confirmation, several of whom refrained from voting to afford Vice
President Calhoun the exquisite satisfaction of giving the casting
vote. "It will kill him, sir, kill him dead," Calhoun boasted in
Benton's hearing; "he will never kick, sir, never kick." This was the
thought 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 against
a competitor."

This also was the prophecy of Thurlow Weed. While the question of
rejection 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 would
return home as a persecuted man, throw himself upon the sympathy of
the party, be nominated for Vice President, and huzzaed into office at
the heels of General Jackson."[274] On the evening Van Buren heard of
his rejection, in London, Lord Auckland, afterward governor-general of
India, said to him: "It is an advantage to a public man to be the
subject 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 of
DeWitt Clinton had taken his removal as canal commissioner.
Indignation meetings were held and addresses voted. In stately words
and high-sounding sentences, the Legislature addressed the President,
promising to avenge the indignity offered to their most distinguished
fellow citizen; to which Jackson replied with equal warmth and skill,
assuming entire responsibility for the instructions given the American
minister at London and for removals from office; and acquitting the
Secretary of State of all participation in the occurrences between
himself 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 his
public services had in nowise diminished confidence in his integrity
and great ability. This blare of trumpets set the State on fire; and
various plans were proposed for wiping out the insult of the Senate.
Some suggested Dudley's resignation and Van Buren's re-election, that
he might meet his slanderers face to face; others thought he should be
made governor; but the majority, guided by the wishes of the Cabinet,
and the expression of friends in other States, insisted that his
nomination as Vice President would strengthen the ticket and open the
way to the Presidency in 1836.

When, therefore, the Democratic national convention met at Baltimore,
in May, 1832, only one name was seriously considered for Vice
President. Van Buren had opponents in P.P. Barbour of Virginia and
Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky, but his friends had the convention. On
the first ballot, he received two hundred and sixty votes out of three
hundred and twenty-six. Barbour had forty, Johnson twenty-six.
Delegates understood that they must vote for Van Buren or quarrel with
Jackson.

Van Buren returned from London on July 5. New York was filled with a
multitude to welcome him back. At a great dinner, ardent devotion,
tempered by decorum, showed the loyalty of old neighbours, in whose
midst he had lived, and over whom he had practically reigned for
nearly a quarter of a century. Instead of killing him, the Senate's
rejection had swung open a wider door for his entrance to the highest
office 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's
rejection as Minister to Great Britain, and Jackson's wholesale
removals from office. Yet it was a period of great unrest. The debate
of Webster and Hayne had revealed two sharply defined views separating
the North and the South; and, although the compromise tariff act of
1832, supported by all parties, and approved by the President, had
temporarily removed the question of Protection from the realm of
discussion, the decided stand in favour of a State's power to annul an
act of Congress had made a profound impression in the North. Under
these 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 Clay
for President. The Anti-Masons, who had previously nominated William
Wirt, of Maryland, and were in practical accord with the National
Republicans on all questions relating to federal authority, agreed to
join 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 until
1836, the subject of its continuance had occupied public attention
ever since President Jackson, in his first inaugural address, raised
the question of its constitutionality; and when Congress convened, in
December, 1831, the bank applied for an extension of its charter.
Louis McLane, then secretary of the treasury, advised the president
of the bank that Jackson would approve its charter, if certain
specified modifications were accepted. These changes proved entirely
satisfactory to the bank; but Webster and Clay declared that the
subject had assumed aspects too decided in the public mind and in
Congress, to render any compromise or change of front expedient or
desirable. Later in the session, the bill for the bank's recharter
passed both branches of Congress. Then came the President's veto. The
act and the veto amounted to an appeal to the people, and in an
instant the country was on fire.

Under these conditions, the anti-masonic state convention, confident
of the support of all elements opposed to the re-election of Andrew
Jackson, met at Utica on June 21, 1832. Albert H. Tracy of Buffalo
became its chairman. After he had warmed the delegates into
enthusiastic applause by his happy and cogent reasons for the success
of the party, Francis Granger was unanimously renominated for
governor, with Samuel Stevens for lieutenant-governor. The convention
also announced an electoral ticket, equally divided between
Anti-Masons and National Republicans, headed by James Kent[275] and
John C. Spencer. In the following month, the National Republicans
adopted the anti-masonic state and electoral tickets. It looked like a
queer combination, a "Siamese twin party" it was derisively called, in
which somebody was to be cheated. But the embarrassment, if any
existed, seems to have been fairly overcome by Thurlow Weed, who
patiently traversed the State harmonising conflicting opinions in the
interest of local nominations.

[Footnote 275: "Chancellor Kent's bitter, narrow, and unintelligent
politics were in singular contrast with his extraordinary legal
equipment and his professional and literary accomplishments."--Edward
M. Shepard, _Life of Martin Van Buren_, p. 246.]

Meantime, the Van Buren leaders proceeded with rare caution. There had
been some alarming defections, notably the secession of the New York
_Courier and Enquirer_, now edited by James Watson Webb, and the
refusal of Erastus Root longer to follow the Jackson standard. Samuel
Young 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 rally
to the support of Clay in 1832. But, looking cautiously to the future,
he could not see his way to renounce old associates altogether; and
so, as evidence of his return, he published an able paper in defence
of the President's veto. There is no indication, however, that Erastus
Root was penitent. He had been playing a double game too long, and
although his old associates treated him well, electing him speaker of
the Assembly in 1827, 1828, and again in 1830, he could not overlook
their failure to make him governor. Finally, after accepting a
nomination to Congress, his speeches indicated that he was done
forever with the party of Jackson.

The Republican convention, which met at Herkimer, in September, 1832,
nominated William L. Marcy for governor. Marcy had reluctantly left
the Supreme Court in 1831; and he did not now take kindly to giving up
the United States Senate, since the veto message had made success in
the State doubly doubtful. But no other candidate excited any
interest. Enos T. Throop had been practically ridiculed into
retirement. He was nicknamed "Small-light," and the longer he served
the smaller and the more unpopular he became. If we may accept the
judgment of contemporaries, he lacked all the engaging qualities that
usually characterise a public official, and possessed all the faults
which exaggerate limited ability.

Marcy had both tact and ability, but his opposition to the Chenango
canal weakened him in that section of the State. The Chenango project
had been a thorn in the Regency's side ever since Francis Granger, in
1827, forced a bill for its construction through the Assembly,
changing Chenango from a reliable Jackson county to a Granger
stronghold; but Van Buren now took up the matter, assuring the people
that the next Legislature should pass a law for the construction of
the canal, and to bind the contract Edward P. Livingston, with his
family pride and lack of gifts, was unceremoniously set aside as
lieutenant-governor for John Tracy of Chenango. This bargain, however,
did not relieve Marcy's distress. He still had little confidence in
his success. "I have looked critically over the State," he wrote Jesse
Hoyt on the first day of October, "and have come to the conclusion
that probably we shall be beaten. The United States Bank is in the
field, and I can not but fear the effect of fifty or one hundred
thousand dollars expended in conducting the election in such a city as
New York."

This was a good enough excuse, perhaps, to give Hoyt. But Marcy's
despair was due more to the merciless ridicule of Thurlow Weed's pen
than to the bank's money. Marcy had thoughtlessly included, in one of
his bills for court expenses, an item of fifty cents paid for mending
his pantaloons; and the editor of the _Evening Journal_, in his
inimitable way, made the "Marcy pantaloons" and the "Marcy patch" so
ridiculous that the slightest reference to it in any company raised
immoderate laughter at the expense of the candidate for governor. At
Rochester, the Anti-Masons suspended at the top of a long pole a huge
pair of black trousers, with a white patch on the seat, bearing the
figure 50 in red paint. Reference to the unfortunate item often came
upon him suddenly. "Now, ladies and gentlemen," shouted the driver of
a stage-coach on which Marcy had taken passage, "hold on tight, for
this hole is as large as the one in the Governor's breeches." All this
was telling hard upon Marcy's spirits and the party's confidence.
Jesse Hoyt wrote him that something must be done to silence the absurd
cry; but the candidate was without remedy. "The law provided for the
payment of the judge's expenses," he said, "and while on this business
some work was done on pantaloons for which the tailor charged fifty
cents. It was entered on the account, and went into the comptroller's
hands without a particle of reflection as to how it would appear in
print." There was no suggestion of dishonesty. Weed was too skilful
to raise a point that might be open to discussion, but he kept the
whole State in laughter at the candidate's expense. Marcy felt so
keenly the ridiculous position in which his patched pantaloons put him
that, although he usually relished jokes on himself, "the patch" was a
distressing subject long after he had been thrice elected governor.

The Granger forces had, however, something more influential to
overcome than a "Marcy patch." Very early in the campaign it dawned
upon the bankers of the State that, if the United States Bank went out
of business, government deposits would come to them; and from that
moment every jobber, speculator and money borrower, as well as every
bank officer and director, rejoiced in the veto. The prejudices of the
people, always easily excited against moneyed corporations, had
already turned against the "monster monopoly," with its exclusive
privileges for "endangering the liberties of the country," and now the
banks joined them in their crusade. In other words, the Jackson party
was sustained by banks and the opponents of banks, by men of means and
men without means, by the rich and the poor. It was a great
combination, and it resulted in the overwhelming triumph of Marcy and
the Jackson electoral ticket.[276]

[Footnote 276: "On one important question, Mr. Weed and I were
antipodes. Believing that a currency in part of paper, kept at par
with specie, and current in every part of our country, was
indispensable, I was a zealous advocate of a National Bank; which he
as heartily detested, believing that its supporters would always be
identified in the popular mind with aristocracy, monopoly, exclusive
privileges, etc. He attempted, more than once, to overbear my
convictions on this point, or at least preclude their utterance, but
was at length brought apparently to comprehend that this was a point
on which we must agree to differ."--Horace Greeley, _Recollections of
a Busy Life_, p. 314.]

The western anti-masonic counties gave their usual majorities for
Francis Granger, but New York City and the districts bordering the
Hudson, with several interior counties, wiped them out and left the
Jackson 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 upon
his party. It had been a contest of giants. Webster's great speeches
in support of the United States Bank were accepted as triumphant
answers to the arguments of the veto message, but nothing seemed
capable of breaking the solid Jackson majorities in the eastern and
southern counties; and, upon the assembling of the Legislature, in
January, 1833, signs of disintegration were apparent among the
Anti-Masons. Albert H. Tracy, despairing of success, began accepting
interviews with Martin Van Buren, who sought to break anti-Masonry by
conciliating its leaders. It was the voice of the tempter. Tracy
listened and then became a missionary, inducing John Birdsall and
other members of the Legislature to join him. Tracy had been an
acknowledged leader. He was older, richer, and of larger experience
than most of his associates, and, in appealing to him, Van Buren
exhibited the rare tact that characterised his political methods. But
the 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 both
been accustomed for years," says Thurlow Weed, "to allow Tracy to do
our political thinking, rarely differing from him in opinion, and
never doubting his fidelity. On this occasion, however, we could not
see things from his standpoint, and, greatly to his annoyance, we
determined 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 man
of original genius, of great and varied literary acquirements, of
refined tastes, and high and honourable principles. He seems the most
eloquent, I might almost say the only eloquent man in the Senate. He
is plainly clothed and unostentatious. Winning in his address and
gifted in conversation, you would fall naturally into the habit of
telling him all your weaknesses, and giving him unintentionally your
whole confidence. He is undoubtedly very ambitious; though he
protests, and doubtless half the time believes, that dyspepsia has
humbled all his ambition, and broken the vaultings of his spirit. I
doubt not that, dyspepsia taken into the account, he will be one of
the great men of the nation."]

It must be admitted that many reasons existed well calculated to
influence Tracy's action. William Wirt had carried only Vermont, and
Henry Clay had received but forty-nine out of two hundred and
sixty-five electoral votes. Anti-Masonry had plainly run its course.
It aroused a strong public sentiment against secret societies, until
most of the lodges in western New York had surrendered their charters;
but it signally failed to perpetuate its hold upon the masses. The
surrendered charters were soon reissued, and the institution itself
became more popular and attractive than ever. These disheartening
conditions were re-emphasised in the election of 1833. The county of
Washington, before an anti-masonic stronghold, returned a Jackson
assemblyman; and the sixth district, which had elected an anti-masonic
senator in 1829, now gave a Van Buren member over seven thousand
majority. But the most surprising change occurred in the eighth, or
"infected district." Three years before it had given Granger thirteen
thousand majority; now it returned Tracy to the Senate by less than
two hundred. For a long time his election was in doubt. Of the one
hundred and twenty-eight assemblymen, one hundred and four belonged to
the Jackson party, and of the eight senators elected Tracy alone
represented the opposition.

It was certainly not an encouraging outlook, and the leaders, after
full consultation, virtually declared the anti-masonic party
dissolved. But this did not, however, mean an abandonment of the
field. It was impossible for men who believed in internal
improvements, in the protection of American industries, and in the
United States Bank, to surrender to a party controlled by the Albany
Regency, which was rapidly drifting into hostility to these great
principles 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, but
practically all the people who made up the anti-masonic and National
Republican forces continued to act together.

Several events of the year aided the opposition party. The hostility
of the Jackson leaders to internal improvements aroused former
Clintonians who believed in canals, and the widespread financial
embarrassment alarmed commercial and mercantile interests. They
resented the remark of the President that "men who trade on borrowed
capital ought to fail," and the bold denial that "any pressure existed
which an honest man should regret." Business men, cramped for money,
or already bankrupt because the United States Bank, stripped of its
government deposits, had curtailed its discounts, did not listen with
patience or amiability to statements of such a character; nor were
they inclined to excuse the President's action on the theory that the
United States Bank had cut down its loans to produce a panic, and thus
force a reversal of his policy. To them such utterances seemed to
evince a want of sympathy, and opposition orators and journals took
advantage of the situation by eloquently denouncing a policy that
embarrassed commerce and manufactures, throwing people out of
employment and bringing suffering and want to the masses.

The New York municipal election in the spring of 1834 plainly showed
that the voters resented the President's financial policy. For the
first time in the history of the city, the people were to elect their
mayor, and, although purely a local contest, it turned upon national
issues. All the elements of opposition now used the one name of
"Whig." Until this time local organisations had adopted various
titles, such as "Anti-Jackson," "Anti-Mortgage," and "Anti-Regency;"
but the opponents of Jackson now claimed to be the true successors of
the Whigs of 1776, calling their movement a revolution against the
tyranny and usurpation of "King Andrew." They raised liberty poles,
spoke of their opponents as Tories, and appropriated as emblems the
national flag and portraits of Washington.

The prospects of the new party brightened, too, when it nominated for
mayor Gulian C. Verplanck, a member of Tammany Hall, a distinguished
congressman of eight years' service, and, until then, a representative
of the Jackson party, highly esteemed and justly popular. Although
best known, perhaps, as a scholar and writer, Verplanck's active
sympathies early led him into politics. He entered the Whig party and
the mayoralty campaign with high hopes of success. He led the
merchants and business men, while his opponent, Cornelius V.R.
Lawrence, also a popular member of Tammany, rallied the mechanics and
labouring classes. The spirited contest, characterised by rifled
ballot-boxes and broken heads, revealed at once its national
importance. If the new party could show a change in public sentiment
in the foremost city in the Union, it would be helpful in reversing
Jackson'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 at
night, it alarmed the people, whose confidence began to waver and
finally to give way.

The evident purpose of the United States Bank was to create, if
possible, the fear of a panic. By suddenly curtailing its loans,
ostensibly because of the removal of the deposits, it brought such
pressure upon the state banks that a suspension of specie payment
seemed inevitable. To relieve this situation, Governor Marcy and the
Legislature, acting with great promptness, pledged the State's credit
to the banks, should the exigency require such aid, to the amount of
six million dollars. This was called "Marcy's mortgage." The Whigs
stigmatised it as a pledge of the people's property for the benefit of
money corporations, denouncing the project as little better than a
vulgar swindle in the interest of the Democratic party. Whether
Marcy's scheme really averted the threatened calamity, or whether the
United States Bank had already carried its contraction as far as it
intended, it is certain that the fear of a panic served its purpose in
the campaign. The Whigs became enthusiastic, and, as the United States
Bank now began relieving the commercial embarrassment by extending its
loans and giving its friends in New York special advantages, the party
felt certain of victory. When the polls closed the result did not
fully realise Whig anticipations; yet it disclosed a Democratic
majority, cut down from five thousand to two hundred, with a loss of
the Council. Verplanck had, indeed, been beaten by one hundred and
eighty-one votes; but the Common Council, carrying with it the
patronage of the city, amounting to more than one million dollars a
year, 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 at
Syracuse, in August, 1834, adopted the title of "Whig," and the new
party exulted in its name. To add to the enthusiasm, Daniel Webster
declared, in a letter, that, from his cradle, he had "been educated in
the principles of the Whigs of '76." The New York City election was
referred to as the "Lexington" of the revolution against "King
Andrew," as its prototype was against King George.

The Whigs' hope of success was heightened, also, by the unanimous
nomination of William H. Seward for governor. Seward was now
thirty-three years of age. During his four years in the Senate,
political expediency neither limited nor controlled his opinions. He
had argued for reform in the military system; he had favoured the
abolition of imprisonment for debt; he had vigorously opposed the
attacks upon the United States Bank and the removal of the deposits;
he had antagonised the Chenango canal for reasons presented by
Comptroller Marcy, and he gave generously of his time in the Court of
Errors. He had grown into a statesman of acknowledged genius and
popularity, placing himself in sympathy with the masses, denouncing
misrule and supporting measures of reform. Of all the old and
experienced members of the Senate, it was freely admitted that none
surpassed him in a knowledge of the affairs of the State, or in a
readiness to debate leading questions. But, well fitted as he was, he
did not solicit the privilege of being a candidate for governor. On
the contrary, with Weed and Whittlesey, he tried to find some one
else. Granger preferred going to Congress; Verplanck had not yet
recovered from the chagrin and disappointment of losing the mayoralty;
Maynard was dead, and James Wadsworth would not accept office. To
Seward an acceptance of the nomination, therefore, appealed almost as
a matter of duty.

Silas M. Stilwell of New York became the candidate for
lieutenant-governor. Stilwell had been a shoemaker, and, until the
organisation of the Whig party, a stalwart supporter of the Regency,
occupying a conspicuous place as an industrious and ambitious member
of the Assembly. When the deposits were removed and a panic threatened
he declared himself a Whig.

Confidence characterised the convention which nominated Seward and
Stilwell. Young men predominated, and their enthusiasm was aroused to
the highest pitch by the eloquence of Peter R. Livingston, their
venerable chairman. Like a new convert, Livingston prophesied victory.
Livingston had been a wheel-horse in the party of Jefferson. He had
served in the Senate with Van Buren; he had taken a leading part in
the convention of 1821, and he had held, with distinction, the
speakership of the Assembly and the presidency of the Senate. His
creed was love of republicanism and hatred of Clinton. At one time he
was the faithful follower, the enthusiastic admirer, almost the
devotee of Van Buren; and, so long as the Kinderhook statesman opposed
Clinton, he needed Livingston. But, when the time came that Van Buren
must conciliate Clinton, Livingston was dropped from the Senate. The
consequences were far more serious than Van Buren intended. Livingston
was as able as he was eloquent, and Van Buren's coalition with
Clinton quickly turned Livingston's ability and eloquence to the
support of Clay. Then he openly joined the Whigs; and to catch his
influence, and the thrill of his remarkable voice, they made him
chairman of their first state convention. As an evidence of their
enthusiasm, the whole body of delegates, with music and flags, drove
from Syracuse to Auburn, twenty-six miles, to visit their young
candidate for governor.

In the same month the Democrats renominated Marcy and John Tracy,
strong in prestige of past success and present power. Instantly, the
two leading candidates were contrasted--Marcy, the mature and
experienced statesman; Seward, a "red-haired young man," without a
record and unknown to fame. Stilwell was told to "stick to his boots
and shoes;" and, in resentment, tailors, printers, shoemakers, and men
of other handicraft, organised in support of "the working man" against
the "Jackson Aristocrats." In answer to the _Commercial Advertiser's_
sneer that Seward was "red-haired," William L. Stone, with felicitous
humour, told how Esau, and Cato, Clovis, William Rufus, and Rob Roy
not only had red hair, but each was celebrated for having it; how
Ossian sung a "lofty race of red-haired heroes," how Venus herself was
golden-haired, as well as Patroclus and Achilles. "Thus does it
appear," the article concluded, "that in all ages and in all
countries, from Paradise to Dragon River, has red or golden hair been
held in highest estimation. But for his red hair, the country of Esau
would not have been called Edom. But for his hair, which was doubtless
red, Samson would not have carried away the gates of Gaza. But for his
red hair, Jason would not have navigated the Euxine and discovered the
Golden Horn. But for the red hair of his mistress, Leander would not
have swum the Hellespont. But for his red hair, Narcissus would not
have 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, but
for his red hair, William H. Seward might not have become governor of
the State of New York! Stand aside, then, ye Tories, and 'Let go of
his 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 favourite
with the Whigs. "The Monster Bank Party" became the popular cry of
Democrats, to which the Whigs retorted with "The Party of Little
Monsters." "Marcy's Pantaloons," "No Nullification," and "Union and
Liberty" also did service. Copper medals bearing the heads of
candidates were freely distributed, and humourous campaign songs, set
to 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] and
carrying every senatorial district save the eighth, and ninety-one of
the one hundred and twenty-two assemblymen. The Whigs had put forward
their ablest men for the Legislature and for Congress, but, outside of
those chosen in the infected district, few appeared in the halls of
legislation, either at Albany or at Washington. Francis Granger went
to Congress. "He has had a fortunate escape from his dilemma, and I
rejoice 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 have
been 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 against
him was not so large as Granger encountered in 1832; but it was
sufficiently pronounced to send him back to his profession with the
feeling that his principles and opinions were not yet wanted. "If I
live," he said to Weed, "and my principles ever do find favour with
the people, I shall not be without their respect. Believe me, there
is no affectation in my saying that I would not now exchange the
feelings and associations of the vanquished William H. Seward for the
victory 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 Northern
District of New York_


VOL. II

1833-1861


[Illustration]


NEW YORK
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
1906

Copyright, 1906
By
HENRY 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 Washington
his permanent residence, and again became the President's chief
adviser. His eye was now intently fixed upon the White House, and the
long, rapid strides, encouraged by Jackson, carried him swiftly toward
the goal of his ambition. He was surrounded by powerful friends.
Edward Livingston, the able and accomplished brother of the
Chancellor, still held the office of secretary of state; Benjamin F.
Butler, his personal friend and former law partner, was
attorney-general; Silas Wright, the successor of Marcy, and Nathaniel
P. Tallmadge, the eloquent successor of the amiable Dudley, were in
the United States Senate. Among the members of the House, Samuel
Beardsley and Churchill C. Cambreling, firm and irrepressible, led the
Administration's forces with conspicuous ability. At Albany, Marcy was
governor, Charles L. Livingston was speaker of the Assembly, Azariah
C. Flagg state comptroller, John A. Dix secretary of state, Abraham
Keyser state treasurer, Edwin Croswell state printer and editor of
the _Argus_, and Thomas W. Olcott the able financier of the Regency.
All were displaying a devotion to the President, guided by infinite
tact, that distinguished them as the organisers and disciplinarians of
the party. "I do not believe," wrote Thurlow Weed, "that a stronger
political organisation ever existed at any state capital, or even at
the 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 in
history. Very early in life he was distinguished for executive
ability. Although but a boy, he saw active service throughout the War
of 1812, having been appointed a cadet at fourteen, an ensign at
fifteen, and a second lieutenant at sixteen. After the war, he served
as aide-de-camp on the staff of General Brown, living at Fortress
Monroe and at Washington, until feeble health led to his resignation
in 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 vigorous
speaker, and as prompt and bold in his decisions as in 1861, when he
struck the high, clear-ringing note for the Union in his order to
shoot the first man who attempted to haul down the American flag. He
was not afraid of any enterprise; he was not abashed by the stoutest
opposition; he was not even depressed by failure. When the call came,
he leaped up to sudden political action, and very soon was installed
as a member of the Regency.

Dix had one great advantage over most of his contemporaries in
political life--he was able to write editorials for the _Argus_. It
took a keen pen to find an open way to its columns. Croswell needed
assistance in these days of financial quakings and threatened party
divisions, 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 widely
differing themes, flavoured with humour and satire, making the paper
attractive if not spectacular. To this work Dix, who had already
published a _Sketch of the Resources of the City of New York_, now
brought the freshness of a strong personality and the training of a
scholar and linguist. He had come into public life under the influence
of 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 United
States army, and he was quick to strike for his country when South
Carolina raised the standard of rebellion in 1861.

There was something particularly attractive about John A. Dix in these
earlier years. He had endured hardships and encountered dangers, but
he had never known poverty; and after his marriage he no longer
depended upon the law or upon office for life's necessities. Educated
at Phillips Exeter Academy, at the College of Montreal, and at St.
Mary's College in Baltimore, he learned to be vigorous without
egotism, positive without arrogance, and a man of literary tastes
without affectation. Even long years of earnest controversy and
intense feeling never changed the serene purity of his life, his lofty
purposes, or the nobility of his nature. It is doubtful if he would
have found distinction in the career of a man of letters, to which he
was inclined. He had the learning and the scholarly ambition. Like
Benjamin F. Butler, he could not be content with a small measure of
knowledge. He studied languages closely, he read much of the world's
literature in the original, and he could write on political topics
with the firm grasp and profound knowledge of a statesman of broad
views; but he could not, or did not, turn his English into the realm
of literature. Yet his _Winter in Madeira and a Summer in Spain and
Florence_, published in 1850, ran through five editions in three
years, and is not without interest to-day, after so many others, with,
defter pen, perhaps, have written of these sunny lands. His
appointment as secretary of state in 1833 made him also state
superintendent of common schools, and his valuable reports, published
during the seven years he filled the office, attest his intelligent
devotion to the educational interests of New York, not less than his
editorial work on the _Argus_ showed his loyal attachment to Van
Buren.

But, despite the backing of President Jackson, and the influence of
other powerful friends, there was no crying demand outside of New York
for Van Buren's election to the Presidency. He had done nothing to
stir the hearts of his countrymen with pride, or to create a
pronounced, determined public sentiment in his behalf. On the
contrary, his weaknesses were as well understood without New York as
within 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 Van
Buren, and that, unlike Jackson, he had no great, redeeming,
iron-willed quality that fascinates the multitude. Tennessee, the home
State of Jackson, opposed him with bitterness; Virginia declared that
it favoured principles, not men, and that in supporting Van Buren it
had gone as far astray as it would go; Calhoun spoke of the Van Buren
party as "a powerful faction, held together by the hopes of plunder,
and marching under a banner whereon is written 'to the victors belong
the spoils.'" Everywhere there seemed to be unkindness, unrest, or
indifference.

Nevertheless, Van Buren's candidacy had been so persistently and
systematically worked up by the President that, from the moment of his
inauguration as Vice President, his succession to the Presidency was
accepted as inevitable. It is doubtful if a man ever slipped into an
office more easily than Martin Van Buren secured the Presidency. That
there might be no failure at the last moment, a national democratic
convention, the second one in the history of the party, was called to
nominate him at Baltimore, in May, 1835, eighteen months before the
election. When the time came, South Carolina, Alabama, and Illinois
were unrepresented; Tennessee had one delegate, and Mississippi and
Missouri only two each; but Van Buren's nomination followed with an
ease and a unanimity that caused a smile even among the office-holding
delegates.

Indeed, slavery was the only thing in sight to disturb Van Buren. At
present, it was not larger than a cloud "like a man's hand," but the
agitation had begun seriously to disturb politicians. After the North
had emerged from the Missouri struggle, chafed and mortified by the
treachery of its own representatives, the rapidly expanding culture of
cotton, which found its way in plenty to northern seaports, had
apparently silenced all opposition. A few people, however, had been
greatly disturbed by the arguments of a small number of reformers,
much in advance of their time, who were making a crusade against the
whole system of domestic slavery. Some of these men won honoured names
in our history. One of them was Benjamin Lundy. In 1815, when
twenty-six years old, Lundy organised an anti-slavery association,
known as the "Union Humane Society," and, in its support, he had
traversed the country from Maine to Tennessee, lecturing, editing
papers, and forming auxiliary societies. He was a small, deaf,
unassuming Quaker, without wealth, eloquence, or marked ability; but
he had courage, tremendous energy, and a gentle spirit. He had lived
for a time in Wheeling, Virginia, where the horrors, inseparable from
slavery, impressed him very much as the system in the British West
Indies had impressed Zachary Macaulay, father of the distinguished
essayist and historian; and, like Macaulay, he ever after devoted his
time and his abilities to the generous task of rousing his countrymen
to a full sense of the cruelties practised upon slaves.

In 1828, he happened to meet William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison's
attention 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 emancipation
as the right of the slave and the duty of the master. William Lloyd
Garrison was young then, not yet twenty-three years of age, but he
struck hard, and soon found himself in jail, in default of the payment
of fifty dollars fine and costs for malicious libel. At the end of
forty-nine days, Arthur Tappan, of New York City, paid the fine, and
Garrison, returning to Boston, issued the first number of _The
Liberator_ on January 1, 1830.

This opened the agitation in earnest. Garrison treated slavery as a
crime, repudiating all creeds, churches, and parties which taught or
accepted the doctrine that an innocent human being, however black or
down-trodden, was not the equal of every other and entitled to the
same inalienable rights. The South soon heard of him, and the Georgia
Legislature passed an act offering a reward of five thousand dollars
for his delivery into that State. Indictments of northern men by
southern grand juries now became of frequent occurrence, one governor
making requisition upon Governor Marcy for the surrender of Arthur
Tappan, although Tappan had never been in a Southern State. The South,
finding that long-distance threats, indictments, and offers of reward
accomplished nothing, waked into action its northern sympathisers, who
appealed with confidence to riot and mob violence. In New York City,
the crusade opened in October, 1833, a mob preventing the organisation
of an anti-slavery society at Clinton Hall. Subsequently, on July 4,
1834, an anti-slavery celebration in Chatham Street chapel was broken
up, and five days later, the residence of Lewis Tappan was forced open
and the furniture destroyed. These outrages were followed by the
destruction of churches, the dismantling of schoolhouses, and the
looting of dwellings, owned or used by coloured people. In October,
1835, a committee of respectable citizens of Utica, headed by Samuel
Beardsley, 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 had
spoken kindly of Abolitionists. The agitators, however, were in no
wise dismayed or disheartened. It would have taken a good deal of
persecution to frighten Beriah Green, or to confuse the conscience of
Arthur Tappan.

In the midst of such scenes came tidings that slavery had been
abolished in the British West Indies, and that the Utica indignity had
been signalised by the conversion of Gerrit Smith. Theretofore, Smith
had been a leading colonisationist--thereafter he was to devote
himself to the principles of abolitionism. Gerrit Smith, from his
earliest years, had given evidence of precocious and extraordinary
intelligence. Thurlow Weed pronounced him "the handsomest, the most
attractive, and the most intellectual young man I ever met." Smith was
then seventeen years old--a student in Hamilton College. "He dressed
_à la_ Byron," continues Weed, "and in taste and manners was
instinctively perfect."[284] His father was Peter Smith, famous in his
day 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 his
noble life.[285] By profession, Gerrit Smith was a philanthropist, and
in his young enthusiasm he joined the American Colonisation Society,
organised in 1817, for the purpose of settling the western coast of
Africa with emancipated blacks. It was a pre-eminently respectable
association. Henry Clay was its president, and prominent men North and
South, in church and in state, approved its purpose and its methods.
In 1820 it purchased Sherbro Island; but finding the location
unfortunate, other lands were secured in the following year at Cape
Mesurado, and about a thousand emigrants sent thither during the next
seven years. Gerrit Smith, however, found the movement too slow, if
not practically stranded, by the work of the cotton-gin and the
doctrine of Calhoun, that "the negro is better off in slavery at the
South than in freedom elsewhere." So, in 1830, he left the society to
those whose consciences condemned slavery, but whose conservatism
restrained them from offensive activity. The society drifted along
until 1847, when the colony, then numbering six or seven thousand,
declared itself an independent republic under the name of Liberia. In
the meantime, Smith, unaided and alone, had provided homes in northern
States, on farms of fifty acres each, for twice as many emancipated
blacks, 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 in
northern New York. He suddenly stopped the carriage, and, looking
around 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 own
eight hundred thousand acres, of which this is a part, and all in one
piece.' Everybody knows that his father purchased the most of it at
sales by the comptrollers of state for unpaid taxes. He said he owned
land in fifty-six of the sixty counties in New York. He was also a
landlord in other States."--H.B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p.
189.]

Gerrit Smith's conversion to abolitionism helped the anti-slavery
cause, much as the conversion of St. Paul benefited the Christian
church. He brought youth, courage, enthusiasm, wealth, and marked
ability. Although alienated from him for years because of his peculiar
creed, Thurlow Weed refers in loving remembrance to "his great
intellect, genial nature, and ample fortune, which were devoted to all
good works." When the people of Utica, his native town, broke up the
meeting called to form a state anti-slavery society, Smith promptly
invited its projectors to his home at Peterborough, Madison County,
where the organisation was completed. He was thirty-three years old
then, and from that day until Lincoln's proclamation and Lee's
surrender freed the negro, he never ceased to work for the abolition
of slavery. The state organisation, nourished under his fostering
care, led to greater activity. Anti-slavery societies began to form in
every county and in most of the towns of some counties. Abolitionism
did not take the place of anti-Masonry, which was now rapidly on the
wane; but it awakened the conscience, setting people to thinking and,
then, to talking. The great contest to abolish slavery in the British
West Indies, led by the Buxtons, the Wilberforces, and the Whitbreads,
had aroused public indignation in the United States, as well as in
England, by the overwhelming proofs that men and women were being
constantly flogged; and that branding female slaves on the breast with
red-hot iron, was used as a means of punishment, as well as of
identification. Other more revolting evidences of the horrors, which
seemed to be the inevitable accompaniment of the slave system, found
lodgment in American homes through the eloquence of the noted English
abolition lecturer, George Thompson, then in this country; until the
cruelties, characterising slavery in Jamaica, were supposed and
believed by many to be practised in the Southern States.

Naturally enough, the principal avenue between the promoter of
anti-slavery views and the voter was the United States mails, and
these were freighted with abolition documents. It is likely that
Harrison Gray Otis, the wealthy and aristocratic mayor of Boston, did
not exaggerate when he advised the southern magistrate, who desired
the suppression of Garrison's _Liberator_, that "its office was an
obscure hole, its editor's only visible auxiliary a negro boy, and his
supporters a few insignificant persons of all colours;"[286] but the
Southerners knew that from that "obscure hole" issued a paper of
uncompromising spirit, which was profoundly impressing the people of
the United States, and their journals and orators teemed with
denunciations. The Richmond _Whig_ characterised Abolitionists as
"hell-hounds," warning the northern merchants that unless these
fanatics were hung they would lose the benefit of southern trade. A
Charleston paper threatened to cut out and "cast upon the dunghill"
the tongue of any one who should lecture upon the evils or immorality
of slavery. The Augusta _Chronicle_ declared that if the question be
longer discussed the Southern States would secede and settle the
matter by the sword, as the only possible means of self-preservation.
A prominent Alabama clergyman advised hanging every man who favoured
emancipation, and the Virginia Legislature called upon the
non-slave-holding States to suppress abolition associations by penal
statutes.

[Footnote 286: Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_, Vol. 1, p. 122,
_note_.]

In the midst of such sentiments, it was evident to Van Buren, whose
election depended upon the Southern States, that something definite
must be done, and that nothing would be considered definite by the
South which did not aim at the total abolition of the anti-slavery
agitator. Accordingly, his friends held meetings in every county in
the State, adopting resolutions denouncing them as "fanatics and
traitors to their country," and indorsing Van Buren "as a patriot
opposed to the hellish abolition factions and all their heresies." Van
Buren himself arranged for the great meeting at Albany at which
Governor Marcy presided. "I send you the inclosed proceedings of the
citizens of Albany," wrote Van Buren to the governor of Georgia, "and
I authorise you to say that I concur fully in the sentiments they
advance."

In commenting upon the Albany meeting, Thurlow Weed, with the
foresight of a prophet, wrote in the _Evening Journal_: "This question
of slavery, when it becomes a matter of political controversy, will
shake, if not unsettle, the foundations of our government. It is too
fearful, and too mighty, in all its bearings and consequences, to be
recklessly mixed up in our partisan conflicts."[287] When the
Legislature convened, in January, 1836, Governor Marcy took up the
question in his message. "I cannot doubt," he said, "that the
Legislature possesses the power to pass such penal laws as will have
the effect of preventing the citizens of this State, and residents
within it, from availing themselves, with impunity, of the protection
of its sovereignty and laws, while they are actually employed in
exciting insurrection and sedition in a sister State, or engaged in
treasonable enterprises, intending to be executed therein."[288] Not
content with this show of loyalty to the South on the part of his
friends, Van Buren secured the support of Silas Wright and Nathaniel
P. Tallmadge for the bill, then pending in the United States Senate,
prohibiting postmasters from knowingly transmitting or delivering any
documents or papers relating to the abolition of slavery, and when the
measure, on a motion for engrossment, received a tie vote, Van Buren
cast 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, although
there was really a substantial majority against it, a tie was
skilfully arranged to compel Van Buren, as Vice President, to give the
casting vote. White, the Southern Democratic candidate so seriously
menacing him, was in the Senate, and voted for the bill. Van Buren
must, it was supposed, offend the pro-slavery men by voting against
the bill, or offend the North and perhaps bruise his conscience by
voting for it. When the roll was being called, Van Buren, so Benton
tells us, was out of the chair, walking behind the colonnade at the
rear of the Vice President's seat. Calhoun, fearful lest he might
escape the ordeal, eagerly asked where he was, and told the
sergeant-at-arms to look for him. But Van Buren was ready, and at once
stepped to his chair and voted for the bill. His close friend, Silas
Wright of New York, also voted for it. Benton says he deemed both the
votes to be political and given from policy. So they probably were....
Van Buren never deserved to be called a 'Northern man with Southern
principles.' But this vote came nearer to an excuse for the epithet
than did any other act of his career."--Edward M. Shepard, _Life of
Martin Van Buren_, p. 277.]

Van Buren's prompt action gave him the confidence and support of
three-fourths of the slave-holding States, without losing his hold
upon the Democracy of the free States. Indeed, there was nothing new
that the Whigs could oppose to Van Buren. They were not ready to take
the anti-slavery side of the issue, and questions growing out of the
bank controversy had practically been settled in 1832. This,
therefore, was the situation when the two parties in New York
assembled in convention, in September, 1836, to nominate state
candidates. Marcy and John Tracy were without opposition. From the
first moment he began to administer the affairs of the State, Marcy
must have felt that he had found his work at last.

The Whigs were far from being united. Henry Clay's disinclination to
become a nominee for President resulted in two Whig candidates, Hugh
L. White of Tennessee, the favourite of the southern Whigs, and
William Henry Harrison, preferred by the Eastern, Middle, and Western
States. This weakness was soon reflected in New York. Thurlow Weed was
full of forebodings, and William H. Seward found his law office more
satisfactory than a candidate's berth. Like Clay he was perfectly
willing another should bear the burden of inevitable defeat. So the
Whigs put up Jesse Buel for governor, Gamaliel H. Barstow for
lieutenant-governor, and an electoral ticket favourable to Harrison.

Jesse Buel was not a brilliant man. He was neither a thinker, like
Seward, nor an orator, like Granger; but he was wise, wealthy, and
eminently respectable, with enough of the statesman in him to be able
to accept established facts and not to argue with the inexorable.
Years before, he had founded the Albany _Argus_, editing it with
ability and great success. Through its influence he became state
printer, succeeding Solomon Southwick, after the latter's quarrel with
Governor Tompkins over the Bank of America. This was in 1813. Three
years later Thurlow Weed, then a young man of nineteen, worked for him
as a journeyman printer. "From January till April," he writes, "I
uniformly reached the office before daylight, and seldom failed to
find Mr. Buel at his case, setting type by a tallow candle and smoking
a long pipe." Buel made so much money that the party managers invited
him to let others, equally deserving, have a turn at the state
printing. So he went into the Assembly, distinguishing himself as an
able, practical legislator. But he gradually drew away from the
Democrats, as their financial policy became more pronounced; and upon
the organisation of the Whig party gave it his support. Had he chosen
he might have been its candidate for governor in 1834; and it is
difficult to understand why he should have accepted, in 1836, with
little expectation of an election, what he declined two years before
when success seemed probable.

Gamaliel H. Barstow had been a Clintonian and an anti-Clintonian, a
follower and a pursuer of Van Buren, an Adams man and an
Anti-Mason--everything, in fact, except a Federalist. But, under
whatever standard he fought, and in whatever body he sat, he was a
recognised leader, full of spirit, fire, and force. In 1824, he had
stood with James Tallmadge and Henry Wheaton at the head of the Adams
party; in 1831, he had accompanied John C. Spencer and William H.
Seward to the national anti-masonic convention at Baltimore; and, in
the long, exciting debate upon the bill giving the people power to
choose presidential electors, he exhibited the consummate shrewdness
and sagacity of an experienced legislator. There was nothing sinister
or vindictive about him; but he had an unsparing tongue, and he
delighted to indulge it. This is what he did in 1836. Having turned
his back upon the Democratic party, the campaign to him became an
occasion for contrasting the past and "its blighting Regency
majorities" with the future of a new party, which, no doubt, seemed to
him and to others purer and brighter, since the longer it was excluded
from power the less opportunity it had for making mistakes.

But 1836 was a year of great prosperity. The undue depression of 1835
was now succeeded by commercial activity and an era of expansion and
inflation. Visionary schemes were everywhere present. Real estate
values doubled, farms were platted into village lots, wild lands were
turned into farms, and a new impulse was given to legitimate and
illegitimate enterprises. Stocks rose, labour went up, farm products
sold at higher prices, and the whole country responded to the
advantages of the money plethora. Democracy rode on the crest of the
wave, and Jackson's financial policy was accepted with joy.

Nevertheless the Whig party, hoping to strengthen its numbers in
Congress, did not relax its zeal. When the vote, however, revealed
nearly thirty thousand majority for Marcy[290] and the Van Buren
electoral ticket, with ninety-four Democrats in the Assembly and only
one Whig in the Senate, it made Thurlow Weed despair for the Republic.

[Footnote 290: William L. Marcy, 166,122; Jesse Buel, 136,648--_Civil
List, 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 in
the dark cloud through which gleamed a ray of substantial hope. It was
plain to the most cautious business man that if banking had been
highly remunerative, with the United States Bank controlling
government deposits, it must become more productive after Jackson had
transferred these deposits to state institutions; and what was plain
to the conservative banker, was equally patent to the reckless
speculator. The legislatures of 1834 and 1835, therefore, became noted
as well as notorious for the large number of bank charters granted. As
the months passed, increased demands for liberal loans created an
increasing demand for additional banks, and the greater the demand the
greater the strife for charters. Under the restraining law of the
State, abundant provision had been made for a fair distribution of
bank stocks; but the dominant party, quick to take an advantage
helpful to its friends, carefully selected commissioners who would
distribute it only among their political followers. At first it went
to merchants or capitalists in the locality of the bank; but
gradually, Albany politicians began to participate, and then,
prominent state officers, judges, legislators and their relatives and
confidential friends, many of whom resold the stock at a premium of
twenty to twenty-five per cent. before the first payment had been
made. 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 _Evening
Post_ called it. But no remedy was applied. The Governor, in spite of
his regrets, signed every charter the Legislature granted, and the
commissioners, as if ignorant of the provisions to secure a fair
distribution of the stock, continued to evade the law with boldness
and great facility.

Members of the Democratic party in New York City, who believed that
banking, like any other business, ought to be open to competition, had
organised an equal rights party in 1834 to oppose all monopolies, and
the bank restraining law in particular. Several meetings were held
during the summer. Finally, in October, both factions of Tammany Hall
attempted forcibly to control its proceedings, and, in the contest,
the lights were extinguished. The Equal Righters promptly relighted
them with loco-foco or friction matches and continued the meeting.
From this circumstance they were called Locofocos, a name which the
Whigs soon applied to the whole Democratic party.

The Equal Rights party was not long-lived. Two years spanned its
activity, 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 a
declaration of principles, and nominated a state and congressional
ticket. 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 fused
successfully with the Equal Righters, electing their whole ticket.
This victory was the one ray of hope that came to the Whigs out of the
contest of 1836. It proved that some people were uneasy and resentful.

But other Whig victories were soon to follow. Reference has already
been made to the unprecedented prosperity that characterised the year
1836. This era of expansion and speculative enterprises, which began
with the transfer of government deposits, continued at high pressure
under the influence of the newly chartered banks. With such a money
plethora, schemes and projects expanded and inflated, until success
seemed to turn the heads of the whole population. So wild was the
passion for new enterprises, that one had only to announce a scheme to
find people ready to take shares in it. Two per cent. a month did not
deter borrowers who expected to make one hundred per cent. before the
end of the year. In vain did the Governor inveigh against this
"unregulated spirit of speculation." As the year advanced, men grew
more reckless, until stocks and shares were quickly purchased at any
price 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 unexampled
severity. Scarcely had its effect reached the interior counties,
before every bank in the country suspended specie payments. Then
confidence gave way, and tens of thousands of people, who had been
wealthy or in comfortable circumstances, waked up to the awful
realisation of their bankruptcy and ruin. The panic of 1837 reached
the proportions of a national calamity. Most men did not then know the
reason for the crash, and the knowledge of those who did, brought
little comfort. But, gradually, the country recognised that the
prosperity of a nation is not increased in proportion to the quantity
of paper money issued, unless such currency be maintained at its full
value, convertible, at pleasure, into hard cash--the money standard of
the world.

It so happened that the Legislature had not adjourned when the crash
came, and, without a moment's delay, it suspended for one year the
section of the Safety Fund act forbidding banks to issue notes after
refusing to pay them in coin on demand; but it refused to suspend the
act, passed in March, 1835, prohibiting the issue or circulation of
bills under the denomination of five dollars. This left the people
without small bills, and, as New York banks dared not issue them,
necessity forced into circulation foreign bills, issued by solvent and
insolvent banks, the losses from which fell largely upon the poorer
classes who could not discriminate between the genuine and the
spurious. So great was the inconvenience and loss suffered by the
continuance of this act, that the people petitioned the Governor to
call an extra session of the Legislature for its repeal; but Marcy
declined, for the reason that the Legislature had already refused to
give the banks the desired authority. Thus, the citizens of New York,
staggering under a panic common to the whole country, were compelled
to suffer the additional hardships of an irredeemable, and, for the
most 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 spring
and resulting, with the help of the Equal Righters, in the choice of a
Whig mayor, had prepared the way for a surprise; yet no one imagined
that a political revolution was imminent. But the suffering people
were angry, and, like a whirlwind, the Whigs swept nearly every county
in the State. Of one hundred and twenty-eight assemblymen, they
elected one hundred and one, and six of the eight senators. It
happened, too, that as the triennial election of sheriffs and clerks
occurred this year, the choice of these officers swelled the triumph
into a victory that made it the harder to overthrow. In a moment, the
election of 1837 had given the Whigs a powerful leverage in local
contests, enabling them to build up a party that could be disciplined
as well as organised. To add to their strength, the Legislature, when
it convened, in January, 1838, proceeded to take the "spoils." Luther
Bradish was chosen speaker, Orville L. Holley surveyor-general, and
Gamaliel L. Barstow state treasurer. It also suspended for two years
the act prohibiting banks from issuing small bills, passed a general
banking law, and almost unanimously voted four millions for enlarging
the Erie canal.

Although the spring elections of 1838 showed a decided falling off in
the Whig vote, hopes of carrying the State in November were so well
founded that Whig candidates for governor appeared in plenty. Looking
back upon the contest from a distance, especially with the present
knowledge of his superlative fitness for high place, it seems strange
that William H. Seward should not have had an open way in the
convention. But Francis Granger had also won the admiration of his
party by twice leading a forlorn hope. Amidst crushing defeat he had
never shown weariness, and his happy disposition kept him in friendly
touch with his party. The Chenango people were especially ardent in
his support. Twice he had forced their canal project through a hostile
Assembly, and they did not forget that, in the hour of triumph, Seward
opposed it. Besides, Granger had distinguished himself in Congress,
resisting the policy of Jackson and Van Buren with forceful argument
and ready tact. He was certainly a man to be proud of, and his
admirers insisted with great pertinacity that he should now be the
nominee for governor.

There was another formidable candidate in the field. Luther Bradish
had proved an unusually able speaker, courteous in deportment, and
firm and resolute in his rulings at a time of considerable political
excitement. 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. The
northern counties insisted that his freedom from party controversies
made him peculiarly available, and, while the supporters of other
candidates were quarrelling, it was their intention, if possible, to
nominate him. Seward and Granger were eager for the nomination, but
neither seems to have encouraged the ill-will which their followers
exhibited. Indeed, Seward evidenced a disposition to withdraw; and he
would doubtless have done so, had not his friends, and those of
Granger, thought it better to let a convention decide. As the campaign
grew older, the canvass proceeded with asperity. Granger's adherents
accused Seward of an unjust conspiracy to destroy him, and of having
canvassed the State, personally or by agents, to secure the prize even
at the cost of a party division. They charged him with oppressing the
settlers in Chautauqua, with editing the Albany _Journal_, with
regulating the Bank of the United States, and controlling the
movements of Henry Clay. "I am already so wearied of it," Seward
wrote, "that, if left to myself, I should withdraw instantly and
forever. I am ill-fitted for competition with brethren and friends.
But with a clear conscience and greater magnanimity than there is
manifested 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 to
his confidence in Thurlow Weed. The editor of the Albany _Journal_
seriously desired to take no part in the choice of delegates, since
his personal and political relations with all the candidates were
intimate and confidential; but he had known Granger longer than the
others, and, if controlled by personal friendship, he must have
favoured the Ontario candidate. Weed, however, believed that Seward's
nomination would awaken greater enthusiasm, especially among young
men, thus giving the ticket its best chance of success. At the last
moment, therefore, he declared in favour of the Auburn statesman.

The sequel showed that his help came none too soon. Four informal
ballots were taken, and, on the following day the formal and final
one. The first gave Seward 52, Granger 39, and Bradish 29, with 4 for
Edwards of New York. This was supposed to be Granger's limit. On the
second ballot, Bradish's friends transferred thirteen votes to him,
making Seward 60, Granger 52, Bradish 10, and Edwards 3. If this was a
surprise to the friends of Seward, the third ballot was a tremendous
shock, for Seward fell off to 59, and Granger got 60. Bradish had 8.
Then Weed went to work. Though he had understood that Granger, except
in a few counties, had little strength, the last ballot plainly showed
him to be the popular candidate; and during an intermission between
the third and fourth ballots, the _Journal's_ editor exhibited an
influence few men in the State have ever exercised. The convention was
made up of the strongest and most independent men in the party. Nearly
all had held seats in the state or national legislature, or had
occupied other important office. Experience had taught them to act
upon their own convictions. The delegates interested in the Chenango
Valley canal were especially obstinate and formidable. "Weed," said
one of them, "tell me to do anything else; tell me to jump out of the
window and break my neck, and I will do it to oblige you; but don't
ask me to desert Granger!"[292] Yet the quiet, good-natured Weed, his
hand softly purring the knee of his listener as he talked--never
excited, never vehement, but sympathetic, logical, prophetic--had his
way. The fourth ballot gave Seward 67, Granger 48, Bradish 8. The work
was done. When the convention reassembled the next morning, on motion
of a warm supporter of Granger, the nomination was made unanimous, and
Bradish 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 the
old anti-Mason farmers who were inclined to reproach Weed with
disloyalty. Granger himself stoically accepted defeat and zealously
supported the ticket. He had said to a departing delegate, "if either
Mr. Seward or Mr. Bradish attain a majority at the informal ballot, my
friends must give the successful competitor their united support."[293]
How heartily Seward would have responded under like circumstances is
evidenced by his action when a premature report went forth of
Granger's selection. Being informed of it, Seward at once told his
friends that Auburn must be the first to ratify, and immediately set
to work preparing resolutions for the meeting.

[Footnote 293: _Ibid._, p. 374.]

Thurlow Weed was pre-eminently a practical politician. He believed in
taking advantage of every opportunity to strengthen his own party and
weaken the adversary, and he troubled himself little about the means
employed. He preferred to continue the want of small bills for another
year rather than allow the opposite party to benefit by a repeal of
the obnoxious law; he approved Van Buren's course in the infamous
Fellows-Allen controversy; and, had he been governor in place of John
Jay in 1800, the existing Legislature would undoubtedly have been
reconvened in extra session, and presidential electors chosen
favourable to his own party, as Hamilton wanted. But, at the bottom of
his nature, there was bed-rock principle from which no pressure could
swerve him. He could exclaim with Emerson, "I will say those things
which I have meditated for their own sake and not for the first time
with a view to that occasion." In these words is the secret of his
relation to the Whig party. He asked no office, and he gave only the
ripe fruit of his meditative life. It is not to be supposed that, in
1838, he saw in the young man at Auburn the astute United States
Senator of the fifties; or the still greater secretary of state of the
Civil War; but he had seen enough of Seward to discern the qualities
of mind and heart that lifted him onto heights which extended his
horizon beyond that of most men, enabling him to keep his bearing in
the midst of great excitement, and, finally, in the presence of war
itself. Seward saw fewer things, perhaps, than the more active and
eloquent Granger, but Weed knew that he saw more deeply.[294]

[Footnote 294: "Apart from politics, I liked Seward, though not blind
to his faults. His natural instincts were humane and progressive. He
hated slavery and all its belongings, though a seeming necessity
constrained 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 with
his subsequent convictions. Though of Democratic parentage, he had
been an Adams man, an anti-Mason, and was now thoroughly a Whig. The
policy of more extensive and vigorous internal improvement had no more
zealous champion. By nature, genial and averse to pomp, ceremony, and
formality, few public men of his early prime were better calculated to
attract and fascinate young men of his own party, and holding views
accordant on most points with his.... Weed was of coarser mould and
fibre than Seward--tall, robust, dark-featured, shrewd, resolute, and
not over-scrupulous--keen-sighted, though not far-seeing."--Horace
Greeley, _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. Marcy
had made an able governor for three consecutive terms. His declaration
that "to the victors belong the spoils" had not impaired his
influence, since all parties practised, if they did not preach it;
and, although he stultified himself by practically recommending and
finally approving the construction of the Chenango canal, which he
bitterly opposed as comptroller, he had lost no friends. Canal
building was in accord with the spirit of the times. A year later, he
had recommended an enlargement of the Erie canal; but when he
discovered that the Chenango project would cost two millions instead
of one, and the Erie enlargement twelve millions instead of six, he
protested against further improvements until the Legislature provided
means for paying interest on the money already borrowed. He clearly
saw that the "unregulated spirit of speculation" would lead to ruin;
and, to counteract it, he appealed to the Legislature, seeking to
influence the distribution of bank stock along lines set forth in the
law. But Marcy failed to enforce his precepts with the veto. In
refusing, also, to reassemble the Legislature, for the repeal of the
Small Bills act, the passage of which he had recommended in 1835, he
gave the _Evening Post_ opportunity to assail him as "a weak,
cringing, indecisive man, the mere tool of a monopoly junto--their
convenient instrument."

Marcy held office under difficult conditions. The panic, coming in the
summer of 1837, was enough to shatter the nerves of any executive;
but, to the panic, was now added the Canadian rebellion which occurred
in the autumn of 1837. Though not much of a rebellion, William L.
McKenzie's appeal for aid to the friends of liberty aroused hundreds
of sympathetic Americans living along the border. Navy Island, above
the Falls of Niagara, was made the headquarters of a provisional
government, from which McKenzie issued a proclamation offering a
reward for the capture of the governor-general of Canada and promising
three hundred acres of land to each recruit.

The Canadian authorities effectually guarded the border, and
destroyed the _Caroline_, presumably an insurgent steamer, lying at
Schlosser's dock on the American side. In the conflict, one member of
the crew was killed, and several wounded. The steamer proved to be an
American vessel, owned by New York parties, and its destruction
greatly increased the indignation against Canada; but Governor Marcy
did not hesitate to call upon the people to refrain from unlawful acts
within the territory of the United States; and, to enforce his
proclamation, supplied General Scott, now in command of the Canadian
frontier, with a force of militia. The American troops quickly forced
the abandonment of Navy Island, scattered the insurgents and their
allies to secret retreats, and broke up the guerrilla warfare. The
loss of life among the patriots, due to their audacity and incompetent
leadership, was considerable, and the treatment of prisoners harsh and
in some instances inhuman. Many young men of intelligence and
character were banished for life to Van Dieman's Land, McKenzie was
thrown into a Canadian dungeon, and, among others, Van Schoulty, a
brave young officer and refugee from Poland, who led an unsuccessful
attack upon Prescott, was executed. Small as was the uprising, it
created an intense dislike of Marcy among the friends of those who
participated in it.

Still another political splinter was festering in Marcy's side.
Several leading Democrats, who had sustained Jackson in his war upon
the United States Bank, and in his removal of the deposits, refused to
adopt Van Buren's sub-treasury scheme, proposed to the extra session
of Congress, convened in September, 1837. This measure meant the
disuse of banks as fiscal agents of the government, and the
collection, safekeeping, and disbursement of public moneys by treasury
officials. The banks, of course, opposed it; and thousands who had
shouted, "Down with the United States Bank," changed their cry to
"Down with Van Buren and the sub-treasury scheme." Among those
opposing it, in New York, Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, a Democratic United
States senator, took the lead, calling a state convention to meet at
Syracuse. This convention immediately burned its bridges. It
denounced Van Buren, it opposed Marcy, and it indorsed Seward. Behind
it were bank officers and stockholders who were to lose the privilege
of loaning the money of the United States for their own benefit, and
the harder it struck them the more liberally they paid for fireworks
and for shouters.

If trouble confronted the Democrats, discouragement oppressed the
Whigs. Under the direction of Gerrit Smith the Abolitionists were on
the war-path, questioning Seward as to the propriety of granting
fugitive slaves a fair trial by jury, of abolishing distinctions in
constitutional rights founded solely on complexion, and of repealing
the law authorising the importation of slaves into the State and their
detention as such during a period of nine months. Seward avowed his
firm faith in trial by jury and his opposition to all "human bondage,"
but he declined making ante-election pledges. He preferred to wait, he
said, until each case came before him for decision. Seward undoubtedly
took the wise course; but he did not satisfy the extremists
represented by Smith, and many of the Whig leaders became
panic-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 it
as long as they, but I am sick of our Whig party. It can never be in
the ascendant."[295]

[Footnote 295: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p.
60.]

Francis Granger was no less alarmed. He estimated the Abolitionist
vote at twenty thousand, "and before the grand contest of 1840," he
wrote Weed, "they will control one-fourth the votes of the State. They
are engaged in it with the same honest purpose that governed the great
mass of Anti-Masons."[296] The young candidate at Auburn was also in
despair. "I fear the State is lost," he wrote Weed on November 4.
"This conclusion was forced upon me strongly by news from the southern
tier of counties, and is confirmed by an analogy in Ohio. But I will
not stop to reason on the causes. Your own sagacity has doubtless
often 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 then
engaged in editing the _Jeffersonian_, a weekly journal of eight
pages, which had been established in February solely as a campaign
newspaper. His regular business was the publication of the _New
Yorker_, a journal of literature and general intelligence. During the
campaign he consented to spend two days of each week at Albany making
up the _Jeffersonian_, which was issued from the office of the
_Evening Journal_, and he was doing this work with the indefatigable
industry and marvellous ability that marked his character.

Greeley had battled for a place in the world after the manner of
Thurlow Weed. He was born on a New Hampshire farm, he had worked on a
Vermont farm, and for a time it seemed to him as if he must forever
remain on a farm; but after a few winters of schooling he started over
the Vermont hills to learn the printer's trade. A boy was not needed
in Whitehall, and he pushed on to Poultney. There he found work for
four years until the _Northern Spectator_ expired. Then he went back
to the farm. But newspaper life in a small town had made him ambitious
to try his fortunes in a city, and, journeying from one printing
office 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 his
voracious appetite for reading newspapers. He cared little for the
boys about town and less for the sports of youth; he could dispense
with sleep, and wasted no time thinking about what he should eat or
wear; but books, and especially newspapers, were read with the avidity
that a well-fed threshing machine devours a stack of wheat. He seemed
to have only one ambition--the acquisition of knowledge and the career
of a man of letters, and in his efforts to succeed, he ignored forms
and social usages, forgot that he had a physical body to care for, and
detested man-worship. Standing at last before a printer's case on
Broadway, he was able to watch, almost from the beginning, the great
political drama in which he was destined to play so great a part.
Seward had just entered the State Senate; Weed, having recently
established the _Evening Journal_, was massing the Anti-Masons and
National Republicans for their last campaign; William Lloyd Garrison
had issued the first number of the _Liberator_; Gerrit Smith, already
in possession of his father's vast estate, still clung to the Liberian
colonisation scheme; and Van Buren, not yet returned from England, was
about entering upon the last stage of his phenomenally successful
political career. Politicians for the first time disturbed about the
tariff, the bank, and internal improvements, had come to the parting
of the ways; the old order of things had ended under John Quincy
Adams--the new had just commenced under Andrew Jackson. But the young
compositor needed no guide-post to direct his political footsteps. In
1834, he had established the _New Yorker_ and those who read it became
Whigs. His mind acted upon other minds of a certain constitution with
wonderful magnetism, attracting thousands of readers by his marvellous
gift of expression and the broad sympathies and clear discernments
that characterised his writings. He had his own ideas about the
necessity for reforms, and he seems easily to have fallen a victim to
countless delusions and illusions which young visionaries and
gray-headed theorists brought to him; but, in spite of remonstrances
and crushing opposition, he stood resolutely for whatever awoke the
strongest emotions of his nature.

Thurlow Weed had been a constant reader of the _New Yorker_. He did
not know the name of its editor and had never taken the trouble to
inquire, but when a cheap weekly Whig newspaper was needed for a
vigorous campaign in 1838, the editor of the _New Yorker_, whoever he
might be, seemed the proper man to edit and manage it. Going to New
York, he called at the Ann Street office and found himself in the
presence of a young man, slender, light-haired, slightly stooping, and
very near-sighted, who introduced himself as Horace Greeley. At the
moment, he was standing at the case, with coat off and sleeves rolled
up, setting type with the ease and rapidity of an expert. "When I
informed him of the object of my visit," says Weed, "he was, of
course, surprised, but evidently gratified. Nor was his surprise and
gratification diminished to learn that I was drawn to him without any
other reason or information but such as I had derived from the columns
of the _New Yorker_. He suggested the _Jeffersonian_ as the name for
the 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 giving
opportunity to a man whose name was to rank higher than his own in
history. There was a certain affinity between the intellectual nature
of the two men, and they had now a common object. Both were
journalists of tremendous energy, indomitable industry, and marvellous
gifts; but Weed was a politician, Greeley a political preacher. Weed's
influence lay in his remarkable judgment, his genius for diplomacy,
and his rare gift of controlling individuals by personal appeal and by
the overpowering mastery of his intellect; Greeley's supremacy grew
out of his broad sympathies with the human race and his matchless
ability to write. Weed's field of operations was confined largely to
the State of New York and to delegates and men of influence who
assemble at national conventions; Greeley preached to the whole
country, sweeping along like a prairie fire and converting men to his
views as easily as steel filings are attracted to the magnet. From the
outset he was above dictation. He lacked judgment, and at times
greatly grieved the friends who were willing to follow him through
fire and flood; but once his mind was made up he surrendered his
understanding, his consciousness of convictions, of duty, and of
public good, to no man or set of men. "I trust we can never be
enemies," he once wrote Weed, "but better anything than I should feel
the weight of chains about my neck, that I should write and act with
an 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 multitude
of readers, he did his work with marked ability, discussing measures
calmly and forcibly, and with an influence that baffled his opponents
and surprised his friends. Greeley seems never to have been an
immature writer. His felicity of expression and ability to shade
thought, with a power of appeal and invective that belongs to
experience 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 he
was wrong, he was always the most interesting, always the most
commanding figure in American journalism in the epoch-making political
controversies of his day.

The Whigs thought it a happy omen that election day, November 7, came
this year on the anniversary of General Harrison's victory at
Tippecanoe. 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 wings
and bearing in its beak the word "Victory." It was the first
appearance in politics of this American bird, which was destined to
play a part in all future celebrations of the kind. The completed
returns showed that the Whigs had elected Seward and Bradish by ten
thousand four hundred and twenty-one majority,[300] five of the eight
senators, and nearly two-thirds of the assemblymen. "Well, dear
Seward," wrote Weed, "we are victorious; God be thanked--gratefully
and devoutly thanked."[301] Seward was no less affected. "It is a
fearful 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 spared
from committing the sin of ingratitude. I hate it as the foulest in
the 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 the
ballot-boxes were closed," he wrote, facetiously, "I had partly
persuaded myself to engage in a work for _my_ posterity, by writing
the history of the rise, progress, and termination of the Regency. It
will embrace the transactions of the golden days of the Republic
(Empire State). It began with my entrance into public life, and
terminates with my exit from it. The figures in the tableau will not
be of the largest size, but the ascendancy of honest men, for such I
think them to have been (_Ilium fuit_), will be interesting on account
of great rarity." But, to the same friend, a few weeks later, he took
a desponding view, expressing the fear that the power which had passed
from the Democratic party would not return to as honest hands. His
financial condition, too, caused him much uneasiness. He had given
eighteen years to the State, he said, the largest portion of an active
and vigorous life, and now found himself poorer than when he took
office. "If my acquisitions in a pecuniary way have probably been less
and my labours and exertions greater," he asks, "what compensating
advantages are to be brought into the calculation to balance the
account?" An office-holder rarely asks such a question until thrown
out of a position; while in office, it is evident he thinks the
privilege of holding it sufficient compensation; otherwise, it may be
presumed, he would resign. Marcy, however, was not forgotten. Indeed,
his political career had scarcely begun, since the governorship became
only 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 was
to 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 fairly
described as under the control of Thurlow Weed, who became known as
the "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 mind
that he knew better than any other how to guide his party and govern
his followers, and he acted accordingly--dogmatic, overbearing, often
far from amiable, sometimes unendurable, to those around him. Weed, on
the contrary, was patient, sympathetic, gentle, and absolutely without
asperity. "My dear Weed," wrote Seward on December 14, 1838, "the
sweetness of his temper inclines me to love my tyrant. I had no idea
that 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 future
chronicler, in reciting the annals of New York during this period, in
every respect equal to England in the time of Elizabeth, will devote
the brightest colours to 'the celebrated Thurlow Weed, who so long
filled the office of Governor Seward during his lengthened and
prosperous administration.' It behooves you, therefore, to act
circumspectly, and particularly in the advice you give the Governor as
to 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 that
which tells of the strange, subtle influence exercised by Weed over
the mind of Seward; but it is doubtful if there was conscious control
at any time. Certainly Seward never felt "the weight of chains" about
his neck. Weed probably saw good reason to believe that in Seward he
could have just the sort of an associate who would suit all his
purposes, since their views of public affairs and their estimate of
public men rarely differed. "Our relations had become so intimate," he
says, "and our sentiments and sympathies proved so congenial, that our
interests, pursuits, and hopes of promoting each other's welfare and
happiness became identical."[305] Weed seemed to glory in Seward's
success, and Seward was supremely happy in and proud of Weed's
friendship. Weed and Greeley were so differently constituted that,
between them, such a relation could not exist, although at times it
seemed to give Greeley real pain that it was so. "I rise early from a
bed of sleepless thought," he once wrote Weed, "to explain that we
differ radically on the bank question, and I begin to fear we do on
the general policy and objects of political controversy."[306] But
there were no such sleepless nights for Seward. Looking back upon four
years of gubernatorial life, he opens his heart freely to the friend
of his young manhood. "Without your aid," he declares, "how helpless
would have been my prospect of reaching the elevation from which I am
to-day descending. How could I have sustained myself there; how could
I have secured the joyous reflections of this hour, but for the
confidence I so undenyingly reposed on your affection?"[307] It was not
Seward's nature to depend upon somebody to have his path in life or
his ways of thinking pointed out to him; nor did he have the weakness
of many highly cultured and gifted men who believe too much in the
supremacy of intellect and culture. On the contrary, he had a way of
speaking out his own honest thoughts, and would have despised
himself, as much as would Greeley, if it had been necessary to enjoy
any one's friendship on terms of humiliation. It was his nature, as
well as his wish, to share with Weed the benefit of the latter's
almost infallible judgment in political matters. In this way, Weed,
more than either realised, had great influence with Seward. But Weed
was no more the directing mind of the administration of Seward than
was Hamilton of Washington's, or Van Buren of Jackson's, or Seward of
Lincoln's. Many anecdotes were told illustrative of this influence,
which serve to show how strongly the notion obtained in the minds of
the common people that Weed was really "the Dictator." The best,
associated Seward with his invariable custom of riding outside the
coach while smoking his after-dinner cigar. The whip, on this
occasion, did not know the distinguished traveller, and, after
answering Seward's many questions, attempted to discover the identity
of his companion. The Governor disclaimed being a merchant, a
lecturer, a minister, or a teacher. "Then I know what you are," said
the driver; "you must be a lawyer, or you wouldn't ask so many
questions." "That is not my business at present," replied Seward.
"Then who are you?" finally demanded Jehu. "I am the governor of this
State," replied Seward. The driver at once showed incredulity, and the
Governor offered to leave it to the landlord at the next tavern. On
arriving there, and after exchanging salutations, Seward suggested the
question in dispute. "No, you are not the governor," replied the
landlord, to the great satisfaction of the driver. "What!" exclaimed
Seward, in astonishment; "then who is governor?" "Why," said the
landlord, "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 the
biography of his father, "the story was so accordant with his habit of
riding outside to smoke, and with the popular understanding of his
relations with Mr. Weed, that it was generally accepted as true.
Seward himself used laughingly to relate it, and say that, though it
was 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 on
trial. Ten years had passed since DeWitt Clinton's death, and Seward
was the first successor whose opinions and sentiments harmonised with
those of that distinguished statesman. During the intervening period
the Regency had been in absolute control of the State. It had
contented itself with looking after things as they existed, rather
than undertaking further improvements and reforms. Seward's election,
therefore, was not only a revolution of parties, but a radical change
of policy. Every Whig, fearful lest some misstep might lead to the
early loss of the power just gained, had an opinion as to what should
and should not be done. Some were afraid the Governor would say too
much, others fearful he would say too little. Seward, moving on broad
lines of economics and reform, believed that the promotion of
transportation, the development of capital and credit, and the
enlargement of educational advantages, would bring wealth to the State
and greater happiness to the people; and his first message contained
the policy that guided him throughout his entire political career. In
its preparation, he relied upon President Knott of Union College for
assistance on the subject of education; on John H. Beach for financial
statistics; on Samuel B. Ruggles for canal figures; and on John C.
Spencer for general suggestions. Then he sat down with Weed for its
final revision. When completed, it contained the groundwork of his
political philosophy. He would prosecute the work of the canals, he
would encourage the completion of railroads, establish a board of
internal improvement, extend charitable institutions, improve the
discipline of prisons, elevate the standard of education in schools
and colleges, establish school district libraries, provide for the
education of the coloured race, reform the practice of courts, cut off
superfluous offices, repeal the Small Bills law, authorise banking
under general laws, and apply rigorous safeguards, especially in
populous cities, for the purity of the ballot-box. In concluding, he
paid a handsome tribute to DeWitt Clinton and recommended that a
monument be erected to his memory in Albany.

None of our statesmen, with whom reform has been a characteristic
trait, was more devoted or happy. His delight, deep and unfailing,
extended to every department of the government, and the minuteness of
his knowledge betrayed the intimate acquaintance which he had gained
of the affairs of the State during his four years in the Senate. His
message caught the inspiration of this fresh and joyous maturity. It
was written, too, in the easy, graceful style, rhythmical and subdued
in expression, which afterward contributed to his extreme charm as an
orator. From the first, Seward was an ardent optimist, and this first
message is that of noble youth, delighting in the life and the
opportunities that a great office presents to one who is mindful of
its harassing duties and its relentless limitations, yet keenly
sensitive to its novelty and its infinite incitements. The Democrats,
whose hearts must have rejoiced when they heard his message, declared
it the visionary schemes of a theorising politician, the work of a
sophomore rather than a statesman; yet, within little more than a
decade, 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 printed
pages 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 of
Ruggles's estimate that the canals would more than reimburse the cost
of their construction and enlargement. The _Argus_ asserted that
Seward, instead of sustaining the policy of "pay as you go," favoured
a "forty million debt;" and this became the great campaign cry of the
Democrats in two elections. On the other hand, the Whigs maintained
that the canals had enriched the people and the State, and that their
future prosperity depended upon the enlargement of the Erie canal, so
that its capacity would meet the increasing demands of business. In
the end, the result showed how prophetically Seward wrote and how
wisely Ruggles figured; for, although the Erie canal, in 1862, had
cost $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 had
nothing to say for civil service reform. We may doubt, and with
reason, whether anything he might have said could have strengthened
the slight hold which such a theory then had in the minds of the
people, but it would have brought the need of reform strikingly before
the country to bear, in time, ripe fruit. The Whig party, however, was
not organised to keep Democrats in office, and no sooner had the
Albany _Journal_ announced Seward's election than applications began
pouring in upon the Governor-elect until more than one thousand had
been filed. Seward afterward said that, of these applications, only
two came from persons living west of Cayuga Bridge, although the
eighth district had given him a majority equal to his entire majority
in the State.

Under the Constitution of 1821, there were more places to fill by
appointment than under the Constitution of 1846, and twice as many as
now exist. In 1839, the Governor not only appointed port-wardens,
harbour-masters, notaries public, and superintendents and
commissioners 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 and
oil, besides numerous other officers. They applied formally to the
Governor and then went to Weed to get the place. Just so the Whig
legislators went through the form of holding a caucus to select state
officers after the slate had been made up. John C. Spencer became
secretary of state; Bates Cook of Niagara County, comptroller; Willis
Hall of New York City, attorney-general; Jacob Haight, treasurer; and
Orville L. Holley, surveyor-general. Thurlow Weed's account, read
with the knowledge that he alone selected them, is decidedly
humourous. "Bates Cook had but a local reputation," he says, "and it
required the strongest assurances from Governor Seward and myself that
he was abundantly qualified." In other words, it was necessary for the
caucus to know that Weed wanted him. "The canvass for attorney-general
was very spirited," he continues, "Joshua A. Spencer of Oneida and
Samuel Stevens of Albany being the most prominent candidates;" but
Willis Hall, "who was better known on the stump than at the bar, and
whose zeal, energy, and tact had been conspicuous and effective in
overthrowing the Democratic party," got the office. Van Buren could
not have surpassed this for practical politics. "The nomination of
Jacob Haight," he goes on, "afforded me great satisfaction. I had
learned in my boyhood at Catskill to esteem and honour him. In 1824
when, as a Democratic senator, he arrayed himself against William H.
Crawford, the caucus nominee for President, and zealously supported
John Quincy Adams, my early remembrances of him grew into a warm
personal friendship."[310] It was easy to fuse in Weed's big heart
Democratic 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 is
great opposition to Willis Hall," wrote William Kent, "and I am sorry
for it. He has a great heart, and a great head, too. It has been his
misfortune, but our good fortune, that his time and talents have been
devoted to advancing the Whig party, while those who oppose him were
taxing costs and filing demurrers. The extreme Webster men in New York
have 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 the
selection 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 men
were intensely in earnest. Fillmore, then in Congress, was chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means; and advancement to the Senate would
have been a deserved promotion. But Tallmadge had rallied to the
support of Seward, under the name of Conservatives, many former
National Republicans, who had joined the Democratic party because of
anti-Masonry, and Weed believed in keeping them in the Whig party by
re-electing their leader. Fillmore, and other candidates, earnestly
protested against the policy of discarding tried and faithful friends,
and of conferring the highest and most important place in the gift of
the party upon a new recruit whose fidelity could not be trusted;
"but, strong as those gentlemen were in the Whig party, they were
unable to overcome a conviction in the minds of the Whig members of
the Legislature," says Weed, solemnly, as if the Whig members of the
Legislature really did have something to do with it, "that in view of
the approaching presidential election Mr. Tallmadge was entitled to
their support. He was, therefore, nominated with considerable
unanimity."[312] It was a great shock to Fillmore, which he resented a
few years later. Indeed, Weed's dictatorship, although quiet and
gentle, was already raising dissent. Albert H. Tracy, indignant at
Seward's nomination over the heads of older and more experienced men,
had withdrawn from politics, and Gamaliel H. Barstow, the first state
treasurer elected by the Whigs, resigned in a huff because he did not
like the way things were going. Weed fully realised the situation.
"There are a great many disappointed, disheartened friends," he wrote
Granger. "It has been a tremendous winter. But for the presidential
question which will absorb all other things, the appointments would
tear us to pieces."[313] To his door, Seward knew, the censure of the
disappointed would be aimed. "The list of appointments made this
winter is fourteen hundred," he writes, "and I am not surprised by
any manifestation of disappointment or dissatisfaction. This only I
claim--that no interest, passion, prejudice or partiality of my own
has 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 Democrats
controlled the Senate, obstructing bills deemed by the Whigs essential
to the public welfare, and refusing to confirm Seward's nominations.
By preventing an agreement upon a candidate, preliminary to a joint
ballot, they also blocked the election of a United States senator.
This situation was intolerable to Weed. Without the Senate, little
could be accomplished and nothing of a strictly partisan character.
Besides, Weed had his eye on the lucrative place of state printer. In
the campaign of 1839, therefore, he set to work to win the higher body
of the Legislature by carrying the Albany district, in which three
senators were to be chosen. For eighteen years, the Senate had been
held by the Regency party, and, in all that time, Albany was numbered
among the reliable Democratic districts. But Weed's friends now
brought up eight thousand dollars from New York. The Democrats had
made a spirited fight, and, although they knew Weed was endowed with a
faculty for management, they did not know of his money, or of the
ability of his lieutenants to place it. When the votes were counted,
Weed's three nominees had an average majority of one hundred and
thirty-three. This gave the Whigs nineteen senators and the Democrats
thirteen. It was an appalling change for the Democrats, to whom it
seemed the prologue to a defeat in 1840. In the "clean sweep" of
office-holders that followed, Tallmadge went back to the United States
Senate, and Weed took from Croswell the office of public printer.

The presidential election of 1840 began in December, 1839. During
Clay's visit to Saratoga, in the preceding summer, Weed had told him
he could not carry New York; but, that Clay's friends in New York
City, and along the river counties, might not be unduly alarmed, Weed
masked his purpose of forcing Harrison's nomination, by selecting
delegates ostensibly favourable to General Scott. Twenty delegates for
Scott were, therefore, sent to the national convention at Harrisburg,
two for Harrison and ten for Clay. On his way, Weed secured an
agreement from the New England leaders to act with him, and, by a
combination of the supporters of Scott and Harrison, the latter
finally received one hundred and forty-eight votes to ninety for Clay.
The disappointment of Clay's friends is historic. Probably nothing
parallels it in American politics. The defeat of Seward at Chicago in
1860, and of Elaine at Cincinnati in 1876, very seriously affected
their friends, but the disappointment of Clay's supporters at
Harrisburg, in December, 1839, took the form of anger, which, for a
time, seemed fatal to the ticket. "The nomination of Harrison," wrote
Thurlow Weed, "so offended the friends of Clay that the convention was
thrown entirely in the dark on the question of Vice President. The
Kentucky delegation was asked to present a candidate, but they
declined. Then John Clayton of Delaware was fixed upon, but Reverdy
Johnson withdrew his name. Watkins Leigh of Virginia and Governor
Dudley of North Carolina were successively designated, but they
declined. While this was passing the Vice Presidency was repeatedly
offered to New York, but we had no candidate. Albert H. Tracy was
eminently qualified for usefulness in public life. He entertained a
high and strict sense of official responsibility, and had he not
previously left us he would have been nominated. John Tyler was
finally 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 the
candidates, in accepting their nominations, indulge in political
discussion. Votes were wanted from all who opposed Van Buren's
administration--from the strict constructionist friends of Tyler,
although opposed to the whole Whig theory of government, as much as
from the followers of Harrison, who believed in protective tariffs
and internal improvements.

Such action contrasted strangely with the work of the national
Democratic convention which met at Baltimore on May 6, 1840. If
despondency filled the air, the delegates at least had the courage of
their convictions. After unanimously renominating Van Buren, it
declared for a limited federal power, for the separation of public
moneys from private banks, and for the constitutional inability of
Congress to interfere with slavery in the States, pronouncing the
efforts of Abolitionists both alarming and dangerous to the Union; it
opposed internal improvements by the general government; the fostering
of one industry to the injury of another; the raising of more money
than was needed for necessary expenses; and the rechartering of a
national bank. If this declaration did not shape the phrases, and
marshal the sentences of future platforms of the party, it embraced
the principles upon which Democracy went up to victory or down to
defeat during the next two decades; and it must have carried Van Buren
through successfully had not his administration fallen upon evil
times.

The President, with great moral courage and keen-sighted wisdom, met
the crisis of 1837 with an admirable bearing. The statesman suddenly
displaced the politician. In the three months intervening between the
suspension of specie payments and the extra session of Congress, Van
Buren prepared a message as clear and as unanswerable as the logic of
Hamilton's state papers. The law, he said, required the secretary of
the treasury to deposit public moneys only in banks paying their notes
in specie, and, since all banks had suspended specie payments, it was
necessary to provide some other custody. For this reason, he had
summoned Congress. Then he analysed the cause of the panic, arguing
that "the government could not help people earn a living, but it could
refuse to aid the deception that paper is gold, and the delusion that
value can arise without labour." Those who look to the action of the
government, he declared, for specific aid to the citizen to relieve
embarrassments arising from losses by reverses in commerce and credit,
lose sight of the ends for which government is created, and the powers
with which it is clothed. In conclusion, he recommended the enactment
of an independent treasury scheme, divorcing the bank and the state.

These words of wisdom, often repeated, long ago became the principle
of all administrations, notably of that of President Grant in the
great crisis of 1873; and, except from 1841 to 1846, the sub-treasury
scheme has been a cardinal feature of American finance. But its
enactment was a long, fierce battle. Beginning in 1837, the contest
continued through one Congress and half of another. Clay resisted and
Webster denounced the project, which did not become a law until July
4, 1840--too late to be of assistance to Van Buren in November.
Friends of the New Yorker loved to dwell upon his courage in thus
placing himself in the chasm between failing banks and a patriotic
people, often paralleling it with the historic leap of Marcus Curtius
into the Roman Forum to save the republic. "But with this difference,"
once exclaimed Andrew B. Dickinson, an unlearned but brilliant Steuben
County Whig, generally known as Bray Dickinson: "the Roman feller
jumped into the gap of his own accord, but the people throw'd Van
Buren in!"

On August 12, 1840, the Whigs renominated William H. Seward for
governor, and in the following month the Democrats named William C.
Bouck. There was a rugged honesty and ability about Bouck that
commended him to the people. He was not brilliant; he rarely attempted
to speak in public; and his education had been limited to a few months
of 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. Seward
thought him "a kind, honest, amiable, and sagacious man, his easy and
fascinating manners lacking neither dignity nor grace." Beginning as
town clerk, Bouck had served acceptably as sheriff, assemblyman, and
for nineteen years as canal commissioner, personally superintending
the construction of the canal from Brockport to Lake Erie, and
disbursing, without loss, eight millions of dollars. He had travelled
up and down the State until the people came to know him as "the old
white horse," in allusion to a favourite animal which he rode for many
years; and to labourers and contractors his election became a matter
of the greatest personal interest.

But the hardships growing out of the panic of 1837 and the crisis of
1839 guided the actions of men. It made little difference to them that
Bouck had been a faithful, prudent, and zealous supporter of the
canals, or that, like DeWitt Clinton, he had been removed as canal
commissioner on purely political grounds. The issues were
national--not state. Van Buren clearly saw the force and direction of
public sentiment. Yet his sub-treasury measure, so beneficent in its
aims that its theory was not lost in the necessities growing out of
the Civil War, proved the strongest weapon in the armory of his
opponents. Webster, with mingled pathos and indignation, denounced his
"disregard for the public distress" by his "exclusive concern for the
interest of government and revenue," declaring that help must come to
the people "from the government of the United States--from thence
alone!" This was the cry of the greenbacker in 1876 and the argument
of the free silver advocate in 1896. "Upon this," said Webster, "I
risk my political reputation, my honour, my all. He who expects to
live to see these twenty-six States resuming specie payments in
regular succession once more, may expect to see the restoration of the
Jews. Never. He will die without the sight." Yet Webster lived to see
the resumption of specie payments in a very short time, and he lived
long enough also to exclude this St. Louis speech from his collected
works. Nevertheless, Webster's eloquence contributed to Van Buren's
overwhelming defeat.

Much has been written of the historic campaign of 1840. The enthusiasm
has been called "frenzy" and "crazy fanatacism." It has also been
likened to the crusading spirit, aroused by the preaching of Peter the
Hermit. "The nation," said Clay, "was like the ocean when convulsed by
some terrible storm." Webster declared that "every breeze says
change; the cry, the universal cry, is for a change." Long before
campaigns usually begin New York was a blaze of excitement. Halls were
insufficient to hold the crowds. Where hundreds had formerly
assembled, thousands now appeared. The long lines of wagons, driven to
the meeting places, raised clouds of dust such as mark the moving of
armies. The Whig state convention at Utica became a mass-meeting of
twenty-five thousand people, who formed into one great parade. "How
long is this procession?" asked a bystander of one of the marshals.
"Indeed, sir, I cannot tell," was the reply. "The other end of it is
forming 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 his
log cabin on the banks of the Ohio made the log cabin "a symbol," as
Weed happily expressed it, "of virtue that dwells in obscurity, of the
hopes of the humble, of the privations of the poor, of toil and
danger, of hospitality and charity and frugality." Log cabins sprang
up 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 in
processions. Horace Greeley, who had done so much in 1838 through the
columns of the _Jeffersonian_, now began the publication of the _Log
Cabin_, 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 in
ability and in circulation.

In his biography of Henry Clay, Schurz says that in no presidential
canvass has there ever been "less thought." It is likely if there had
been no log cabins, no cider, no coon-skins, and no songs, the result
would have been the same, for, in the presence of great financial
distress, the people seek relief very much as they empty a burning
building. But the reader of the _Log Cabin_ will find thought enough.
Greeley's editorials summed up the long line of mistakes leading to
the panic of 1837, and the people understood the situation. They were
simply unwilling longer to trust the party in power.

Evidence of this distrust astonished Democrats as much as it pleased
the Whigs. The September election in Maine, followed in October by the
result 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 in
all 234 electoral votes to 60 for Van Buren; but Seward's majority of
ten thousand in 1838 now dropped to five thousand,[316] while the Whig
majority 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 preceding
January. With the approval of Dr. Knott of Union College, and Dr.
Luckey, a distinguished Methodist divine, he recommended the
establishment of separate schools for the children of foreigners and
their instruction by teachers of the same faith and language. The
suggestion created an unexpected and bitter controversy. Influential
journals of both parties professed to see in it only a desire to win
Catholic favour, charging that Bishop Hughes of New York City had
inspired the recommendation. At that time, the Governor had neither
met nor been in communication, with the Catholic prelate; but, in the
excitement, truth could not outrun misstatement, nor could the
patriotism that made Seward solicitous to extend school advantages to
the children of foreign parents, who were growing up in ignorance, be
understood by zealous churchmen.

After his defeat, Van Buren retired to Lindenwald, in the vicinity of
Kinderhook, his native village, where he was to live twenty-one years,
dying at the age of eighty. Lindenwald was an old estate, whose acres
had been cultivated for one hundred and sixty years. William P. Van
Ness, the distinguished jurist and orator, once owned it, and, thirty
years before the ex-President bought it, Irving had secluded himself
amidst its hills, while he mourned the death of his betrothed, and
finished the _Knickerbocker_. As the home of Van Buren, Lindenwald did
not, perhaps, become a Monticello or a Montpelier. Jefferson and
Madison, having served eight years, the allotted term of honour, had
formally retired, and upon them settled the halo of peace and triumph
that belongs to the sage; but life at Lindenwald, with its leisure,
its rural quiet, and its freedom from public care, satisfied Van
Buren's bucolic tastes, and no doubt greatly mitigated the anguish
arising from bitter defeat, the proscription of friends, and the loss
of party regard which he was destined to suffer during the next
decade.




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 which
then stamped victory on every face had given place to fear and
forebodings. Eighteen months had left nothing save melancholy
recollections. Even the log cabins, still in place, seemed to add to
Whig depression, being silent reminders of the days when melody and
oratory, prophetic of success, filled hearts which could no longer be
touched with hope and faith. This meant that the Whigs, in the
election of 1841, had suffered a decisive defeat, losing the Assembly,
the Senate, and most of the congressmen. Even Francis Granger, whose
majority usually ran into the thousands, was barely elected by five
hundred. Orleans County, at one time the centre of the anti-masonic
crusade, sent Sanford E. Church to Albany, the first Democrat to break
into the Assembly from the "infected district" since the abduction of
William Morgan.

Several reasons accounted for this change. Harrison's death, within a
month after his inauguration, made John Tyler President, and Tyler
first refused appointments to Whigs, and then vetoed the bill, passed
by a Whig Congress, re-establishing the United States Bank. He said
that he had been opposed, for twenty-five years, to the exercise of
such a power, if any such power existed under the Constitution. This
completed the break with the party that elected him. Henry Clay
denounced his action, the Cabinet, except Webster, resigned in a body,
and the Whigs with great unanimity indorsed the Kentucky statesman for
President in 1844. To add to the complications in New York, John C.
Spencer, who now became secretary of war, so zealously espoused and
warmly defended the President that feelings of mutual distrust and
ill-will soon grew up between him and Weed. It is doubtful if any New
York Whig, at a time of such humiliation, could have accepted place in
Tyler'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. In
Freeman's celebrated cartoon, "The Whig Drill," Spencer is the only
man in the squad out of step with Thurlow Weed, the drum-major.

Governor Seward also played a part in the story of his party's
downfall. The school question, growing out of his recommendation that
separate schools for the children of Roman Catholics should share in
the public moneys appropriated by the State for school purposes, lost
none of its bitterness; the McLeod controversy put him at odds with
the national Administration; and the Virginia controversy involved him
in a correspondence that made him odious in the South. In his
treatment of the McLeod matter, Seward was clearly right. Three years
after the destruction of the _Caroline_, which occurred during the
Canadian rebellion, Alexander McLeod, while upon a visit in the State,
boasted that he was a member of the attacking party and had killed the
only man shot in the encounter. This led to his arrest on a charge of
murder and arson. The British Minister based his demand for McLeod's
release on the ground that the destruction of the _Caroline_ "was a
public act of persons in Her Majesty's service, obeying the orders of
their superior authorities." In approving the demand, Lord Palmerston
suggested that McLeod's execution "would produce war, war immediate
and frightful in its character, because it would be a war of
retaliation and vengeance." Webster, then secretary of state, urged
Seward to discontinue the prosecution and discharge McLeod; but the
Governor, promising a pardon if McLeod was convicted, insisted that he
had no power to interfere with the case until after trial, while the
courts, upon an application for McLeod's discharge on habeas corpus,
held that as peace existed between Great Britain and the United States
at the time of the burning of the _Caroline_, and as McLeod held no
commission and acted without authority, England's assumption of
responsibility for his act after his arrest did not oust the court of
its jurisdiction. Fortunately, McLeod, proving his boast a lie by
showing that he took no part in the capture of the _Caroline_, put an
end to the controversy, but Seward's refusal to intervene broke
whatever relations had existed between himself and Webster.

The Virginia correspondence created even greater bitterness. The
Governor discovered that a requisition for the surrender of three
coloured men, charged with aiding the escape of a fugitive slave, was
based upon a defective affidavit; but, before he could act, the court
discharged the prisoners upon evidence that no offence had been
committed against the laws of Virginia. Here the matter might very
properly have ended; but, in advising Virginia's governor of their
discharge, Seward voluntarily and with questionable propriety,
enlarged upon an interpretation of the constitutional provision for
the surrender of fugitives from justice, contending that it applied to
acts made criminal by the laws of both States, and not to "an act
inspired by the spirit of humanity and of the Christian religion,"
which was not penal in New York. This was undoubtedly as good law as
it was poor politics, for it needlessly aroused the indignation of
Virginia, whose legislature retaliated by imposing special burdens
upon vessels trading between Virginia and New York until such time as
the latter should repeal the statute giving fugitive slaves the right
of trial by jury.

The immediate cause of the Whig defeat, however, had its origin in
disasters incident to the construction of the canals. It had been the
policy of Governor Marcy, and other Democratic leaders, to confine the
annual canal expenditures to the surplus revenues, and, in enlarging
the Erie, it was determined to continue this policy. On the other
hand, the Whigs advocated a speedy completion of the public works,
limiting the state debt to an amount upon which interest could be paid
out of the surplus revenues derived from the canal. This policy,
backed by several Democratic members of the Senate in 1838, resulted
in the authorisation of a loan of four millions for the Erie
enlargement. In 1839 Seward, still confident of the State's ability to
sustain the necessary debt, advised other improvements, including the
completion of the Genesee Valley and Black River canals, as well as
the construction of three railroads, at a total estimated expenditure
of twelve to fifteen millions. By 1841, the debt had increased to
eighteen millions, including the loan of four millions, while the work
was scarcely half finished. To add to the difficulty, state stocks
depreciated over twenty per cent., embarrassing the administration in
its efforts to raise money. The Democrats pronounced such a policy
disastrous and ruinous; and, although the Whigs replied that the
original estimates were wrong, that the price of labour and material
had advanced, and that when completed the canals would speedily pay
for themselves, the people thought it time to call a halt, and in the
election of 1841 they called it.[317]

[Footnote 317: "Seward had faults, which his accession to power soon
displayed in bold relief. His natural tendencies were toward a
government not merely paternal, but prodigal--one which, in its
multiform endeavours to make every one prosperous, if not rich, was
very likely to whelm all in general embarrassment, if not in general
bankruptcy. Few governors have favoured, few senators voted for more
unwisely lavish expenditures than he. Above the suspicion of voting
money into his own pocket, he has a rooted dislike to opposing a
project 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 art
of concealing from others their overweening faith in their own
sagacity and discernment."--Horace Greeley, _Recollections of a Busy
Life_, p. 312.]

It was this overwhelming defeat that so depressed the Whigs, gathered
at the Syracuse convention, as they looked over the field for a
gubernatorial candidate to lead them, if possible, out of the
wilderness of humiliation. Seward had declined a renomination. He knew
that his course, especially in the Virginia controversy, had aroused
a feeling of hostility among certain Whigs who not only resented his
advancement over Granger and Fillmore, his seniors in years and in
length of public service, but who dreaded his lead as too bold, too
earnest, and too impulsive. The fact that the Abolitionists had
already invited him to accept their nomination for President in 1844
indicated the extent to which his Virginia correspondence had carried
him. So, he let his determination be known. "My principles are too
liberal, too philanthropic, if it be not vain to say so, for my
party," he wrote Christopher Morgan, then a leading member of
Congress. "The promulgation of them offends many; the operation of
them injures many; and their sincerity is questioned by about all.
Those principles, therefore, do not receive fair consideration and
candid judgment. There are some who know them to be right, and believe
them to be sincere. These would sustain me. Others whose prejudices
are aroused against them, or whose interests are in danger, would
combine against me. I must, therefore, divide my party in convention.
This would be unfortunate for them, and, of all others, the most false
position for me. And what have I to lose by withdrawing and leaving
the party unembarrassed? My principles are very good and popular ones
for a man out of office; they will take care of me, when out of
office, as they always have done. I have had enough, Heaven knows, of
the 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 candidate
for governor. Fillmore had many friends present, and John A. Collier
of Binghamton, alternating between hope and fear, let his wishes be
known. But, as lieutenant-governor, Bradish had won popularity by
firmness, patience, and that tact which springs from right feeling,
rather than cold courtesy; and, in the end, the vote proved him the
favourite. For lieutenant-governor, the convention chose Gabriel
Furman, a Brooklyn lawyer of great natural ability, who had been a
judge of the municipal court and was just then closing a term in the
State Senate, but whose promising career was already marred by the
opium habit. He is best remembered as one of Brooklyn's most valued
local historians. The resolutions, adhering to the former Whig policy,
condemning Tyler's vetoes and indicating a preference for Clay, showed
that the party, although stripped of its enthusiastic hopes, had lost
none of its faith in its principles or confidence in its great
standard-bearer.

The Democrats had divided on canal improvements. Beginning in the
administration of Governor Throop, one faction, known as the
Conservatives, had voted with the Whigs in 1838, while the other,
called Radicals, opposed the construction of any works that would
increase the debt. This division reasserted itself in the Legislature
which convened in January, 1842. The Radicals elected all the state
officers. Azariah C. Flagg became comptroller, Samuel Young secretary
of state, and George P. Barker attorney-general. Six canal
commissioners, belonging to the same wing of the party, were also
selected. Behind them, as a leader of great force in the Assembly,
stood Michael Hoffman of Herkimer, ready to rain fierce blows upon the
policy of Seward and the Conservatives. Hoffman had served eight years
in Congress, and three years as a canal commissioner. He was now, at
fifty-four years of age, serving his first term in the Assembly,
bringing to the work a great reputation both for talents and
integrity, and as a powerful and effective debater.[319] Hoffman was
educated for a physician, but afterward turned to the law. "Had he not
been drawn into public life," says Thurlow Weed, "he would have been
as eminent a lawyer as he became a statesman."[320]

[Footnote 319: "For four days the debate on a bill for the enlargement
of the canals shed darkness rather than light over the subject, and
the chamber grew murky. One morning a tallish man, past middle age,
with iron-gray locks drooping on his shoulders, and wearing a mixed
suit of plain clothes, took the floor. I noticed that pens,
newspapers, and all else were laid down, and every eye fixed on the
speaker. I supposed he was some quaint old joker from the backwoods,
who was going to afford the House a little fun. The first sentences
arrested my attention. A beam of light shot through the darkness, and
I began to get glimpses of the question at issue. Soon a broad belt of
sunshine spread over the chamber. 'Who is he?' I asked a member.
'Michael Hoffman,' was the reply. He spoke for an hour, and though his
manner was quiet and his diction simple, he was so methodical and
lucid 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 this
time, practically gone out of existence. Talcott was dead, Marcy and
Silas Wright were in Washington, Benjamin F. Butler, having resigned
from the Cabinet as attorney-general, in 1838, had resumed the
practice of his profession in New York City, and Van Buren, waiting
for another term of the Presidency, rested at Lindenwald. The
remaining members of the original Regency, active as ever in political
affairs, were now destined to head the two factions--Edwin Croswell,
still editor of the Albany _Argus_, leading the Conservatives, with
Daniel 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 were
able men. Bouck carried fewer guns than Young; Beardsley had weight
and character, without much aptitude; Foster overflowed with knowledge
and was really an able man, but his domineering nature and violent
temper 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 party
quarrels. He did not belong in the class with Marcy and Wright, though
few New Yorkers showed more indomitable courage than Dickinson--a
characteristic that greatly strengthened his influence in the councils
of the leaders whose differences were already marked with asperity.

Success is wont to have magical effects in producing a wish to put an
end to difference; and the legislative winter of 1843 became notable
for the apparent adjustment of Democratic divisions. The Radicals
proposed the passage of an act, known as the "stop and tax law of
1842," suspending the completion of the public works, imposing a
direct tax, and pledging a portion of the canal revenues as a sinking
fund for the payment of the existing debt. It was a drastic measure,
and leading Conservatives, with much vigour, sought to obtain a
compromise permitting the gradual completion of the most advanced
works. Bouck favoured sending an agent to Holland to negotiate a loan
for this purpose, a suggestion pressed with some ardour until further
effort threatened to jeopardise his chance of a renomination for
governor; and when Bouck ceased his opposition other Conservatives
fell into line. The measure, thus unobstructed, finally became the
law, sending the Democrats into the gubernatorial campaign of 1842
with high hopes of success.

By accident or design, the Democratic state convention also met at
Syracuse on October 7. William C. Bouck and Daniel S. Dickinson had
been the candidates, in 1840, for governor and lieutenant-governor,
and they now demanded renomination. The Radicals wanted Samuel Young
or Michael Hoffman for governor; and, before the passage of the "stop
and tax law," the contest bid fair to be a warm one. But, after making
an agreement to pledge the party to the work of the last Legislature,
the Radicals withdrew all opposition to Bouck and Dickinson. In their
resolutions, the Democrats applauded Tyler's vetoes; approved the
policy of his administration; denounced the re-establishment of a
national bank; opposed a protective tariff; and favoured the
sub-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. The
Whigs felt the weight of the canal debt, which rested heavily upon the
people; and, although many enthusiastic young men, active in the
organisation of Clay clubs and in preparing the way for the Kentucky
statesman in 1844, held mass-meetings and read letters from their
great leader, New York again passed under the control of the Democrats
by a majority of nearly twenty-two thousand.[321] It was not an
ordinary defeat; it was an avalanche. Only one Whig senator, thirty
Whig assemblymen, and nine or ten congressmen were saved in the wreck.
"I fear the party must break up from its very foundations," Fillmore
wrote 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 future
in him, a capacity for action, a ready sympathy with men of all
classes, occupations, and interests, and he saw rays of light where
others looked only into darkness. "It is not a bad thing to be left
out of Congress," he wrote Christopher Morgan, depressed by his
defeat. "You will soon be wanted in the State, and that is a better
field."[323] Seward had the faculty of slow, reflective brooding, and
he often saw both deep and far. In the night of that blinding defeat
only 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, in
January, 1843, Democratic harmony disappeared. It was supposed the
question of canal improvement had been settled by the "stop and tax
law" of 1842, and by the subsequent agreement of the Conservatives, at
the Syracuse convention, in the following October. No one believed
that any serious disposition existed on the part of the Governor to
open the wound, since he knew a large majority of his party opposed
the resumption of the work, and that the state officers, who had
viewed his nomination with coldness, were watching his acts and
critically weighing his words.

But he also knew that his most zealous and devoted friends, living
along the line of the Erie, Black River, and Genesee Valley canals,
earnestly desired the speedy completion of certain parts of these
waterways. In order to please them, his message suggested the
propriety of taking advantage of the low prices of labour and
provisions to finish some of the work. He did it timidly. There was no
positive recommendation. He touched the subject as one handles a live
electric wire, trembling lest he rouse the sleeping opposition of the
Radicals, or fail to meet the expectation of friends. But the
recommendation, too expressionless to cheer his friends and too
energetic to suit his opponents, foreshadowed the pitfalls into which
he was to tumble. He had been the first to suggest the Erie
enlargement, and he knew better than any other man in the State how
important was its completion; yet he said as little in its favour as
could be said, if he said anything at all, and that little seemed to
be prompted, not so much for the good of the State, as to satisfy the
demands of ardent friends, who had contributed to his nomination and
election.

Severe criticism of the message, by the radical press, quickly showed
that not even a temporary reconciliation had been effected by the act
of 1842. Had the Governor now been sufficiently endowed with a faculty
for good management, he must have strengthened himself and weakened
his enemies with the vast amount of patronage at his command. Not
since the days of Governor Lewis, had the making of so many
appointments been committed to an executive. The Whigs, under Seward,
had taken every office in the State. But Bouck, practising the
nepotism that characterised Lewis' administration forty years before,
took good care of his own family, and then, in the interest of
harmony, turned whatever was left over to the members of the
Legislature, who selected their own friends regardless of their
relations to the Governor. There is something grim and pathetic in the
picture of the rude awakening of this farmer governor, who, while
working in his own weak way for harmony and conciliation, discovered,
too late, that partisan rivalries and personal ambition had surrounded
him with a cordon of enemies that could not be broken. To add to his
humiliation, it frequently happened that the nominations of those whom
he greatly desired confirmed, were rejected in the Senate by the
united votes of Radicals and Whigs.

The controversy growing out of the election of a state printer to
succeed Thurlow Weed increased the bitterness between the factions.
Edwin Croswell had been removed from this office in 1840, and the
Conservatives now proposed to reinstate him. Croswell had carefully
avoided taking part in the factional contests then beginning to rend
the party. He had supported, apparently in good faith, the "stop and
tax law" of 1842, and, in the campaigns of 1841 and 1842, had been
associated with Azariah C. Flagg in the publication of the _Rough
Hewer_, a weekly paper of radical views, issued from the press of the
_Argus_; but his sympathies were with the Conservatives, and when
they sought to re-elect him public printer, the Radicals, led by
Flagg, announced as their candidate Henry H. Van Dyck, the owner,
since 1840, of a one-third interest in the _Argus_. For seventeen
years, from 1823 to 1840, Croswell had held the office of state
printer, accumulating wealth and enjoying the regard of the party; and
Flagg and his colleagues contended that he should now give way to
another equally deserving. This was a strong reason in a party that
believed in rotation in office, especially when coupled with a desire
on the part of the Radicals to control the _Argus_; and, to avoid an
open rupture, Croswell proposed that a law be passed making the
_Argus_ the state paper, without naming a public printer. Van Dyck
objected to this, as it would leave Croswell in control of the
establishment. Besides, Van Dyck claimed that, at the time he
purchased an interest in the _Argus_, Croswell promised to support him
for state printer. This Croswell denied.

Instantly, the air was alive with the thrill of battle. Croswell faced
difficulties such as no other office-seeker had thus far encountered,
difficulties of faction, difficulties of public sentiment, and
difficulties of personnel. Flagg's conceded fidelity and honesty as a
public officer, supplemented by his shrewdness and sagacity, made him
the unquestioned leader of the Radicals; and, in this initial and
crucial test of strength, he was indisposed to compromise or
conciliate; but in Edwin Croswell he met the most impressive figure
among the gladiators of the party. Croswell was the veteran editor
whose judgment had guided its tactics, and whose words were instinct
with life, with prophecy, and with fate. When he entered the
pilot-house of his party, men knew something was going to happen. A
perceptible hush seemed to announce his presence. At such times, his
caustic sentences, clear and compact, were rarely conciliatory; but
when he turned away from the wheel, achievement had proven his right
to leadership.

In his contest with Flagg, however, Croswell encountered angry
criticism from the Radicals and frigid approval from some
Conservatives. His candidacy plainly impaired the high respect which
his conduct and abilities had brought him. It was a mistake from every
point of view; but, once committed to such a course his Conservative
friends persevered, giving him finally sixty-six out of one hundred
and six votes cast. A speech made by Assemblyman Leland of Steuben
affords an interesting glimpse of the many influences summoned from
every quarter, until men found themselves in the centre of a political
cauldron from which there seemed no escape. "All who have come up here
for office," said Leland, "have been compelled to take one side or the
other, and as neither side knows what will be the result, some have
been disposed to cry 'good Lord, if a Lord, or good devil, if not a
Lord.'" The newspapers added to the perils of the quarrel. In the
discussion preceding the election, the Albany _Atlas_, a daily paper
recently established, but until now without political prominence,
became the organ of the Radicals; and between it and the _Argus_ a
fierce editorial battle, which extended to other Democratic papers
throughout the State, made the factional division broader and more
bitter.

Despite their quarrels, which continued throughout the legislative
session, 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 line
of tools left where the workmen dropped them, had played an important
part in the campaign, and when the Democratic legislative caucus
convened, in January, 1844, the friends of canal improvement easily
defeated Michael Hoffman for speaker by a vote of fifty-six to
thirty-five, in favour of Elisha Litchfield of Onondaga. Henry A.
Foster, also an uncompromising champion of the Conservatives, was
elected president _pro tem._ of the Senate. Litchfield had been in
Congress. He was a strong man of acknowledged influence in the central
counties of the State. Besides, he had been a faithful follower and
an ardent admirer of Croswell. There were those who thought Horatio
Seymour ought to be speaker; and, for a time, it looked as if he might
secure the office. He was the real leader of the Conservatives, and he
had more friends than Litchfield. But Litchfield had Croswell.

Backed by such a re-enforcement of Conservatives, Governor Bouck spoke
of canal improvement with less timidity. He admitted the necessity of
the tax law of 1842, but suggested the completion of "such new works
as can be done with better economy than to sustain those designed to
be superseded" and "are exposed to great and permanent injury." There
was nothing forceful in this recommendation. He still kept the middle
of the road, but his request practically amounted to the completion of
some of the new work. It meant the finishing of the Schoharie
aqueduct, improving the Jordan level, enlarging the locks of the Erie
canal, and going on with the construction of the Black River and
Genesee Valley canals.

The Radicals, realising the seriousness of the situation, now rested
their hopes upon an elaborate report by Robert Dennison, chairman of
the Senate canal committee. It was a telling blow. It attacked the
estimated, as compared to the actual, cost of the canals, charging
engineers with culpable ignorance or corrupt intention. The Chenango
canal, 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 an
expenditure of $437,000; after work was commenced, a recalculation
made it $2,431,000. It cost, finally, over $2,800,000. The Genesee
Valley canal presented even greater disparity, and more glaring
ignorance. The original estimate fixed the cost at $1,774,000.
Afterward, the same engineer computed it at $4,900,000; and it cost
over $5,500,000. The State would have made money, the report said, had
it built macadamised roads, instead of canals, at a cost of $4,000 a
mile, and paid teamsters two dollars a day for hauling all the produce
that the canals would transport when finished. In conclusion,
Dennison declared that work on the canals could not be resumed without
laying an additional direct tax. This statement touched the
pocket-books of the people; and, in the opinion of the Radicals,
closed the discussion, for no Democrat, confronting a presidential and
gubernatorial election, would dare burden his party with another
direct canal tax.

Horatio Seymour, chairman of the canal committee of the Assembly, now
appeared with a report, covering seventy-one octavo pages, which
illuminated the question even to the enlightenment of Michael Hoffman.
It was the first display of that mastery of legislative skill and
power, which Seymour's shrewd discerning mind was so well calculated
to acquire. The young Oneida statesman had been a favourite since his
advent in the Assembly in 1842. His handsome face, made more
attractive by large, luminous eyes, and a kind, social nature,
peculiarly fitted him for public life; and, back of his fascinating
manners, lay sound judgment and great familiarity with state affairs.
Like Seward, he possessed, in this respect, an advantage over older
members, and he was now to show something of the moral power which the
Auburn Senator displayed when he displeased the short-sighted
partisans who seemed to exist and to act only for the present.

In presenting his report Seymour was careful to sustain the pledges of
the act of 1842, and to condemn the pre-existing policy of creating
additional debts for the purpose of constructing new canals or
enlarging the Erie. With gentle and cunning skill he commended Azariah
C. Flagg's policy, adopted in 1835, of using only the surplus revenue
of the canals for such purposes. "The errors we have committed," said
his report, "are not without their utility or profitable teaching. The
corruptions of extravagance and the bitter consequences of
indebtedness, have produced their own correctives, and public opinion,
admonished by the past, has returned to its accustomed and healthful
channels, from which it will not be readily diverted. There is no
portion of our citizens who desire to increase our state indebtedness,
or to do aught to the detriment of our common interests, when they
are shown the evils that inevitably follow in the train of borrowing
large sums of money, to be repaid, perhaps, in periods of pecuniary
distress and embarrassment. Neither is it true, on the other hand,
that any considerable number of our citizens are opposed to the
extension of our canals when it can be effected by the aid of surplus
revenues."[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 it
remained for Seymour to obtain for it a fair and candid hearing. With
great clearness, he unfolded the condition of the public works and of
the public finances, and, with able reasoning, he showed that, out of
the 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 1836
could be completed. At the conclusion, he introduced a bill providing
for the resumption of work along the lines set forth in the report.

The reports of Dennison and Seymour reduced the issue to its lowest
terms. Dennison wanted the surplus revenues, if any, applied to the
payment of the state debt; Seymour insisted upon their use for the
enlargement of the Erie and the completion of the Black River and
Genesee Valley canals. Both favoured a sinking fund, with which to
extinguish the state debt, and both opposed the construction of any
new work which should add to that debt. But Dennison, with pessimistic
doggedness, denied that there would be sufficient surplus to produce
the desired result. Seymour, with much of the optimism of Seward,
cherished the hope that rich tolls, growing larger as navigation grew
better, would flow into the treasury, until all the canals would be
completed and all the debts wiped out. The Radical was more than a
pessimist--he was a strict constructionist of the act of 1842. He
held that the Seymour bill was a palpable departure from the policy of
that act, and that other measures, soon to follow, would eventually
overthrow such a policy. To all this Seymour replied in his report,
that "just views of political economy are not to be disseminated by
harsh denunciations, which create the suspicion that there is more of
hostility to the interests of those assailed than an honest desire to
protect 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. They
were, admittedly, the leaders of the two factions, and, although
Hoffman possessed remarkable powers of denunciation, which he used
freely against measures, his courtesy toward opponents was no less
marked than Seymour's.[326] Other Conservatives supported the measure
with ability. But it was Seymour's firmness of mind, suavity of
manner, unwearied patience, and incomparable temper, under a thousand
provocations, that made it possible to pass the bill, substantially as
he wrote it, by a vote of sixty-seven to thirty-eight. Even Michael
Hoffman refused to vote against it, although he did not vote for it.

[Footnote 326: "One morning Hoffman rose to reply to Seymour, but on
learning that he was ill he refused to deliver his speech for two or
three 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 acrid
and irritable members than the Assembly, and its talkers had sharper
tongues. In debate, Foster was the most formidable, but Albert
Lester's acerbity of temper fixed the tone of the discussion. Finally,
when the vote was taken the Democrats broke evenly for and against the
measure; 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 of
a single measure by a single man whose success was based on supreme
faith in the Erie canal. Seymour flowingly portrayed its benefits,
and, with prophetic eye, saw the deeply ladened boats transporting the
produce of prosperous farmers who had chosen homes in the West when
access was rendered so easy. What seemed to others to threaten
disaster to the State, appealed to him as a great highway of commerce
that would yield large revenues to the Commonwealth and abundantly
bless its people. He predicted the building of villages and the
development of diversified industries along its banks, and, in one of
his captivating sentences, he described the pleasure of travelling
quickly by packets, viewing the scenery of the Mohawk Valley by day
and sleeping comfortably in a cabin-berth at night. But he did not
favour building so rapidly as to burden the State with debt. This was
the mistake of the Seward administration, and the inevitable reaction
gave the Radicals an argument for delay, and Dennison an opportunity
for a telling report. Seymour put his faith in the earning capacity of
the Erie canal. Forty years later, when he advocated the abolition of
tolls, 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 many
surprises and disappointments which were to be disclosed in the
campaign of 1844. Never were the motions of the political pendulum
more agitated or more irregular. For three years, public sentiment had
designated Henry Clay and Martin Van Buren as the accepted candidates
of their respective parties for President; and, until the spring of
1844, the confidence of the friends of the Kentucky statesman did not
exceed the assurance of the followers of the ex-President. Indeed, the
Democratic party was known throughout the country as the "Van Buren
party," and, although James Buchanan, John C. Calhoun, and Lewis Cass
had each been named as suitable persons for Chief Executive, the sage
of Lindenwald was the party's recognised leader and prospective
candidate. His sub-treasury scheme, accepted as wise and salutary, was
still the cornerstone of the party, buttressed by a tariff for
revenue and opposition to a national bank.

In national affairs, the Democratic party in New York was still a
unit. The Legislature of 1843 had re-elected Silas Wright to the
United States Senate, without a dissenting Democratic vote; and a
state convention, held at Syracuse in September of the same year, and
made up of Radicals and Conservatives, had instructed its delegation
to support New York's favourite son. But a troublesome problem
suddenly confronted Van Buren. President Tyler had secretly negotiated
a treaty of annexation with Texas, ostensibly because of the
contiguity and great value of its territory, in reality, because, as
Calhoun, then secretary of state, showed in his correspondence with
Great Britain, Texas seemed indispensable to the preservation and
perpetuation of slavery. Texas had paved the way for such a treaty by
providing, in its constitution, for the establishment of slavery, and
by prohibiting the importation of slaves from any country other than
the United States. But for three months friends of the treaty in the
United States Senate had vainly endeavoured to find a two-thirds
majority in favour of its ratification. Then, the exponents of
slavery, having secretly brought to their support the enormous
prestige of Andrew Jackson, prepared to nominate a successor to
President Tyler who would favour the treaty.

Van Buren had never failed the South while in the United States
Senate. He had voted against sending abolition literature through the
mails into States that prohibited its circulation; he had approved the
rules of the Senate for tabling abolition petitions without reading
them; he had publicly deprecated the work of abolition leaders; and,
by his silence, had approved the mob spirit when his friends were
breaking up abolition meetings. But, in those days, American slavery
was simply seeking its constitutional right to exist unmolested where
it was; and, although the anti-slavery crusade from 1830 to 1840, had
profoundly stirred the American conscience, slavery had not yet, to
any extended degree, entered into partisan politics. The annexation of
Texas, however, was an aggressive measure, the first of the great
movements for the extension of slavery since the Missouri Compromise;
and it was important to the South to know in advance where the
ex-President stood. His administration had been adverse to annexation,
and rumour credited him with unabated hostility. To force him into the
open, therefore, William H. Hammit, a member of Congress from
Mississippi, addressed him a letter on the 27th of March, 1844. "I am
an unpledged delegate to the Baltimore convention," wrote Hammit, "and
it is believed that a full and frank declaration of your opinion as to
the constitutionality and expediency of immediately annexing Texas
will be of great service to the cause, at a moment so critical of its
destiny."[327] Van Buren held this letter until the 20th of April,
thirty-seven days before the meeting of the convention. When he did
reply he recalled the fact that in 1837, after an exhaustive
consideration of the question, his administration had decided against
annexation, and that nothing had since occurred to change the
situation; but that if, after the subject had been fully discussed, a
Congress chosen with reference to the question showed that the popular
will favoured it, he would yield. It was a letter of great length,
elaborately discussing every point directly or indirectly relating to
the 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 supported
him he was practically certain of it. It was in view of the necessity
of such support that Van Buren's letter has been pronounced by a
recent biographer "one of the finest and bravest pieces of political
courage, and deserves from Americans a long admiration."[328] Such
eulogy is worthily bestowed if Van Buren, at the time of the Hammit
letter, fully appreciated the gravity of the situation; but there is
no evidence that he understood the secret and hostile purpose which
led up to the Hammit inquiry, and the letter itself is evidence that
he sought to conciliate the Southern wing of his party. Charles Jared
Ingersoll of Pennsylvania, in his diary of May 6, 1844, declares that
nearly all of Van Buren's admirers and most of the Democratic press
were even then committed to annexation. Nevertheless, Van Buren and
his trusted advisers could not have known of the secret plotting of
Buchanan's and Cass's followers, or of the deception shrewdly
practised by Cave Johnson of Tennessee, ostensibly a confidential
friend, but really a leader in the plot to defeat Van Buren.[329]
Besides, the sentiment of the country unmistakably recognised that
powerful and weighty as the inducements for annexation appeared, they
were light when opposed in the scale of reason to the treaty of amity
and commerce with Mexico, which must be scrupulously observed so long
as that country performed its duties and respected treaty rights. Even
after the nomination of a President only sixteen senators out of
fifty-one voted for annexation, proving that the belief still
obtained, in the minds of a very large and influential portion of the
party, that annexation was decidedly objectionable, since it must
lead, as Benton put it in his great speech delivered in May, 1844, to
an unjust, unconstitutional war with Mexico upon a weak and groundless
pretext. Thus, Van Buren had behind him, the weight of the argument, a
large majority of the Senate, including Silas Wright, his noble
friend, and a party sentiment that had not yet yielded to the crack of
the southern whip; and he was ignorant of the plan, already secretly
matured, to defeat him with the help of the followers of Buchanan and
Cass by insisting upon the two-thirds rule in the convention. Under
these circumstances, it did not require great courage to reaffirm his
previous views so forcibly and ably expressed. Cognisant, however, of
the growing desire in the South for annexation, he took good care to
remove the impression that he was a hard-shell, by promising to yield
his opinion to the judgment of a new Congress. This was a long step
in the direction of consent. It virtually said, "If you elect a
Congress that will ratify the treaty and pay the price, I will not
stand in your way." In the presence of such complacency, the thought
naturally occurs that he might have gone a step farther and consented
to yield his opinions at once had he known or even suspected the
secret plans of his southern opponents, the bitterness of Calhoun and
Robert J. Walker, and their understanding with the friends of Buchanan
and Cass. Jackson's letter favourable to annexation, skilfully
procured for publication just before the convention, "to blow Van out
of water," as his enemies expressed it, was, indeed, known to Van
Buren, but the latter believed its influence discounted by the great
confidence 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 New
York delegation, reposed great confidence in the opinions and
statements of Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee. He frequently met with
the delegation, and expressed himself in the strongest terms of
personal and political friendship towards Mr. Van Buren and Mr.
Wright. He said he regretted that the Democratic convention in
Tennessee had not named Mr. Van Buren as the candidate. So strong was
the confidence in Mr. Johnson as a friend of Mr. Van Buren, that he
was apprised of all our plans in regard to the organisation of the
convention, and was requested to nominate Gov. Hubbard of New
Hampshire, as temporary chairman. But when the convention assembled
Gen. Saunders of North Carolina called the convention to order and
nominated Hendrick B. Wright, of Pennsylvania, a friend of Mr.
Buchanan, as temporary president. Messrs. Walker, Saunders, and Cave
Johnson were the principal managers for the delegates from the
southern section of the Union."--Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History
of New York_, Vol. 3, p. 447.]

[Footnote 330: "The danger of Van Buren's difference with Jackson it
was sought to avert. Butler visited Jackson at the Hermitage, and
doubtless showed him for what sinister end he had been used. Jackson
did not withdraw his approval of annexation; but publicly declared his
regard for Van Buren to be so great, his confidence in Van Buren's
love of country to be so strengthened by long intimacy, that no
difference about Texas could change his opinion. But the work of
Calhoun 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, writing
upon the same subject, expressed the opinion that annexation at this
time, without the assent of Mexico, would be a measure "compromising
the national character, involving us certainly in war with Mexico,
probably with other foreign powers, dangerous to the integrity of the
Union, inexpedient to the present financial condition of the country,
and not called for by any general expression of public opinion." Van
Buren had visited Clay at Ashland in 1842, and, after the publication
of their letters, it was suggested that a bargain had then been made
to remove the question of annexation from politics. However this may
be, the friends of the ex-President, after the publication of his
letter, 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 alarm
that 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 in
favour of Van Buren threatened to defeat their plans, and the better
to conceal intrigue and tergiversation they deemed it wise to create
the belief that opposition had been wholly and finally abandoned. In
this they proved eminently successful. "Many of the strongest
advocates of annexation," wrote a member of the New York delegation in
Congress, on May 18, nine days before the convention, "have come to
regard the grounds taken by Van Buren as the only policy consistent
not only with the honour, but the true interests of the country. Such
is fast becoming and will soon be the opinion of the whole South."[331]
But the cloud, at last, burst. No sooner had the Baltimore convention
convened than Benjamin F. Butler, the ardent friend and able spokesman
of Van Buren, discovered that the backers of Cass and Buchanan were
acting with the Southerners in the interest of a rule that required
two-thirds of all the delegates in the convention to nominate.
Instantly the air was thick with suggestion, devices, expedients. All
the arts of party emergency went on at an unprecedented rate. The
eloquent 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 hold
up to men's imagination and to burn into their understanding the shame
and dishonour of adopting a rule, not only unsound and false in
principle, but which, if adhered to, would coerce a majority to yield
to a minority. "I submit," declared Butler, in closing, "that to adopt
a rule which requires what we know cannot be done, unless the majority
yield to the minority, is to subject ourselves to the rule, not of
reason, but of despotism, and to defeat the true purposes and objects
of this convention--the accomplishment of the people's will for the
promotion 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 a
two-thirds vote for the nomination. For it was through this rule that
enough Southern members, chosen before Van Buren's letter, were to
escape obedience to their instructions to vote for him. Robert J.
Walker, then a senator from Mississippi, a man of interesting history
and large ability, led the Southerners. He quoted the precedent of
1832 when Van Buren had been nominated for the Vice Presidency under
the two-thirds rule, and that of 1835, when he had been nominated for
the Presidency. These nominations had led to victory. In 1840 the rule
had not been adopted. Without this rule, he said amid angry
excitement, the party would yield to those whose motto seemed to be
'rule or ruin.' Butler, Daniel S. Dickinson, and Marcus Morton led the
Northern ranks.... Morton said that under the majority rule Jefferson
had been nominated; that rule had governed state, county, and township
conventions. Butler admitted that under the rule Van Buren would not
be nominated, although a majority of the convention was known to be
for him. In 1832 and 1835 the two-thirds rule had prevailed because it
was certainly known who would be nominated; and the rule operated to
aid not to defeat the majority. If the rule were adopted, it would be
by the votes of States which were not Democratic, and would bring
'dismemberment and final breaking up of the party.' Walker laughed at
Butler's 'tall vaulting' from the floor; and, refusing to shrink from
the Van Buren issue, he protested against New York dictation, and
warningly said that, if Van Buren were nominated, Clay would be
elected."--Edward M. Shepard, _Life of Martin Van Buren_, p. 408.]

The adoption of the rule, by a vote of 148 to 118, showed that the
Democratic party did not have a passionate devotion for Martin Van
Buren. Buchanan opposed his nomination; leading men in other States
did not desire him. The New England States, with Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Michigan, Illinois, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, had
instructed for him; yet sixty-three of these instructed delegates
voted for the two-thirds rule, knowing that its adoption would defeat
him. The rule received thirty majority, and Van Buren, on the first
ballot, received only thirteen. On the second ballot he dropped to
less than a majority; on the seventh he had only ninety-nine votes.
The excitement reached a climax when a motion to declare him the
nominee by a majority vote, was ruled out of order. In the
pandemonium, the New Yorkers, for the first time, seemed to unloose
themselves, letting fly bitter denunciations of the treachery of the
sixty-three delegates who were pledged to Van Buren's support. When
order was restored, a Virginian suddenly put forward the name of James
K. Polk as that of "a pure, whole-hogged Democrat." Then the
convention adjourned until the next day.

Harmony usually follows a bitter convention quarrel. Men become
furiously and sincerely indignant; but the defeated ones must accept
the results, or, Samson-like, destroy themselves in the destruction of
their party. The next morning, Daniel S. Dickinson, the most violently
indignant the day before, declared that "he loved this convention
because it had acted so like the masses." In a high state of nervous
excitement, 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 floor
and stamped," to use the language of an eye-witness, now resumed his
wonted calmness, and on the ninth ballot, in the midst of tremendous
cheering, used the discretion vested in him to withdraw Van Buren's
name. In doing so, he took occasion to indicate his preference for
James K. Polk, his personal friend. Following this announcement,
Dickinson cast New York's thirty-five votes for the Tennesseean, who
immediately received the necessary two-thirds vote. The situation had
given Polk peculiar advantages. The partisans of Cass and Buchanan,
having willingly defeated Van Buren, made the friends of the New
Yorker thirsty to put their knives into these betrayers. This
situation, opening the door for a compromise, brought a "dark horse"
into the race for the first time in the history of national
conventions. Such conditions are common enough nowadays, but it may
well be doubted if modern political tactics ever brought to the
surface a more inferior candidate. "Polk! Great God, what a
nomination!" 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 had
recently declined a nomination to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and who, after the defeat of Van Buren, had refused the use of
his name for President, did not choose, he said, "to ride behind the
black pony." A third ballot resulted in the selection of George M.
Dallas of Pennsylvania. Among the resolutions adopted, it was declared
that "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 other
power; and the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas at
the earliest practicable period, are great American measures, which
the convention recommends to the cordial support of the Democracy of
the Union."

Van Buren's defeat practically closed his career. His failure of
re-election in 1840 had left his leadership unimpaired, but with the
loss of the nomination in 1844 went prestige and power which he was
never to regain. Seldom has it been the misfortune of a candidate for
President to experience so overwhelming an overthrow. Clay's failure
in 1839 and Seward's in 1860 were as complete; but they lacked the
humiliating features of the Baltimore rout. Harrison was an equal
favourite with Clay in 1839; and at Chicago, in 1860, Lincoln shared
with Seward the prominence of a leading candidate; but at Baltimore,
in 1844, no other name than Van Buren's appeared conspicuously above
the surface, until, with the help of delegates who had been instructed
for him, the two-thirds rule was adopted. It seemed to Van Buren the
result of political treachery; and it opened a chasm between him and
his former southern friends that was destined to survive during the
remaining eighteen years of his life. The proscription of his New York
friends undoubtedly aided this division, and the death of Jackson, in
1845, and rapidly accumulating political events which came to a climax
in 1848, completed the separation.

There are evidences that Van Buren's defeat did not break the heart of
his party in New York. Contemporary writers intimate that after his
election as President the warm, familiar manners changed to the
stiffer and more formal ways of polite etiquette, and that his visit
to New York, during his occupancy of the White House, left behind it
many wounds, the result of real or fancied slights and neglect. Van
Buren's rule had been long. His good pleasure sent men to Congress;
his good pleasure made them postmasters, legislators, and cabinet
officers. In all departments of the government, both state and
national, his influence had been enormous. For years his friends,
sharing the glory and profits of his continued triumphs, had been
filling other ambitious men with envy and jealousy, until his
overthrow seemed necessary to their success. Even Edwin Croswell
shared this feeling, and, although he did not boldly play a double
part, the astute editor was always seeking a position which promised
the highest advantage and the greatest security to himself and his
faction. This condition of mind made him quick to favour Polk and the
annexation of Texas, and to leave Van Buren to his now limited coterie
of followers.

Van Buren had much liking for the career of a public man. Very
probably he found his greatest happiness in the triumphs of such a
life; but we must believe he also found great contentment in his
retirement at Lindenwald. He did not possess the tastes and pleasures
of a man of letters, nor did he affect the "classic retirement" that
seemed to appeal so powerfully to men of the eighteenth century; but,
like John Jay, he loved the country, happy in his health, in his
rustic tastes, in his freedom from public cares, and in his tranquil
occupation. Skilled in horticulture, he took pleasure in planting
trees, and in cultivating, with his own hand, the fruits and flowers
of his table. There can be no doubt of his entire sincerity when he
assured an enthusiastic Pennsylvania admirer, who had pronounced for
him as a candidate in 1848, that whatever aspirations he may have had
in 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 gubernatorial
situation. So long as Van Buren seemed likely to be the candidate for
President, opposition to Governor Bouck's renomination was smothered
by the desire of the Radicals to unite with the Conservatives, and
thus make sure of the State's electoral vote. This was the Van Buren
plan. After the latter's defeat, however, the Radicals demanded the
nomination of Silas Wright of Canton. Van Buren and Wright had taken
no part in the canal controversy; but they belonged to the Radicals,
and, with Wright, and with no one else, could the latter hope to
defeat the "Agricultural Governor." Their importunity greatly
distressed the Canton statesman, who desired to remain in the United
States Senate, to which he had been recently re-elected for a third
term, and to whom, from every point of view, the governorship was
distasteful.[333] Besides taking him from the Senate, it meant
contention with two bitterly jealous and hostile factions, one of
which would be displeased with impartiality, the other ready to plunge
the 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, in
the times we are now reviewing, as that of senator of the United
States. The body was illustrious through the fame of its members, who
generally exhibited the very flower and highest outcome of American
political life; dignified, powerful, respected, it was the pride of
the nation, and one of its main bulwarks. The height of ordinary
ambition was satisfied by attainment to that place; and men once
securely seated there would have been content to hold it on and on,
asking no more. One cannot doubt the sincerity of the expressions in
which Mr. Wright announced his distress at being thrown from that
delightful eminence into the whirlpools and quicksands at
Albany."--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John Dix_, Vol. 1, pp. 194, 195.]

But the Albany _Atlas_, representing the Radicals, insisted upon
Wright's making the sacrifice; and, to give Bouck an easy avenue of
escape, Edwin Croswell, representing the Conservatives, advised that
the Governor would withdraw if he should consent to stand. But he
again refused. Still the _Atlas_ continued to insist. By the middle of
July things looked very black. In Albany, the atmosphere became thick
with political passion. Finally, Van Buren interfered. He was
profoundly affected with the idea that political treachery had
compassed his defeat, and he knew the nomination of Polk was
personally offensive to Silas Wright; but, faithful to his promise to
support the action of the Baltimore convention, he requested his
friend to lead the state ticket, since the result in New York would
probably decide, as it did decide, the fate of the Democratic party in
the nation. Still the Senator refused. His decision, more critical
than he seemed to be aware, compelled his Radical friends to invent
new compromises, until the refusal was modified into a conditional
consent. In other words, he would accept the nomination provided he
was not placed in the position of opposing "any Republican who is, or
who may become a candidate."

This action of the Radicals kept the Conservatives busy bailing a
sinking boat. They believed the candidacy of Bouck would shut out
Wright under the terms of his letter, and, although the Governor's
supporters were daily detached by the action of county conventions,
and the Governor himself wished to withdraw to avoid the humiliation
of a defeat by ballot, the Conservatives continued their opposition.
For once it could be truthfully said of a candidate that he was "in
the hands of his friends." Even the "judicious" delegate, whom the
Governor directed to withdraw his name, declined executing the
commission until a ballot had nominated Wright, giving him
ninety-five votes to thirty for Bouck. "Wright's nomination is the
fatality," wrote Seward. "Election or defeat exhausts him."[334] Seward
had 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 Van
Buren. The wiseacres in New York speak of him with compliment, 'this
distinguished statesman;' yet they bring all their small artillery to
bear upon him, and give notice that he is demolished. The praise they
bestow is very ill concealed, but less injurious to us than their
warfare, conducted in their mode."--Letter of W.H. Seward to Thurlow
Weed, _Ibid._, Vol. 1, p. 725.]

The bitterness of the contest was further revealed in the refusal of
Daniel S. Dickinson, a doughty Conservative, to accept a renomination
for lieutenant-governor, notwithstanding Silas Wright had especially
asked it. There were many surmises, everybody was excited, and the
door to harmony seemed closed forever; but it opened again when the
name of Addison Gardiner of Rochester came up. Gardiner had been
guided by high ideals. He was kind and tolerant; the voice of personal
anger was never heard from his lips; and Conservative and Radical held
him in high respect. At Manlius, in 1821, Gardiner had become the
closest friend of Thurlow Weed, an intimacy that was severed only by
death. He was a young lawyer then, anxious to seek his fortune in the
West, and on his way to Indianapolis happened to stop at Rochester.
The place proved too attractive to give up, and, through his
influence, Weed also made it his residence. "How curious it seems," he
once wrote his distinguished journalistic friend, "that circumstances
which we regard at the time as scarcely worthy of notice often change
the entire current of our lives." A few years later, through Weed's
influence, Gardiner became a judge of the Supreme Court, laying the
foundation for a public life of honourable and almost unceasing
activity.

Though the Whigs needed their ablest and most popular men to meet
Wright and Gardiner, preceding events guided the action of their state
convention, which met at Syracuse, on the 11th of September, 1844.
Horace Greeley had picked out Millard Fillmore for the Vice Presidency
on the ticket with Henry Clay, and his New York friends, proud of his
work in Congress, as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,
presented his name with the hope that other States, profiting by the
tariff which he had framed, might join them in recognising his
valuable public service. But the convention had not taken kindly to
him, probably for the same reason that Greeley desired his promotion;
for, upon the slavery question, Fillmore had been more pronounced and
aggressive than Seward, sympathising and acting in Congress with
Giddings of Ohio and John P. Hale of New Hampshire, a part very
difficult to perform in those days without losing caste as a Whig.

Fillmore's defeat on May 1, however, made him the candidate for
governor on September 11. Weed pronounced for him very early, and the
party leaders fell into line with a unanimity that must have been as
balm 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 of
governor. After Frelinghuysen was named for Vice President, it struck
me that Fillmore above all others was the man. You may rest assured
that 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 who
will now vote the ticket. Fillmore is a favourite everywhere; and
among the Methodists where 'old Father Fillmore' is almost worshipped,
they will go him with a rush."[335] Yet the Buffalo statesman, not a
little disgruntled over his treatment at Baltimore, disclaimed any
desire for the nomination. To add to his chagrin, he was told that
Weed and Seward urged his selection for his destruction, and whether
he believed the tale or not, it increased his fear and apprehension.
But people did not take his assumed indifference seriously, and he was
unanimously nominated for governor, with Samuel J. Wilkin, of Orange,
for lieutenant-governor. Wilkin had been a leader of the Adams party
in the Assembly of 1824 and 1825. He was then a young lawyer of much
promise, able and clear-headed, and, although never a showy debater,
he possessed useful business talent, and an integrity that gave him
high place among the men who guided his party. "I like Wilkin for
lieutenant-governor," wrote Seward, although he had been partial to
the 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 most
available man. Fillmore was well known and at the height of his
popularity. During the protracted and exciting tariff struggle of
1842, he had sustained himself as chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee with marked ability. It added to his popularity, too, that
he had seemed indifferent to the nomination. In some respects Fillmore
and Silas Wright were not unlike. They were distinguished for their
suavity of manners. Both were impressive and interesting characters,
wise in council, and able in debate, with a large knowledge of their
State and country; and, although belonging to opposite parties and in
different wings of the capitol at Washington, their service in
Congress had brought to the debates a genius which compelled
attention, and a purity of life that raised in the public estimation
the whole level of congressional proceedings. Neither was an orator;
they were clear, forcible, and logical; but their speeches were not
quoted as models of eloquence. In spite of an unpleasant voice and a
slow, measured utterance, there was a charm about Wright's speaking;
for, like Fillmore, he had earnestness and warmth. With all their
power, however, they lacked the enthusiasm and the boldness that
captivate the crowd and inspire majorities. Yet they had led
majorities. In no sphere of Wright's activities, was he more strenuous
than in the contest for the independent treasury plan which he
recommended to Van Buren, and which, largely through his efforts as
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was finally forced into law
on the 4th of July, 1840. Fillmore, in putting some of the hated
taxes of 1828 into the tariff act of 1842, was no less strenuous,
grappling facts with infinite labour, until, at last, he overcame a
current 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 experience
had been four or five years longer. His great intellectual power
peculiarly fitted him for the United States Senate. He had chosen
finance as his specialty, and in its discussion had made a mark. He
could give high and grave counsel in great emergencies. His
inexhaustible patience, his active attention and industry, his genius
in overcoming impediments of every kind, made him the peer of the
ablest senator. He was not without ambitions for himself; but they
were always subordinate in him to the love of party and friends. It
will never be known how far he influenced Van Buren's reply to Hammit.
He bitterly opposed the annexation of Texas, and his conferences with
the ex-President must have encouraged the latter's adherence to his
former position. Van Buren's defeat, however, in no wise changed
Wright's attitude toward him. It is doubtful if the latter could have
been nominated President at Baltimore had he allowed the use of his
name, but it was greatly to his credit, showing the sincerity of his
friendship for Van Buren, that he spurned the suggestion and promptly
declined a unanimous nomination for Vice President. Such action places
him in a very small group of American statesmen who have deliberately
turned their backs upon high office rather than be untrue to friends.

Silas Wright was strictly a party man. He came near subjecting every
measure 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 1823
he sincerely favoured the choice of presidential electors by the
people, but, for the party's sake, he aided in defeating the measure.
Two years later, he preferred that the State be unrepresented in the
United States Senate rather than permit the election of Ambrose
Spencer, then the nominee of a Clintonian majority, and he used all
his skill to defeat a joint session of the two houses. For the sake of
party he now accepted the gubernatorial nomination. Desire to remain
in the Senate, opposition to the annexation of Texas, dislike of
participating in factional feuds, refusal to stand in the way of
Bouck's nomination, the dictates of his better judgment, all gave way
to party necessity. He anticipated defeat for a second term should he
now be elected to a first, but it had no influence. The party needed
him, and, whatever the result to himself, he met it without complaint.
This was the man upon whom the Democrats relied to carry New York and
to elect Polk.

There were other parties in the field. The Native Americans, organised
early in 1844, watched the situation with peculiar emotions. This
party had suddenly sprung up in opposition to the ease with which
foreigners secured suffrage and office; and, although it shrewdly
avoided nominations for governor and President, it demoralised both
parties by the strange and tortuous manoeuvres that had ended in the
election of a mayor of New York in the preceding spring. It operated,
for the most part, in that city, but its sympathisers covered the
whole State. Then, there was the anti-rent party, confined to Delaware
and three or four adjoining counties, where long leases and trifling
provisions of forfeiture had exasperated tenants into acts of
violence. Like the Native Americans, these Anti-Renters avoided state
and national nominations, and traded their votes to secure the
election of legislative nominees.

But the organisation which threatened calamity was the abolition or
liberty party. It had nominated James G. Birney of Michigan for
President and Alvan Stewart for governor, and, though no one expected
the election of either, the organisation was not unlikely to hold the
balance of power in the State. Stewart was a born Abolitionist and a
lawyer of decided ability. In the section of the State bounded by
Oneida and Otsego counties, where he shone conspicuously as a leader
for a quarter of a century, his forensic achievements are still
remembered. Stanton says he had no superior in central New York. "His
quaint humour was equal to his profound learning. He was skilled in a
peculiar 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 and
intricate 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 of
Abolitionists could be recruited only from the anti-slavery Whigs.
Behind Stewart stood Gerrit Smith, William Jay, Beriah Green, and
other zealous, able, benevolent, pure-minded men--some of them
wealthy. Their shibboleth was hostility to a slave-holder, or one who
would vote for a slave-holder. This barred Henry Clay and his
electors.

At the outset the Whigs plainly had the advantage. Spring elections
had resulted auspiciously, and the popularity of Clay seemed
unfailing. He had avowed opposition to the annexation of Texas, and,
although his letter was not based upon hostility to slavery and the
slave trade, it was positive, highly patriotic, and in a measure
satisfactory to the anti-slavery Whigs. "We are at the flood," Seward
wrote Weed; "our opponents at the ebb."[337] The nomination of Wright
had greatly strengthened the Democratic ticket, but the nomination of
Polk, backed by the Texas resolution, weighted the party as with a
ball and chain. Edwin Croswell had characterised Van Buren's letter to
Hammit as "a statesmanlike production," declaring that "every American
reader, not entirely under the dominion of prejudice, will admit the
force of his conclusions."[338] This was the view generally held by the
party throughout the State; yet, within a month, every American reader
who wished to remain loyal to the Democratic party was compelled to
change his mind. In making this change, the "slippery-elm editor," as
Croswell came to be known because of the nearness of his office to the
old elm tree corner in Albany, led the way and the party followed. It
was a rough road for many who knew they were consigning to one grave
all hope of ending the slavery agitation, while they were resurrecting
from another, bitter and dangerous controversies that had been laid to
rest by the Missouri Compromise. Yet only one poor little protest, and
that intended for private circulation, was heard in opposition, the
signers, among them William Cullen Bryant, declaring their intention
to vote for Polk, but to repudiate any candidate for Congress who
agreed with Polk. Bryant's purpose was palpable and undoubted; but it
soon afterward became part of his courage not to muffle plain truth
from any spurious notions of party loyalty, and part of his glory not
to 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 of
1840. The log cabin did not reappear, and the drum and cannon were
less noisy, but ash poles, cut from huge trees and spliced one to
another, carried high the banner of the statesman from Ashland.
Campaign songs, with choruses for "Harry of the West," emulated those
of "Old Tip," and parades by day and torch-light processions by night,
increased the enthusiasm. The Whigs, deeply and personally attached to
Henry Clay, made mass-meetings as common and nearly as large as those
held four years before. Seward speaks of fifteen thousand men gathered
at midday in Utica to hear Erastus Root, and of a thousand unable to
enter the hall at night while he addressed a thousand more within.
Fillmore expressed the fear that Whigs would mistake these great
meetings for the election, and omit the necessary arrangements to get
the vote out. "I am tired of mass-meetings," wrote Seward. "But they
will 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 of
Clay, incensed at his defeat in 1840, had pronounced them the chief
conspirators. Murmurs had been muffled until after Tyler's betrayal of
the party and Seward's retirement, but when these sources of possible
favours ran dry, the voice of noisy detraction reached Albany and
Auburn. 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 the
rights of property, and Seward with abolition notions and a desire to
win the Irish Catholic vote for selfish purposes. In February, 1844,
it was not very politely hinted to Seward that he go abroad during the
campaign; and by June, Weed talked despondingly, proposing to leave
the _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 on
because of their confidence in you and me."[340] In another month Weed
had become the proprietor as well as the editor of the _Evening
Journal_.

[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 whole
army to dissension and overthrow. I agree that if, by remaining, you
save 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 some
way through. I grant, then, that, for yourself and me, it is wise and
profitable that you leave. I must be left without the possibility of
restoration, without a defender, without an organ. Nothing else will
satisfy those who think they are shaded. Then, and not until then,
shall I have passed through the not unreasonable punishment for too
much success. But the party--the country? They cannot bear your
withdrawal. I think I am not mistaken in this. Let us adhere, then.
Stand fast. It is neither wise nor reasonable that we should bear the
censure 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 availed
themselves of Seward's influence with anti-slavery Whigs and
naturalised citizens. "It is wonderful what an impulse the nomination
of Polk has given to the abolition sentiment," wrote Seward. "It has
already expelled other issues from the public mind. Our Whig central
committee, who, a year ago, voted me out of the party for being an
Abolitionist, has made abolition the war-cry in their call for a
mass-meeting."[341] Even the sleuth-hounds of No-popery were glad to
invite Seward to address the naturalised voters, whose hostility to
the Whigs, in 1844, resembled their dislike of the Federalists in
1800. "It is a sorry consolation for this ominous aspect of things,"
he wrote Weed, "that you and I are personally exempt from the
hostility 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 of
putting it. To elect him, Whigs were ready to make any sacrifice, to
endure any hardship, and to yield every prejudice. Fillmore was
ubiquitous, delivering tariff and anti-Texas speeches that filled all
mouths with praise and all hearts with principle, as Seward expressed
it. An evident desire existed on the part of many in both parties, to
avoid a discussion of the annexation of Texas, and its consequent
extension of slavery, lest too much or too little be said; but leaders
like Seward and Fillmore were too wise to believe that they could fool
the people by concealing the real issue. "Texas and slavery are at war
with the interests, the principles, the sympathies of all," boldly
declared the unmuzzled Auburn statesman. "The integrity of the Union
depends on the result. To increase the slave-holding power is to
subvert the Constitution; to give a fearful preponderance which may,
and probably will, be speedily followed by demands to which the
Democratic free-labour States cannot yield, and the denial of which
will be made the ground of secession, nullification and disunion."[343]
This was another of Seward's famous prophecies. At the time it seemed
extravagant, even to the strongest anti-slavery Whigs, but the future
verified it.

[Footnote 343: _Ibid._, p. 727.]

The Whigs, however, did not, as in 1840, have a monopoly of the
enthusiasm. The public only half apprehended, or refused to apprehend
at all, the danger in the Texas scheme; and, after the first chill of
their immersion, the Democrats rallied with confidence to the support
of their ticket. Abundant evidence of their strength had manifested
itself at each state election since 1841, and, although no trailing
cloud of glory now testified to a thrifty and skilful management, as
in 1836, the two factions, in spite of recent efforts to baffle and
defeat each other, pulled themselves together with amazing quickness.
Indeed, if we may rely upon Whig letters of the time, the Democrats
exhibited the more zeal and spirit throughout the campaign. They had
their banners, their songs, and their processions. In place of ash,
they raised hickory poles, and instead of defending Polk, they
attacked Clay. Other candidates attracted little attention. Clay was
the commanding, central figure, and over him the battle raged. There
were two reasons for this. One was the fear of a silent free-soil
vote, which the Bryant circular had alarmed in his favour. The other
was a desire to strengthen the liberty party, and to weaken the Whigs
by holding up Clay as a slave-holder. The cornerstone of that party
was hostility to the slave-holder; and if a candidate, however much he
opposed slavery, owned a single slave, it excluded him from its
suffrage. This was the weak point in Clay's armour, and the one of
most peril to the Whigs. To meet it, the latter argued, with some show
of success, that the conflict is not with one slave-holder, or with
many, but with slavery; and since the admission of Texas meant the
extension of that institution, a vote for Clay, who once advocated
emancipation in Kentucky and is now strongly opposed to Texas, is a
vote in behalf of freedom.

In September, Whig enthusiasm underwent a marked decline. Clay's July
letter to his Alabama correspondent, as historic now as it was
superfluous and provoking then, had been published, in which he
expressed a wish to see Texas added to the Union "upon just and fair
terms," and hazarded the opinion that "the subject of slavery ought
not to affect the question one way or the other."[344] This letter was
the prototype of the famous alliteration, "Rum, Romanism, and
Rebellion," in the Blaine campaign of 1884. Immediately Clay's most
active anti-slavery supporters were in revolt. "We had the
Abolitionists in a good way," wrote Washington Hunt from Lockport;
"but Mr. Clay seems determined that they shall not be allowed to vote
for him. I believe his letter will lose us more than two hundred votes
in this county."[345] The effects of the dreadful blow are as briefly
summed up by Seward: "I met _that letter_ at Geneva, and thence here,
and now everybody droops, despairs. It jeopards, perhaps loses, the
State."[346] A few weeks later, in company with several friends,
Seward, as was his custom, made an estimate of majorities, going over
the work several times and taking accurate account of the drift of
public sentiment. An addition of the columns showed the Democrats
several thousands ahead. Singularly enough, Fillmore, whose accustomed
despondency exhibited itself even in 1840, now became confident of
success. This can be accounted for, perhaps, on the theory that to a
candidate the eve of an election is "dim with the self-deceiving
twilight of sophistry." He believed in his own safety even if Clay
failed. Although the deep, burning issue of slavery had not yet roused
popular forces into dangerous excitement, Fillmore had followed the
lead of Giddings and Hale, sympathising deeply with the restless flame
that eventually guided the policy of the North with such admirable
effect. On the other hand, Wright approved his party's doctrine of
non-interference with slavery. He had uniformly voted to table
petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,
declaring that any interference with the system, in that district, or
in the territories, endangered the rights of their citizens, and
would be a violation of faith toward those who had settled and held
slaves there. He voted for the admission of Arkansas and Florida as
slave States; and his opposition to Texas was based wholly upon
reasons other than the extension of slavery. The Abolitionists
understood 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 five
thousand, and Wright by ten thousand, while Stewart polled over
fifteen thousand votes.[347] These last figures told the story. Four
years before, Birney had received less than seven thousand votes in
the whole country; now, in New York, the Abolitionists, exceeding
their own anticipations, held the balance of power.[348] Had their
votes been cast for Clay and Fillmore both would have carried New
York, and Clay would have become the Chief Executive. "Until Mr. Clay
wrote his letter to Alabama," said Thurlow Weed, dispassionately, two
years afterward, "his election as President was certain."[349]

[Footnote 347: Silas Wright, 241,090; Millard Fillmore, 231,057; Alvan
Stewart, 15,136.--_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166.]

[Footnote 348: In 1840 Gerrit Smith received 2662; in 1842 Alvan
Stewart 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 of
their hopes. For years they had been engaged labourously in rolling
uphill the stone of Sisyphus, making active friendships and seeking a
fair trial. That opportunity had come at last. It had been an affair
of life or death; the contest was protracted, intense, dramatic; the
issue for a time had hung in poignant doubt; but the dismal result let
the stone roll down again to the bottom of the hill. No wonder stout
men cried, and that thousands declared the loss of all further
interest in politics. To add to their despair and resentment, the
party of Birney and Stewart exulted over its victory not less than the
party of Polk and Silas Wright.




CHAPTER VIII

THE RISE OF JOHN YOUNG

1845-1846


Although the Democrats were again successful in electing a governor
and President, their victory had not healed the disastrous schism that
divided the party. The rank and file throughout the State had not yet
recognised the division into Radicals and Conservatives; but the
members of the new Legislature foresaw, in the rivalries of leaders,
the approach of a marked crisis, the outcome of which they awaited
with an overshadowing sense of fear.

The strife of programmes began in the selection of a speaker. Horatio
Seymour was the logical candidate. Of the Democratic members of the
last Assembly, he was the only one returned. He had earned the
preferment by able service, and a disposition obtained generally among
members to give him the right of way; but the state officials had not
forgotten and could not forget that Seymour, whose supple and
trenchant blade had opened a way through the ranks of the Radicals for
the passage of the last canal appropriation, had further sinned by
marshalling Governor Bouck's forces at the Syracuse convention on
September 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 of
some ability. Though the ultimate decision favoured Seymour, Azariah
C. Flagg, the state comptroller, resolutely exhausted every device of
strategy and tactics to avert it. He summoned the canal board, who, in
turn, summoned to Albany their up-state employees, mindful of the
latter's influence with the unsophisticated legislators already
haunted by the fear of party disruption. To limit the issue, Governor
Wright was quoted as favourable to Crain, and, although it
subsequently became known that he had expressed no opinion save one of
entire 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 had
better poise, or firmer patience, or possessed more adroit methods.
The personal attractions of the man, his dignity of manner, his
finished culture, and his ability to speak often in debate with
acceptance, had before attracted men to him; now he was to reveal the
new and greater power of leadership. Seymour's real strength as a
factor in state affairs seems to date from this contest. It is
doubtful if he would have undertaken it had he suspected the
fierceness of the opposition. He was not ambitious to be speaker. So
far as it affected him personally, he had every motive to induce him
to remain on the floor, where his eloquence and debating power had won
him such a place. But, once having announced his candidacy he pushed
on with energy, sometimes masking his movements, sometimes mining and
countermining; yet always conscious of the closeness of the race and
of 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 in
council, the future hope of the Democratic party. It is likely, too,
that Croswell already foresaw that Van Buren's opposition to the
annexation of Texas, and the growing Free-soil sentiment, must
inevitably 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 ready
for emergencies. Under his management, therefore, and to offset the
influence of the canal board's employees, Conservative postmasters and
Conservative sheriffs came to Albany, challenging their Radical canal
opponents to a measurement of strength. When, finally, the caucus
acted, the result showed how closely divided were the factions. Of
seventy Democrats in the Assembly, sixty-five were present, and of
these thirty-five voted for Seymour.

The irritation and excitement of this contest were in a measure
allayed by an agreement to renominate Azariah C. Flagg for comptroller
of state. His ability and his service warranted it. He had performed
the multiplying duties of the office with fidelity; and, although
chief of the active Radicals, the recollection of his stalwart aid in
the great financial panic of 1837, and in the preparation and advocacy
of the act of 1842, gave him a support that no other candidate could
command. It was also in the minds of two or three members holding the
balance of power between the factions, to add to the harmony by
securing an even division of the other four state offices. In carrying
out their project, however, the gifted Croswell took good care that
Samuel Young, whose zeal and ability especially endeared him to the
Radicals, should be beaten for secretary of state by one vote, and
that Thomas Farrington, another favourite Radical, should fail of
re-election as treasurer of state. Since Young and Farrington were the
only state officers, besides Flagg, seeking re-election, it looked as
if their part in the speakership struggle had marked them for defeat,
a suspicion strengthened by the fact that two Radicals, who took no
part in that contest, were elected attorney-general and
surveyor-general.

Reproachful ironies and bitter animosity, boding ill for future
harmony, now followed the factions into a furious and protracted
caucus for the selection of United States senators in place of Silas
Wright and Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, the latter having resigned to
accept the governorship of Wisconsin.[350] The Conservatives supported
Daniel S. Dickinson and Henry A. Foster; the Radicals John A. Dix and
Michael Hoffman. There was more, however, at stake than the selection
of two senators; for the President would probably choose a member of
his Cabinet from the stronger faction; and to have time to recruit
their strength, the programme of the Radicals included an adjournment
of the caucus after nominating candidates for the unexpired terms of
Wright and Tallmadge. This would possibly give them control of the
full six years' term to begin on the 4th of the following March. A
majority of the caucus, however, now completely under the influence of
Edwin Croswell and Horatio Seymour, concluded to do one thing at a
time, and on the first ballot Dix was nominated for Wright's place,
giving him a term of four years. The second ballot named Dickinson for
the remaining month of Tallmadge's term. Then came the climax--the
motion to adjourn. Instantly the air was thick with suggestions.
Coaxing and bullying held the boards. All sorts of proposals came and
vanished with the breath that floated them; and, though the hour
approached midnight, a Conservative majority insisted upon finishing
the business. The election of Dix for a term of four years, they said,
had given the Radicals fair representation. Still, the latter
clamoured for an adjournment. But the Conservatives, inexorable,
demanded a third ballot, and it gave Dickinson fifty-four out of
ninety-three members present. When the usual motion to make the
nomination unanimous was bitterly opposed, Horatio Seymour took the
floor, and with the moving charm and power of his voice, with temper
unbroken, he made a fervid appeal for harmony. But bitterness ruled
the midnight hour; unanimity still lacked thirty-nine votes. As the
Radicals passed out into the frosty air, breaking the stillness with
their expletives, the voice of the tempter suggested a union with the
Whigs for the election of Samuel Young. There was abundant precedent
to support the plan. Bailey had bolted Woodworth's nomination; German
had defeated Thompson; and, in 1820, Rufus King had triumphed over
Samuel 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 who
looked for a future, had no words of approval for such methods; and
before the Whigs heard of the scheme, Samuel Young had stamped it to
death.

[Footnote 350: "On that occasion the feud between the two sections of
the party was disclosed in all its intensity. The conflict, which was
sharp and ended in the election of Daniel S. Dickinson for the
six-years term, in spite of the strong opposition of the Radical
members of the caucus, was a triumph for the Conservatives, and a
defeat for the friends of Governor Wright. The closing years of the
great statesman's life were overcast by shadows; adverse influences
were evidently in the ascendant, not only at Washington, but close
about 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 invited
William L. Marcy, a Conservative of great prestige, to become
secretary of war. The Radicals did not know, and perhaps could not
know the exact condition of things at the national capital; certainly
they did not know how many elements of that condition told against
them. President Polk, apparently with a desire of treating his New
York friends fairly, asked Van Buren to recommend a New Yorker for his
Cabinet; and, with the approval of Silas Wright, the former President
urged Benjamin F. Butler for secretary of state, or Azariah C. Flagg
for secretary of the treasury. Either of these men would have filled
the place designated with great ability. Polk was largely indebted to
Van Buren and his friends; Butler had given him the vote of New York,
and Wright, by consenting to stand for governor at the urgent
solicitation of Van Buren, had carried the State and thus made
Democratic success possible. But Polk, more interested in future
success than in the payment of past indebtedness, had an eye out for
1848. He wanted a man devoted solely to his interests and to the
annexation of Texas; and, although Butler was a personal friend and an
ornament to the American bar, he hesitated, despite the insistence of
Van Buren and Wright, to make a secretary of state out of the most
devoted of Van Buren's adherents, who, like the sage of Lindenwald
himself, bitterly opposed annexation.

In this emergency, the tactics of Edwin Croswell came to Polk's
relief. The former knew that Silas Wright could not, if he would,
accept a place in the Cabinet, since he had repeatedly declared during
the campaign that, if elected, he would not abandon the governorship
to enter the Cabinet, as Van Buren did in 1829. Croswell knew, also,
that Butler, having left the Cabinet of two Presidents to re-enter his
profession, would not give it up for a secondary place among Polk's
advisers. At the editor's suggestion, therefore, the President
tendered Silas Wright the head of the treasury, and, upon his
declination, an offer of the secretaryship of war came to Butler. The
latter said he would have taken, although with reluctance, either the
state or treasury department; but the war portfolio carried him too
far from the line of his profession. Thus the veteran editor's scheme,
having worked itself out as anticipated, left the President at
liberty, without further consultation with Van Buren, to give William
L. Marcy[351] what Butler had refused. To the Radicals the result was
as startling as it was unwelcome. It left the Conservatives in
authority. Through Marcy they would command the federal patronage, and
through their majority in the Legislature they could block the wheels
of their opponents. It was at this time that the Conservatives,
"hankering," it was said, after the offices to be given by an
Administration committed to the annexation of Texas, were first called
"Hunkers."

[Footnote 351: "On the great question that loomed threateningly on the
horizon, Wright and Marcy took opposite sides. Wright moved calmly
along with the advancing liberal sentiment of the period, and died a
firm advocate of the policy of the Wilmot Proviso. On this test
measure Marcy took no step forward."--H.B. Stanton, _Random
Recollections_, p. 40.]

John Young, a Whig member of the Assembly, no sooner scented the
increasingly bitter feeling between Hunker and Radical than he
prepared to take advantage of it. Young was a great surprise to the
older leaders. He had accomplished nothing in the past to entitle him
to distinction. In youth he accompanied his father, a Vermont
innkeeper, to Livingston County, where he received a common school
education and studied law, being admitted to the bar in 1829, at the
age of twenty-seven. Two years later he served a single term in the
Assembly, and for ten years thereafter he had confined his attention
almost exclusively to his profession, becoming a strong jury lawyer.
In the meantime, he changed his politics from a firm supporter of
Andrew Jackson to a local anti-masonic leader, and finally to a
follower of Henry Clay. Then the Whigs sent him to Congress, and, in
the fall of 1843, elected him to the celebrated Assembly through which
Horatio Seymour forced the canal appropriation. But John Young seems
to have made little more of a reputation in this historic struggle
than he did as a colleague of Millard Fillmore in the Congress that
passed the tariff act of 1842. He did not remain silent, but neither
his words nor his acts conveyed any idea of the gifts which he was
destined to disclose in the various movements of a drama that was now,
day by day, through much confusion and bewilderment, approaching a
climax. From a politician of local reputation, he leaped to the
distinction of a state leader. If unnoticed before, he was now the
observed of all observers. This transition, which came almost in a
day, surprised the Democrats no less than it excited the Whigs; for
Young lifted a minority into a majority, and from a hopeless defeat
was destined to lead his party to glorious victory. "With talents of a
high order," says Hammond, "with industry, with patient perseverance,
and with a profound knowledge of men, he was one of the ablest party
leaders and most skilful managers in a popular body that ever entered
the Assembly chamber."[352] Hammond, writing while Young was governor,
did not express the view of Thurlow Weed, who was unwilling to accept
tact and cunning for great intellectual power. But there is no doubt
that Young suddenly showed uncommon parliamentary ability, not only as
a debater, owing to his good voice and earnest, persuasive manner, but
as a skilful strategist, who strengthened coolness, courtesy, and
caution with a readiness to take advantage of the supreme moment to
carry things his way. Within a month, he became an acknowledged master
of parliamentary law, easily bringing order out of confusion by a few
simple, clear, compact sentences. If his learning did not rank him
among the Sewards and the Seymours, he had no occasion to fear an
antagonist 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 constitutional
convention. The preceding Legislature, hoping to avoid a convention,
had proposed several amendments which the people approved in the
election of 1844; but the failure of the present Legislature to ratify
them by a two-thirds majority, made a convention inevitable, and the
question now turned upon the manner of its calling and the approval of
its work. The Hunkers, with the support of the Governor, desired first
to submit the matter to the people; and, if carried by a majority
vote, taking as a test the number of votes polled at the last
election, the amendments were to be acted upon separately. This was
the plan of Governor Clinton in 1821. On the other hand, the Whigs,
the Anti-Renters, and the Native Americans insisted that the
Legislature call a convention, and that its work be submitted, as a
whole, to the people, as in 1821. This the Hunkers resisted to the
bitter end. An obstacle suddenly appeared, also, in the conduct of
William C. Grain, who thought an early and unlimited convention
necessary. Michael Hoffman held the same view, believing it the only
method of getting the act of 1842 incorporated into the organic law of
the State. Upon the latter's advice, therefore, Crain introduced a
bill in the Assembly similar to the convention act of 1821. It was
charged, at the time, that Crain's action was due to resentment
because of his defeat for speaker, and that the Governor, in filling
the vacancy occasioned by the transfer of Samuel Nelson to the Supreme
Court of the United States, had added to his indignation by
overlooking the claims of Michael Hoffman. It is not improbable that
Crain, irritated by his defeat, did resent the action of the Governor,
although it was well known that Hoffman had not sought a place on the
Supreme bench. But, in preferring an unlimited constitutional
convention, Crain and Hoffman expressed the belief of the most
eminent lawyers of the Commonwealth, that the time had come for
radical changes in the Constitution, and that these could not be
obtained unless the work of a convention was submitted in its entirety
to the people and approved by a majority vote.

Crain's bill was quickly pigeon-holed by the select committee to which
it was referred, and John Young's work began when he determined to
have it reported. There had been little difficulty in marshalling a
third of the Assembly to defeat the constitutional amendments proposed
by the preceding Legislature, since Whigs, Anti-Renters, and Native
Americans numbered fifty-four of the one hundred and twenty-eight
members; but, to overcome a majority of seventeen, required Young's
patient attendance, day after day, watchful for an opportunity to make
a motion whenever the Hunkers, ignorant of his design, were reduced by
temporary absences to an equality with the minority. Finally, the
sought-for moment came, and, with Crain's help, Young carried a motion
instructing the committee to report the Crain bill without amendment,
and making it the special order for each day until disposed of. It was
a staggering blow. The air was thick with suggestions, contrivances,
expedients, and embryonic proposals. The Governor, finding Crain
inexorable, sent for Michael Hoffman; but the ablest Radical in the
State refused to intervene, knowing that if the programme proposed by
Wright was sustained, the Whigs would withdraw their support and leave
the Hunkers in control.

When the debate opened, interest centred in the course taken by the
Radicals, who accepted the principle of the bill, but who demurred
upon details and dreaded to divide their party. To this controlling
group, therefore, were arguments addressed and appeals made. Hammond
pronounced it "one of the best, if not the best, specimens of
parliamentary discussion ever exhibited in the capital of the
State."[353] Other writers have recorded similar opinions. It was
certainly a memorable debate, but it was made so by the serious
political situation, rather than by the importance of the subject.
Horatio Seymour led his party, and, though other Hunkers participated
with credit, upon the Speaker fell the brunt of the fight. He
dispensed with declamation, he avoided bitter words, he refused to
crack the party whip; but with a deep, onflowing volume of argument
and exhortation, his animated expressions, modulated and well
balanced, 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, and
moderation with which subjects should be handled, or "the great
endearment of prudent and temperate speech" as Jeremy Taylor calls it;
and, although he could face the fiercest opposition with the keenest
blade, his utterances rarely left a sting or subjected him to
criticism. This gift was one secret of his great popularity, and daily
rumours, predicted harmony before a vote could be reached. As the
stormy scenes which marked the progress of the bill continued,
however, the less gifted Hunkers did not hesitate to declare the party
dissolved 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 himself
acute, frank, patient, closely attentive, and possessed of remarkable
powers of speech. Every word surprised his followers; every stroke
strengthened his position. He did not speak often, but he always
answered Seymour, presenting a fine and sustained example of debate,
keeping within strict rules of combat, and preserving a rational and
argumentative tone, yet emphasising the differences between Hunker and
Radical. Young could not be called brilliant, nor did he have the
capacity or finish of Seymour as an orator; but he formed his own
opinions, usually with great sagacity, and acted with vigour and skill
amid the exasperation produced by the Radical secession. Seward wrote
that "he has much practical good sense, and much caution." This was
evidenced by the fact that, although only four Radicals voted to
report Crain's bill, others gradually went over, until finally, on
its passage, only Hunkers voted in the negative. It was a great
triumph for Young. He had beaten a group of clever managers: he had
weakened the Democratic party by widening the breach between its
factions; and he had turned the bill recommending a convention into a
Whig measure.

The bad news discouraged the senators who dreamed of an abiding union
between the two factions; and, although one or two Radicals in the
upper chamber favoured the submission of the amendments separately to
the people, the friends of the measure obtained two majority against
all attempts to modify it, and four majority on its passage. The
Governor's approval completed Young's triumph. He had not only
retained his place as an able minority leader against the relentless,
tireless assaults of a Seymour, a Croswell, and a Wright; but, in the
presence of such odds, he had gained the distinction of turning a
minority into a reliable majority in both houses, placing him at once
upon a higher pedestal than is often reached by men of far greater
genius 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 unfinished
portions of the Genesee Valley and Black River canals as the
commissioners approved, it was clearly in violation of the spirit of
the act of 1842 upon which Hunker and Radical had agreed to bury their
differences, and the latter resented its introduction as an
inexcusable affront; but John Young now led his Whig followers to the
camp of the Hunkers, and, in a few days, the measure lay upon the
Governor'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. They
resented his acceptance of a Hunker's hospitality, asserting that he
should have made his home at a public house where Hunker and Radical
alike could freely counsel with him; they complained of his
resignation as United States senator, insisting that he ought to have
held the office until his inauguration as governor and thus prevented
Bouck appointing a Hunker as his successor; they denounced his
indifference in the speakership contest; and they murmured at his
opposition to a constitutional convention. There was cause for some of
these lamentations. It was plain that the Governor was neither a
leader nor a conciliator. A little tact would have held the Radicals
in line against a constitutional convention and kept inviolate the act
of 1842, but he either did not possess or disclaimed the arts and
diplomacies of a political manager. He could grapple with principles
in the United States Senate and follow them to their logical end, but
he could not see into the realities of things as clearly as Seymour,
or estimate, with the same accuracy, the relative strength of
conflicting tendencies in the political world. Writers of that day
express amazement at the course of Silas Wright in vetoing the canal
appropriation, some of them regarding him as a sort of political
puzzle, others attributing his action to the advice of false friends;
but his adherence to principle more easily explains it. Seymour knew
that the "up-state" voters, who would probably hold the balance of
power in the next election, wanted the canal finished and would resent
its defeat. Wright, on the other hand, believed in a suspension of
public works until the debt of the State was brought within the safe
control of its revenues, and in the things he stood for, he was as
unyielding as flint.

When the Legislature adjourned Hunkers and Radicals were too wide
apart even to unite in the usual address to constituents; and in the
fall campaign of 1845, the party fell back upon the old issues of the
year before. To the astonishment of the Hunkers, however, the
legislative session opened in January, 1846, with two Radicals to one
Conservative. It looked to the uninitiated as if the policy of canal
improvement had fallen into disfavour; but Croswell, and other Hunkers
in the inner political circle, understood that a change, long foreseen
by them, was rapidly approaching. The people of New York felt profound
interest in the conflict between slavery and freedom, and the
fearless stand of Preston King of St. Lawrence in supporting the
Wilmot Proviso, excluding "slavery and involuntary servitude" from the
territory obtained from Mexico, had added fuel to the flame. King was
a Radical from principle and from prejudice. For four successive years
he had been in the Assembly, hostile to canals and opposed to all
improvements. In his bitterness he denounced the Whig party as the old
Federalist party under another name. He was now, at the age of forty,
serving his second term in Congress. But, obstinate and uncompromising
as was his Democracy, the aggressive spirit and encroaching designs of
slavery had so deeply disturbed him that he refused to go with his
party in its avowed purpose of extending slavery into free or newly
acquired territory.

To the Hunkers, this new departure seemed to offer an opportunity of
weakening the Radicals by forcing them into opposition to the Polk
administration; and a resolution, approving the course of the New York
congressmen who had supported the annexation of Texas, appeared in the
Senate soon after its organisation. Very naturally, politicians were
afraid of it; and the debate, which quickly degenerated into bitter
personalities, indicated that the Free-soil sentiment, soon to inspire
the new Republican party, had not only taken root among the Radicals,
but that rivalries between the two factions rested on differences of
principle far deeper than canal improvement. "If you study the papers
at all," wrote William H. Seward, "you will see that the Barnburners
of this State have carried the war into Africa, and the extraordinary
spectacle is exhibited of Democrats making up an issue of slavery at
Washington. The consequences of this movement cannot be fully
apprehended. It brings on the great question sooner and more directly
than we have even hoped. All questions of revenue, currency, and
economy sink before it. The hour for the discussion of emancipation is
nearer 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 convention
assembled on the first day of June, and terminated its labours on the
ninth 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 included
many men who had acquired reputations for great ability at the bar and
in public affairs during the two decades immediately preceding it.
Among the more prominent were Michael Hoffman of Herkimer, famous for
his influence in the cause of canal economy; James Tallmadge of
Dutchess, whose inspiring eloquence had captivated conventions and
legislatures for thirty years; William C. Bouck of Schoharie, the
unconquered Hunker who had faced defeat as gracefully as he had
accepted gubernatorial honours; Samuel Nelson, recently appointed to
the United States Supreme Court after an experience of twenty-two
years upon the circuit and supreme bench of the State; Charles S.
Kirkland and Ezekiel Bacon of Oneida, the powerful leaders of a bar
famous in that day for its famous lawyers; Churchill C. Cambreling of
New 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 elected
speaker of the Assembly and soon to become lieutenant-governor.

Of the younger delegates, three were just at the threshold of their
brilliant and distinguished careers. John K. Porter of Saratoga--then
only twenty-seven years old, afterward to become a member of the Court
of Appeals and the associate of William M. Evarts as counsel for Henry
Ward Beecher in the Tilton suit--discussed the judiciary in speeches
singularly adapted to reach the understanding of the delegates; Samuel
J. Tilden, who had served respectably but without distinction in the
Assembly of 1845 and 1846, evidenced his inflexible courage and high
intellectual qualities; and Charles O'Conor, already known to the
public, gave signal proof of the prodigious extent of those powers and
acquirements which finally entitled him to rank with the greatest
lawyers of any nation or any time.

Of the more distinguished members of the convention of 1821, James
Tallmadge alone sat in the convention of 1846. Daniel D. Tompkins,
Rufus King, William W. Van Ness, Jonas Platt, and Abraham Van Vechten
were dead; James Kent, now in his eighty-third year, was delivering
law lectures in New York City; Ambrose Spencer, having served as
chairman of the Whig national convention at Baltimore, in 1844, had
returned, at the age of eighty-one, to the quiet of his agricultural
pursuits in the vicinity of Lyons; Martin Van Buren, still rebellious
against his party, was watching from his retreat at Lindenwald the
strife over the Wilmot Proviso, embodying the opposition to the
extension of slavery into new territories; Erastus Root, at the age of
seventy-four, was dying in New York City; and Samuel Young, famous by
his knightly service in the cause of the Radicals, had just finished
in the Assembly, with the acerbity of temper that characterised his
greatest oratorical efforts during nearly half a century of public
life, an eloquent indictment of the Hunkers, whom he charged with
being the friends of monopoly, the advocates of profuse and
unnecessary expenditures of the public funds, and the cause of much
corrupt legislation.

But of all men in the State the absence of William H. Seward was the
most noticeable. For four years, as governor, he had stood for
internal improvements, for the reorganisation of the judiciary along
lines of progress, for diminishing official patronage, for modifying,
and ultimately doing away with, feudal tenures, and for free schools
and universal suffrage. His experience and ability would have been
most helpful in the formation of the new constitution; but he would
not become a delegate except from Auburn, and a majority of the people
of his own assembly district did not want him. "The world are all mad
with me here," he wrote Weed, "because I defended Wyatt too
faithfully. God help them to a better morality. The prejudices against
me grows by reason of the Van Nest murder!"[355] Political friends
offered him a nomination and election from Chautauqua, but he
declined, urging as a further reason that the Whigs would be in the
minority, 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 had
relations who promised him support, and with their failure to elect
him began that yearning for office which was destined to doom him to
many bitter disappointments. Until now, he had kept his desires to
himself. He wanted to be postmaster of New York in 1841; and, when
Seward failed to anticipate his ambition, he recalled the scriptural
injunction, "Ask, and it shall be given you." So, he conferred with
Weed about the constitutional convention. Washington County was
suggested, then Delaware, and later Albany; but, the nominees having
been selected, the project was abandoned, and Horace Greeley waited
until the convention of 1867. Weed expressed the belief that if
Greeley's wishes had been known two weeks earlier, his ambition might
have been gratified, although on only two occasions had non-resident
delegates ever been selected.

Popular sovereignty attained its highest phase under the Constitution
of 1846; and the convention must always be notable as the great
dividing line between a government by the people, and a government
delegated by the people to certain officials--executive, legislative,
and judicial--who were invested with general and more or less
permanent powers. Under the Constitution of 1821, the power of
appointment was placed in the governor, the Senate, and the Assembly.
State officers were elected by the Legislature, judges nominated by
the governor and confirmed by the Senate, district attorneys appointed
by county courts, justices of the peace chosen by boards of
supervisors, and mayors of cities selected by the common council.
Later amendments made justices of the peace and mayors of cities
elective; but, with these exceptions, from 1821 to 1846 the
Constitution underwent no organic changes. Under the Constitution of
1846, however, all officers became elective; and, to bring them still
nearer the people, an elective judiciary was decentralised, terms of
senators were reduced from four to two years, and the selection of
legislators was confined to single districts. It was also provided
that amendments to the Constitution might be submitted to the people
at any time upon the approval of a bare legislative majority. Even the
office of governor, which had been jealously reserved to native
citizens, was thrown open to all comers, whether born in the United
States or elsewhere.

As if to accentuate the great change which public sentiment had
undergone in the preceding twenty years these provisions were
generally concurred in by large majorities and without political bias.
The proposition that a governor need not be either a freeholder or a
native citizen was sustained by a vote of sixty-one to forty-nine; the
proposal to overcome the governor's veto by a majority instead of a
two-thirds vote was carried by sixty-one to thirty-six; the term of
senators was reduced from four to two years by a vote of eighty to
twenty-three; and their selection confined to single districts by a
majority of seventy-nine to thirty-one. An equally large majority
favoured the provision that no member of the Legislature should
receive from the governor or Legislature any civil appointment within
the State, or to the United States Senate. Charles O'Conor antagonised
the inhibition of an election to the United States Senate with much
learning and eloquence. He thought the power of the State to qualify
or restrict the choice of senators was inconsistent with the Federal
Constitution; but the great majority of the convention held otherwise.
Indeed, so popular did this section become that, in 1874, members of
the Legislature were prohibited from taking office under a city
government.

The period when property measured a man's capacity and influence also
seems to have passed away with the adoption of the Constitution of
1846. For the first time in the State's history, the great landholders
lost control, and provisions as to the land law became clear and
wholesome. Feudal tenures were abolished, lands declared allodial,
fines and quarter sales made void, and leases of agricultural lands
for longer than twelve years pronounced illegal. Although vested
rights could not be affected, the policy of the new constitutional
conditions, aided by the accessibility of better and cheaper lands
along lines of improved transportation, compelled landlords in the
older parts of the State to seek compromises and to offer greater
inducements. The only persons required to own property in order to
enjoy suffrage and the right to hold office were negroes, who
continued to rest under the ban until the adoption of the fifteenth
amendment to the Federal Constitution. The people of New York felt
profound interest in the great conflict between slavery and freedom,
but, for more than a quarter of a century after the Wilmot Proviso
became the shibboleth of the Barnburners, a majority of voters denied
the coloured man equality of suffrage. Among the thirty-two delegates
in the convention of 1846 who refused to allow the people to pass upon
the question of equality of suffrage, appear the names of Charles
O'Conor and Samuel J. Tilden.

The great purpose of the convention was the reform of the laws
relating to debt and to the creation of a new judicial establishment.
Michael Hoffman headed the committee charged with the solution of
financial problems. He saw the importance of devoting the resources of
the State to the reduction of its debt. It was important to the
character of the people, he thought, that they should be restless and
impatient under the obligation of debt; and the strong ground taken by
him against an enlargement of the Erie and its lateral canals had
resulted in the passage of the famous act of 1842, the substance of
which he now desired incorporated into the Constitution. He would
neither tolerate compromises with debtors of the State, nor allow its
credit to be loaned. He favoured sinking funds, he advocated direct
taxation, he insisted upon the strictest observance of appropriation
laws, and he opposed the sale of the canals. In his speeches he
probably exaggerated the canal debt, just as he minimised the canal
income and brushed aside salt and auction duties as of little
importance; yet everybody recognised him as the schoolmaster of the
convention on financial subjects. His blackboard shone in the
sunlight. He was courteous, but without much deference. There was
neither yielding nor timidity. If his flint struck a spark by
collision with another, it made little difference to him. Yet years
afterward, Thurlow Weed, who backed Seward in his appeal for more
extensive internal improvements, admitted that to Hoffman's
enlightened statesmanship, New York was indebted for the financial
article in the Constitution of 1846, which had preserved the public
credit 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 to
the time of its extinguishment, at thirty-eight million dollars. Out
of the canal revenues he wanted $1,500,000 paid yearly upon the canal
debt; $672,000 set apart for the use of the State; and the balance
applied to the improvement of the Erie canal, whenever the surplus
amounted to $2,500,000. Further to conserve the interests of the
Commonwealth, he insisted that its credit should not be loaned; that
its borrowed money should not exceed one million dollars, except to
repel invasion or suppress insurrection; and that no debt should be
created without laying a direct annual tax sufficient to pay
principal and interest in eighteen years. The result showed that, in
spite of vigorous opposition, he got all he demanded. Some of the
amounts were reduced; others slightly diverted; and the remaining
surplus of the canal revenues, instead of accumulating until it
aggregated $2,500,000, was applied each year to the enlargement of the
Erie canal and the completion of the Genesee Valley and Black River
canals; but his plan was practically adopted and time has amply
justified the wisdom of his limitations. In concluding his last
speech, the distinguished Radical declared "that this legislation
would not only preserve the credit of New York by keeping its debts
paid, but it would cause every State in the Union, as soon as such
States were able to do so, to sponge out its debts by payment and thus
remove from representative government the reproaches cast upon us on
the 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 his
persistence, dexterity, and ability, did not lead the most important
contest. In 1846, the popular desire for radical changes in the
judiciary was not less peremptory than the expression in 1821. Up to
this time, the courts of the State, in part, antedated the War of
Independence. Now, in place of the ancient appointive system, the
people demanded an elective judiciary which should be responsible to
them and bring the courts to them. To make these changes, the
president of the convention appointed a committee of thirteen, headed
by Charles H. Ruggles of Dutchess, which embraced the lawyers of most
eminence among the delegates. After the chairman came Charles O'Conor
of New York, Charles P. Kirkland of Utica, Ambrose L. Jordan of
Columbia, 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, possibly
for the reason that condiments make a dish more savoury. Ruggles was a
simple-hearted and wise man. He had been on the Supreme bench for
fifteen years, becoming one of the distinguished jurists of the State.
In the fierce conflicts between Clintonians and Bucktails he acted
with the former, and then, in 1828, followed DeWitt Clinton to the
support of Andrew Jackson. But Ruggles never offended anybody. His
wise and moderate counsel had drawn the fire from many a wild and
dangerous scheme, but it left no scars. Prudence and modesty had
characterised his life, and his selection as chairman of the judiciary
committee disarmed envy and jealousy. He was understood to favour an
elective judiciary and moderation in all doubtful reforms. Arphaxed
Loomis possessed unusual abilities as a public speaker, and, during a
brief career in the Assembly, had become known as an advocate of legal
reform. He was afterward, in April, 1847, appointed a commissioner on
practice and pleadings for the purpose of providing a uniform course
of proceedings in all cases; and, to him, perhaps, more than to any
one else, is due the credit of establishing one form of action for the
protection of private rights and the redress of private wrongs. Worden
had been a merchant, who, losing his entire possessions by failure,
began the study of law at the age of thirty-four and quickly took a
prominent 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 their
successful opponent, and had gained the distinction of winning the
first breach of promise suit in which a woman figured as defendant.
Patterson had rare and exquisite gifts which made him many friends and
kept him for half a century prominent in political affairs. Though of
undoubted intellectual power, clear-sighted, and positive, he rarely
answered other men's arguments, and never with warmth or heat. But he
had, however, read and mastered the law, and his voice was helpful in
conferring upon the people a system which broke the yoke of the former
colonial subordination.

The majority report of the judiciary committee provided for a new
court of last resort, to be called the Court of Appeals, which was to
consist of eight members, four of whom were to be elected from the
State at large for a term of eight years, and four to be chosen from
the justices of the Supreme Court. A new Supreme Court of thirty-two
members, having general and original jurisdiction in law and equity,
was established in place of the old Supreme Court and Court of
Chancery, the State being divided into eight districts, in each of
which four judges were to be elected. In addition to these great
courts, inferior local tribunals of civil and criminal jurisdiction
were provided for cities. The report thus favoured three radical
changes. Judges became elective, courts of law and equity were united,
and county courts were abolished. The inclusion of senators in the old
Court of Errors--which existed from the foundation of the State--had
made the elective system somewhat familiar to the people, to whom it
had proved more satisfactory than the method of appointment; but the
union of courts of law and equity was an untried experiment in New
York. It had the sanction of other States, and, in part, of the
judicial system of the United States, where procedure at law and in
equity had become assimilated, if not entirely blended, thus
abolishing the inconvenience of so many tribunals and affording
greater facility for the trial of equity causes involving questions of
fact.

But delegates were slow to profit by the experience of other
Commonwealths. From the moment the report was submitted attacks upon
it became bitter and continuous. Charles O'Conor opposed the elective
system, the union of the two courts, and the abolition of the county
court. Charles P. Kirkland proposed that only three members of the
Court of Appeals be elected, the others to be appointed by the
governor, with the consent of the Senate. Alvah Worden wanted two
Courts of Appeals, one of law and one of chancery, neither of which
should be elective. Simmons desired a different organisation of the
Supreme Court, and Bascom objected to the insufficient number of
sessions of the court provided for the whole State. Others of the
minority submitted reports and opinions, until the subject seemed
hopelessly befogged and the work of the majority a failure. O'Conor
was especially impatient and restless in his opposition. In skill and
ability 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 his
colleagues how, in addition to the faithful work performed in
committee, he could get time for the research that was needed to equip
him for the great speeches with which he adorned the debates. He never
held office, save, during a portion of President Pierce's
administration, that of United States attorney for the southern
district of New York; but his rapid, almost instinctive judgment, his
tact, his ability to crush sophistries with a single sentence, and his
vigorous rhetoric must have greatly distinguished his administration
of any office which he might have occupied. Yet the conservatism which
finally separated him from the cordial supporters of the government
during the Civil War usually kept him in the minority. His spirit was
not the spirit that governed; and, in spite of his brilliant and
determined opposition, the convention of 1846 accepted the elective
system, approved the union of equity and law courts, prohibited the
election of a member of the Legislature to the United States Senate,
and submitted to the decision of the people the right of coloured men
to equal suffrage. Only in the retention of the county court were
O'Conor's views sustained; and this came largely through the influence
of Arphaxed Loomis, the material part of whose amendment was
ultimately adopted. When, finally, the Constitution in its entirety
was submitted to the convention for its approval, O'Conor was one of
six to vote against it.

The Constitution of 1846 was the people's Constitution. It reserved to
them 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 the
people appreciated the greater power reserved to them was shown on the
third of November, by a vote of 221,528 to 92,436. With few
modifications, the Constitution of 1846 still remains in force,--ample
proof that wisdom, unalloyed with partisan politics or blind
conservatism, 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 extraordinary
interest. Before the Legislature adjourned, on May 13, the Hunkers
refused to attend a party caucus for the preparation of the usual
address. Subsequently, however, they issued one of their own, charging
the Radicals with hostility to the Polk administration and with
selfishness, born of a desire to control every office within the gift
of the canal board. The address did not, in terms, name Silas Wright,
but the Governor was not blind to its attacks. "They are not very
different from what I expected when I consented to take this office,"
he wrote a friend in Canton. "I do not yet think it positively certain
that we shall lose the convention, but that its action and the
election are to produce a perfect separation of a portion of our party
from the main body I cannot any longer entertain a single doubt. You
must not permit appearances to deceive you. Although I am not
denounced here by name with others, the disposition to do that, if
policy would permit, is not even disguised, and every man known to be
strongly my friend and firmly in my confidence is more bitterly
denounced 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 real
reason for such bitterness. He was a natural gentleman, kindly and
true. He might sometimes err in judgment; but he was essentially a
statesman of large and comprehensive vision, incapable of any meanness
or conscious wrong-doing. The masses of the party regarded him as the
representative of the opportunity which a great State, in a republic,
holds out to the children of its humblest and poorest citizens. He was
as free from guile as a little child. To him principle and party stood
before all other things; and he could not be untrue to one any more
than to the other. But the leaders of the Hunker wing did not take
kindly to him. They could not forget that the Radical state officers,
with whom he coincided in principle, in conjuring with his name in
1844 had defeated the renomination of Governor Bouck; and, though they
might admit that his nomination practically elected Polk, by
extracting the party from the mire of Texas annexation, they
preferred, deep in their hearts, a Whig governor to his continuance in
office, since his influence with the people for high ends was not in
accord with their purposes. For more than a decade these men, as
Samuel Young charged in his closing speech in the Assembly of that
year, had been after the flesh-pots. They favoured the banking
monopoly, preferring special charters that could be sold to free
franchises under a general law; they influenced the creation of state
stocks in which they profited; they owned lands which would appreciate
by the construction of canals and railroads. To all these selfish
interests, the Governor's restrictive policy was opposed; and while
they did not dare denounce him by name, as the Governor suggested in
his letter, their tactics increased the hostility that was eventually
to destroy him.

It must be confessed, however, that the representation of Hunkers at
the Democratic state convention, held at Syracuse on October 1, did
not indicate much popular strength. The Radicals outnumbered them two
to one. On the first ballot Silas Wright received one hundred and
twelve votes out of one hundred and twenty-five, and, upon motion of
Horatio Seymour, the nomination became unanimous. For lieutenant-governor,
Addison Gardiner was renominated by acclamation. The convention then
closed its labours with the adoption of a platform approving the
re-enactment of the independent treasury law, the passage of the
Walker tariff act, and the work of the constitutional convention,
with an expression of hope that the Mexican War, which had commenced
on the 12th of the preceding May, might be speedily and honourably
terminated. The address concluded with a just eulogy of Silas Wright.
At the moment, the contest seemed at an end; but the sequel showed it
was only a surface settlement.

If Democrats were involved in a quarrel, the Whigs were scarcely a
happy family. It is not easy to pierce the fog which shrouds the
division of the party; but it is clear that when Seward became
governor and Weed dictator, trouble began in respect to men and to
measures. Though less marked, possibly, than the differences between
Democratic factions, the discord seemed to increase with the
hopelessness of Whig ascendancy. Undoubtedly it began with Seward's
recommendation of separate schools for the children of foreigners, and
in his pronounced anti-slavery views; but it had also festered and
expanded from disappointments, and from Weed's opposition to Henry
Clay in 1836 and 1840. Even Horace Greeley, already consumed with a
desire for public preferment, began to chafe under the domineering
influence of Weed and the supposed neglect of Seward; while Millard
Fillmore, and those acting with him, although retaining personal
relations with Weed, were ready to break away at the first
opportunity. 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 the
Buffalo _Commercial Advertiser_.

This division, naturally, led to some difference of opinion about a
candidate for governor; and, when the Whig state convention met at
Utica on September 23, an informal ballot developed fifty-five votes
for Millard Fillmore, thirty-six for John Young, and twenty-one for
Ira Harris, with eight or ten scattering. Fillmore had not sought the
nomination. Indeed, there is evidence that he protested against the
presentation of his name; but his vote represented the conservative
Whigs who did not take kindly either to Young or to Harris. Ira
Harris, who was destined to bear a great part in a great history, had
just entered his forty-fourth year. He was graduated from Union
College with the highest honours, studied law with Ambrose Spencer,
and slowly pushed himself into the front rank of practitioners at the
Albany bar. In 1844, while absent in the West, the Anti-Renters
nominated him, without his knowledge, for the Assembly, and, with the
help of the Whigs, elected him. He had in no wise identified himself
with active politics or with anti-rent associations; but the people
honoured him for his integrity as well as for his fearless support of
the principle of individual rights. In the Assembly he demonstrated
the wisdom of their choice, evidencing distinguished ability and
political tact. In 1845 the same people returned him to the Assembly.
Then, in the following year, they sent him to the constitutional
convention; and, some months later, to the State Senate. Beneath his
plain courtesy was great firmness. He could not be otherwise than the
constant friend of everything which made for the emancipation and
elevation of the individual. His advocacy of an elective judiciary,
the union of law and equity, and the simplification of pleadings and
practice in the courts, showed that there were few stronger or clearer
intellects in the constitutional convention. With good reason,
therefore, the constituency that sent him there favoured him for
governor.

But John Young shone as the popular man of the hour. Young was a
middle-of-the-road Whig, whose candidacy grew out of his recent
legislative record. He had forced the passage of the bill calling a
constitutional convention, and had secured the canal appropriation
which the Governor deemed it wise to veto. In the Assembly of 1845 and
1846, he became his party's choice for speaker; and, though not a man
of refinement or scholarly attainments, or one, perhaps, whose wisdom
and prudence could safely be relied upon under the stress of great
responsibilities, he was just then the chief figure of the State and
of great influence with the people--especially with the Anti-Renters
and their sympathisers, whose strife and turbulence in Columbia and
Delaware 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 a
pre-arranged transfer of the Harris votes would nominate him. But,
with the avowed friendship of Ira Harris, Young was stronger at this
time than Weed, and on the third ballot he received seventy-six votes
to forty-five for Fillmore. To balance the ticket, Hamilton Fish
became the candidate for lieutenant-governor. Fish represented the
eastern end of the State, the conservative wing of the party, and New
York City, where he was deservedly popular.

There were other parties in the field. The Abolitionists made
nominations, and the Native Americans put up Ogden Edwards, a Whig of
some prominence, who had served in the Assembly, in the constitutional
convention of 1821, and upon the Supreme bench. But it was the action
of the Anti-Renters, or national reformers as they were called, that
most seriously embarrassed the Whigs and the Democrats. The
Anti-Renters could scarcely be called a party, although they had grown
into a political organisation which held the balance of power in
several counties. Unlike the Abolitionists, however, they wanted
immediate results rather than sacrifices for principle, and their
support was deemed important if not absolutely conclusive. When the
little convention of less than thirty delegates met at Albany in
October, therefore, their ears listened for bids. They sought a pardon
for the men convicted in 1845 for murderous outrages perpetrated in
Delaware and Schoharie; and, although unsupported by proof, it was
afterward charged and never denied, that, either at the time of their
convention or subsequently before the election, Ira Harris produced a
letter from John Young in which the latter promised executive clemency
in the event of his election. However this may be, it is not unlikely
that Harris' relations with the Anti-Renters aided materially in
securing Young's indorsement, and it is a matter of record that soon
after Young's inauguration the murderers were pardoned, the Governor
justifying his action upon the ground that their offences were
political. The democratic Anti-Renters urged Silas Wright to give some
assurances that he, too, would issue a pardon; but the Cato of his
party, who never caressed or cajoled his political antagonists,
declined to give any intimation upon the subject. Thereupon, as if to
emphasise their dislike of Wright, the Anti-Rent delegates indorsed
John Young for governor and Addison Gardiner for lieutenant-governor.

In the midst of the campaign William C. Bouck received the federal
appointment of sub-treasurer in New York, under the act
re-establishing the independent treasury system. This office was one
of the most important in the gift of the President, and, because the
appointee was the recognised head of the Hunkers, the impression
immediately obtained that the government at Washington disapproved the
re-election of Silas Wright. It became the sensation of the hour. Many
believed the success of the Governor would make him a formidable
candidate for President in 1848, and the impropriety of Polk's action
occasioned much adverse criticism. The President and several members
of his Cabinet privately assured the Governor of their warmest
friendship, but, as one member of the radical wing expressed it,
"Bouck's appointment became a significant indication of the guillotine
prepared for Governor Wright in November."

Other causes than the Democratic feud also contributed to the
discomfiture of Silas Wright. John Young had made an admirable record
in the Assembly. He had also, at the outbreak of hostilities with
Mexico, although formerly opposed to the annexation of Texas, been
among the first to approve the war, declaring that "Texas was now bone
of our bone, flesh of our flesh, and that since the rights of our
citizens had been trampled upon, he would sustain the country, right
or wrong."[359] It soon became evident, too, that the Anti-Renters were
warm and persistent friends. His promise to pardon their leaders
received the severe condemnation of the conservative Whig papers; but
such censure only added to his vote in Anti-Rent counties. In like
manner, Young's support of the canals and Wright's veto of the
appropriation, strengthened the one and weakened the other in all the
canal counties. Indeed, after the election it was easy to trace all
these influences. Oneida, a strong canal county, which had given
Wright eight hundred majority in 1844, now gave Young thirteen
hundred. Similar results appeared in Lewis, Alleghany, Herkimer, and
other canal counties. In Albany, an Anti-Rent county, the Whig
majority of twenty-five was increased to twenty-eight hundred, while
Delaware, another Anti-Rent stronghold, changed Wright's majority of
nine hundred in 1844, to eighteen hundred for Young. On the other
hand, in New York City, where the conservative Whig papers had
bitterly assailed their candidate, Wright's majority of thirty-three
hundred in 1844 was increased to nearly fifty-two hundred. In the
State Young's majority over Wright exceeded eleven thousand,[360] and
Gardiner's over Fish was more than thirteen thousand. The
Anti-Renters, who had also indorsed one Whig and one Democratic canal
commissioner, gave them majorities of seven and thirteen thousand
respectively. Of eight senators chosen, the Whigs elected five; and of
the one hundred and twenty-eight assemblymen, sixty-eight, the
minority being made up of fifty Democrats and ten Anti-Renters. The
Whig returns also included twenty-three out of thirty-four
congressmen.

[Footnote 359: Jabez D. Hammond, _Political History of New York_, Vol.
3, p. 762.]

[Footnote 360: John Young, 198,878; Silas Wright, 187,306; Henry
Bradley, 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 in
moments of political unrest when certain classes are in rebellion
against some phase of existing conditions. Seward, who happened to be
in Albany over Sunday, pictured the situation in one of his racy
letters. "To-day," he says, "I have been at St. Peter's and heard one
of those excellent discourses of Dr. Potter. There was such a jumble
of wrecks of party in the church that I forgot the sermon and fell to
moralising on the vanity of political life. You know my seat. Well,
halfway down the west aisle sat Silas Wright, wrapped in a coat
tightly buttoned to the chin, looking philosophy, which it is hard to
affect and harder to attain. On the east side sat Daniel D. Barnard,
upon whom 'Anti-Rent' has piled Ossa, while Pelion only has been
rolled upon Wright. In the middle of the church was Croswell, who
seemed to say to Wright, 'You are welcome to the gallows you erected
for me.' On the opposite side sat John Young, the _saved_ among the
lost 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 in
the air. Everything was against him save his own personal influence,
based upon his sincerity, integrity, and lofty patriotism. Seward had
predicted the result at the time of Wright's nomination in 1844, and
Wright himself had anticipated it. "I told some friends when I
consented to take this office," he wrote John Fine, his Canton friend,
in March, 1846, "that it would terminate my public life."[362] But the
story of Silas Wright's administration as governor was not all a
record of success. He was opposed to a constitutional convention as
well as to a canal appropriation, and, by wisely preventing the
former, it is likely the latter would not have been forced upon him.
Without a convention bill and a canal veto, the party would not have
divided seriously, John Young would not have become a popular hero,
and the Anti-Renters could not have held the balance of power. To
prevent the calling of a constitutional convention, therefore, or at
least to have confined it within limits approved by the Hunkers, was
the Governor's great opportunity. It would not have been an easy
task. William C. Crain had a profound conviction on the subject, and
back of him stood Michael Hoffman, the distinguished and unrelenting
Radical, determined to put the act of 1842 into the organic law of the
State. But there was a time when a master of political diplomacy could
have controlled the situation. Even after permitting Crain's defeat
for speaker, the appointment of Michael Hoffman to the judgeship
vacated by Samuel Nelson's transfer to the federal bench would have
placed a powerful lever in the Governor's hand. Hoffman had not sought
the office, but the appointment would have softened him into a friend,
and with Michael Hoffman as an ally, Crain and his legislative
followers 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 to
the causes of his defeat.[363] One thought he should have forced the
convention and veto issues in the campaign of 1845, compelling people
and press to thresh them out a year in advance of his own candidacy;
another believed if he had vetoed the convention bill a canal
appropriation would not have passed; a third charged him with trusting
too much in old friends who misguided him, and too little in new
principles that had sprung up while he was absent in the United States
Senate. One writer, apparently the most careful observer, admitted the
influence of Anti-Renters and the unpopularity of the canal veto, but
insisted that the real cause of the Governor's defeat was the
opposition of the Hunkers, "bound together exclusively by selfish
interests and seeking only personal advancement and personal
gain."[364] This writer named Edwin Croswell as the leader whose wide
influence rested like mildew upon the work of the campaign, sapping it
of enthusiasm, and encouraging Democrats among Anti-Renters and those
favourable to canals to put in the knife on election day. Such a
policy, of course, it was argued, meant the delivery of Polk from a
powerful opponent in 1848, and the uninterrupted leadership of William
L. Marcy, who now wielded a patronage, greatly increased by the
Mexican War, in the interest of the Hunkers and for the defeat of
Silas Wright. If this were not true, continued the writer, William C.
Bouck's appointment would have been delayed until after election, and
the work of postmasters and other government officials, who usually
contributed generously of their time and means in earnest support of
their 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 of
canal appropriation] was the harm done by the quiet yet persistent
opposition of the Hunkers. Nor can it be doubted that the influence of
the Government at Washington was thrown against him in that critical
hour. Governor Marcy was secretary of war; Samuel Nelson had just been
appointed a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States;
Governor Bouck held one of the most influential offices in the city of
New York--all these were members of that section of the party with
which Governor Wright was not in sympathy. It was evident that he
would not be able to maintain himself against an opposition of which
the elements were so numerous, so varied, and so dangerous."--Morgan
Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 227.]

There is abundant evidence that Governor Wright held similar views. "I
have neither time nor disposition to speak of the causes of our
overthrow," he wrote, a few days after his defeat was assured. "The
time will come when they must be spoken of, and that plainly, but it
will be a painful duty, and one which I do not want to perform. Our
principles are as sound as they ever were, and the hearts of the great
mass of our party will be found as true to them as ever. Hereafter I
think our enemies will be open enemies, and against such the democracy
has 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 Jay
he had the habits of seclusion. Manual labour on the farm, his
correspondence, and the preparation of an address to be delivered at
the State Agricultural Fair in September, occupied his leisure during
the spring and summer of 1847.[366] "If I were to attempt to tell you
how happy we make ourselves at our retired home," he wrote Governor
Fairfield of Maine, "I fear you would scarcely be able to credit me. I
even yet realise, every day and every hour, the relief from public
cares, and if any thought about temporal affairs could make me more
uneasy than another, it would be the serious one that I was again to
take upon myself, in any capacity, that ever pressing load."[367] This
was written on the 16th of August, 1847, and on the morning of the
27th his useful life came to an end. The day before he had spoken of
apoplexy in connection with the death of a friend, as if he, too, had
a premonition of this dread disease. When the end came, the sudden
rush of blood to the head left no doubt of its presence.

[Footnote 366: "Nothing can be imagined more admirable than the conduct
of that great man under these trying circumstances. He returned at
once to his beloved farm at Canton, and resumed, with apparent
delight, the occupations of a rustic life. Visitors have related how
they 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 of
many a pilgrimage; and, as profound regret at the loss of such a man
from the councils of the State took the place of a less honourable
sentiment, his popularity began to return. Already, as the time for
the nomination of a President drew near, men were looking to him, as
an illustrious representative of the principles and hereditary faith
of the Democratic-Republican party, in whose hands the country would
be safe, no matter from what quarter the tempest might come."--Morgan
Dix, _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 the
decease of DeWitt Clinton the termination of no public career in the
State caused more real sorrow. Until then, the people scarcely
realised how much they loved and respected him, and all were quick to
admit that the history of the Commonwealth furnished few natures
better fitted than his, morally and intellectually, for great public
trusts. Perhaps he cannot be called a man of genius; but he was a man
of commanding ability, with that absolute probity and good sense which
are the safest gifts of a noble character.

On the 12th of the following December, James Kent died in his
eighty-fifth year. He had outlived by eighteen years his contemporary,
John Jay; by nearly forty-five years his great contemporary, Alexander
Hamilton; and by more than thirty years his distinguished predecessor,
Chancellor Livingston. He was the last of the heroic figures that made
famous the closing quarter of the eighteenth and the opening quarter
of the nineteenth centuries. He could sit at the table of Philip Hone,
amidst eminent judges, distinguished statesmen, and men whose names
were already famous in literature, and talk of the past with personal
knowledge from the time the colony graciously welcomed John Murray,
Earl of Dunmore, as its governor, or threateningly frowned upon
William Howe, viscount and British general, for shutting up its civil
courts. When, finally, his body was transferred from the sofa in the
library where he had written himself into an immortal fame, to the
cemetery on Second Avenue, the obsequies became the funeral not merely
of a man but of an age.




CHAPTER XI

THE FREE-SOIL CAMPAIGN

1847-1848


The fearless stand of Preston King in supporting the Wilmot
Proviso[368] took root among the Radicals, as Seward prophesied, and
the exclusion of slavery from territory obtained from Mexico, became
the dominant Democratic issue in the State. Because of their approval
of this principle the Radicals were called "Barnburners." Originally,
these factional differences, as noted elsewhere, grew out of the canal
controversy in 1838 and in 1841, the Conservatives wishing to devote
the surplus canal revenues to the completion of the canals--the
Radicals insisting upon their use to pay the state debt. Under this
division, Edwin Croswell, William C. Bouck, Daniel S. Dickinson, Henry
A. Foster, and Horatio Seymour led the Conservatives; Michael Hoffman,
John A. Dix, and Azariah C. Flagg marshalled the Radicals. When the
Conservatives, "hankering" after the offices, accepted unconditionally
the annexation of Texas, they were called Hunkers. In like manner, the
Radicals 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 Van
Burens took no part in the canal controversy; but after Martin Van
Buren's defeat in 1844 Marcy became a prominent Hunker and entered
Polk's Cabinet, while Wright, Butler, and the Van Burens joined the
Barnburners.

[Footnote 368: "To understand the issue presented by the Wilmot Proviso
it must be observed that its advocates sustained it on the distinct
ground that, as slavery had been abolished throughout the Mexican
Republic, the acquisition of territory without prohibiting slavery
would, on the theory asserted by the Southern States, lead to its
restoration where it had ceased to exist, and make the United States
responsible for its extension to districts in which universal freedom
had been established by the fundamental law."--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of
John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 205.]

Hostilities between the Hunkers and Barnburners, growing out of the
slavery question, began at the Democratic state convention, which
convened at Syracuse, September 7, 1847.[369] Preceding this meeting
both factions had been active, but the Hunkers, having succeeded in
seating a majority of the delegates, promptly voted down a resolution
embodying the principle of the Wilmot Proviso. Then the Barnburners
seceded. There was no parleying. The breach opened like a chasm and
the secessionists walked out in a body. This action was followed by an
address, charging that the anti-slavery resolution had been defeated
by a fraudulent organisation, and calling a mass convention for
October 26, "to avow their principles and consult as to future
action." This meeting became a gathering of Martin Van Buren's
friends. It did not nominate a ticket, which would have defeated the
purpose of the secession; but, by proclaiming the principles of
Free-soil, it struck the keynote of popular sentiment; divided the
Democratic party, and let the Whigs into power by thirty thousand
majority. It made Millard Fillmore comptroller, Christopher Morgan
secretary of state, Alvah Hunt treasurer, Ambrose L. Jordan
attorney-general, and Hamilton Fish lieutenant-governor to fill the
vacancy occasioned by Addison Gardiner's election to the new Court of
Appeals. The president of this seceders' mass-meeting was Churchill C.
Cambreling, an old associate of Martin Van Buren, but its leader and
inspiration was John Van Buren. He drafted the address to the people,
his eloquence made him its chief orator, and his enthusiasm seemed to
endow him with ubiquity.

[Footnote 369: "In the fall of 1847 I was a spectator at the Democratic
state convention, held in Syracuse. The great chiefs of both factions
were on the ground, and never was there a fiercer, more bitter and
relentless conflict between the Narragansetts and Pequods than this
memorable contest between the Barnburners and Hunkers. Silas Wright
was the idol of the Barnburners. He had died on the 27th of the
preceding August--less than two weeks before. James S. Wadsworth
voiced the sentiments of his followers. In the convention some one
spoke of doing justice to Mr. Wright. A Hunker sneeringly responded,
'It is too late; he is dead.' Springing upon a table Wadsworth made
the hall ring as he uttered the defiant reply: 'Though it may be too
late to do justice to Silas Wright, it is not too late to do justice
to 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 the
United States. He did not rely upon the influence or the prestige of
his 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 marked
figure in political circles, his bland and convulsing wit enlivening
every convention and adding interest to every campaign. But his chief
interest 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 men
than the space that divided the Sage of Lindenwald from Prince John.
In one particular, however, they were alike. Each had that personal
magnetism that binds followers to leaders with hooks of steel. The
father was grave, urbane, wary, a safe counsellor, and accustomed to
an argumentative and deliberate method of address that befitted the
bar and the Senate. Few knew how able a lawyer the elder Van Buren
was. The son was enthusiastic, frank, bold, and given to wit,
repartee, and a style of oratory admirably adapted to swaying popular
assemblies. 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. In
college he was expert at billiards, the centre of wit, and the willing
target of beauty. Out of college, from the time he danced with the
Princess 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 was
ultra as well as noble. He led in the ballroom, he presided at
dinners, he graced every forum, and he moved in the highest social
circles. Men marvelled at his knowledge, at his unfailing equanimity,
and at his political strength; but even to those who were spellbound
by his eloquence, or captivated by his adroit, skilful conduct of a
lawsuit, he was always "Prince John." There was not a drop of
austerity or intolerance or personal hatred in him. The Dutch blood of
his father, traced from the Princes of Orange to the days of the New
Netherland patroons, kept him within the limits of moderation if not
entirely unspotted, and his finished manners attracted the common
people as readily as they charmed the more exclusive.

John Van Buren's acceptance of Free-soilism did not emanate from a
dislike of slavery; nor did Free-soil principles root themselves
deeply in his nature. His father had opposed the admission of Texas,
and the son, in resentment of his defeat, hoping to make an
anti-slavery party dominant in the State, if not in the nation,
proclaimed his opposition to the extension of slavery. But, after the
compromise measures of 1850 had temporarily checked the movement, he
fell back into the ranks of the Hunkers, aiding President Pierce's
election, and sustaining the pro-slavery administration of Buchanan.
In after years Van Buren frequently explained his connection with the
Free-soil revolt by telling a story of the boy who was vigorously
removing an overturned load of hay at the roadside. Noticing his wild
and rapid pitching, a passer-by inquired the cause of his haste. The
boy, wiping the perspiration from his brow as he pointed to the pile
of hay, replied, "Stranger, _dad's under there_!"

But whatever reasons incited John Van Buren to unite with the
Free-soilers, so long as he advocated their principles, he was the
most brilliant crusader who sought to stay the aggressiveness of
slavery. From the moment he withdrew from the Syracuse convention, in
the autumn of 1847, until he finally accepted the compromise measures
of 1850, he was looked upon as the hope of the Barnburners and the
most dangerous foe of the Hunkers. Even Horatio Seymour was afraid of
him. He did not advocate abolition; he did not treat slavery in the
abstract; he did not transcend the Free-soil doctrine. But he spoke
with such power and brilliancy that Henry Wilson, afterward Vice
President, declared him "the bright particular star of the
revolt."[372] He was not an impassioned orator. He spoke deliberately,
and rarely with animation or with gesture; and his voice, high pitched
and penetrating, was neither mellow nor melodious. But he was
marvellously pleasing. His perennial wit kept his audiences expectant,
and his compact, forceful utterances seemed to break the argument of
an opponent as a hammer shatters a pane of glass. So great was his
popularity at this time, that his return to the Democratic party
became a personal sorrow to every friend of the anti-slavery cause.
"Indeed, such was the brilliant record he then made," says Henry
Wilson, "that had he remained true to the principles he advocated, he
would unquestionably have become one of the foremost men of the
Republican party, if not its accepted leader."[373]

[Footnote 372: Henry Wilson, _Rise and Fall of the Slave Power of the
United States_, Vol. 2, p. 142.]

[Footnote 373: _Ibid._, p. 142.]

Several historic conventions followed the secession of the
Barnburners. Each faction held a state convention to select delegates
to the Democratic national convention which met in Baltimore on May
22, 1848, and, on the appointed day, both Hunkers and Barnburners
presented full delegations, each claiming admission to the exclusion
of the other.[374] It was an anxious moment for Democracy. New York
held the key to the election; without its vote the party could not
hope to win; and without harmony success was impossible. To exclude
either faction, therefore, was political suicide, and, in the end, the
vote was divided equally between them. To the politician, anxious for
party success and hungry for office, perhaps no other compromise
seemed possible. But the device failed to satisfy either side, and
Lewis Cass was nominated for President without the participation of
the State that must elect or defeat him.

[Footnote 374: "The Barnburners made the Monumental City lurid with
their wrath, frightening the delegates from the back States almost out
of their wits."--H.B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 162. "Or, as
one man said in a speech, 'the regular delegates might occupy half a
seat apiece, provided each of them would let a Hunker sit on his
lap.'"--_Ibid._, p. 161.]

Returning home, the Barnburners issued an address, written by Samuel
J. Tilden, who fearlessly called upon Democrats to act independently.
This led to the famous convention held at Utica in June. Samuel Young
presided, Churchill C. Cambreling was conspicuous on the stage, David
Dudley Field read a letter from Martin Van Buren condemning the
platform and the candidate of the Baltimore convention, and Benjamin
F. Butler, Preston King, and John Van Buren illuminated the principles
of the Free-soil party in speeches that have seldom been surpassed in
political conventions. In the end Martin Van Buren was nominated for
President.

This assembly, in the ability and character of its members, contained
the better portion of the party. Its attitude was strong, defiant, and
its only purpose apparently was to create a public sentiment hostile
to the extension of slavery. Nevertheless, it was divided into two
factions, one actuated more by a desire to avenge the alleged wrongs
of Van Buren, than to limit slavery. To this class belonged Churchill
C. Cambreling, Samuel J. Tilden, John A. Dix, Sanford E. Church, Dean
Richmond, John Cochrane, Benjamin F. Butler, and the Van Burens. On
the anti-slavery side, Preston King, David Dudley Field, James S.
Wadsworth, and William Cullen Bryant were conspicuous. Seven years
later, these men were quick to aid in the formation of the Republican
party; while the former, for the most part, continued with the
Democratic party. But, whatever the motives that prompted them, their
action strengthened the Buffalo convention[375] which met on August 9,
1848, giving an impetus to the anti-slavery cause too strong for
resentment or revenge to guide it.

[Footnote 375: "The nomination of Cass for the Presidency by the
Democrats and Taylor by the Whigs led to the Buffalo convention of
1848. Pro-slavery Democrats were there to avenge the wrongs of Martin
Van Buren. Free-soil Democrats were there to punish the assassins of
Silas Wright. Pro-slavery Whigs were there to strike down Taylor
because he had dethroned their idol, Henry Clay, in the Philadelphia
convention. Anti-slavery Whigs were there, breathing the spirit of the
departed John Quincy Adams. Abolitionists of all shades of opinion
were present, from the darkest type to those of a milder hue, who
shared the views of Salmon P. Chase."--H.B. Stanton, _Random
Recollections_, pp. 162-63.]

There have been many important meetings in the history of American
politics, but it may well be doubted if any convention, during the
struggle with slavery, ever exalted the hearts of those who took part
in it more than did this assembly of fearless representatives of the
Free-soil party in Buffalo, the Queen City of the Lakes. The time was
ripe for action, and on that day in August, men eminent and to grow
eminent, sought the shade of a great tent on the eastern shore of Lake
Erie. Among them were Joshua R. Giddings, the well-known Abolitionist;
Salmon P. Chase, not yet famous, but soon to become a United States
senator with views of slavery in accord with William H. Seward; and
Charles Francis Adams who had already associated his name with that of
his illustrious father in the growth of anti-slavery opinions in New
England. Chase presided over the convention and Adams over the
mass-meeting. At the outset, it was boldly asserted that they had
assembled "to secure free soil for a free people;" and in closing they
thrilled the hearts of all hearers with the memorable declaration that
rang throughout the land like a blast from a trumpet, "We inscribe on
our banner Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labour, and Free Men." It was
a remarkable convention in that it made no mistakes. Lewis Cass
represented the South and its purposes, while Zachary Taylor lived in
the South and owned four hundred slaves. Neither of these men could
be supported; but, in the end, rather than put a fourth candidate into
the field, it was resolved unanimously to indorse Martin Van Buren for
President and Charles Francis Adams for Vice President. Daniel Webster
ridiculed the idea of "the leader of the Free-_spoil_ party becoming
the leader of the Free-soil party;" but Charles Sumner, whose heart
was in the cause, declared that "it is not for the Van Buren of 1838
that we are to vote, but for the Van Buren of to-day--the veteran
statesman, sagacious, determined, experienced, who, at an age when
most men are rejoicing to put off their armour, girds himself anew and
enters the list as a champion of freedom."[376] To give further dignity
and importance to the Free-soil movement, the nomination of John P.
Hale, made by the Abolitionists in the preceding November, was
withdrawn, and John A. Dix, then a Democratic senator, accepted the
Barnburners' 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 the
District of Columbia, unless sanctioned by Maryland and Virginia.
Anti-slavery men took great umbrage to this pledge, and while Butler
at the Buffalo convention was graphically describing how the
ex-President, now absorbed in bucolic pursuits at his Kinderhook farm,
had recently leaped a fence to show his visitor a field of sprouting
turnips, one of these disgusted Abolitionists abruptly exclaimed,
'Damn his turnips! What are his present opinions about the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia?' 'I was just coming to that
subject,' responded the oily Barnburner, with a suave bow towards the
ruffled Whig. 'Well, you can't be a moment too quick in coming to it,'
replied the captious interlocutor."--H.B. Stanton, _Random
Recollections_, p. 164.]

[Footnote 377: "General Dix disapproved of the design to make separate
nominations, thinking it unwise, and foreseeing that it would increase
the difficulty of bringing about a reconciliation. But that he, a
Democrat of the old school, should find himself associated with
gentlemen of the Whig party, from whom he differed on almost every
point, was a painful and distressing surprise. He was willing, if it
must be so, to go with his own section of the Democratic party, though
deeming their course not the wisest. But when it came to an alliance
with Whigs and Abolitionists he lost all heart in the movement. This
accounts for his strong expressions in after years to justify himself
from the charge of being an Abolitionist and false to his old
faith."--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 239.]

The Hunkers were aghast. The movement that let the Whigs into power in
1847 had suddenly become a national party, with the most famous and
distinguished Democrat at its head, while the old issues of internal
improvement, the tariff, and the independent treasury were obscured by
the intensity of the people's opposition to the extension of slavery.
The Hunkers controlled the party machinery--the Barnburners held the
balance of power. To add to the bitterness of the situation, Edwin
Croswell, after a quarter of a century of leadership, had retired from
editorial 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 governor
and Charles O'Conor for lieutenant-governor. Neither was a popular
nomination. Walworth was the last of the chancellors. He came into
notice as an ardent Bucktail in the days of DeWitt Clinton, and, upon
the retirement of Chancellor Kent in 1828 succeeded to that important
and lucrative office. He was a hard worker and an upright judge; but
he did not rank as a great jurist. The lawyers thought him slow and
crabbed, 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 figure
in the Commonwealth--an enthusiasm for his profession that spared no
labour and left no record unsearched; and an enthusiastic love for the
Church.

Of Charles O'Conor's remarkable abilities, mention occurs elsewhere.
His conservatism made him a Democrat of the extreme school. In the
Slave 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 Civil
War he became the attorney for Jefferson Davis when indicted for
treason. O'Conor's great power as a speaker added much to the
entertainment of the campaign of 1848, but whether he would have
beaten his sincere, large-hearted, and affectionate Whig opponent had
no 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 by
eleven thousand, and, because of the Barnburner secession, had carried
the State in 1847 by thirty thousand. Everything indicated that their
success in 1848 would be no less sweeping. But they were far from
happy. Early in June, 1846, long before the capture of Monterey and
the victory of Buena Vista, the Albany _Evening Journal_ had suggested
that Zachary Taylor was in the minds of many, and in the hearts of
more, for President in 1848. Thurlow Weed went further. He sent word
to the brilliant officer that he need not reply to the numerous
letters from men of all political stripes offering their support,
since the presidential question would take care of itself after his
triumphant return from Mexico. But, in the spring of 1848, the
question became embarrassing. Taylor was a slave-holder. Many northern
Whigs were deeply imbued with anti-slavery sentiments, and the action
of the Free-soilers was increasing their sensitiveness. "What plagues
me 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 look
the Wilmot Proviso people in the face and ask them to vote for a
Southern 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 for
President 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 the
choice of a large portion of the Whigs of the country. Besides, Daniel
Webster had reappeared as a candidate; Winfield Scott had the support
of his former New York friends; and Horace Greeley, "waging a quixotic
war against heroes," as Seward expressed it, was sure of defeating
Taylor even if shaken in his confidence of nominating Clay. "I hope
you see your way through this difficulty," Hunt again wrote Weed. "You
are like a deacon I know. His wife said it always came natural to him
to see into the doctrine of election."[379] Weed believed that Zachary
Taylor, if not nominated by the Whigs, would be taken up by the
Democrats, and he favoured the Southerner because the election of
Jackson and Harrison convinced him that winning battles opened a sure
way to the White House. But Thurlow Weed was not a stranger to
Taylor's sympathies. He had satisfied himself that the bluff old
warrior, though a native of Virginia and a Louisiana slave-holder,
favoured domestic manufactures, opposed the admission of Texas, and
had been a lifelong admirer of Henry Clay; and, with this information,
he went to work, cautiously as was his custom, but with none the less
energy and persistence. Among other things, he visited Daniel Webster
at Marshfield to urge him to accept the nomination for Vice President.
The great statesman recalled Weed's similar errand in 1839, and the
memory of Harrison's sudden death now softened him into a receptive
mood; but the inopportune coming of Fletcher Webster, who reported
that his father's cause was making tremendous progress, changed
consent into disapproval, and for the second time in ten years Webster
lost 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 nominate
him; but, in that event, several prominent delegates threatened to
bolt. It was an anxious moment. The success of the Whig party and the
ascendancy of Weed's leadership in New York were at stake. It was
urged by the anti-slavery men with great vehemence that Taylor was a
"no-party man," and that as a born Southerner and large slave-holder
he could not be trusted on the slavery question. But when the five
candidates were finally placed in nomination, and a single ballot
taken, it was found, as Weed had predicted, that the hero of Buena
Vista was the one upon whom the Whigs could best unite. With few
exceptions, the friends of Clay, Webster, Scott, and John M. Clayton
could go to Taylor better than to another, and on the fourth ballot,
amidst anger and disappointment, the latter was nominated by sixty
majority.

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 it
no encouragement, preferring to continue the practice of his
profession, which was now large and lucrative. John Young, who thought
he would like the place, sent a secret agent to Mexico with letters to
Taylor. Young's record as governor, however, did not commend him for
other honours, and the scheme was soon abandoned. As the summer
advanced Abbott Lawrence of Massachusetts became the favourite; and
for a time it seemed as if his nomination would be made by
acclamation; but, after Taylor's nomination and Clay's defeat, many
delegates promptly declared they would not have "cotton at both ends
of the ticket"--referring to Taylor as a grower and Lawrence as a
manufacturer of cotton. In this crisis, and after a stormy recess,
John A. Collier, a leading lawyer of Binghamton, who had served in the
Twenty-second Congress and one year as state comptroller, suddenly
took the platform. In a stirring speech, in which he eloquently
pictured the sorrow and bitterness of Clay's friends, he hopefully
announced that he had a peace-offering to present, which, if accepted,
would, in a measure, reconcile the supporters of all the defeated
candidates and prevent a fatal breach in the party. Then, to the
astonishment of the convention, he named Millard Fillmore for Vice
President, and asked a unanimous response to his nomination. This
speech, though not pitched in a very exalted key, was so subtile and
telling, that it threw the convention into applause. Collier recalled
Fillmore'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 his
recent majority of thirty-eight thousand for comptroller, the largest
ever given any candidate in the State. At the time, it looked as if a
unanimous response might be made; but the friends of Lawrence rallied,
and at the close of the ballot Fillmore had won by only six votes. For
Collier, however, it was a great triumph, giving him a reputation as a
speaker that later efforts did not sustain.

To anti-slavery delegates, the Philadelphia convention was a
disappointment. It seemed to lack courage and to be without
convictions or principles. Like its predecessor in 1839 it adopted no
resolutions and issued no address. The candidates became its platform.
In voting down a resolution in favour of the Wilmot Proviso, many
delegates believed the party would prove faithless on the great issue;
and fifteen of them, led by Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, proposed a
national convention of all persons opposed to the extension of
slavery, to be held at Buffalo early in August. "It is fortunate for
us," wrote Seward, "that the Democratic party is divided."[380] But the
New Yorkers, some of whom found encouragement in the nomination of
Fillmore, who had thus far been inflexible upon the slavery question,
patiently waited for the result of the Whig state convention, which
met at Utica on the 14th of September. By this time, as Seward and
Weed predicted, Taylor's nomination had grown popular. Greeley, soon
to be a candidate for Congress, advised the _Tribune's_ readers to
vote the Whig ticket, while the action of the Buffalo convention,
though it united the anti-slavery vote, assured a division of the
Democratic party more than sufficient to compensate for any Whig
losses. Under these circumstances, the Utica convention assembled with
reasonable hopes of success. It lacked the spirit of the band of
resolute Free-soilers, who met in the same place on the same day and
nominated John A. Dix for governor and Seth M. Gates of Wyoming for
lieutenant-governor; but it gave no evidence of the despair that had
settled 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. The
great influence of the Anti-Renters who held the balance of power in
the convention of 1846 had disappeared. The Governor's anti-rent
friends urged his renomination with the earnest voice of a brave
people; but John Young was destined to be the comet of a season only.
His course in respect to appointments and to the Mexican War had
alienated Thurlow Weed, and his pardon of the anti-rent rioters
estranged the conservative Whigs. Although a shrewd politician, with
frank and affable manners, as an administrative officer he lacked the
tact displayed so abundantly as a legislator; and its absence
seriously handicapped him. Twenty delegates measured his strength in a
convention that took forty-nine votes to nominate. Under the Taylor
administration, Young received an appointment as assistant treasurer
in New York City--the office given to William C. Bouck in 1846--but
his career may be said to have closed the moment he promised to pardon
a lot of murderous rioters to secure an election as governor. With
that, he passed out of the real world of state-craft into the class of
politicians whose ambition and infirmities have destroyed their
usefulness. He died in April, 1852, at the age of fifty.

Hamilton Fish was the favourite candidate for governor in the Utica
convention. His sympathies leaned toward the conservatives of his
party; but the moderation of his speech and his conciliatory manners
secured the good wishes of both factions, and he received seventy-six
votes on the first ballot. Fish was admittedly one of the most popular
young men in New York City. He had never sought or desired office. In
1842, the friends of reform sent him to Congress from a strong
Democratic district, and in 1846, after repeatedly and peremptorily
declining, the Whig convention, to save the party from disruption,
compelled him to take the nomination for lieutenant-governor on the ticket
with John Young. In 1847, after Addison Gardiner, by his appointment
to 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 election
followed by thirty thousand majority. Fish was now thirty-nine years
old, with more than two-score and five years to live. He was to become
a United States senator, and to serve, for eight years, with
distinguished ability, as secretary of state in the Cabinet of
President Grant; yet, in all that period, he never departed from the
simple, sincere life that he was living in September, 1848. Writing of
him 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 in
manners, blameless in life, and accepting office with no other
aspiration than that of making power subserve the common good of his
fellow citizens, Hamilton Fish justly and eminently enjoys the
confidence 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 received
eighty-four out of ninety-six votes for lieutenant-governor. In his
gentle manners, simple generosity, and moderation of speech, Patterson
was not unlike Hamilton Fish. He was a loyal friend of Seward, a
constant correspondent of Weed, and a member of the inner circle of
governing Whigs; he had been prominent as an Anti-Mason, satisfactory
as a legislator, and impartial as a speaker of the Assembly; he was
now recognised as a far-sighted, wise, and cautious politician. In
guiding the convention to the selection of Hamilton Fish and George W.
Patterson, it was admitted that Thurlow Weed's leadership vindicated
his sagacity.

The political contest in New York, unlike that in the South and in
some Western States, presented the novel feature of three powerful
parties 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 formidable
combination of able and influential men who wielded the power of
absolute disinterestedness, and who kept step with John Van Buren's
trenchant and eloquent speeches which resounded through the State. Van
Buren was the accepted leader, and in this campaign he reached the
height of his reputation. His features were not striking, but in
person he was tall, symmetrical, and graceful; and no one in the State
could hold an audience with such delightful oratory and lofty
eloquence.

The ablest Whig to oppose him was William H. Seward, who frequently
followed him in localities where Whigs were likely to act with the
Free-soil party. On the slavery question, Seward held views identical
with those expressed by Van Buren; but he insisted that every Whig
vote cast for the third party was only a negative protest against the
slavery party. Real friends of emancipation must not be content with
protests. They must act wisely and efficiently. "For myself," he
declared, "I shall cast my suffrage for General Taylor and Millard
Fillmore, freely and conscientiously, on precisely the same grounds on
which 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 and
mottoes, and its multitude of speakers charging and countercharging
inconsistencies and maladministration. The Whigs accused Cass with
having printed two biographies, one for the South, in which he
appeared as a slavery extensionist, and one for the North, in which he
figured as a Wilmot Provisoist. To this accusation, Democrats retorted
that the Whigs opposed annexation in the North and favoured it in the
South; denounced the war and nominated its leading general; voted down
the 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 fixed
the issue. Audiences became restless if asked to listen to arguments
upon other topics. Opposition to slavery was, at last, respectable in
politics. For the first time, none of his party deprecated Seward's
advanced utterances upon this question, and from August to November he
freely voiced his opinions. The series of professional achievements
which began with the Freeman case was still in progress; but he laid
them 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 very
close.

Seward was now in the fulness of his intellectual power. There was
nothing sensational, nothing unfit in his speeches. He believed that
the conscience of the people was a better guide than individual
ambitions, and he inspired them with lofty desires and filled them
with sound principles of action. "There are two antagonistic elements
of society in America," said he, in his speech at Cleveland, "freedom
and slavery. Freedom is in harmony with our system of government and
with the spirit of the age, and is, therefore, passive and quiescent.
Slavery is in conflict with that system, with justice, and with
humanity, and is, therefore, organised, defensive, active, and
perpetually aggressive. Freedom insists on the emancipation and
elevation of labour. Slavery demands a soil moistened with tears and
blood. These elements divide and classify the American people into two
parties. Each of these parties has its court and sceptre. The throne
of the one is amid the rocks of the Allegheny Mountains; the throne of
the other is reared on the sands of South Carolina. One of these
parties, the party of slavery, regards disunion as among the means of
defence and not always the last to be employed. The other maintains
the Union of the States, one and inseparable, now and forever, as the
highest duty of the American people to themselves, to posterity, to
mankind. It is written in the Constitution that five slaves shall
count equal to three freemen as a basis of representation, and it is
written also, in violation of the Divine Law, that we shall surrender
the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our fireside from his
relentless pursuers. 'What, then,' you say; 'can nothing be done for
freedom because the public conscience is inert?' Yes, much can be
done--everything can be done. Slavery can be limited to its present
bounds; it can be ameliorated; it can and must be abolished, and you
and 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 without
restraint. His friends thought them "bold" and his opponents denounced
them as "most perverse and dogmatic," but, whether bold or perverse,
he devoted the chief part of every speech to them. He was not without
humour, man's highest gift, but he had more of humanity; he spoke
seriously and solemnly, usually to grave, sober, reflecting men of all
professions and parties; and, at the end of two hours, dismissed them
as if from an evening church service. At Boston, a Whig member of
Congress from Illinois spoke with him, principally upon the
maladministration of the Democrats and the inconsistencies of Lewis
Cass. After the meeting, while sitting in their hotel, the
congressman, with a thoughtful air, said to Seward: "I have been
thinking about what you said in your speech to-night. I reckon you are
right. We have got to deal with this slavery question, and got to give
much more attention to it hereafter than we have been doing."[384]
This was Seward's first meeting with Abraham Lincoln. The former was
then 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-soil
faction divided the Democratic vote nearly by two, giving Van Buren
120,000, Cass 114,000, and Taylor 218,000. The returns for governor
varied but slightly from these figures.[385] In the country at large
Taylor secured one hundred and sixty-three electoral votes and Cass
one hundred and twenty-seven. But, a Whig majority of one hundred and
four on joint ballot in the Legislature, and the election of
thirty-one out of thirty-four congressmen, showed the wreckage of a
divided Democracy in New York. The Hunkers elected only six
assemblymen; the Free-soilers secured fourteen. The Whigs had one
hundred and eight. Returns from all the counties and cities in no wise
differed. The Hunkers had been wiped out. If the Free-soilers did not
get office, they had demonstrated their strength, and exulted in
having routed their adversaries. Although Martin Van Buren was not to
leave his retirement at Lindenwald, the brilliant son had avenged his
father's wrongs by dashing Lewis Cass rudely and ruthlessly to the
ground.

[Footnote 385: Hamilton Fish, 218,776; John A. Dix, 122,811; Reuben H.
Walworth, 116,811; William Goodell, 1593.--_Civil List, State of New
York_ (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 a
rout. John A. Dix's term as United States senator expired on March 4,
and the fight for the succession began the moment the Whig members
knew they had a majority.

William H. Seward's old enemies seemed ubiquitous. They had neither
forgotten his distribution of patronage, nor forgiven his interest in
slaves 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 election
as comptroller in 1841 had restored friendly relations with Weed, he
had never forgiven Seward. It added strength to the coalition,
moreover, that Fillmore and Collier were now bosom friends. The
latter's speech at Philadelphia had made the Buffalonian Vice
President, and his following naturally favoured Collier. It was a
noisy company, and, for a time, its opposition seemed formidable.

"Fillmore and Collier came down the river in the boat with me," wrote
Seward from New York on November 16, 1848. "The versatile people were
full of demonstrations of affection to the Vice President, and Mr.
Collier divided the honours. The politicians of New York are engaged
in plans to take possession of General Taylor before he comes to
Washington. Weed is to be supplanted, and that not for his own sake
but for mine."[386] As the days passed intrigue became bolder.
Hamilton Fish, Washington Hunt, and other prominent members of the
party, were offered the senatorship. "I wish you could see the letters
I get," Hunt wrote to Weed. "If I wanted to excite your sympathy they
would be sufficient. Some say Seward will be elected. More say neither
Seward nor Collier will be chosen, but a majority are going for a
third man by way of compromise, and my consent is invoked to be number
three."[387] Then came the letter, purporting to be written by Seward,
declaring that "Collier must be defeated, or our influence with the
Administration will be curtailed. You must look to your members, and
see the members from Cattaraugus, if possible. I think Patterson will
take care of Chautauqua."[388] Out of this forgery grew an acrimonious
manifesto from Collier, who professed to believe that Seward was
giving personal attention to the work of making himself senator. In
the midst of this violent and bitter canvass, Horace Greeley wrote one
of his characteristic editorials. "We care not who may be the
nominee," said the _Tribune_ of January 24, 1849. "We shall gladly
coincide in the fair expression of the will of the majority of the
party, but we kindly caution those who disturb and divide us, that
their conduct will result only in the merited retribution which an
indignant people will visit upon those who prostitute their temporary
power 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 briefs
that had accumulated in his long absence during the campaign; but
Weed, the faithful friend, like a sentinel on the watch-tower, kept
closely in touch with the political situation. "The day before the
legislative caucus," wrote an eye-witness, "the Whig members of the
Legislature gathered around the editor of the _Evening Journal_ for
counsel and advice. It resembled a President's levee. He remained
standing in the centre of the room, conversing with those about him
and shaking hands with new-comers; but there was nothing in his
manner to indicate the slightest mystery or excitement so common with
politicians."[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 twelve
to eleven decided to join the Assembly. Then the fight began. William
S. Johnson, a Whig senator from New York City, declared that he would
neither vote for Seward in caucus nor support him in the Legislature.
"It would be equivalent," he continued, "to throwing a firebrand into
the South and aiding in the dissolution of the Whig party and of the
Union." Thereupon the eleven withdrew from further participation in
the proceedings. When the caucus of the two houses convened, fourteen
members declared it inexpedient to support either Seward or Collier;
but an informal ballot gave Seward eighty-eight votes and Collier
twelve, with twenty-two scattering. Three days later, on joint ballot,
Seward received one hundred and twenty-one out of one hundred and
thirty Whig votes. "We were always confident that the caucus could
have but one result," said the _Tribune_, "and the lofty anticipations
which the prospect of Seward's election has excited will not be
disappointed."

Successful as Seward had been in his profession since leaving the
office 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 that
needs my sympathies, but I have not even time nor opportunity to do
good."[390] His warm and affectionate heart seemed to envy the strife
and obloquy that came to champions of freedom; yet his published
correspondence nowhere directly indicates a desire to return to public
life. "You are not to suppose me solicitous on the subject that drags
me so unpleasantly before the public," he wrote Weed on January 26,
1849, three days before the caucus. "I have looked at it in all its
relations, and cannot satisfy myself that it would be any better for
me to succeed than to be beaten."[391] This assumed indifference,
however, was written with a feeling of absolute confidence that he
was to succeed, a confidence that brought with it great content, since
the United States Senate offered the "opportunity" for which he sighed
in his despondent letter of 1847. On the announcement of his election,
conveyed to him by wire at Washington, he betrayed no feeling except
one of humility. "I tremble," he wrote his wife, "when I think of the
difficulty of realising the expectations which this canvass has
awakened in regard to my abilities."[392] To Weed, he added: "I recall
with 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 question
of limiting slavery excited the whole country, and one holding his
views belonged in the centre of the struggle. But strife for office
gave him more immediate embarrassment. Apprehensive of party discord,
Thurlow Weed, at a dinner given the Vice President and Senator, had
arranged for conferences between them upon important appointments
within the State; but Seward's first knowledge of the New York
custom-house appointments came to him in an executive session for
their confirmation. Seward, as Lincoln afterward said, "was a man
without gall," and he did not openly resent the infraction of the
agreement; but when Weed, upon reaching Washington, discovered that
Fillmore had the ear of the simple and confiding President, he quickly
sought the Vice President. Fillmore received him coldly. From that
moment began an estrangement between Weed and the Buffalo statesman
which was to last until both were grown gray and civil war had
obliterated differences of political sentiment. For twenty years,
their intimacy had been uninterrupted and constantly strengthening.
Even upon the slavery question their views coincided, and, although
Fillmore chafed under his growing preference for Seward and the
latter's evident intellectual superiority, he had exhibited no
impatience toward Weed. But Fillmore was now Vice President, with
aspirations for the Presidency, and he saw in Seward a formidable
rival who would have the support of Weed whenever the Senator needed
it. He rashly made up his mind, therefore, to end their relationship.

With Taylor, Weed was at his ease. The President remembered the
editor's letter written in 1846, and what Weed now asked he quickly
granted. When Weed complained, therefore, that the Vice President was
filling federal offices with his own friends, the President dropped
Fillmore and turned to the Senator for suggestions. Seward accepted
the burden of looking after patronage. "I detest and loathe this
running to the President every day to protest against this man or
that,"[394] he wrote; but the President cheerfully responded to his
requests. "If the country is to be benefited by our services," he said
to the Secretary of the Treasury, "it seems to me that you and I ought
to remember those to whose zeal, activity, and influence we are
indebted 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 with
Whigs, the Democratic party was trying to reunite. It called for a
bold hand. John Van Buren, with a courage born of genius, had struck
it a terrible blow in the face of tremendous odds, the effect of which
was as gratifying to the Barnburners as it was disastrous to the
Hunkers. But, in 1849, the party professed to believe that a union of
the factions would result in victory, since their aggregate vote in
1848 exceeded the Whig vote by sixteen thousand. It is difficult to
realise the arguments which persuaded the Barnburners to rejoin their
adversaries whom they had declared, in no measured terms, to be guilty
of the basest conduct; but, after infinite labour, Horatio Seymour
established constructive harmony and practical co-operation. "We are
asked to compromise our principles," said John Van Buren. "The day of
compromises is past; but, in regard to candidates for state offices,
we are still a commercial people. We will unite with our late
antagonists."[396]

[Footnote 396: H.B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 165.]

Seymour and Van Buren did not unite easily. From the first they were
rivals. As an orator, Seymour was the more persuasive, logical, and
candid--Van Buren the more witty, sarcastic, and brilliant. Seymour
was conciliatory--Van Buren aggressive. Indeed, they had little in
common save their rare mental and social gifts, and that personal
magnetism which binds followers with hooks of steel. But they stood
now at the head of their respective factions. When Van Buren,
therefore, finally consented to join Seymour in a division of the
spoils, the two wings of the party quickly coalesced in the fall of
1849 for the election of seven state officers. The Free-soil faction
professed to retain its principles; and, by placing several
Abolitionists upon the ticket, nine-tenths of that party also joined
the combination. But the spirit of the Free-soiler was absent. The man
whose genius and whose eloquence had been the most potent factor in
discrediting the Hunkers now had no anti-slavery speeches to make and
no anti-slavery resolutions to present. John Van Buren's
identification with the great movement, which he prophesied would
stand so strong and work such wonders, was destined, after he had
avenged the insult to his father, to vanish like a breath. Nor did the
coalition of Hunkers, Barnburners, and Abolitionists prove so numerous
or so solid that it could sweep the State. It did, indeed, carry the
Assembly by two majority, and with the help of a portion of the
Anti-Renters, who refused to support their own ticket, it elected four
minor state officers; but the Whigs held the Senate, and, with
majorities ranging from fifteen hundred to five thousand, chose the
comptroller, the secretary of state, and the treasurer. Washington
Hunt, the popular Whig candidate for comptroller, led the ticket by
nearly six thousand, a triumph that was soon to bring him higher
honours.

The Whigs, however, were to have their day of trouble. The election of
Taylor and Fillmore had fired the Southern heart with zeal to defend
slavery. More than eighty members of Congress issued an address, drawn
by John C. Calhoun, rebuking the agitation of the slavery question,
insisting upon their right to take slaves into the territories, and
complaining of the difficulty of recovering fugitives. The Virginia
Legislature affirmed that the adoption and attempted enforcement of
the Wilmot Proviso would be resisted to the last extremity, and that
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia would be a direct
attack upon the institution of the Southern States. These resolutions
were indorsed by Democratic conventions, approved at public meetings,
and amplified by state legislatures. In Missouri, Tennessee, and
Kentucky the feeling quickly reached fever heat; in the cotton States
sentiment boldly favoured "A Southern Confederacy." Sectional interest
melted party lines. "The Southern Whigs want the great question
settled in such a manner as shall not humble and exasperate the
South," said the New York _Tribune_; "the Southern Democrats want it
so settled as to conduce to the extension of the power and influence
of slavery."

In the midst of this intense southern feeling Henry Clay, from his
place in the United States Senate, introduced the historic resolutions
which bear his name, proposing an amicable adjustment of all questions
growing out of the subject of slavery. This series of compromises was
to admit California, establish territorial governments in the regions
acquired from Mexico without provision for or against slavery, pay the
debt and fix the western boundary of Texas, declare it inexpedient to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, deny the right of
Congress to obstruct the slave trade between States, and to enact a
more stringent fugitive slave law. It was in January, 1850, that Clay
opened the memorable debate upon these resolutions, which continued
eight months and included Webster's great speech of the 7th of March.
When the debate ended in September Zachary Taylor was dead, Millard
Fillmore was President, a new Cabinet had been appointed, slavery
remained undisturbed in the District of Columbia, Mexico and Utah had
become territories open to slave-holders, and a new fugitive slave
law bore the approval of the new Chief Executive. During these months
the whole country had been absorbed in events at Washington. Private
letters, newspapers, public meetings, and state legislatures echoed
the speeches of the three distinguished Senators who had long been in
the public eye, and who, it was asserted at the time, were closing
their life work in saving the Union.

In this discussion, Daniel S. Dickinson favoured compromise; William
H. Seward stood firmly for his anti-slavery convictions. The latter
spoke on the 11th of March. He opposed the fugitive slave law because
"we cannot be true Christians or real freemen if we impose on another
a chain that we defy all human power to lay on ourselves;"[397] he
declared for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,
"and if I shall be asked what I did to embellish the capital of my
country, I will point to her freemen and say--these are the monuments
of my munificence;" he antagonised the right to take slaves into new
territories, affirming that the Constitution devoted the domain to
union, to justice, and to liberty. "But there is a higher law than the
Constitution," he said, "which regulates our authority over the
domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes." In treating of
threats of disunion he looked with a prophet's eye fourteen years into
the future. That vision revealed border warfare, kindred converted
into enemies, onerous taxes, death on the field and in the hospital,
and conscription to maintain opposing forces. "It will then appear
that the question of dissolving the Union is a complex question; that
it embraces the fearful issue whether the Union shall stand and
slavery be removed by gradual, voluntary effort, and with
compensation, or whether the Union shall be dissolved and civil war
ensue, bringing on violent but complete and immediate emancipation. We
are now arrived at that stage of our national progress when that
crisis 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 by
the criticism, the censure, and the insulting sneers which this speech
provoked. Southern feeling dominated the Senate chamber. Many northern
men, sincerely desirous of limiting slavery, preferred giving up the
Wilmot Proviso for the sake of peace. Thousands of Whigs regarded
dissent from Clay and Webster, their time-honoured leaders, as bold
and presumptuous. In reviewing Seward's speech, these people
pronounced it pernicious, unpatriotic, and wicked, especially since
"the higher law" theory, taken in connection with his criticism of the
fugitive slave law, implied that a humane and Christian people could
not or would not obey it. But the Auburn statesman resented nothing
and retracted nothing. "With the single exception of the argument in
poor Freeman's case," he wrote, "it is the only speech I ever made
that 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 passed
amidst the wildest outbursts of popular enthusiasm. They appealed to a
majority of both the great parties as a final settlement of the
slavery question. In New York and other cities throughout the State,
flags were hoisted, salutes fired, joy bells rung, illuminations
flamed at night, and speakers at mass-meetings congratulated their
fellow citizens upon the wisdom of a President and a Congress that had
happily averted the great peril of disunion.

These exhibitions of gratitude were engrossing the attention of the
people when the Whig state convention met at Utica on the 26th of
September, 1850. Immediately, the approval of Seward's course assumed
supreme importance. Unusual excitement had attended the selection of
delegates. The new administration became aggressive. No secret was
made of its purpose to crush Thurlow Weed; and when the convention
assembled, Hugh Maxwell, collector of the port of New York, and John
Young, sub-treasurer, were there to control it. A test vote for
temporary chairman disclosed sixty-eight Radicals and forty-one
Conservatives present, but in the interest of harmony Francis Granger
became the permanent president.

Granger was a man of honour and a man of intellect, whose qualities of
fairness and fitness for public life have already been described. When
he entered Harrison's Cabinet in 1841, as postmaster-general, the
South classed him as an Abolitionist; when he left Congress in 1843,
in the fulness of his intellectual strength, his home at Canandaigua
became the centre of an admiring group of Whigs who preferred the lead
of Clay and the conservative policy of Webster. He now appeared as an
ally of President Fillmore. It was natural, perhaps, that in
appointing a committee on resolutions, Granger should give advantage
of numbers to his own faction, but the Radicals were amazed at the
questionable action of his committee. It delayed its report upon the
pretext of not being ready, and then, late in the evening, in the
absence of many delegates, presented what purported to be a unanimous
expression, in which Seward was left practically without mention. As
the delegates listened in profound silence the majority became
painfully aware that something was wanting, and, before action upon it
could be taken, they forced an adjournment by a vote of fifty-six to
fifty-one.

The next morning the Radicals exhibited a desire for less harmony and
more justice. By a vote of seventy-three to forty-six the original
resolutions were recommitted to an enlarged committee, and after
nominating Washington Hunt for governor and George J. Cornwell for
lieutenant-governor, substitute resolutions were adopted by a vote of
seventy-four to forty-two. One difference between the original and the
substitute centred in the organisation of new territories. The
majority opposed any surrender or waiver of the exclusion of slavery
in any act establishing a regular civil organisation; the minority
thought that, since it was impossible to secure the Wilmot Proviso, an
insistence upon which would prevent any territorial organisation, it
would be better to organise them without it, relying upon nature and
the known disposition of the inhabitants to follow the lead of
California. This difference, however, could probably have been healed
had the Radicals not insisted that "the thanks of the Whig party are
especially due to William H. Seward for the signal ability and
fidelity with which he sustained those beloved principles of public
policy so long cherished by the Whigs of the Empire State, expressed
in state and county conventions as well as in the votes and
instructions of the state legislature." Upon this resolution the
Conservatives demanded a roll call, and when its adoption, by the
surprising vote of seventy-five to forty, was announced, the minority,
amidst the wildest excitement, left the hall in a body, followed by
Francis Granger, whose silver gray hair gave a name to the seceders.
Their withdrawal was not a surprise. Like the secession of the
Barnburners three years before, loud threats preceded action. Indeed,
William A. Duer, the Oswego congressman, admitted travelling from
Washington to Syracuse with instructions from Fillmore to bolt the
approval of Seward. But the secession seemed to disturb only the
Silver-Grays themselves, who now drafted an address to the Whigs of
the State and called a new convention to assemble at Utica on October
17.

The Democrats in their state convention, which met at Syracuse on
September 11, repeated the policy of conciliation so skilfully
engineered in 1849 by Horatio Seymour. They received Barnburner
delegates, they divided the offices, and they allowed John Van Buren
to rule. It mattered not what were the principles of the captivating
Prince and his followers so long as they accepted "the recent
settlement by Congress of questions which have unhappily divided the
people of these States." Thus the Free-soil Barnburners disappeared as
a political factor. Some of them continued to avow their anti-slavery
principles, but no one had the temerity to mention them in convention.
Men deemed it politic and prudent to affect to believe that the
slavery question, which had threatened to disturb the national peace,
was finally laid at rest. The country so accepted it, trade and
commerce demanded it, and old political leaders conceded it. In this
frame of mind, delegates found it easy to nominate Horatio Seymour for
governor and Sanford E. Church for lieutenant-governor. The next day
the 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 not
exalt its members. It was simply a protest. A lion-hearted man had
presumed to voice his convictions, and, although the convention
favoured exercising a liberal spirit of toleration toward the
compromise measures, it refused to exercise such a spirit toward
William H. Seward, or to tolerate him at all. It gave the President a
flattering indorsement for his approval of the fugitive slave law, it
accepted Washington Hunt as its nominee for governor, and it listened
to several addresses, among them one from James O. Putnam of Buffalo;
but the proceedings lacked the enthusiasm that springs from a clear
principle, backed by a strong and resolute band of followers. The
speech of Putnam, however, attracted wide attention. Putnam was a
young man then, less than thirty-three years old, passionately devoted
to Daniel Webster, and a personal friend of Millard Fillmore. As a
speaker he was polished, smooth, and refined, and even when
impassioned kept his passion well within conventional bounds. On this
occasion his mellow and far-reaching voice, keyed to the pitch of
sustained rhetoric, dropped his well-balanced and finely moulded
sentences into the convention amidst hearty applause. He did not then
see with the clearness of Seward's vision. He belonged rather to the
more enlightened and intelligent conservatives who had begun to feel
the ultimate disaster slavery must bring, and who desired that such
disaster should be put off as long as possible; but the day was soon
to dawn in which he would become a loyal supporter of the principles
that were to be forever settled in the civil strife which Seward so
vividly portrayed in the speech that created the Silver-Grays.

The recently adopted compromise did not become an issue in the New
York campaign of 1850. If its opponents could not approve, they deemed
silence wise. The followers of Fillmore in the up-state counties
generally acted with the Seward men in support of Washington Hunt; but
a great meeting, held at Castle Garden, near the close of the
campaign, partially succeeded in uniting Democrats and Administration
Whigs in New York City. A letter was read from Daniel Webster, calling
upon all good citizens not to rekindle the flames of "useless and
dangerous controversy;" resolutions favouring a vigorous enforcement
of the fugitive slave law were adopted; and a coalition ticket with
Seymour at its head was agreed upon. This meeting, called a great
popular protest against demagoguery, opened an aggressive canvass to
defeat Hunt and destroy the Syracuse indorsement of Seward by raising
the cry that Seward Whigs preferred civil war to a peaceable
enforcement of the fugitive slave law. Seward took no part in this
campaign. After Congress adjourned on the last day of September, he
devoted the short time between the sessions to his law business. His
friends, however, were active. Weed attacked the Castle Garden meeting
with a bitterness and vigour rarely disclosed in the columns of the
_Evening Journal_, and Greeley poured one broadside after another into
what he regarded as the miserable mismanagement, blundering, and
confusion of the Administration.

While waiting the result of the election, people were startled into
sadness by the sudden death of Samuel Young at the age of seventy-two.
He had retired in usual health, but died during the night. His
distinguished career, covering nearly two-score years, was
characterised by strong prejudices, violent temper, and implacable
resentments, which, kept him behind men of less aptitude for public
service; but he was always a central figure in any assemblage favoured
with his presence. He had a marvellous force of oratory. His, voice,
his gestures, his solemn pauses, followed by lofty and sustained
declamation, proved irresistible and sometimes overwhelming in their
effect. But it was his misfortune to be an orator with jaundiced
vision, who seemed not always to see that principles controlled
oftener 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 face
no dough."

It was several weeks after the election, before it was ascertained
whether Seymour or Hunt had been chosen. Both were popular, and of
about the same age. Washington Hunt seems to have devoted his life to
an earnest endeavour to win everybody's good will. At this time
Greeley thought him "capable without pretension," and "animated by an
anxious desire to win golden opinions by deserving them." He had been
six years in Congress, and, in 1849, ran far ahead of his ticket as
comptroller. Horatio Seymour was no less successful in winning
approbation. He had become involved in the canal controversy, but
carefully avoided the slavery question. Greeley found it in his heart
to speak of him as "an able and agreeable lawyer of good fortune and
competent speaking talent, who would make a highly respectable
governor." But 1850 was not Seymour's year. His associates upon the
ticket were elected by several thousand majority, and day after day
his own success seemed probable. The New York City combine gave him a
satisfactory majority; in two or three Hudson river counties he made
large gains; but the official count gave Hunt two hundred and
sixty-two plurality,[400] with a safe Whig majority in the
Legislature. The Whigs also elected a majority of the congressmen.
"These results," wrote Thurlow Weed, "will encourage the friends of
freedom to persevere by all constitutional means and through all
rightful channels in their efforts to restrain the extension of
slavery, and to wipe out that black spot wherever it can be done
without 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 New
Yorkers. A very young man, full of promise and full of performance,
the brilliant editor of a later day, the precocious politician of that
day, became its speaker. Henry Jarvis Raymond was then in his
thirty-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 ready
in debate, temperate in language, quick in the apprehension of
parliamentary rules, and of phenomenal tact. The unexcelled courtesy
and grace of manner with which he dropped the measured and beautiful
sentences that made him an orator, undoubtedly aided in obtaining the
position to which his genius entitled him. But his political
instincts, also, were admirable, and his aptness as an unerring
counsellor in the conduct of complicated affairs always turned to the
advantage of his party. There came a time, after the assassination of
President Lincoln, when he made a mistake so grievous that he was
never able to regain his former standing; when he was dropped from the
list of party leaders; when his cordial affiliation with members of
the Republican organisation ceased; when his removal from the
chairmanship of the National Committee was ratified by the action of a
state convention; but the sagacity with which he now commented upon
what he saw and heard made the oldest members of the Assembly lean
upon 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 it
difficult easily to acquire knowledge. He could read at three years of
age; at five he was a speaker. In his sixteenth year he taught school
in Genesee County, where he was born, wrote a Fourth of July ode
creditable to one of double his years, and entered the University of
Vermont. As soon as he reached an age to appreciate his tastes and to
form a purpose, he began equipping himself for the career of a
political journalist. He was not yet twenty-one when he made Whig
speeches in the campaign of 1840 and gained employment with Horace
Greeley on the _New Yorker_ and a little later on the _Tribune_. "I
never 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 the
only assistant with whom I ever felt required to remonstrate for doing
more work than any human brain and frame could be expected long to
endure. His services were more valuable in proportion to their cost
than those of any one who ever worked on the _Tribune_."[402] In 1843,
when Raymond left the _Tribune_, James Watson Webb, already acquainted
with the ripe intelligence and eager genius of the young man of
twenty-three, thought him competent to manage the _Courier and
Enquirer_, and in his celebrated discussion with Greeley on the
subject of socialism he gave that paper something of the glory which
twelve 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 with
which he formulated answers to arguments in the Polk campaign, his
sympathy with the Free-soil movement, the canal policy, and the common
school system, produced a marked impression upon the dawning wisdom of
his readers. But it was near the end of his connection with the
_Courier_ before he yielded his own desires to the urgent solicitation
of the Whigs of the ninth ward and went to the Assembly. He had not
yet quarrelled with James Watson Webb. That came in the spring of
1851 when he refused to use his political influence as speaker against
Hamilton Fish for United States senator and in favour of the owner of
the _Courier and Enquirer_. His anti-slavery convictions and strong
prejudices against the compromise measures of 1850 also rapidly
widened the gulf between him and his superior; and when the break
finally came he stepped from the speaker's chair into the editorial
management of the New York _Times_, his own paper, pure in tone and
reasonable in price, which was destined to weaken the _Courier_ as a
political 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 speaker
as Raymond. At the outset, the scenes and tactics witnessed at
Seward's election to the Senate in 1849 were repeated in the selection
of a successor to Daniel S. Dickinson, whose term expired on the 4th
of March. Webb's candidacy was prosecuted with characteristic zeal.
For a quarter of a century he had been a picturesque, aggressive
journalist, with a record adorned with libel suits and duels--the
result of pungent paragraphs and bitter personalities--making him an
object of terror to the timid and a pistol target for the fearless. On
one occasion, through the clemency of Governor Seward, he escaped a
two years' term in state's prison for fighting the brilliant "Tom"
Marshall of Kentucky, who wounded him in the leg, and it is not
impossible that Jonathan Cilley might have wounded him in the other
had not the distinguished Maine congressman refused his challenge
because he was "not a gentleman." This reply led to the foolish and
fatal fray between Cilley and William J. Graves, who took up Webb's
quarrel.

Webb was known as the Apollo of the press, his huge form, erect and
massive, towering above the heads of other men, while his great
physical 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, at
the age of twenty-five, he resigned to become the editor of the
_Courier_, which, in 1829, he combined with the _Enquirer_. For twenty
years, under his management, this paper, first as a supporter of
Jackson and later as an advocate of Whig policies, ranked among the
influential journals of New York. After Raymond withdrew, however, it
became the organ of the Silver-Grays, and began to wane, until, in
1860, it lapsed into the _World_.

Webb's chief title to distinction in political life was allegiance to
his own principles regardless of the party with which he happened to
be affiliated, and his fidelity to men who had shown him kindness. He
followed President Jackson until the latter turned against the United
States 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 kept
him out of state's prison, although, in the contest for United States
senator in 1851, Hamilton Fish was the candidate of the Seward Whigs.
Fish had grown rapidly as governor. People formerly recognised him as
an accomplished gentleman, modest in manners and moderate in speech,
but his conduct and messages as an executive revealed those higher
qualities of statesmanship that ranked him among the wisest public men
of the State. Thurlow Weed had accepted rather than selected him for
governor in 1848. "I came here without claims upon your kindness,"
Fish wrote on December 31, 1850, the last day of his term. "I shall
leave here full of the most grateful recollections of your favours and
good will."[403] This admission was sufficient to dishonour him with
the Fillmore Whigs, and, although he became the caucus nominee for
senator on the 30th of January, his opponents, marshalled by Fillmore
office-holders in support of James Watson Webb, succeeded in
deadlocking 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, and
when the day for electing a United States senator arrived, sixteen
Whigs voted for Fish, and fifteen Democrats voted for as many
different candidates, so that the Fish Whigs could not double over
upon them. James W. Beekman, a Whig senator of New York City, who
claimed that Fish had fallen too much under the control of Weed, voted
for Francis Granger. Upon a motion to adjourn, Beekman voted 'yes'
with the Democrats, creating a tie, which the lieutenant-governor
broke by also voting in the affirmative. The Whigs then waited for a
few weeks, but one morning, when two Democrats were in New York City,
they sprung a resolution to go into an election, and, after an
unbroken struggle of fourteen hours, Fish was elected. The exultant
cannon of the victors startled the city from its slumbers, and
convinced the Silver-Grays that the Woolly Heads still held the
capitol."--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, passed
an act authorising a loan of nine million dollars for the immediate
enlargement of the Erie canal. Its constitutionality, seriously
doubted, was approved by Daniel Webster and Rufus Choate, and the
Whigs, needing an issue for the campaign, forced the bill ahead until
eleven Democratic senators broke a quorum by resigning their seats.
The Whigs were scarcely less excited than the Democrats. Such a
secession had never occurred before. Former legislators held the
opinion that they were elected to represent and maintain the interests
of their constituents--not to withdraw for the sake of indulging some
petulant or romantic impulse because they could not have their own
way. Two opposition senators had the good sense to take this view and
remain at their post. Governor Hunt immediately called an extra
session, and, in the campaign to fill the vacancies, six of the eleven
seceders were beaten. Thus reinforced in the Senate, the Whig policy
became the law; and, although, the Court of Appeals, in the following
May, held the act unconstitutional, both parties got the benefit of
the issue in the campaign of 1851.

In this contest the Whigs followed the lead of the Democrats in
avoiding the slavery question. The fugitive slave law was absorbing
public attention. The "Jerry rescue" had not occurred in Syracuse; nor
had the killing of a slave-holder in a negro uprising on the border of
an adjoining State advertised the danger of enforcing the law; yet
the Act had not worked as smoothly as Fillmore's friends wished. It
took ten days of litigation at a cost of more than the fugitive's
value to reclaim a slave in New York City. Trustworthy estimates fixed
the number of runaways in the free States at fifteen thousand, and a
southern United States senator bitterly complained that only four or
five had been recaptured since the law's enactment. Enough had been
done, however, to inflame the people into a passion. Ralph Waldo
Emerson declared the Act "a law which every one of you will break on
the earliest occasion--a law which no man can obey, or abet the
obeying, without loss of self-respect and forfeiture of the name of
gentleman."[405] Seward did not hesitate to publish similar
sentiments. "Christendom," he wrote, "might be searched in vain for a
parallel to the provisions which make escape from bondage a crime, and
which, under vigorous penalties, compel freemen to aid in the capture
of slaves."[406] The Albany _Evening Journal_ declared that "the
execution of the fugitive slave law violently convulses the
foundations of society. Fugitives who have lived among us for many
years cannot be seized and driven off as if they belonged to the brute
creation. The attempt to recover such fugitives will prove
abortive."[407]

[Footnote 405: J.E. Cabot, _Life of Emerson_, p. 578. Emerson's
address 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 they
were written under the inspiration of genuine emotion, and that so
long as such conditions continued men of sentiment could think of
little else. Danger to the Union, at least assumed danger, could not
in any way soften their hearts or change their purposes. Yet the state
conventions which met in Syracuse on September 10 and 11, 1851, talked
of other things. The Democrats nominated a ticket divided between
Hunkers and Barnburners; and, after condemning the Whig management of
the canals as lavish, reckless, and corrupt, readopted the slavery
resolutions of the previous year. The Whigs likewise performed their
duty by making up a ticket of Fillmore and inoffensive Seward men,
pledging the party to the enlargement of the Erie canal. Thus it was
publicly announced that slavery should be eliminated from the thought
and action of parties.

This policy of silence put the Whigs under painful restraint. The
rescue of a fugitive at Syracuse by a band of resolute men, led by
Gerrit Smith and Samuel J. May, and the killing of a slave-owner at
Christiana, Pennsylvania, while attempting to reclaim his property,
seriously disturbed the consciences of men who thought as did Emerson
and Seward; but not a word appeared in Whig papers about the great
underlying question which persistently forced itself on men's
thoughts. Greeley wrote of the tariff and the iron trade; Seward spent
the summer in Detroit on professional engagements; and Weed, whose
great skill had aided in successfully guiding the canal loan through a
legislative secession, continued to urge that policy as the key to the
campaign as well as to New York's commerce. But after the votes were
counted the Whigs discovered that they had played a losing game. Two
minor state officers out of eight, with a tie in the Senate and two
majority in the Assembly, summed up their possessions. The defeat of
George W. Patterson for comptroller greatly distressed his friends,
and the loss of the canal board, with all its officers, plunged the
whole Whig party into grief. Several reasons for this unexpected
result found advocates in the press. There were evidences of
infidelity in some of the up-state counties, especially in the Auburn
district, where Samuel Blatchford's law partnership with Seward had
defeated him for justice of the Supreme Court; but the wholesale
proscription in New York City by Administration or "Cotton Whigs," as
they were called, fully accounted for the overthrow. It was taken as a
declaration of war against Sewardism. "The majorities against
Patterson and his defeated associates," said the _Tribune_, in its
issue of November 20, "imply that no man who is recognised as a
friend of Governor Seward and a condemner of the fugitive slave law
must be run on our state ticket hereafter, or he will be beaten by the
Cotton influence in this city." Hamilton Fish took a similar view. "A
noble, glorious party has been defeated--destroyed--by its own
leaders," he wrote Weed. "Webster has succeeded better under Fillmore
than he did under Tyler in breaking up the Whig organisation and
forming a third party. I pity Fillmore. Timid, vacillating, credulous,
unjustly suspicious when approached by his prejudices, he has allowed
the sacrifice of that confiding party which has had no honours too
high to confer upon him. It cannot be long before he will realise the
tremendous 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 of
1852. Fillmore, Scott, and Webster were the candidates. Fillmore had
not spared the use of patronage to further his ambition. It mattered
not that the postmaster at Albany was the personal friend of Thurlow
Weed, or that the men appointed upon the recommendation of Seward were
the choice of a majority of their party, the proscription extended to
all who disapproved the Silver-Grays' bolt of 1850, or refused to
recognise their subsequent convention at Utica. Under these
circumstances thirst for revenge as well as a desire to nominate a
winning 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 great
shock to Fillmore. The Silver-Grays had been growing heartily sick of
their secession, and if they needed further evidence of its rashness
the weakness of their leader in his home State furnished it.

Fillmore's strength proved to be chiefly in the South. His vigorous
execution of the fugitive slave law had been more potent than his
unsparing use of patronage; and when the Whig convention assembled at
Baltimore on June 16 the question whether that law should be declared
a finality became of supreme importance. Fillmore could not stand on
an anti-slavery platform, and a majority of the New Yorkers refused
their consent to any sacrifice of principle. But, in spite of their
protest, the influence of a solid southern delegation, backed by the
marvellous eloquence of Rufus Choate, forced the passage of a
resolution declaring that "the compromise acts, the act known as the
fugitive slave law included, are received and acquiesced in by the
Whig party of the United States as a settlement in principle and
substance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace.
We insist upon their strict enforcement; and we deprecate all further
agitation of the question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace, and
will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation
whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be made." A roll call
developed sixty-six votes in the negative, all from the North, and
one-third of them from New York.

This was a Fillmore-Webster platform, and the first ballot gave them a
majority of the votes cast, Fillmore having 133, Webster 29, Scott
131. The number necessary to a choice was 147. The activity of the
Fillmore delegates, therefore, centred in an effort to concentrate the
votes of the President and his secretary of state. Both were in
Washington, their relations were cordial, and an adjournment of the
convention over Sunday gave abundant opportunity to negotiate. When it
became manifest that Webster's friends would not go to Fillmore, an
extraordinary effort was made to bring the President's votes to
Webster. This was agreeable to Fillmore, who placed a letter of
withdrawal in the hands of a Buffalo delegate to be used whenever he
deemed it proper. But twenty-two Southern men declined to be
transferred, while the most piteous appeals to the Scott men of New
York met with cold refusals. They professed any amount of duty to
their party, but as regards the Fillmore combine they were implacable.
They would listen to no terms of compromise while their great enemy
remained in the field. Meantime, the Scott managers had not been
asleep. In the contest over the platform, certain Southern delegates
had agreed to vote for Scott whenever Fillmore reached his finish,
provided Scott's friends supported the fugitive slave plank; and these
delegates, amidst the wildest excitement, now began changing their
votes to the hero of Lundy's Lane. On the fifty-third ballot, the
soldier had twenty-six majority, the vote standing: Scott, 159;
Fillmore, 112; Webster, 21.

The prophecy of Hamilton Fish was fulfilled. Fillmore now realised, if
never before, "the tremendous mistakes he had made." Upon his election
as Vice President, and especially after dreams of the White House
began to dazzle him, he seemed to sacrifice old friends and cherished
principles without a scruple. Until then, the Buffalo statesman had
been as pronounced upon the slavery question as Seward; and after he
became President, with the tremendous influence of Daniel Webster
driving him on, it was not believed that he would violate the
principles of a lifetime by approving a fugitive slave law, revolting
to the rapidly growing sentiment of justice and humanity toward the
slave. But, unlike Webster, the President manifested no feeling of
chagrin or disappointment over the result at Baltimore. Throughout the
campaign and during the balance of his term of office he bore himself
with courage and with dignity. Indeed, his equanimity seemed almost
like the fortitude of fatalism. No doubt, he was sustained by the
conviction that the compromise measures had avoided civil war, and by
the feeling that if he had erred, Clay and Webster had likewise erred;
but he could have had no presentiment of the depth of the retirement
to which he was destined. He was to reappear, in 1856, as a
presidential candidate of the Americans; and, after civil war had rent
the country in twain, his sympathy for the Union was to reveal itself
early and with ardour. But the fugitive slave law, which, next to
treason itself, had become the most offensive act during the ante-war
crisis, filled the minds of men with a growing dislike of the one
whose pen gave it life, and, in spite of his high character, his long
public career, and his eminence as a citizen, he was associated with
Pierce and Buchanan, who, as Northern men, were believed to have
surrendered to Southern dictation.[409]

[Footnote 409: "When Fillmore withdrew from the presidential office,
the general sentiment proclaimed that he had filled the place with
ability and honour. He was strictly temperate, industrious, orderly,
and of an integrity above suspicion. If Northern people did not
approve the fugitive slave law, they at least looked upon it with
toleration. It is quite true, however, that after-opinion has been
unkind to Fillmore. The judgment on him was made up at a time when the
fugitive slave law had become detestable, and he was remembered only
for 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, the
New York Democrats were likewise destined to suffer by their
divisions. Lewis Cass, James Buchanan, and Stephen A. Douglas were the
leading candidates; though William L. Marcy and Daniel S. Dickinson
also had presidential ambitions. Marcy was a man of different mould
from Dickinson.[410] With great mental resources, rare administrative
ability, consummate capacity in undermining enemies, and an intuitive
sagacity in the selection of friends, Marcy was an opponent to be
dreaded. After the experiences of 1847 and 1848, he had bitterly
denounced the Barnburners, refusing even to join Seymour in 1849 in
his heroic efforts to reunite the party; but when the Barnburners,
influenced by the Utica statesman, began talking of him for President
in 1852 he quickly put himself in accord with that wing of his party.
Instantly, this became a call to battle. The Hunkers, provoked at his
apostacy and encouraged by the continued distrust of many Barnburners,
made a desperate effort, under the leadership of Dickinson, to secure
a majority of the delegates for Cass. The plastic hand of Horatio
Seymour, however, quickly kneaded the doubting Barnburners into Marcy
advocates; and when the contest ended the New York delegation stood
twenty-three for Marcy and thirteen for Cass.

[Footnote 410: "It was certain that Mr. Dickinson could not carry New
York.... Governor Marcy was strongly urged in many quarters, and it
was thought the State might be carried by him; but many were of the
opinion that his friends kept his name prominently before the public
with the hope of obtaining a cabinet appointment for him and thus
securing the influence of that section of the New York Democracy to
which he belonged. This was precisely the result that followed."--Morgan
Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 266.]

Dickinson, who had been a steadfast friend of the South, relied with
confidence upon Virginia and other Southern States whenever success
with Cass seemed impossible. On the other hand, Marcy expected a
transfer of support from Buchanan and Douglas if the break came. On
the 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 through
thirty-three ballots; but, on the thirty-fourth, he dropped to 23, and
Virginia cast its fifteen votes for Dickinson, who, up to that time,
had been honoured only with the vote of a solitary delegate. In the
midst of some applause, the New Yorker, who was himself a delegate,
thanked his Virginia friends for the compliment, but declared that his
adherence to Cass could not be shaken.[411] Dickinson had carefully
arranged for this vote. The day before, in the presence of the
Virginia delegation, he had asked Henry B. Stanton's opinion of his
ability to carry New York. "You or Marcy or any man nominated can
carry New York," was the laconic reply. Dickinson followed Stanton out
of the room to thank him for his courtesy, but regretted he did not
confine his answer to him alone. After Virginia's vote Dickinson again
sought Stanton's opinion as to its adherence. "It is simply a
compliment," was the reply, "and will leave you on the next ballot,"
which it did, going to Franklin Pierce. "Dickinson's friends used to
assert," continued Stanton, "that he threw away the Presidency on this
occasion. I happened to know better. He never stood for a moment where
he could control the Virginia vote--the hinge whereon all was to
turn."[412]

[Footnote 411: "I could not consent to a nomination here without
incurring the imputation of unfaithfully executing the trust committed
to me by my constituents--without turning my back on an old and valued
friend. Nothing that could be offered me--not even the highest
position in the Government, the office of President of the United
States--could compensate me for such a desertion of my trust."--Daniel
S. 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 days
that the favourite candidates could not win, and for the next thirteen
ballots, amidst the greatest noise and confusion, the convention
sought to discover the wisest course to pursue. Seymour endeavoured to
side-track the "dark horse" movement by turning the tide to Marcy,
whose vote kept steadily rising. When, on the forty-fifth ballot, he
reached 97, the New York delegation retired for consultation. Seymour
at once moved that the State vote solidly for Marcy; but protests fell
so thick, exploding like bombshells, that he soon withdrew the motion.
This ended Marcy's chances.[413] On the forty-ninth ballot, North
Carolina started the stampede to Pierce, who received 282 votes to 6
for all others. Later in the day, the convention nominated William R.
King of Alabama for Vice President, and adopted a platform, declaring
that "the Democratic party of the Union will abide by, and adhere to,
a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures
settled by the last Congress--the act for reclaiming fugitive slaves
from service of labour included; which act, being designed to carry
out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot with fidelity
thereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its
efficiency."

[Footnote 413: "Marcy held the war portfolio under Polk, but his
conduct of the office had not added to his reputation, for it had
galled the Administration to have the signal victories of the Mexican
War won by Whig generals, and it was currently believed that the War
Minister had shared in the endeavour to thwart some of the plans of
Scott 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 to
within one of fifty, the Virginia nominee was announced as the choice
of the convention."--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p.
268.]

Some time before the convention it was suggested, with Marcy's
approval, that the New York delegation should vote as a unit for
Dickinson 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 had
committed themselves by a second choice; but, in speaking of the
matter to Thurlow Weed ten years afterward, Dickinson said that had it
come in time he would cheerfully have accepted it, adding that
whatever may have been his opinion in 1852, he now knew it would have
resulted in Marcy's nomination.

The disturbance among the New York delegates at Baltimore had its
influence at Syracuse when the Democratic state convention assembled
on September 1. Seymour was the leading candidate for governor, and
Dickinson opposed him with a bitterness born of a desire for revenge.
The night before the convention Seymour's chances were pronounced
desperate. Whatever disappointments had come at Baltimore were laid at
his door. Seymour made Cass' defeat possible; Seymour refused to help
Buchanan; Seymour was responsible for a dark horse; Seymour filled
Marcy's friends with hopes of ultimate victory, only to heighten their
disappointment in the end. All these allegations were merely founded
upon his steadfastness to Marcy, and he might have answered that
everything had been done with the approval of a majority of the New
York delegation. But Dickinson was no match for the Utica statesman.
Seymour's whole life had been a training for such a contest. As Roscoe
Conkling said of him many years later, he had sat at the feet of Edwin
Croswell and measured swords with Thurlow Weed. He was one of the men
who do not lose the character of good fighters because they are
excellent negotiators. Even the cool-headed and astute John Van Buren,
who joined Dickinson in his support of John P. Beekman of New York
City for governor, found that Seymour could cut deeply when he chose
to wield a blade.[414] Seymour, moreover, gave his friends great
satisfaction by the energy with which he entered the gubernatorial
contest. When the first ballot was announced he had 59 votes to
Beekman's 7, with only 64 necessary to a choice. On the second ballot,
the Utican had 78 and Beekman 3. This concluded the convention's
contest. Sanford E. Church was then renominated for lieutenant-governor,
and the Baltimore platform approved.

[Footnote 414: "Seymour was among the most effective and eloquent
platform orators in New York. Less electrical than John Van Buren, he
was more persuasive; less witty, he was more logical; less sarcastic,
he was more candid; less denunciatory of antagonists, he was more
convincing to opponents. These two remarkable men had little in common
except lofty ambition and rare mental and social gifts. Their salient
characteristics were widely dissimilar. Seymour was conciliatory, and
cultivated 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 promptly
renominated Washington Hunt for governor by acclamation. Raymond
wanted it, and Greeley, in a letter to Weed, admitted an ambition,
while a strong sentiment existed for George W. Patterson. Hunt had
veered toward Fillmore's way of thinking. "The closing paragraphs of
his message are a beggarly petition to the South," wrote George
Dawson, the quaint, forceful associate of Weed upon the _Evening
Journal_.[415] But Hunt's administration had been quiet and
satisfactory, and there was little disposition to drop him. He did not
have the patience of Hamilton Fish, but he resembled him in moderation
of speech.

[Footnote 415: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p.
218.]

William Kent, a son of the Chancellor, received the nomination for
lieutenant-governor. Kent was a scholarly, able lawyer. He had served
five years upon the circuit bench by appointment of Governor Seward.
He co-operated with Benjamin F. Butler in the organisation of the law
school of the New York University, becoming one of its original
lecturers, and was subsequently called to Harvard as a professor of
law. Like his distinguished father he was a man of pure character, and
of singular simplicity and gentleness.

The adoption of a platform gave the Whig delegates more trouble than
the nomination of candidates. A large majority opposed the slavery
plank of the Baltimore platform. But the Seward Whigs, having little
faith in the ultimate result, accepted a general declaration that "an
honest acquiescence in the action of the late national convention upon
all subjects legitimately before it is the duty of every Whig." Horace
Greeley suggested that "those who please can construe this concession
into an approval."

In opening the canvass of 1852, the Whigs attempted to repeat the
campaign of 1840. Scott's record in the War of 1812 was not less
brilliant than Harrison's, and if his Mexican battles were not fought
against the overwhelming odds that Taylor met at Buena Vista, he was
none the less entitled to the distinction of a conqueror. It was
thought proper, therefore, to start his political campaign where his
military career began, and, as the anniversary of Lundy's Lane
occurred in July, extensive preparations were made for celebrating the
day at Niagara Falls, the nearest American point to the scene of his
desperate courage. The great meeting, made up of large delegations
from nearly every Northern State, rivalled in numbers and in
enthusiasm the memorable meetings of the Harrison campaign. To add to
the interest, two hundred and twenty officers and soldiers of the War
of 1812, some of whom had taken part in the battle, participated in
the festivities. Speakers declared that it inaugurated a new career of
triumph, which might be likened to the onslaught of Lundy's Lane, the
conflict of Chippewa, the siege of Vera Cruz, and the storm of Cerro
Gordo; and which, they prophesied, would end in triumphant possession,
not now of the Halls of the Montezumas, but of the White House of
American Presidents. The meeting lasted two days. Thomas Ewing, of
Ohio, acted as president, and among the speakers was Henry Winter
Davis.

But this was the only demonstration that recalled the Harrison
campaign. The drum and cannon did conspicuous work, flags floated, and
speakers found ready and patriotic listeners, but the hearts of many
people were not enlisted in the discussion of tariffs and public
improvements. They were thinking of the fugitive slave law and its
enforcement, and some believed that while speakers and editors were
charging Pierce with cowardice on the field of Churubusco they did not
themselves have the courage to voice their honest convictions on the
slavery question. As election drew near signs of victory disappeared.
Conservative Whigs did not like the candidate and anti-slavery Whigs
objected to the platform. "This wretched platform," Seward declared,
"was contrived to defeat Scott in the nomination, or to sink him in
the canvass."[416] Horace Greeley's spirited protest against the
fugitive slave plank gave rise to the phrase, "We accept the
candidate, but spit upon the platform." Among the business men of New
York City an impression obtained that if Scott became President,
Seward would control him; and their purpose to crush the soldier
seemed to centre not so much in hostility to Scott as in their desire
to destroy Seward. Greeley speaks of this "extraordinary feature" of
the campaign. "Seward has been the burden of our adversaries' song
from the outset," he writes; "and mercantile Whigs by thousands have
ever been ready not merely to defeat but to annihilate the Whig party
if they might thereby demolish Seward."[417] In answer to the charge
of influencing Scott's administration, the Senator promptly declared
that he would neither ask nor accept "any public station or preferment
whatever at the hands of the President."[418] But this in nowise
silenced their batteries. To the end of the canvass Scott continued to
be 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 hands
of Esau. Seward was the political juggler, or Mephistopheles, as some
called him, and the result was regarded as his triumph."--James F.
Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 262. "Some of the
prominent Whig newspapers of Georgia declined to sustain Scott,
because his election would mean Free-soilism and Sewardism. An address
was issued on July 3 by Alexander H. Stephens, Robert Toombs, and five
other Whig representatives, in which they flatly refused to support
Scott because he was 'the favourite candidate of the Free Soil wing of
the Whig party.'"--_Ibid._, p. 262.]

[Footnote 417: New York _Tribune_, October, 1852.]

[Footnote 418: _Seward's Works_, Vol. 3, p. 416. Date of letter, June
26, 1852.]

After the September elections, it became manifest that something must
be done to strengthen Whig sentiment, and Scott made a trip through
the doubtful States of Ohio and New York. Although Harrison had made
several speeches in 1840, there was no precedent for a presidential
stumping tour; and, to veil the purpose of the journey, recourse was
had to a statute authorising the general of the army to visit Kentucky
with the object of locating an asylum for sick and disabled soldiers
at Blue Lick Springs. He went from Washington by way of Pittsburg and
returned 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 with
cheers 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 the
Revolutionary age." At Albany, John C. Spencer's presence recalled the
distinguished services of Governor Tompkins and Chief Justice Ambrose
Spencer in the War of 1812. "It was these men," said Scott, "who were
aware of the position on the frontier, that urged me on to achieve
something that would add to the future honour of our country." New
York City received him with one of the largest ovations ever witnessed
up to that time. He avoided politics in his speeches, insisting that
he did not come to solicit votes. But he did not thereby help his
cause or escape ridicule. Indeed, the ill-advised things said and
done, created the impression that obtained thirty-two years later
after the tour of James G. Blaine.

Though the Democrats at first accepted Franklin Pierce as they had
received James K. Polk, coldness and distrust gradually disappeared.
At Tammany's Fourth of July celebration, the presence of the prominent
leaders who bolted in 1848 gave evidence of the party's reunion. The
chief speaker was John Van Buren. Upon the platform sat John A. Dix,
Preston King, and Churchill C. Cambreling. Of the letters read, one
came from Martin Van Buren, who expressed pleasure that "the
disturbing subject of slavery has, by the action of both the great
parties of the country, been withdrawn from the canvass." Among the
editors who contributed most powerfully to the Free-soil movement,
William Cullen Bryant now supported Pierce on the theory that he and
the platform were the more favourable to freedom.[419] John Van
Buren's spacious mind and his genius for giving fascination to
whatever he said convulsed his audience with wit and thrilled it with
forceful statements. The country, he declared, was tired of the
agitation of slavery, which had ceased to be a political question. It
only remained to enforce in good faith the great compromise. He
asserted that trade was good and the country prosperous, and that the
Democratic party had gained the confidence of the people because it
was 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 Democratic
candidate and platform were really more favourable to liberty than the
Whig, was somewhat strained; the editor failed to look the situation
squarely in the face. He was, however, acting in perfect harmony with
the prominent New York Democrats who had, four years previously,
bolted the regular nomination. Salmon P. Chase, although still a
Democrat, would not support Pierce, but gave his adherence to the
Free-soil nominations, and tried hard, though in vain, to bring to
their 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 the
great apostle of the Free-soilers he was now the accepted champion of
the Democracy. He had said what everybody believed who voted for
Pierce and what many people thought who voted for Scott. There is no
doubt his speech created an immense sensation. Greeley ridiculed it,
Weed belittled it, and the Free-soilers denounced it, but it became
the keynote of the campaign, and the Prince, with his rich, brilliant
copiousness that was never redundant, became the picturesque and
popular speaker of every platform. There were other Democratic
orators.[420] Charles O'Conor's speeches were masterpieces of
declamation, and James T. Brady, then thirty-seven years old, but
already famous as one of the foremost criminal lawyers of the time,
discovered the same magnetic eloquence that made him almost
irresistible 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 famously
witty; Brady and O'Conor inclined to severity, easily dropping into
vituperation, and at times exhibiting bitterness. Van Buren's hardest
hits came in the form of sarcasm. It mattered not who heard him, all
went away good-natured and satisfied with the entertainment. There
were moments when laughter drowned his loudest utterances, when
silence made his whispers audible, and when an eloquent epigram
moistened the eye.

[Footnote 420: John A. Dix spoke in the New England and the Middle
States. From October 11 to 29 he made thirteen speeches "in the great
canvass 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 gave
majorities for Pierce, only four were for Scott. Seymour ran 22,000
votes ahead of Hunt.[421] In the Assembly the Democrats numbered
eighty-five, the Whigs forty-three. Of the thirty-three congressmen,
the Democrats elected twenty-one, the Whigs ten, the Free-soilers and
Land Reformers one each. It was wittily said that the Whig party "died
of an attempt to swallow the fugitive slave law." The election of
Pierce and Seymour surprised none of the Whig leaders. Thurlow Weed,
convinced of the hopelessness of Whig success, went off to Europe for
six months preceding the campaign. The _Tribune_ talked of victory,
but in his private correspondence Greeley declared that "we shall lose
the 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. "He
looked forward buoyantly to an easy and triumphant victory," says
Weed, who dined with him on a Sunday in October.[422] But, though
Pierce's election produced no surprise, his majority of 212 electoral
votes astounded everybody. It eclipsed the result of the romantic
campaign of 1840, and seemed to verify the assertions of John Van
Buren, in his Fourth of July speech at Tammany Hall. The people were
not only tired of slavery agitation, but trade was good, the country
prosperous, and a reunited Democracy, by unreservedly indorsing the
compromise 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, one
of the most uncompromising opponents of slavery in any country,
received an election to Congress in a district that gave Pierce and
Seymour upward of one thousand majority. It showed that the
smouldering fire, which had suddenly blazed out in the Free-soil
campaign of 1848, was not extinguished by the coalition of Barnburners
and Hunkers, and the acceptance of the great compromise by the two
Baltimore conventions. Gerrit Smith was a noble example of the
champions of freedom. He had not the passion of Garrison, or the
genius of Henry Ward Beecher; but his deep voice of marvellous
richness, 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 national
House of Representatives.




CHAPTER XIV

THE HARDS AND THE SOFTS

1853


In New York a Democratic victory had come to mean a succession of
Democratic defeats. It was so after the victory of 1844; and it was
destined to be so after the victory of 1852. But defeat occurred
differently this time. In 1847 the Barnburners had seceded from the
Hunkers; in 1853 the Hunkers seceded from the Barnburners. For six
years the Barnburners had played bold politics. After defeating the
Democratic ticket in 1847 and the state and national tickets in 1848,
they returned to the party practically upon their own terms. Instead
of asking admittance they walked in without knocking. They did not
even apologise for their Free-soil principles. These they left behind
because they had put them off; but the sorrow that follows repentance
was absent. In the convention of 1849, John Van Buren was received
like a prodigal son and his followers invited to an equal division of
the spoils. Had the Hunkers declared they didn't know them as
Democrats in their unrepentant attitude, the Barnburner host must have
melted like frost work; but, in their desire to return to power, the
Hunkers asked no questions and fixed no conditions. In the process of
this reunion Horatio Seymour, the cleverest of the Hunkers, coalesced
with the shrewdest of the Barnburners, who set about to capture
William L. Marcy. Seymour knew of Marcy's ambition to become a
candidate for the Presidency and of the rivalry of Cass and Dickinson;
and so when he agreed to make him the Barnburners' candidate, Marcy
covenanted 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, and
supported Cass for President in 1848. But he warmly espoused the
movement to reunite the party the next year. He was in advance of
Marcy in that direction. Seymour pushed forward, while Marcy hung
back. Seymour rather liked the Barnburners, except John Van Buren, of
whom he was quite jealous and somewhat afraid. But Marcy, after the
experiences of 1847 and 1848, denounced them in hard terms, until
Seymour and the Free-soil Democrats began talking of him for President
in 1852, when the wily old Regency tactician mellowed toward them.
Nothing was wanted to carry Marcy clear over except the hostility of
Dickinson, who stood in his way to the White House. This he soon
encountered, which reconciled him to the Barnburners."--H.B. Stanton,
_Random Recollections_, p. 177.]

To add to the Hunkers' humiliation, President Pierce now sided with
the Barnburners. He invited John A. Dix to visit him at Concord, and
in the most cordial manner offered him the position of secretary of
state.[424] This was too much for the pro-slavery Hunkers, for Dix had
been a Free-soil candidate for governor in 1848; and the notes of
defiance compelled the Concord statesman to send for Dix again, who
graciously relieved him of his embarrassment.[425] Then the President
turned to William L. Marcy, whose return from Florida was coincident
with the intrigue against Dix. The former secretary of war had not
mustered with the Free-soilers, but his attitude at Baltimore made him
_persona non grata_ to Dickinson. This kept Pierce in trouble. He
wanted a New Yorker, but he wanted peace, and so he delayed action
until the day after his inauguration.[426] When it proved to be
Marcy, with Dix promised the mission to France,[427] and Dickinson
offered 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 the
President, to whom this problem became the subject of serious thoughts
and many councils; and although the whole Cabinet, as finally
announced, was published in the newspapers one week before the
inauguration, Pierce did not really decide who should be secretary of
state until he had actually been one day in office, for up to the
morning of March 5, that portfolio had not been offered to
Marcy."--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p.
389.]

[Footnote 427: "The President offered Dix the mission to France. The
time fixed was early in the summer of that year. Meanwhile passage was
taken for Havre, preparations for a four years' residence abroad were
made, and every arrangement was completed which an anticipated absence
from home renders necessary. But political intrigue was instantly
resumed, and again with complete success. The opposition now came, or
appears to have come, mainly from certain Southern politicians.
Charges were made--such, for example, as this: that General Dix was an
Abolitionist, and that the Administration would be untrue to the South
by allowing a man of that extreme and fanatical party to represent it
abroad.... But though these insinuations were repelled, the influence
was too strong to be resisted. In fact, the place was wanted for an
eminent 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 at
Syracuse on September 13, 1853, with thirty-six contested seats. The
faction that won these would legally control the convention. When the
doors opened, therefore, an eager crowd, amidst the wildest confusion
and uproar, took possession of the hall, and, with mingled cheers and
hisses, two chairmen were quickly nominated, declared elected, and
forced upon the platform. Each chairman presided. Two conventions
occupied one room; and that one faction might have peaceable
possession it tried to put the other out. Finally, when out of breath
and out of patience, both factions agreed to submit the contest for
seats to a vote of the convention; and while the roll was being
prepared the riotous proceedings were adjourned until four o'clock.
But the Hunkers had seen and heard enough. It was evident the
Barnburners proposed organising the convention after the tactics of
the Hunkers in 1847; and, instead of returning to the hall, the
Hunkers went elsewhere, organising a convention with eighty-one
delegates, including the contestants. Here everything was done in
order and with dispatch. Committees on permanent officers,
resolutions, and nominations made unanimous reports to a unanimous
convention, speeches were vociferously applauded, and the conduct of
the Barnburners fiercely condemned. Governor Willard of Indiana, who
happened to be present, declared, in a thrilling speech, that a
"bully" stood ready to shoot down the Hunker chairman as he tried to
call the convention to order. One of the delegates said he thought his
life was in danger as he saw a man with an axe under his arm. But in
their hall of refuge no one appeared to molest them; and by six
o'clock the convention had completed its work and adjourned. Among
those nominated for office appeared the names of George W. Clinton of
Buffalo, the distinguished son of DeWitt Clinton, for secretary of
state, and James T. Brady, the brilliant lawyer of New York City, for
attorney-general. The resolutions indorsed the Baltimore platform,
approved the President's inaugural on slavery, commended the amendment
to the Constitution appropriating ten and a half million dollars for
the enlargement and completion of the canals, and complimented Daniel
S. Dickinson.

Meanwhile the Barnburners, having reassembled at four o'clock with
eighty-seven delegates, sent word to the Hunkers that the convention
was in session and prepared to organise. To this the chairman replied:
"We do not consider ourselves in safety in an assemblage controlled
and overawed by bullies, imported for that purpose." The Barnburners
laughed, but in order to give the Hunkers time to sleep over it John
Van Buren opposed further proceedings until the next day. In the
evening, Horatio Seymour, now the Governor, met the convention leaders
and with them laid out the morrow's work.

When Seymour began co-operating with the Barnburners, ambition
prompted him to modify his original canal views so far as to oppose
the Whig law authorising a loan of nine million dollars to enlarge the
Erie canal. But after his election as governor, he recognised that no
party could successfully appeal to the people in November, 1853,
weighted with such a policy; and with courage and genius for
diplomatic negotiations, he faced the prejudices which had
characterised the Barnburners during their entire history by favouring
a constitutional amendment appropriating ten and a half millions for
the enlargement of the Erie and the completion of the lateral canals.
He had displayed a bold hand. The help of the Barnburners was needed
to carry the amendment; and when the regular session expired without
the accomplishment of his purpose Seymour quickly called an extra
session. Even this dragged into the summer. Finally, in June, to the
amazement of the people, the amendment passed and was approved. It was
this work, which had so brilliantly inaugurated his administration,
that Seymour desired indorsed, and, although it was morning, and not
very early morning, before the labour of the night ended, it was
agreed to adopt a canal resolution similar to that of the Hunkers and
to indorse the Governor's administration, a compliment which the
Hunkers carefully avoided.

After the settlement of the canal question, the work of the convention
was practically done. A majority of the candidates were taken from the
supporters of Cass in 1848, and included Charles H. Ruggles of
Poughkeepsie, and Hiram Denio of Utica, whom the Hunkers had nominated
for judges of the Court of Appeals. Ruggles was the wise chairman of
the judiciary committee in the constitutional convention of 1846, and
had been a member of the Court of Appeals since 1851. Denio was
destined to become one of the eminent judges of the State. He was not
always kind in his methods. Indeed, it may be said that he was one of
those upright judges who contrived to make neither honour nor
rectitude seem lovable qualities; yet his abilities finally earned him
an enviable reputation as a justice of New York's court of last
resort.

The factions differed little in men or in principle, and not at all
upon the question of slavery. Two conventions were, therefore,
absolutely unnecessary except upon the theory that the Hunkers, having
little to gain and nothing to lose, desired to embarrass the
administrations of Governor Seymour and President Pierce. Their
secession was certainly not prompted by fear of bullies. Neither
faction was a stranger to blows. If fear possessed the Hunkers, it
grew out of distrust of their supporters and of their numerical
strength; and, rather than be beaten, they preferred to follow the
example of the Barnburners in 1847, and of the Silver-Grays in 1850,
two precedents that destroyed party loyalty to gratify the spirit of
revenge.

It was at this time that the Hunkers were first called Hardshells or
"Hards," and the Barnburners Softshells or "Softs." These designations
meant that Dickinson and his followers never changed their principles,
and that the Marcy-Seymour coalition trimmed its sails to catch the
favouring breeze.

The action of the Hards in September, 1853, left the prestige of
regularity with the Softs. The latter also had the patronage of the
state and national administrations, the possession of Tammany, and the
support of a large majority of the newspapers. But the Hards still
treated the Softs as the real secessionists. "We have gotten rid of
the mischievous traitors," said Daniel S. Dickinson, in his Buffalo
speech of September 23, "and let us keep clear of them. It is true
they say we are all on one platform, but when did we get there? No
longer ago than last winter, when such resolutions as the platform now
embodies were introduced into the Assembly, a cholera patient could
not have scattered these very men more effectually."[428] Dickinson
was not blessed with John Van Buren's humour. A flash of wit rarely
enlivened his speeches, yet he delighted in attacking an adversary
even if compelled to do it with gloomy, dogged rhetoric. Of all the
Softs, however, Horatio Seymour was the one whom Dickinson hated. "It
was the first time a governor was ever found in their convention,"
continued the Binghamton statesman, "and I know it will be the last
time _that_ Governor will be guilty of such an impropriety. He
tempted them on with spoils in front, while the short boys of New York
pricked 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 most
things, with composure. Nevertheless, if he looked for harmony on
election day, the letters of Charles O'Conor and Greene C. Bronson,
declining an invitation to ratify the Softs' ticket at a meeting in
Tammany Hall, must have extinguished the hope. O'Conor was United
States attorney and Bronson collector of the port of New York; but
these two office-holders under Pierce used no varnish in their
correspondence with the Pierce-Seymour faction. "As a lover of honesty
in politics and of good order in society," wrote Bronson, "I cannot
approve of nominations brought about by fraud and violence. Those who
introduce convicts and bullies into our conventions for the purpose of
controlling events must not expect their proceedings will be
sanctioned by me." Then he betrayed the old conservative's deep
dislike of the Radicals' canal policy, the memory of which still
rankled. "If all the nominees were otherwise unexceptionable," he
continued, "they come before the public under the leadership of men
who have been striving to defeat the early completion of the public
works, and after the shameless breach of past pledges in relation to
the canals, there can be no reasonable ground for hope that new
promises will be performed."[430]

[Footnote 430: _Ibid._, September 26, 1853.]

Charles O'Conor, with the envenomed skill of a practised prosecutor
coupled with a champion's coolness, aimed a heavier blow at the
offending Softs. "Judging the tickets by the names of the leading
members of the two conventions no reasonable doubt can be entertained
which of them is most devoted to preserving union and harmony between
the States of this confederacy. One of the conventions was
uncontaminated by the presence of a single member ever known as an
agitator of principles or practices tending in any degree to disturb
that union and harmony; the leaders of the other were but recently
engaged in a course of political action directly tending to discord
between the States. It has, indeed, presented a platform of principles
unqualifiedly denouncing that political organisation as dangerous to
the permanency of the Union and inadmissible among Democrats; but when
it is considered that the leaders, with one unimpressive exception,
formerly withheld assent to that platform, or repudiated it, the
resolution adopting it is not, in my opinion, entitled to any
confidence whatever. I adopt that ticket which was made by a
convention whose platform was adopted with sincerity and corresponds
with 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 a
month he was removed from his post as collector. In resentment,
several county conventions immediately announced him as their
candidate for governor in 1854. O'Conor continued in office a little
longer, but eventually he resigned. "This proscriptive policy for
opinion's sake will greatly accelerate and aggravate the decomposition
of the Democratic party in this State," said the _Tribune_. "That
process was begun long since, but certain soft-headed quacks had
thought it possible, by some hocus pocus, to restore the old unity and
health."[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 in
the presence of almost certain victory, occasioned by a divided
Democracy, the delegates turned their attention to the work of making
nominations. It took three ballots to select a candidate for
attorney-general. Among the aspirants were Ogden Hoffman of New York
and Roscoe Conkling of Utica, then a young man of twenty-five, who
bore a name that was already familiar from an honourable parentage.
The people of Oneida had elected him district attorney as soon as he
gained his majority, and, in the intervening years, the successful
lawyer had rapidly proved himself a successful orator and politician
who would have to be reckoned with.[433]

[Footnote 433: "With advancing years Mr. Conkling's temperament
changed slightly. The exactions of legal life, and, to some extent,
the needs of his political experience, apparently estranged him from
the masses, although he was naturally one of the most approachable of
men."--Alfred R. Conkling, _The Life and Letters of Roscoe Conkling_,
pp. 203, 204.]

But Conkling did not get the coveted attorney-generalship. The great
reputation of Ogden Hoffman, who has been styled "the Erskine of the
American bar," and who then stood in isolated splendour among the
orators of his party, gave him the right of way. Hoffman had served in
Congress during Van Buren's administration and as United States
attorney under Harrison and Tyler. He was now sixty years of age, a
fit opponent to the brilliant Brady, twenty-two years his junior. "But
for indolence," said Horace Greeley, "Hoffman might have been governor
or cabinet minister ere this. Everybody likes him and he always runs
ahead of his ticket."[434] There was also an earnest effort to secure
a place upon the ticket for Elbridge G. Spaulding of Buffalo. He had
been district attorney, city clerk, alderman, and mayor of his city.
In 1848 he went to the Assembly and in 1849 to Congress. He had
already disclosed the marked ability for finance that subsequently
characterised his public and business career, giving him the
distinguishing title of "father of the greenback." His friends now
wanted to make him comptroller, but when this place went to James M.
Cook of Saratoga, a thrifty banker and manufacturer, who had been
state treasurer, Spaulding accepted the latter office. In its
platform, the convention hailed with satisfaction the prospect of a
speedy completion of the canals under Whig management, and boasted
that 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 Hards
could not operate otherwise than in a division of the Democratic vote;
but no one dreamed it would split the party in the middle. The Hards
had fought against the prestige of party regularity, the power of
patronage, the influence of Tammany, and the majority of the press,
while the removal of Bronson served notice upon office-holders that
those who favoured the Hards voluntarily mounted a guillotine. "Heads
of this class," said Greeley, "rolled as recklessly as pumpkins from a
harvest wagon."[435] Yet the Softs led the Hards by an average
majority of only 312. It was a tremendous surprise at Washington. A
cartoon represented Pierce and Marcy as Louis XVI and his minister, on
the memorable 10th of August. "Why, this is revolt!" said the amazed
King. "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 an
average plurality of 66,000 and carrying the Legislature by a majority
of forty-eight on joint ballot. Yet Ruggles and Denio, whose names
appeared upon the ticket of each Democratic faction, were elected to
the Court of Appeals by 13,000 majority, showing that a united
Democratic party would have swept the State as it did in 1852.

The Whigs accepted their success as Sheridan said the English received
the peace of Amiens--as "one of which everybody was glad and nobody
was proud." Of the 240,000 Whigs who voted in 1852, less than 170,000
supported the ticket in 1853. Some of this shrinkage was doubtless due
to the natural falling off in an "off year" and to an unusually stormy
election day; but there were evidences of open revolt and studied
apathy which emphasised the want of harmony and the necessity for
fixed principles.




CHAPTER XV

A BREAKING-UP OF PARTY TIES

1854


While the Hards and Softs quarrelled, and the Whigs showed weakness
because of a want of harmony and the lack of principles, a great
contest was being waged at Washington. In December, 1853, Stephen A.
Douglas, from his place in the United States Senate, introduced the
famous Nebraska bill affirming that the Clay compromise of 1850 had
repealed the Missouri compromise of 1820. This sounded the trumpet of
battle. The struggle of slavery and freedom was now to be fought to a
finish. The discussion in Congress began in January, 1854, and ended
on May 30. When it commenced the slavery question seemed settled; when
it closed the country was in a ferment. Anti-slavery Whigs found
companionship with Free-soil Democrats; the titles of "Nebraska" and
"Anti-Nebraska" distinguished men's politics; conventions of
Democrats, Whigs, and Free-soilers met to resist "the iniquity;" and
on July 6 the Republican party, under whose banner the great fight was
to be finished, found a birthplace at Jackson, Michigan.

Rufus King's part in the historic struggle of the Missouri Compromise
was 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 as
his distinguished predecessor had been the leader of the anti-slavery
forces in 1820. He marshalled the opposition, and, when he finally
took the floor on the 17th of February, he made a legal argument as
close, logical, and carefully considered as if addressed to the
Supreme Court of the United States. He developed the history of
slavery and its successive compromises; he answered every argument in
favour of the bill; he appealed to its supporters to admit that they
never dreamed of its abrogating the compromise of 1820; he ridiculed
the idea that it was in the interest of peace; and he again referred
to the "higher law" that had characterised his speech in 1850. "The
slavery agitation you deprecate so much," he said in concluding, "is
an eternal struggle between conservatism and progress; between truth
and error; between right and wrong. You may sooner, by act of
Congress, compel the sea to suppress its upheavings, and the round
earth to extinguish its internal fires. You may legislate, and
abrogate, and abnegate, as you will, but there is a Superior Power
that overrules all; that overrules not only all your actions and all
your refusals to act, but all human events, to the distant but
inevitable 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 effective
speaker. He was neither impassioned nor always impressive; but when he
spoke he seemed to strike a blow that had in it the whole vigour and
strength of the public sentiment which he represented. So far as one
can judge from contemporary accounts he never spoke better than on
this occasion; or when it was more evident that he spoke with all the
sincere emotion of one whose mind and heart alike were filled with the
cause 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 more
freedom and ease than on any former occasion here."[437] Rhodes
suggests that Seward "could not conceal his exultation that the
Democrats had forsaken their high vantage ground and played into the
hands of their opponents."[438] He became almost dramatic when he
threw down his gauntlet at the feet of every member of the Senate in
1850 and challenged him to say that he knew, or thought, or dreamed,
that by enacting the compromise of 1850 he was directly or indirectly
abrogating, or in any degree impairing the Missouri Compromise. "If
it were not irreverent," he continued, "I would dare call up the
author of both the compromises in question, from his honoured, though
yet scarcely grass-covered grave, and challenge any advocate of this
measure to confront that imperious shade, and say that, in making the
compromise of 1850, Henry Clay intended or dreamed that he was
subverting or preparing the way for a subversion of his greater work
of 1820. Sir, if that spirit is yet lingering here over the scene of
its mortal labours, it is now moved with more than human indignation
against 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 and
the North. "It probably affected the minds of more men," says Rhodes,
"than any speech delivered on that side of this question in
Congress."[440] Senator Houston had it translated into German and
extensively circulated among the Germans of western Texas. Even Edwin
Croswell congratulated him upon its excellence. It again directed the
attention of the country to his becoming a presidential candidate,
about which newspapers and politicians had already spoken. Montgomery
Blair's letter of May 17, 1873, to Gideon Welles, charges Seward with
boasting that he had "put Senator Dixon up to moving the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise as an amendment to Douglas' first Kansas bill, and
had himself forced the repeal by that movement, and had thus brought
life to the Republican party."[441] Undoubtedly Seward read the signs
of the times, and saw clearly and quickly that repeal would probably
result in a political revolution, bringing into life an anti-slavery
party that would sweep the country. But the charge that he claimed to
have suggested the repeal, smells too strongly of Welles' dislike of
Seward, and needs other evidence than Blair's telltale letter to
support it. It is on a par with Senator Atchinson's assertion, made
under the influence of wine, that he forced Douglas to bring in the
Nebraska bill--a statement that the Illinois Senator promptly stamped
as 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 after
the introduction of Douglas' proposal. Remonstrances, letters, and
resolutions poured in from Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, and
other cities. Senator Fish presented a petition headed by the Bishop
of the Episcopal Church and signed by a majority of the clergymen of
New York City. Merchants, lawyers, and business men generally, who had
actively favoured the compromise of 1850, now spoke in earnest protest
against the repeal of the compromise of 1820. From the first, the
Germans opposed it. Of their newspapers only eight out of eighty-eight
were favourable. Public meetings, full of enthusiasm and noble
sentiment, resembled religious gatherings enlisted in a holy war
against a great social evil. The first assembled in New York City as
early as January 30, six days after the repeal was agreed upon.
Another larger meeting occurred on the 18th of February. It was here
that Henry Ward Beecher's great genius asserted the fulness of its
intellectual power. He had been in Brooklyn five years. The series of
forensic achievements which began at the Kossuth banquet in 1851 had
already made him the favourite speaker of the city, but, on the 18th
of February, he became the idol of the anti-slavery host. Wit, wisdom,
patriotism, and pathos, mingled with the loftiest strains of
eloquence, compelled the attention and the admiration of every
listener. When he concluded the whole assembly rose to do him honour;
tears rolled down the cheeks of men and women. Everything was
forgotten, save the great preacher and the cause for which he stood.
"The storm that is rising," wrote Seward, "is such an one as this
country has never yet seen. The struggle will go on, but it will be a
struggle for the whole American people."[442] In the _Tribune_ of May
17, Greeley said that Pierce and Douglas had made more Abolitionists
in three months than Garrison and Phillips could have made in half a
century.

[Footnote 442: F.W. Seward, _Life of W.H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 222.]

The agitation resulted in an anti-Nebraska state convention, held at
Saratoga on the 16th of August. It was important in the men who
composed it. John A. King called it to order; Horace Greeley reported
the resolutions; Henry J. Raymond represented the district that had
twice sent him to the Assembly; and Moses H. Grinnell became chairman
of its executive committee. In the political struggles of two decades
most of its delegates had filled prominent and influential positions.
These men were now brought together by an absorbing sense of duty and
a common impulse of resistance to the encroachments of slavery. People
supposed a new party would be formed and a ticket nominated as in
Michigan; but after an animated and at times stormy discussion, the
delegates concluded that in principle too little difference existed to
warrant the present disturbance of existing organisations. So, after
declaring sentiments which were to become stronger than party ties or
party discipline, it agreed to reassemble at Auburn on September
26.[443]

[Footnote 443: "After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, it would
seem as if the course of the opposition were plain. That the different
elements of opposition should be fused into one complete whole seemed
political wisdom. That course involved the formation of a new party
and was urged warmly and persistently by many newspapers, but by none
with such telling influence as by the New York _Tribune_. It had
likewise the countenance of Chase, Sumner, and Wade. There were three
elements that must be united--the Whigs, the Free-soilers, and the
Anti-Nebraska Democrats. The Whigs were the most numerous body and as
those at the North, to a man, had opposed the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise they thought, with some quality of reason, that the fight
might well be made under their banner and with their name. For the
organisation of a party was not the work of a day. Why, then, go to
all this trouble, when a complete organisation is at hand ready for
use? This view of the situation was ably argued by the New York
_Times_, and was supported by Senator Seward. As the New York Senator
had a position of influence superior to any one who had opposed the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, strenuous efforts were made to get his adhesion
to a new party movement, but they were without avail. 'Seward hangs
fire,' wrote Dr. Bailey. 'He agrees with Thurlow Weed.'--(Bailey to
J.S. Pike, May 30, 1854, _First Blows of the Civil War_, p. 237.) 'We
are not yet ready for a great national convention at Buffalo or
elsewhere,' wrote Seward to Theodore Parker; 'it would bring together
only the old veterans. The States are the places for activity just
now.'--(_Life of Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 232.) Yet many Whigs who were not
devoted to machine politics saw clearly that a new party must be
formed under a new name. They differed, however, in regard to their
bond of union. Some wished to go to the country with simply _Repeal of
the Kansas-Nebraska act_ inscribed on their banner. Others wished to
plant themselves squarely on prohibition of slavery in all the
territories. Still others preferred the resolve that not another slave
State should be admitted into the Union. Yet after all, the time
seemed ripe for the formation of a party whose cardinal principle
might be summed up as opposition to the extension of slavery."--James
F. 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 effect
in New York, was so pronounced that he contemplated resigning as
secretary of state--a step that his friends persuaded him to abandon.
John Van Buren was equally agitated. "Could anything but a desire to
buy the South at the presidential shambles dictate such an
outrage?"[444] he asked Senator Clemens of Alabama. But nothing could
stop the progress of the Illinois statesman; and, while the Whigs of
New York ably and uniformly opposed repeal, Democrats broke along the
lines dividing the Hards and the Softs. Of twenty-one Democratic
congressmen, nine favoured and twelve opposed it. Among the former was
William M. Tweed, the unsavoury boss of later years; among the latter,
Reuben E. Fenton, Rufus W. Peckham, and Russell Sage. The Democratic
press separated along similar lines. Thirty-seven Hards supported the
measure; 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 late
trial of strength with the Softs had resulted in a drawn battle, and
it was now their purpose to force the Pierce-Seymour Softs out of the
party. The proceedings began with a challenge. Lyman Tremaine spoke
of the convention as one in which the President had no minions; Samuel
Beardsley, the chairman, after charging Pierce with talking one way
and acting another, declared that the next Chief Executive would both
talk and act like a national Democrat. Further, to emphasise its
independence and dislike of the President, the convention nominated
Greene C. Bronson for governor as the representative of Pierce's
proscriptive policy for opinion's sake. But there was no disposition
to criticise Pierce's pro-slavery policy. It favoured the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise, proclaiming the doctrine of non-intervention
by Congress and the right of the territories to make their own local
laws, including regulations relating to domestic servitude. It also
approved the recently ratified canal amendment and strongly favoured
the prohibitive liquor law vetoed by Governor Seymour.

Greene C. Bronson's career had been distinguished. He had served as
assemblyman, as attorney-general for seven years, as chief justice of
the Supreme Court, and as an original member of the Court of Appeals.
Although now well advanced in years, age had not cowed his spirit or
lessened the purity of a character which shone in the gentleness of
amiable manners; but his pro-slavery platform hit his consistency a
hard blow. In 1819, as secretary of a mass-meeting called to oppose
the Missouri Compromise, he had declared that Congress possessed the
clear and indisputable power to prohibit the admission of slavery in
any State or territory thereafter to be formed. If this was good law
in 1819 it was good law in 1854, and the acceptance of a contrary
theory put him at a serious disadvantage. His attitude on the liquor
question also proved a handicap. He showed that the position of judge
in interpreting the law was a very different thing from that of making
the law by steering a party into power in a crucial campaign.

The convention of the Softs followed on September 6. Two preliminary
caucuses indicated a strong anti-Nebraska sentiment. But a bold and
resolute opposition, led by federal officials and John Cochrane, the
Barnburners' platform-maker, portended trouble. There was no
disagreement on state issues. The approval of Seymour's administration
settled the policy of canal improvement and anti-prohibition, but the
delegates balked on the cunningly worded resolution declaring the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise inexpedient and unnecessary, yet
rejoicing that it would benefit the territories and forbidding any
attempt to undo it. It put the stamp of Nebraska upon the proceedings,
and the deathlike stillness which greeted its reading shook the nerves
of the superstitious as an unfavourable omen. Immediately, a short
substitute was offered, unqualifiedly disapproving the repeal as a
violation of legislative good faith and of the spirit of Christian
civilisation; and when Preston King took the floor in its favour the
deafening applause disclosed the fact that the anti-Nebraskans had the
enthusiasm if not the numbers. As the champion of the Wilmot Proviso
concluded, the assembly resembled the Buffalo convention of 1848 at
the moment of its declaration for free soil, free speech, free labour,
and free men. But the roll call changed the scene. Of the 394
delegates, 245 voted to lay the substitute on the table.

This result was a profound surprise. The public expected different
action and the preliminary caucuses showed an anti-Nebraska majority;
but the Custom-House had done its work well. The promise of a
nomination for lieutenant-governor had changed the mind of William H.
Ludlow, chairman of the convention, who packed the committee on
resolutions. Similar methods won fifty other delegates. But despite
the shock, Preston King did not hesitate. He might be broken, but he
could not be bent. Rising with dignity he withdrew from the
convention, followed by a hundred others who ceased to act further
with it. Subsequent proceedings reflected the gloom of a body out of
which the spirit had departed. Delegates kept dropping out until only
one hundred and ninety-nine remained to cheer the nomination of
Horatio Seymour. On a roll call for lieutenant-governor, Philip
Dorsheimer declared it a disgrace to have his name called in a
convention that had adopted such a platform.

The Whig convention followed on September 20. A divided Democracy
again made candidates confident, and eight or ten names were presented
for governor. Horace Greeley thought it time his turn should come. He
had been pronounced in his advocacy of the Maine liquor law and active
in his hostility to the Nebraska Act. As these were to be the issues
of the campaign, he applied with confidence to Weed for help. The
Albany editor frankly admitted that his friends had lost control of
the convention, and that Myron H. Clark would probably get the
nomination. Then Greeley asked to be made lieutenant-governor. Weed
reminded him of the outcry in the Whig national convention of 1848
against having "cotton at both ends of the ticket." "I suppose you
mean," replied Greeley, laughing, "that it won't do to have
prohibition at both ends of our state ticket."[445] But, though he
laughed, the editor of the _Tribune_ went away nettled and humiliated.
In the contest, which became exciting, Greeley's friends urged his
selection for governor without formally presenting his name to the
convention; 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 not
think that the time and circumstances were favourable to his
nomination. I replied that I did not think the time and circumstances
favourable to his election, if nominated, but that my friends had lost
control of the state convention. This answer perplexed him, but a few
words of explanation made it quite clear. Admitting that he had
brought the people up to the point of accepting a temperance candidate
for governor, I remarked that another aspirant had 'stolen his
thunder.' In other words, while he had shaken the temperance bush,
Myron H. Clark would catch the bird. I informed Mr. Greeley that
Know-Nothing or 'Choctaw' lodges had been secretly organised
throughout the State, by means of which many delegates for Mr. Clark
had been secured. Mr. Greeley saw that the 'slate' had been broken,
and cheerfully relinquished the idea of being nominated. But a few
days afterwards Mr. Greeley came to Albany, and said in an abrupt but
not unfriendly way, 'Is there any objection to my running for
lieutenant-governor?'... After a little more conversation, Mr. Greeley
became entirely satisfied that a nomination for lieutenant-governor
was 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 of
men generally known as fanatics. He was a plain man of humble
pretensions and slender attainments. He was originally a cabinet-maker
and afterward a merchant. Then he became a reformer. He sympathised
with the Native Americans; he approved Seward's views upon slavery;
and he interested himself in the workingmen. But his hobby was
temperance. Its advocates made his home in Canandaigua their
headquarters, and during the temperance revival which swept over the
State in the early fifties, he aided in directing the movement. This
experience opened his way, in 1851, to the State Senate. Here he
displayed 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 skilled
diplomat. When, at last, the Maine liquor bill, which he had
introduced and engineered, passed the Legislature, his name was a
household word throughout the State. Seymour's veto of the measure
strengthened Clark. People realised that a governor no less than a
legislature was needed to make laws, and, with the spirit of
reformers, the delegates demanded his nomination. To Weed it seemed
hazardous; but a majority of the convention, believing that Clark's
public career had been sagacious and upright, refused to take another.

Clark's nomination made the selection of a candidate for
lieutenant-governor more difficult. The prohibitionists were
satisfied; Greeley was not. In their anxiety, the delegates canvassed
several names without result. Finally, with great suddenness and
amidst much enthusiasm, Henry J. Raymond was nominated. This deeply
wounded Greeley. "He had cheerfully withdrawn his own name," wrote
Weed, "but he could not submit patiently to the nomination of his
personal, professional, and political rival."[446] Greeley believed
it was not the convention, but Weed himself, who brought it about. On
the contrary, Weed declared that he had no thought of Raymond in that
connection until his name was suggested by others. Nevertheless, the
_Tribune's_ editor held to his own opinion. "No other name could have
been put upon the ticket so bitterly humbling to me,"[447] he
afterward wrote Seward. To Greeley, Raymond was "The little Villain of
the _Times_;" to Raymond, Greeley was "The big Villain of the
_Tribune_."[448] In any aspect, Raymond was an unfortunate nomination
for Weed, since it began the quarrel that culminated in the defeat of
Seward 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 to
surrender a page of the next _Weekly_ to Raymond's bore of an
address?" he says, referring to the Pittsburgh convention's appeal.
"The man who could inflict six columns on a long-suffering public, on
such an occasion, cannot possibly know enough to write an address."]

Early in the campaign, Greeley favoured dropping the name of Whig and
organising an anti-Nebraska or Republican party, with a ticket of
Whigs and Democrats, as had been done in some of the Western States.
But Seward and Weed, with a majority of the Whig leaders, thought that
while fusion might be advisable wherever the party was essentially
weak, as in Ohio and Indiana, it was wiser, in States like New York
and Massachusetts where Whigs were in power, to retain the party name
and organisation.[449] In so deciding, however, they agreed with
Greeley that the platform should be thoroughly anti-Nebraska, and they
gave it a touch that kindled the old fire in the hearts of the
anti-slavery veterans. It condemned the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, approved the course of the New York senators and
representatives who resisted it, declared that it discharged the party
from further obligation to support any compromise with slavery, and
denounced "popular sovereignty" as a false and deceptive cry, "too
flimsy to mislead any but those anxious to be deluded and eager to be
led astray." This declaration of principles was summarised as
"Justice, Temperance, and Freedom." One delegate, amidst great
applause, said he felt glorified that the party was disenthralled and
redeemed. Roscoe Conkling, a vice president, spoke of the convention
as belonging to "the Republican party." Greeley declared the platform
"as noble as any friend of freedom could have expected." Other state
organisations also approved it. The anti-Nebraska convention, upon
reassembling in Auburn on September 26, adopted the Whig ticket. The
state temperance convention indorsed the nomination of Clark and
Raymond, and the Free Democrats accepted Clark. This practically made
a fusion ticket.

[Footnote 449: "I was a member of the first anti-Nebraska or
Republican State Convention, which met at Saratoga Springs in
September; but Messrs. Weed and Seward for a while stood aloof from
the movement, preferring to be still regarded as Whigs."--Horace
Greeley, _Recollections of a Busy Life_, p. 314.]

Early in October the Native Americans went into council. This
organisation, which had elected a mayor of New York in 1844, suddenly
revived in 1854; and, in spite of its intolerant and prescriptive
spirit, the movement spread rapidly. Mystery surrounded its methods.
It held meetings in unknown places; its influence could not be
measured; and its members professed to know nothing. Thus it became
known as the "Know-Nothing" party. Members recognised each other by
the casual inquiry, "Have you seen Sam?" and when one of the old
parties collapsed at a local election the reply came, "We have seen
Sam." Its secrecy fascinated young men, and its dominant principle,
"America for Americans," stirred them into unusual activity. The
skilful use of patriotic phrases also had its influence. The "Star
Spangled Banner" was its emblem, Washington its patron saint, and his
thrilling command, "Put none but Americans on guard to-night," its
favourite password. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts joined it as an
instrument for destroying the old parties, which he regarded an
obstacle to freedom; but Seward thought this was doing evil that good
might come. Everything is un-American, he argued, which makes a
distinction between the native-born American and the one who renounces
his allegiance to a foreign land and swears fealty to the country that
adopts him. "Why," he asked, "should I exclude the foreigner to-day?
He is only what every American citizen or his ancestor was at some
time 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 the
Silver-Grays with two-fifths. On the question of putting up a state
ticket, its council divided. The Silver-Grays, it was said, favoured
candidates in order to defeat Clark; while the Whigs and Softs
preferred making no nominations. In the end, Daniel Ullman, a
reputable New York lawyer of mediocre ability, received the nomination
for governor. The great overmastering passion of Ullman was a desire
for office. For many years he had been a persistent and unsuccessful
knocker at the door of city, county and state Whig conventions, and
when the Know-Nothings appeared he turned to them to back his
ambition. Possibly they knew that his parents were foreign-born, but
the mystery surrounding his own birthplace became a comical feature of
the canvass. It was claimed, upon what seemed proper evidence at the
time, that Ullman was born in India and had not become a naturalised
citizen of the United States. This made him ineligible as the
candidate of his party, and disqualified him from serving as governor
if elected.

The campaign opened with two clearly defined issues--limitation of the
liquor traffic and condemnation of the Nebraska Act. Clark stood for
both, Ullman stood for neither; Bronson and Seymour opposed
prohibition and approved the Nebraska Act. Greeley declared that the
two Democratic candidates differed only "as to whether the contempt
universally felt for President Pierce should be openly expressed, or
more decorously cherished in silence." As the canvass advanced, the
real contest became prohibition, with Bronson and Seymour apparently
running a race for the liquor vote, while Ullman was silently securing
the votes of men who thought the proscription of foreign-born citizens
more important than either freedom or temperance. To the most adroit
political prognosticators the situation was confused. Greeley
estimated 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 the
Know-Nothings that he omitted Ullman from the calculation. Another
prophet 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 with
less than 35,000. The people did not seem to have been thinking about
Bronson at all. Seymour's veto commended the Governor to the larger
cities, and it swept him on like a whirlwind. New York gave him
26,000. His election was conceded by the Whigs and claimed by the
Democrats; but, after several weeks of anxious waiting, the official
count made Clark the governor by a plurality of 309.[451] Including
defective votes plainly intended for Seymour, Clark's plurality was
only 153. Raymond ran 600 ahead of Clark, but his plurality over
Ludlow was 20,000, since the latter's vote was 20,000 less than
Seymour's. These twenty thousand preferred to vote for Elijah Ford of
Buffalo, who ran for lieutenant-governor on the ticket with Bronson,
possibly because of Ludlow's alleged perfidy at the Syracuse
convention. Of the congressmen elected, twenty-five were Whigs, three
Softs, two Anti-Nebraskans, and three Know-Nothings; in the Assembly
there 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, State
of 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 the
Whigs occupying common ground with Free-soilers who discarded party
attachments in behalf of their cherished convictions. The Silver-Grays
found 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 crisis
which had been threatening the country for many years was about to
burst, and, like the first big raindrops that precede a downpour, the
changes in 1854 announced its presence. It had been so long in coming
that John W. Taylor of Saratoga, the champion opponent of the Missouri
Compromise, was dying when Horace Greeley, at the anti-Nebraska
convention held in Taylor's home in August, 1854, was writing into the
platform of the new Republican party the principles that Taylor tried
to write into the old Republican party in 1820. "Whoever reads
Taylor's speeches in that troubled period," says Stanton, "will find
them as sound in doctrine, as strong in argument, as splendid in
diction, as any of the utterances of the following forty-five years,
when the thirteenth amendment closed the controversy for all
time."[452]

[Footnote 452: H.B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 164. John W.
Taylor served twenty consecutive years in Congress--a longer
continuous service than any New York successor. Taylor also bears the
proud distinction of being the only speaker from New York. Twice he
was honoured as the successor of Henry Clay. He died at the home of
his daughter in Cleveland, Ohio, in September, 1854, at the age of
seventy, 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 only
man fitted by position, ability, and character to succeed himself in
the United States Senate. To them he possessed all the necessary
qualities for leadership. In his hands they believed the banner of
opposition to the extension of slavery would be kept at the front and
every other cause subordinated to it. This feeling was generously
shared by the press of New York. "The repeal of the Missouri
Compromise," said Henry J. Raymond in the _Times_, "has developed a
popular sentiment in the North which will probably elect Governor
Seward to the Presidency in 1856 by the largest vote from the free
States ever cast for any candidate."[453] Even the Democratic _Evening
Post_ 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 the
Assembly and two-thirds of the Senate had been elected as Whigs.
Although Seward did not make a speech or appear publicly in the
campaign of 1854, he had been active in seeing that members were
chosen who would vote for him. But, notwithstanding the Whigs
controlled the Legislature, many of them belonged to the
Know-Nothings, whose noisy opposition soon filled the air with rumours
of their intention to defeat Seward. The secrecy that veiled the
doings of the order now concealed the strength of their numbers; but,
as Seward's course had been sufficient to array its entire membership
against him, there was little doubt of the attitude of all its
representatives. Though he had not violently denounced them as Douglas
did at Philadelphia, men of otherwise liberal opinions were angry
because he seemed deliberately to support views opposed to their most
cherished principles. His recommendation, while governor, to divide
the public money with Catholic schools was recalled with bitter
comment. The more recent efforts of Bishop Hughes, an ardent friend of
the Senator, to exclude the Bible from the public schools, added to
the feeling; while the coming of a papal nuncio to adjust a
controversy in regard to church property between a bishop and a
Catholic congregation in Buffalo which had the law of the State on its
side, greatly increased the bitterness. Thus the old controversy was
torn 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 Senate
and then block a joint session of the two houses. This scheme had
succeeded in defeating Ambrose Spencer in 1825 and Nathaniel P.
Tallmadge in 1845, and there was no apparent reason why similar
methods might not be invoked in 1855, unless the manifest inability of
Seward's adversaries to unite upon some one opponent gave his
supporters the upper hand. Millard Fillmore, Ira Harris, and
Washington Hunt had their friends; but an anti-slavery Know-Nothing
could not support Fillmore or Hunt, and a Silver-Gray Whig did not
take kindly to Harris. This was the cornerstone of Greeley's
confidence. Besides, the more bitter the criticism of Seward's record,
the more inclined were certain senators of the Democratic party, who
did not sympathise with the Know-Nothing aversion to foreigners, to
support the Auburn statesman.[455] There was no hope for Seymour, or
Dix, or Preston King, and some of their friends in the Senate who
admired the anti-slavery views of Seward could stop the play of the
Know-Nothings.

[Footnote 455: "There is about as much infidelity among Whigs at
Albany as was expected; perhaps a little more. But there is also a
counteracting agency in the other party, it is said, which promises to
be 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. All
debate ended in its discussion. When, at last, DeWitt C. Littlejohn,
vacating the speaker's chair, took the floor for the distinguished New
Yorker, the excitement reached its climax. The speaker's bold and
fearless defence met a storm of personal denunciation that broke from
the ranks of the Know-Nothings; but his speech minimised their
opposition and inspired Seward's forces to work out a magnificent
victory. "Our friends are in good spirits and reasonably confident,"
wrote Seward. "Our adversaries are not confident, and are out of
temper."[456] Finally, on February 1, the caucus met. Five Whig
senators and twenty assemblymen, representing the bulk of the
opposition, were absent; but of the eighty present, seventy-four voted
for Seward. This stifled the hope of the Silver-Gray Know-Nothings.
Indeed, several of Seward's opponents now fell into line, giving him
eighteen out of thirty-one votes in the Senate and sixty-nine out of
one hundred and twenty-six in the Assembly. The five dissenting Whig
senators voted for Fillmore, Ullman, Ogden Hoffman, Preston King, and
George R. Babcock of Buffalo. Of the nineteen opposing Whig votes in
the Assembly, Washington Hunt received nine and Fillmore four. When
the two houses compared the vote in joint session, Henry J. Raymond,
the lieutenant-governor, announced with evident emotion to a
sympathetic audience which densely packed the Assembly chamber, that
"William H. Seward was duly elected as a senator of the United States
for 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 patent
suit kept him busy in New York City until the middle of January, after
which he returned to his place in the Senate. He professed to "have
the least possible anxiety about it," writing Weed early in December
that "I would not have you suffer one moment's pain on the ground
that I am not likely to be content and satisfied with whatever may
happen;"[457] yet a letter written five months afterward, on his
fifty-fifth birthday, gives a glimpse of what defeat would have meant
to him. "How happy I am," he says, "that age and competence bring no
serious and permanent disappointment to sour and disgust me with
country or mankind."[458] To Weed he shows a heart laden with
gratitude. "I snatch a minute," he writes, "to express not so much my
deep and deepened gratitude to you, as my amazement at the magnitude
and complexity of the dangers through which you have conducted our
shattered bark, and the sagacity and skill with which you have saved
us from so imminent a wreck."[459] But Seward was not more amazed at
the dangers he had escaped than at the great number of congratulations
now pouring in from opponents. "Was ever anything more curious," he
writes his wife, "than the fact that this result is scarcely more
satisfactory to my truest friends, than, as it seems, to so many
lifelong opponents? We have nothing but salutations and
congratulations 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 attracting
attention. Governor Reeder fixed March 30, 1855, for the election of a
territorial legislature, and just before it occurred five thousand
Missourians, "with guns upon their shoulders, revolvers stuffing their
belts, bowie-knives protruding from their boot-tops, and generous
rations of whiskey in their wagons,"[461] marched into the territory
to superintend the voting. This army intimidated such of the election
judges as were not already pro-slavery men; and of six thousand votes,
three-fourths of them were cast by the Missourians in the interest of
slavery. The Northern press recorded the fraud. If further evidence
were needed, Governor Reeder's speech, published in the New York
_Times_ of May 1, in which he declared that the fierce violence and
wild outrages reported by the newspapers were in no wise exaggerated,
set all controversy at rest. Instantly the North was in a ferment. The
predominant sentiment demanded that Kansas should be free, and the
excitement aroused by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was
quickly rekindled when the South approved the murderous methods
intended to make it a slave State. A journal published in the
pro-slavery interest threatened "to lynch and hang, tar and feather,
and drown every white-livered Abolitionist who dares to pollute our
soil," and secret societies, organised for the purpose of keeping out
Northern immigrants, resolved "that we recognise the institution of
slavery as already existing in this territory, and advise
slave-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-state
members whose election was contested, and proceeded to pass laws
upholding and fortifying slavery. It declared it a felony, punishable
by two years' imprisonment, to write or maintain that persons have not
the right to hold slaves in the territory; it disqualified all
anti-slavery men from sitting as jurors; it made one's presence in the
territory sufficient qualification to vote; and it punished with death
any one who assisted in the escape of fugitive slaves. When Reeder
vetoed these acts the Legislature passed them over his head and
demanded the Governor's removal. To add to the popular feeling,
already deeply inflamed, President Pierce met this demand with
affirmative action.

In the midst of this political excitement, the Hards met in convention
at Syracuse on August 23, 1855. That party had been sorely punished in
the preceding election; but it had in no way changed its attitude
toward opponents. It refused to invite the Softs to participate; it
denounced the national administration, and it condemned the
Know-Nothings. Daniel E. Sickles, then thirty-four years old, who was
destined to play a conspicuous part when the country was in
difficulty and the Government in danger, sought to broaden and
liberalise its work; but the convention sullenly outvoted him. It
approved the Nebraska Act, refused to listen to appeals in behalf of
freedom in Kansas, and rebuked all efforts to restore the Missouri
Compromise. Only upon the liquor question did it modify its former
declarations. The Hards had started off in 1854 in favour of
prohibition. But during the campaign, Bronson changed his position,
or, as Greeley put it, "he first inclined to water, then to rum and
water, and finally he came out all rum." To keep in accord with their
leader's latest change, the delegates now declared the prohibitory law
unconstitutional 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 other
purposes. Its regulations, providing for search, prosecutions, and the
destruction of forfeited liquors, were the very strongest, and its
enforcement gave rise to much litigation. Among other things it denied
trial by jury. In May, 1856, the Court of Appeals declared it
unconstitutional. But while it lasted it gave the politicians much
concern. The Democrats disapproved and other parties avoided it.

On August 29, the Softs met in convention. The Barnburners, who had
vainly extended the olive branch to the Hards, now faced an array of
anti-slavery delegates that would not condone the Kansas outrages.
They would disapprove prohibition, commend Marcy's admirable foreign
policy, and praise the President's management of the exchequer; but
they would not countenance border ruffianism, encourage slavery
propagandists in Kansas, or submit to the extension of slavery in the
free territories. It was a stormy convention. For three days the
contest raged; but when final action was taken, although the platform
did not in terms censure Pierce's administration, it condemned the
Kansas outrages which the President had approved by the removal of
Governor Reeder, and disapproved the extension of slavery into free
territories. Among the candidates nominated were Samuel J. Tilden for
attorney-general, and Samuel L. Selden of Rochester for judge of the
Court 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 communion
the various shades of anti-slavery opinion in New York. Early in the
summer, the question was earnestly considered of enlisting all men
opposed to the aggressions of slavery under the banner of the
Republican party, a political organisation formed, as has been stated,
at Jackson, Michigan, on July 6, 1854. Horace Greeley had suggested
the name "Republican" as an unobjectionable one for the new party;
and, within a week after its adoption at Jackson, it became the name
of 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, also
adopted the name, calling its executive committee "the Republican
state committee." It was not a new name in the Empire State. Voters in
middle life had all been Republicans in their early years; and long
after the formation of the National Republicans in 1828, and of the
Whig party in 1834, the designation had been used with approval by the
Regency. In 1846, Silas Wright spoke of belonging to "the Republican
party;" and, in 1848, Horace Greeley suggested "Taylor Republicans" as
a substitute for Whigs. But for twenty years the name had practically
fallen into disuse, and old questions associated with it had died out
of popular memory.

After full conferences between the Whig and Republican state
committees, calls were issued for two state conventions to meet at
Syracuse on September 26. This meant an opportunity for the formal
union of all anti-slavery voters. Of the two hundred and fifty-six
delegates allotted to the Republican convention, over two hundred
assembled, with Reuben E. Fenton as their presiding officer. Fenton,
then thirty-six years old, was serving his first term in Congress. He
was a man of marked intellectual vigour, unquestioned courage, and
quiet courtesy, whose ability to control men was to give him, within a
few years, something of the influence possessed by Thurlow Weed as a
managing politician, with this difference, perhaps, that Fenton
trusted more to the prevalence of ideas for which he stood. He kept
step with progress. His reason for being a Barnburner, unlike that of
John A. Dix,[462] grew out of an intense hatred of slavery, and after
the historic break in 1847, he never again, with full-heartedness,
co-operated with the Democratic party. Fenton studied law, and, for a
time, practised at the bar, but if the dream and highest ambition of
his youth were success in the profession, his natural love for trade
and politics quickly gained the ascendant. It is doubtful if he would
have become a leading lawyer even in his own vicinage, for he showed
little real capacity for public speaking. Indeed, he was rather a dull
talker. The _Globe_, during his ten years in Congress, rarely reveals
him as doing more than making or briefly sustaining a motion, and,
although these frequently occurred at the most exciting moments of
partisan discussion, showing that he was carefully watching, if not
fearlessly directing affairs, it is evident that for the hard blows in
debate he relied as much as Weed did upon the readiness of other
speakers.

[Footnote 462: "He never became unduly excited about slavery. He had
no sympathy for the religious or sentimental side of abolitionism, nor
was he moved by the words of the philanthropists, preachers, or poets
by whom the agitation was set ablaze and persistently fanned. He
probably regarded it as an evil of less magnitude than several others
that 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 of
the State since the Know-Nothing defection, now responded to the call
with a full quota of delegates, and elected John A. King president.
King was nearly double the age of Fenton. He had been a lieutenant of
cavalry in the War of 1812 and an opponent of DeWitt Clinton in the
early twenties. The two men presented a broad contrast, yet King
represented the traditions of the past along the same lines that
Fenton 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 or
ill-feeling, the desire for the success of their principles alone
animating leaders and followers.

Each convention organised separately, and, after adopting platforms
and dividing their tickets equally between men of Whig and Democratic
antecedents, conference committees of sixteen were appointed, which
reported that the two bodies should appoint committees of sixteen on
resolutions and of thirty-two on nominations. These committees having
quickly agreed to what had already been done, the Whigs marched in a
body to the hall of the Republican convention, the delegates rising
and greeting them with cheers and shouts of welcome as they took the
seats reserved for them in the centre of the room.

The occasion was one of profound rejoicing. The great coalition which
was to stand so strong and to work such wonders during the next
half-century doubtless had a period of feebleness in the first months
of its existence; but never in its history has it had stronger or more
influential men in its ranks, or abler and more determined leaders to
direct its course. Horace Greeley reported its platform, demanding
that Congress expressly prohibit slavery in the territories, and
condemning the doctrines and methods of the Know-Nothings; John A.
King, Edwin D. Morgan, and Reuben E. Fenton, destined to lead it to
victory as its candidate for governor, sat upon the stage; Henry J.
Raymond occupied a delegate's seat; and, back of the scenes, stood the
great manager, Thurlow Weed, who had conferred with the Free-soil
leaders, 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 speech
that was read by more than half a million voters.

After the enthusiasm had subsided the two chairmen, John A. King and
Reuben E. Fenton, standing side by side, called the joint convention
to order. This was the signal for more cheering. One delegate declared
that not being quite sure which convention he ought to attend, he had
applied to Seward, who wrote him it didn't make any difference. "You
will go in by two doors, but you will all come out through one." Then
everything went by acclamation. Speaker Littlejohn of the Assembly
moved that the two conventions ratify the platforms passed by each
convention; Elbridge G. Spaulding moved that the presidents of the two
conventions appoint a state central committee; and John A. King moved
that the names of the candidates, at the head of whom was Preston King
for secretary of state, be given to the people of the State as the
"Republican Ticket." Only when an effort was made to procure the
indorsement of liquor prohibition did the convention show its teeth.
The invitation, it was argued, included all men who were disposed to
unite in resisting the aggressions and the diffusion of slavery, and a
majority, by a ringing vote, declared it bad faith to insist upon a
matter for which the convention was not called and upon which it was
not unanimous.

The Know-Nothing state convention met at Auburn on September 26. It
was no longer a secret society. The terrors surrounding its mysterious
machinery had vanished with the exposure of its secrets and the
exploiting of its methods. It was now holding open political
conventions and adopting political platforms under the title of the
American party; and, as in other political organisations, the slavery
question provoked hot controversies and led to serious breaks in its
ranks. At its national council, held at Philadelphia in the preceding
June, the New York delegation, controlled by the Silver-Gray faction
which forced Daniel Ullman's nomination for governor in 1854, had
joined the Southern delegates in carrying a pro-slavery resolution
abandoning further efforts to restore the Missouri Compromise. In this
action the anti-slavery members of other Northern States, led with
great ability and courage by Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, refused to
acquiesce, preferring to abandon the Order rather than sacrifice their
principles. The contest in New York was renewed at the state council,
held at Binghamton on August 28; and, after a bitter session, a
majority resolved that slavery should derive no extension from the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The convention at Auburn now took
similar ground. It was not a great victory for the anti-slavery wing
of the party; but it disproved the assurances of their delegates that
the Americans of New York would uphold the pro-slavery action at
Philadelphia, while the fervent heat of the conflict melted the zeal
of thousands of anti-Nebraska Know-Nothings, who soon found their way
into the Republican party.

But the main body of the Americans, crushed as were its hopes of
national unity, was still powerful. It put a ticket into the field,
headed by Joel T. Headley for secretary of state, and greatly
strengthened by George F. Comstock of Syracuse for judge of the Court
of Appeals. Headley was a popular and prolific writer. He had been
educated for the ministry at Union College and Auburn Theological
Seminary, but his pen paid better than the pulpit, and he soon settled
down into a writer of melodramatic biography, of which _Napoleon and
His Marshals_ attained, perhaps, the greatest popularity. Possibly
little interest now clings to his books, which ordinarily rest on the
high shelf with Abbott's _History of Napoleon_; but, in their day, it
was far pleasanter to read the entertaining and dramatic pages of
Headley, 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 his
entrance to the Assembly in 1854, where his cleverness attracted the
attention of his party and led to his selection for secretary of
state. George F. Comstock, now in his forty-first year, had already
won an enviable reputation at the Onondaga bar. Like Headley he was a
graduate of Union College. In 1847, Governor Young had appointed him
the first reporter for the Court of Appeals, and five years later
President Fillmore made him solicitor of the Treasury Department. He
belonged to the Hards, but he sympathised with the tenets of the young
American party.

There were other parties in the field. The Free Democracy met in
convention on August 7, and the Liberty party, assembling at Utica on
September 12, nominated Frederick Douglass of Monroe, then a young
coloured man of thirty-eight, for secretary of state, and Lewis Tappan
of New York for comptroller. Douglass' life had been full of romance.
Neither his white father nor coloured mother appears to have had any
idea of the prodigy they brought into the world; but it is certain his
Maryland master discovered in the little slave boy the great talents
that a hard life in Baltimore could not suppress. Douglass secretly
began teaching himself to read and write before he was ten years of
age, and three years after his escape from slavery at the age of
twenty-one, he completely captured an audience at an anti-slavery
convention in Nantucket by his brilliant speaking. This gave him
employment as an agent of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, and
four 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 not
become a narrow and monotonous agitator. The variety of his
intellectual sympathies, controlled by the constancy of a high moral
impulse, wholly exempted him from the rashness of a conceited zealot;
and, though often brilliant and at times rhetorical, his style was
quiet and persuasive, reaching the reason as easily as the emotions.
Coming as he did, out of slavery, at a time when the anti-slavery
sentiment was beginning to be aggressive and popular in New England
and other free States, Douglass seemed to be the Moses of his race as
much as Booker T. Washington in these later years. Englishmen raised
one hundred and fifty pounds and bought his freedom in 1846. The next
year, as a Garrisonian disunionist, he began the publication of a
weekly journal in Rochester; but he soon renounced disunionism,
maintaining that slavery was illegal and unconstitutional. In the year
the Liberty party nominated him for secretary of state, his publishers
sold eighteen thousand copies of his autobiography, entitled _My
Bondage and My Freedom_.

Before the campaign was far advanced it became evident that the
Republican party was not drawing all the anti-slavery elements to
which it was thought to be entitled; and, on the 12th of October,
Seward made a speech in Albany, answering the question, "Shall we form
a new party?" The hall was little more than two-thirds filled, and an
absence of joyous enthusiasm characterised the meeting. Earnest men
sat with serious faces, thinking of party ties severed and the work of
a lifetime apparently snuffed out, with deep forebodings for the
future of the new organisation. This was a time to appeal to
reason--not to the emotions, and Seward met it squarely with a
storehouse of arguments. He sketched the history of slavery's growth
as a political power; he explained that slave-holders were a
privileged class, getting the better of the North in appropriations
and by the tariff. "Protection is denied to your wool," he said,
"while it is freely given to their sugar." Then he pointed out how
slavery had grasped the territories as each one presented itself for
admission into the Union--Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and
Alabama, almost at the very outset of the national career; then
Florida, when acquired from Spain; then as much of the Louisiana
Purchase as possible; then Texas and the territory acquired from
Mexico--all the while deluding the North with the specious pretence
that each successive seizure of free soil was a "compromise" and a
final settlement of the slavery question. This opened the way to the
matter in hand--how to meet slavery's aggressiveness. "Shall we take
the American party?" he asked. "It stifles its voice, and suppresses
your own free speech, lest it may be overheard beyond the Potomac. In
the slave-holding States it justifies all wrongs committed against
you. Shall we unite ourselves to the Democratic party? If so, to
which faction? The Hards who are so stern in defending the
aggressions, and in rebuking the Administration through whose agency
they are committed? or the Softs who protest against the aggressions,
while they sustain and invigorate the Administration? What is it but
the same party which has led in the commission of all those
aggressions, and claims exclusively the political benefits? Shall we
report ourselves to the Whig party? Where is it? It was a strong and
vigorous party, honourable for energy, noble achievement, and still
more noble enterprises. It was moved by panics and fears to emulate
the Democratic party in its practised subserviency; and it yielded in
spite of your remonstrances, and of mine, and now there is neither
Whig party nor Whig south of the Potomac. Let, then, the Whig party
pass. It committed a grievous fault, and grievously hath it answered
it. Let it march off the field, therefore, with all the honours....
The Republican organisation has laid a new, sound, and liberal
platform. Its principles are equal and exact justice; its speech open,
decided, and frank. Its banner is untorn in former battles, and
unsullied by past errors. That is the party for us."[463]

[Footnote 463: F.W. Seward, _Life of W.H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 256. For
full speech, see _Seward's Works_, Vol. 4, p. 225.]

When the meeting ended the people went out satisfied. The smallness of
the audience had been forgotten in the clear, homely arguments, and in
the glow kindled in every heart; nor did they know that the speech
spoken in their hearing would be read and pondered by half a million
voters within a month. Richard H. Dana pronounced it "the keynote of
the new party."[464] But though sown in fruitful soil, insufficient
time was to elapse before election for such arguments to root and
blossom; and when the votes were counted in November, the
Know-Nothings had polled 146,001, the Republicans 135,962, the Softs
90,518, and the Hards 58,394. Samuel L. Selden, the candidate of the
Hards 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 the
Assembly the Republicans numbered 44, the Know-Nothings 39, and the
Hards 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 the
Silver-Grays have been successful in a new and attractive form, so as
to divide a majority of the people in the cities and towns from the
great question of the day. That is all. The rural districts still
remain substantially sound. A year is necessary to let the cheat wear
off."[465] To a friend who was greatly alarmed at the success of the
Know-Nothings, he wrote: "There is just so much gas in any ascending
balloon. Before the balloon is down, the gas must escape. But the
balloon is always sure not only to come down, but to come down _very
quick_. 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 of
a united anti-slavery party was not so favourable as it had been at
the close of 1854; and men were inclined then, as some historians are
now, to criticise Seward for not forcing the formation of the
Republican party in New York in 1854 and putting himself at its head
by making speeches in New England and the West as well as in New York.
"Had Seward sunk the politician in the statesman," says Rhodes; "had
he vigorously asserted that every cause must be subordinate to Union
under the banner of opposition to the extension of slavery--the close
of the year would have seen a triumphant Republican party in every
Northern State but California, and Seward its acknowledged leader. It
was the tide in Seward's affairs, but he did not take it at the
flood."[467]

[Footnote 467: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol.
2, p. 69. See also p. 68. "Seward," says the historian, "had the
position, the ability and the character necessary for the leadership
of a new party. He was the idol of the anti-slavery Whigs.... Perhaps
his sympathies were heartily enlisted in the movement for a new party
and he was held back by Thurlow Weed. Perhaps he would have felt less
trammelled had not his senatorship been at stake in the fall election.
The fact is, however, that the Republican movement in the West and New
England received no word of encouragement from him. He did not make a
speech, even in the State of New York, during the campaign. His care
and attention were engrossed in seeing that members of the Legislature
were elected who would vote for him for senator." On July 27, 1854,
the New York _Independent_ asked: "Shall we have a new party? The
leaders for such a party do not appear. Seward adheres to the Whig
party." In the New York _Tribune_ of November 9, Greeley asserted that
"the man who should have impelled and guided the general uprising of
the free States is W.H. Seward."]

Looking back into the fifties from the viewpoint of the present, this
suggestion of the distinguished historian seems plausible. Undoubtedly
Thurlow Weed's judgment controlled in 1854, and back of it was thirty
years of successful leadership, based upon the sagacity of a statesman
as well as the skill of a clever politician. It was inevitable that
Weed should be a Republican. He had opposed slavery before he was of
age. The annexation of Texas met his strenuous resistance, the Wilmot
Proviso had his active approval, and he assailed the fugitive slave
law and the Nebraska Act with unsparing bitterness. With a singleness
of purpose, not excelled by Seward or Sumner, his heart quickly
responded to every movement which should limit, and, if possible,
abolish slavery; but, in his wisdom, with Know-Nothings recruiting
members from the anti-slavery ranks, and the Whig party confident of
success because of a divided Democracy, he did not see his way safely
to organise the Republican party in New York in 1854. It is possible
his desire to re-elect Seward to the United States Senate may have
increased his caution. Seward's re-election was just then a very
important factor in the successful coalition of the anti-slavery
elements of the Empire State. Besides, Weed knew very well that defeat
would put the work of coalition into unfriendly hands, and it might be
disastrous if a hostile majority were allowed to deal with it
according to their own designs and their own class interests.
Nevertheless, his delay in organising and Seward's failure to lead the
new party in 1854, left an indelible impression to their injury in the
West, if not in New York and New England, "for unto whomsoever much is
given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed
much, of him they will ask the more."




CHAPTER XVII

THE FIRST REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR

1856


Kansas troubles did not subside after the election. The Pierce
administration found itself harassed by the most formidable opposition
it had yet encountered. Reeder was out of the way for the moment; but
the Northern settlers, by planning a flank movement which included the
organisation of a state government and an appeal to Congress for
admission to the Union, proved themselves an enemy much more
pertinacious and ingenious than the removed Governor. To aid them in
their endeavour, friends sent a supply of Sharpe's rifles, marked
"books." Accordingly, on the 9th of October, 1855, delegates were
elected to a convention which met at Topeka on the 23d of the same
month and framed a Constitution prohibiting slavery and providing for
its submission to the people.

This practically established a second government. Governor Shannon,
the successor of Reeder, recognised the action of the fraudulently
chosen territorial Legislature, while the free-state settlers, with
headquarters at Lawrence, repudiated its laws and resisted their
enforcement. Things could not long remain in this unhappy condition,
and when, at last, a free-state man was killed it amounted to a
declaration of hostilities. Immediately, the people of Lawrence threw
up earthworks; the Governor called out the militia; and the
Missourians again crossed the border. By the 1st of December a couple
of regiments were encamped in the vicinity of Lawrence, behind whose
fortifications calmly rested six hundred men, half of them armed with
Sharpe's rifles. A howitzer added to their confidence. Finally, the
border ruffians, who had heard of the breech-loading rifles and
learned of the character of the men behind them, after dallying for
several weeks, recrossed the river and permitted the settlers to
ratify the new Constitution. In January, 1856, a governor and
legislature were chosen, and, in February, the Legislature, meeting at
Topeka, memorialised Congress, asking that Kansas be admitted into the
Union. Thereupon, Senator Douglas reported a bill providing that
whenever the people of Kansas numbered 93,420 inhabitants they might
organise 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 noisy
and murderous, rekindling a spirit of indignation in the South as well
as in the North, which brought out fiery appeals from the press. The
Georgia Legislature proposed to appropriate sixty thousand dollars to
aid emigration to Kansas. A chivalrous colonel of Alabama who issued
an appeal for three hundred men willing to fight for the cause of the
South, began his march from Montgomery with two hundred, having first
received a blessing from a Methodist minister and a Bible from a
divine of the Baptist church. One young lady of South Carolina set the
example of selling her jewelry to equip men with rifles. The same
spirit manifested itself in the North. Public meetings encouraged
armed emigration. "The duty of the people of the free States," said
the _Tribune_, "is to send more true men, more Sharpe's rifles, and
more howitzers to Kansas."[468] William Cullen Bryant wrote his
brother that "by the 1st of May there will be several thousand more
free-state settlers in Kansas. Of course they will go well
armed."[469] Henry Ward Beecher, happening to be present at a meeting
in which an orthodox deacon who had enlisted seventy-nine emigrants
asked for more rifles, declared that a Sharpe's rifle was a greater
moral agency than the Bible, and that if half the guns needed were
pledged 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 of
slavery domination must be fought out on the plains of Kansas."[472]
To add to Northern bitterness, President Pierce, in a special message
to the United State Senate, condemned the emigrant aid societies,
threatening to call out the army, and approving the acts of the
pro-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 on
his Kansas bill which was destined to become more historic than the
outrages of the border ruffians themselves. Douglas upheld the acts of
the territorial Legislature as the work of law and order, denouncing
the Northern emigrants as daring and defiant revolutionists, and
charging that "the whole responsibility for all the disturbance rested
upon the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company and its affiliated
societies."[473] Horace Greeley admitted the force and power of
Douglas' argument, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, the gifted author of
_Uncle Tom's Cabin_, was so profoundly impressed with the matchless
orator that she thought it "a merciful providence that with all his
alertness and adroitness, all his quick-sighted keenness, Douglas is
not witty--that might have made him too irresistible a demagogue for
the liberties of our laughter-loving people, to whose weakness he is
altogether too well adapted now."[474] The friends of a free Kansas
appreciated the superiority in debate of the Illinois statesman, whose
arguments now called out half a dozen replies from as many Republican
senators. It afforded a fine opportunity to define and shape the
principles of the new party, and each senator attracted wide
attention. But the speech of Seward, who took the floor on the 9th of
April in favour of the immediate admission of Kansas as a State, seems
to have impressed the country as far the ablest. He sketched the
history of the Kansas territory; reviewed the sacrifices of its
people; analysed and refuted each argument in support of the
President's policy; and defended the settlers in maintaining their
struggle for freedom. "Greeley expressed the opinion of the country
and the judgment of the historian," says Rhodes, "when he wrote to his
journal 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 its
publication the _Weekly Tribune_ sent out 162,000 copies. Seward wrote
Weed that "the demand for it exceeds what I have ever known. I am
giving copies away by the thousand for distribution in Pennsylvania,
Ohio, and other States."[477]

[Footnote 473: Report of Committee on Territories, U.S. Senate, March
12, 1856.]

[Footnote 474: New York _Independent_, May 1, 1856, Letters from
Washington.]

[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 Charles
Sumner, entitled "The Crime Against Kansas." Whittier called it "a
grand and terrible philippic." Sumner had read it to Senator and Mrs.
Seward, who advised the omission of certain personal allusions to
Senator Butler;[478] but he delivered it as he wrote it, and two days
later the country was startled by Preston S. Brooks' assault. The
North received this outrage with horror as the work of the slave
power. In public meetings, the people condemned it as a violation of
the freedom of speech and a blow at the personal safety of public men
having the courage to express their convictions. "The blows that fell
on the head of the Senator from Massachusetts," said Seward, "have
done more for the cause of human freedom in Kansas and in the
territories of the United States than all the eloquence which has
resounded in these halls since the days of Rufus King and John Quincy
Adams."[479] The events surrounding the assault--Brooks' resignation,
his unanimous re-election, his challenge to Burlingame, and his
refusal to fight in Canada--all tended to intensify Northern feeling.
Close upon the heels of this excitement came news from Kansas of the
burning of Lawrence, the destruction of Osawatomie, the sacking of
free-state printing offices, and the murder of Northern immigrants. To
complete the list of crimes against free speech and freedom, the
commander of a force of United States troops dispersed the Topeka
Legislature 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 parties
of the country assembled in national convention in June, 1856, to
select candidates for President and Vice President. At their state
convention, in January, to select delegates-at-large to Cincinnati,
the Softs had put themselves squarely in accord with the pro-slavery
wing of their party. They commended the administration of Pierce,
approved the Nebraska Act, and denounced as "treasonable" the Kansas
policy of the Republican party. This was a wide departure from their
position of August, 1855, which had practically reaffirmed the
principles of the Wilmot Proviso; but the trend of public events
compelled them either to renounce all anti-slavery leanings or abandon
their party. Their surrender, however, did not turn their reception at
Cincinnati into the welcome of prodigals. The committee on credentials
kept them waiting at the door for two days, and when they were finally
admitted they were compelled to enter on an equality with the Hards.
Horatio Seymour pleaded for representation in proportion to the votes
cast, which would have given the Softs three-fifths of the delegation,
but the convention thought them entitled to no advantages because of
their "abolition principles," and even refused a request for
additional seats from which their colleagues might witness the
proceedings. To complete their humiliation the convention required
them formally to deny the right of Congress or of the people of a
territory to prohibit slavery in any territory of the United States.
It was a bitter dose. The Democracy of the Empire State had been
accustomed to control conventions--not to serve them. For twenty years
they had come with candidates for the Presidency, and if none of
their statesmen had been nominated since 1836 they were recognised as
resolute men, bold in diplomacy, ready for any emergency, and as
formidable to their enemies as they were dear to their friends. For
nearly three decades a New Yorker had been in the Cabinet of every
administration. But the glory of former days had now departed. For
twelve years the party had been divided and weakened, until, at last,
it had neither presidential candidate to offer nor cabinet position to
expect.

The leading candidates at Cincinnati were Franklin Pierce, Stephen A.
Douglas, and James Buchanan. Northern delegates had been inclined to
support Pierce or Douglas; but since the assault upon Sumner and the
destruction of Lawrence, the conciliation of the North by the
nomination of a candidate who had not participated in the events of
the past three years seemed the wisest and safest policy. Buchanan had
been minister to England since the birth of the Pierce administration;
and the fact that he hailed from Pennsylvania, a very important State
in the election, strengthened his availability. The Softs recognised
the wisdom of this philosophy, but, under the leadership of Marcy, who
had given them the federal patronage for three years, they voted for
the President, with the hope that his supporters might ultimately
unite with those of Douglas. The Hards, on the contrary, supported
Buchanan. 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's
success probable if his forces stood firm; and as other ballots
brought him additional votes at the expense of Pierce, his nomination
seemed certain. The Softs, however, continued with Pierce until his
withdrawal on the fourteenth ballot; then, putting aside an
opportunity to support the winning candidate, they turned to Douglas.
But to their great surprise, Douglas withdrew at the end of the next
ballot, leaving the field to Buchanan. This placed the Softs, who now
joined the Hards because there was no longer any way of keeping apart,
in an awkward position. Seymour, however, gracefully accepted the
situation, declaring that, although the Softs came into the convention
under many disadvantages, they desired to do all in their power to
harmonise the vote of the convention and to promote the discontinuance
of 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 command
the party.

The Republican national convention convened at Philadelphia on the
17th of June. Recent events had encouraged Republicans with the hope
of ultimate victory. Nathaniel P. Banks' election as speaker of the
national House of Representatives on the one hundred and
thirty-seventh ballot, after a fierce contest of two months, was a
great triumph; interest in the Pittsburg convention on the 22d of
February had surpassed expectations; and the troubles of "bleeding
Kansas," which seemed to culminate in the assault upon Sumner and the
destruction of Lawrence, had kept the free States in a condition of
profound excitement. Such brutal outrages, it was thought, would
certainly discredit any party that approved the policy leading to
them. Sustained by this hope the convention, in its platform,
arraigned the Administration for the conduct of affairs; demanded the
immediate admission of Kansas into the Union under the Topeka
Constitution; and resolved, amidst the greatest enthusiasm, that "it
is both the right and duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories
those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery."

The selection of a presidential candidate gave the delegates more
trouble. They wanted an available man who could carry Pennsylvania;
and between the supporters of John C. Fremont and the forces of John
McLean, for twenty-six years a member of the United States Supreme
Court, the canvass became earnest and exciting. Finally, on an
informal ballot, Fremont secured 359 of the 555 votes in the
convention. William L. Dayton of New Jersey was then nominated for
Vice President over Abraham Lincoln, who received 110 votes.

William H. Seward was the logical candidate for President. He
represented Republican principles and aims more fully than any man in
the country, but Thurlow Weed, looking into the future through the
eyes of a practical politician, disbelieved in Republican success. He
argued that, although Republicans were sure of 114 electoral votes, it
was essential to carry Pennsylvania to secure the additional 35, and
that Pennsylvania could not be carried. This belief was strengthened
after the nomination of Buchanan, who pledged himself to give fair
play to Kansas, which many understood to mean a free State. Under
these conditions Weed advised Seward not to become a candidate, on the
theory that defeat in 1856 would sacrifice his chances in 1860.

Seward, as usual, acquiesced in Weed's judgment. "I once heard Seward
declare," wrote Gideon Welles, "that 'Seward is Weed and Weed is
Seward. What I do, Weed approves. What he says, I indorse. We are
one.'"[480] On this occasion, however, it is certain Seward accepted
Weed's judgment with much reluctance. His heart was set upon the
nomination, and his letters reveal disappointment and even disgust at
the arrangement. "It is a delicate thing," he wrote, on the 27th of
April, "to go through the present ordeal, but I am endeavouring to do
so without giving any one just cause to complain of indifference on my
part to the success of the cause. I have shut out the subject itself
from conversation and correspondence, and, so far as possible, from my
thoughts."[481] But he could not close his ears. "From all I hear
'availability' is to be indulged next week and my own friends are to
make the sacrifice," he wrote his wife, on June 11, six days before
the convention opened. "Be it so; I shall submit with better grace
than others would."[482] Two days later he said: "It tries my patience
to hear what is said and to act as if I assented, under expectation of
personal benefits, present and prospective."[483]

[Footnote 480: Gideon Welles, _Lincoln and Seward_, p. 23. "I am sorry
to hear the remark," said the late Chief Justice Chase, "for while I
would strain a point to oblige Mr. Seward, I feel under no obligations
to do anything for the special benefit of Mr. Weed. The two are not
and 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. "The
understanding all around me is," he wrote his wife, on June 14, "that
Greeley has struck hands with enemies of mine and sacrificed me for
the good of the cause, to be obtained by the nomination of a more
available candidate, and that Weed has concurred in demanding my
acquiescence."[484] Seward suspected the truth of this "understanding"
as to Greeley, but it is doubtful if he then believed Weed had
betrayed him. Perhaps this thought came later after he heard of
Fremont's astonishing vote and learned that the newspapers were again
nominating the Path-finder for a standard-bearer in 1860. "Seward more
than hinted to confidential friends," wrote Henry B. Stanton, "that
Weed betrayed him for Fremont." Then Stanton tells the story of Weed
and Seward riding up Broadway, and how, when passing the bronze statue
of Lincoln in Union Square, Seward said, "Weed, if you had been
faithful to me, I should have been there instead of Lincoln."
"Seward," replied Weed, "is it not better to be alive in a carriage
with 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 of
opponents nowhere appears, but the disappointment of Democrats and
conservative Americans upon the announcement of Seward's withdrawal
proves that these objections were serious. His views were regarded as
too extreme for a popular candidate. It was deemed advisable not to
put in issue either the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia, or the repeal of the fugitive slave law, and Seward's
pronounced attitude on these questions, it was asserted, would involve
them in the campaign regardless of the silence of the platform. It was
argued, also, that although the Whigs were numerically the largest
portion of the Republican party, a candidate of Democratic antecedents
would be preferable, especially in Pennsylvania, a State, they
declared, which Seward could not carry. To all this Greeley
undoubtedly assented. The dissolution of the firm of Seward, Weed, and
Greeley, announced in Greeley's remarkable letter of November 11,
1854, but not yet made public, had, indeed, taken effect. The result
was not so patent, certainly not so vitriolic, as it appeared at
Chicago in 1860, but Greeley now began insinuating doubts of Seward's
popular strength, exaggerating local prejudices against him, and
yielding to objections raised by his avowed opponents. His hostility
found no place in the columns of the _Tribune_, but it coloured his
conversations and private correspondence. To Richard A. Dana he wrote
that Callamer's speech on the Kansas question "is better than
Seward's, in my humble judgment;"[486] yet the _Tribune_ pronounced
Seward's "the great argument" and "unsurpassed in political
philosophy." The importance of Pennsylvania became as prominent a
factor in the convention of 1856 as it did in that of 1860, and
Greeley did not hesitate to affirm Seward's inability to carry it,
declaring that such weakness made his nomination fatal to party
success.

[Footnote 486: Letters of April 7, 1856.]

The opponents of Seward, however, could not have prevented his
nomination had he decided to enter the race. He was the unanimous
choice of the New York delegation. The mere mention of his name at
Philadelphia met with the loudest applause. When Senator Wilson of
Massachusetts spoke of him as "the foremost American statesman," the
cheers made further speaking impossible for several minutes. He was
the idol of the convention as he was the chief figure of his party.
John A. King declared that could his name have been presented "it
would have received the universal approbation of the convention."
Robert Emmet, the son of the distinguished Thomas Addis Emmet, and the
temporary chairman of the convention, made a similar statement. Even
Thurlow Weed found it difficult to prevail upon his friends to bide
their time until the next national convention. "Earnest friends
refused 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 party
sought its strongest man for governor. The Hards and the Softs were
first in the field, meeting in separate conventions on July 30. After
inviting each other to join in a union meeting they reassembled as one
body, pledged to support the Cincinnati platform. It was not an
occasion for cheers. Consolidation was the only alternative, with
chances that the ultra pro-slavery platform meant larger losses if not
certain defeat. In this crisis Horatio Seymour assumed the leadership
that had been his in 1852, and that was not to be laid down for more
than a decade. Seymour was now in his prime--still under fifty years
of age. He had become a leader of energy and courage; and, although
destined for many years to lead a divided and often a defeated
organisation, he was ever after recognised as the most gifted and
notable member of his party. He was a typical Northern Democrat. He
had the virtues and foibles that belonged to that character in his
generation, the last of whom have now passed from the stage of public
action.

The effort to secure a Democratic nominee for governor required four
ballots. Addison Gardiner, David L. Seymour, Fernando Wood, and Amasa
J. Parker were the leading candidates. David Seymour had been a steady
supporter of the Hards. He belonged to the O'Conor type of
conservatives, rugged and stalwart, who seemed unmindful of the
changing conditions in the political growth of the country. At
Cincinnati, he opposed the admission of the Softs as an unjust and
utterly irrational disqualification of the Hards, who, he said, had
always stood firmly by party platforms and party nominations
regardless of personal convictions. Fernando Wood belonged to a
different type.[488] He had already developed those regrettable
qualities which gave him a most unsavoury reputation as mayor of New
York; but of the dangerous qualities that lay beneath the winning
surface of his gracious manner, men as yet knew nothing. Just now his
gubernatorial ambition, fed by dishonourable methods, found support in
a great host of noisy henchmen who demanded his nomination. Addison
Gardiner was the choice of the Softs. Gardiner had been elected
lieutenant-governor on the ticket with Silas Wright in 1844, and later
became an original member of the Court of Appeals, from which he
retired in 1855. He was a serious, simple-hearted, wise man, well
fitted 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 withdrawal
Parker immediately received the nomination.

[Footnote 488: Fernando Wood was a Quaker and a Philadelphian by
birth. In early youth he became a cigarmaker, then a tobacco dealer,
and later a grocer. At Harrisburg, his first introduction to politics
resulted in a fist-fight with a state senator who was still on the
floor when Wood left the bar-room. Then he went to New York, and, in
1840, was elected to Congress at the age of twenty-eight. Wood had a
fascinating personality. He was tall and shapely, his handsome
features and keen blue eyes were made the more attractive by an
abundance of light hair which fell carelessly over a high, broad
forehead. But, as a politician, he was as false as his capacity would
allow him to be, having no hesitation, either from principle or fear,
to say or do anything that served his purpose. He has been called the
successor of Aaron Burr and the predecessor of William M. Tweed. In
1858, he organised Mozart Hall, a Democratic society opposed to
Tammany.]

Amasa J. Parker was then forty-nine years of age, an eminent,
successful lawyer. Before his thirty-second birthday he had served
Delaware County as surrogate, district attorney, assemblyman, and
congressman. Later, he became a judge of the Supreme Court and removed
to Albany, where he resided for forty-six years, until his death in
1890. Parker was a New England Puritan, who had been unusually well
raised. He passed from the study of his father, a Congregational
clergyman, to the senior class at Union College, graduating at
eighteen; and from his uncle's law library to the surrogate's office.
All his early years had been a training for public life. He had
associated with scholars and thinkers, and in the estimation of his
contemporaries there were few stronger or clearer intellects in the
State. But his later political career was a disappointment. His party
began nominating him for governor after it had fallen into the
unfortunate habit of being beaten, and, although he twice ran ahead of
his ticket, the anti-slavery sentiment that dominated New York after
1854 kept him out of the executive chair.

The Republican state convention assembled at Syracuse on the 17th of
September. A feeling existed that the election this year would extract
the people from the mire of Know-Nothingism, giving the State its
first Republican governor; and confidence of success, mingled with an
unusual desire to make no mistake, characterised the selection of a
nominee for chief executive. Myron H. Clark, a man of the people, had
made a good governor, but he was too heavily weighted with prohibition
to suit the older public men, who did not take kindly to him. They
turned to Moses H. Grinnell, whose pre-eminence as a large-hearted,
public-spirited merchant always kept him in sight. Grinnell was now
fifty-three years of age. His broad, handsome face showed an absence
of bigotry and intolerance, while the motives that controlled his life
were public and patriotic, not personal. Probably no man in New York
City, since the time John Jay left it, had ever had more admirers. He
was a favourite of Daniel Webster, who appointed Washington Irving
minister to Spain upon his request. This interest in the famous
author, as well as his recent promotion of Dr. Kane's expedition to
the Arctic seas in search of Sir John Franklin, indicated the broad
philanthropy that governed his well-ordered life. But he declined to
accept office. The distinguished house that had borne his name for
twenty-seven years, decided that its senior member could not be
spared, even temporarily, to become governor of the State, and so
Grinnell's official life was limited to a single term in Congress,
although his public life may be said to have spanned nearly two-thirds
of his more than three score years and ten.

Grinnell's decision seemed to leave an open field, and upon the first
ballot John A. King received 91 votes, James S. Wadsworth 72, Simeon
Draper 23, Myron H. Clark 22, and Ira Harris 22. Thurlow Weed and the
wheel horses of Whig descent, however, preferring that the young party
have a governor of their own antecedents, familiar with political
difficulties and guided by firmness and wisdom, had secretly
determined upon King. But Wadsworth, although he quickly felt the
influence of their decision, declined to withdraw. Wadsworth was a
born fighter. In the Free-soil secession of 1847, he proclaimed
uncompromising hostility to the extension of slavery, and he never
changed his position until death ended his gallant and noble service
in the Civil War.

Wadsworth descended from a notable family. His father, James
Wadsworth, a graduate of Yale, leaving his Connecticut home in young
manhood, bought of the Dutch and of the Six Nations twenty thousand
acres in the Genesee Valley, and became one of the earliest settlers
and wealthiest men in Western New York. He was, also, the most
public-spirited citizen. He believed in normal schools and in district
school libraries, and he may properly be called one of the founders of
the educational system of the State. But he never cared for political
office. It was said of him that his refusal to accept public place was
as inflexible as his determination to fight Oliver Kane, a well-known
merchant of New York City, after trouble had occurred at the card
table. The story, told at the time, was that the two, after separating
in anger, met before sunrise the next morning, without seconds or
surgeons, under a tall pine tree on a bluff, and after politely
measuring the distance and taking their places, continued shooting at
each 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 holding
office. He, also, graduated at Yale and studied law in the office of
Daniel Webster, but he preferred politics and agriculture to the
troubles of clients, and, although never successful in getting office,
all admitted his fitness for it. He was brave, far-sighted, and formed
to please. He had a handsome face and stately presence. Many people
who never saw him were strongly attracted to him by sympathy of
political opinions and by gratitude for important services rendered
the country. There was to come a time, in 1862, when these radical
friends, looking upon him as the Lord's Anointed, and indifferent to
the wishes of Thurlow Weed and the more conservative leaders, forced
his nomination for governor by acclamation; but, in 1856, John A. King
had the weightiest influence, and, on the second ballot, he took the
strength of Draper, Clark, and Harris, receiving 158 votes to 73 for
Wadsworth. It was not soon forgotten, however, that in the memorable
stampede for King, Wadsworth more than held his own.

John Alsop King was the eldest son of Rufus King. While the father was
minister to the court of St. James, the son attended the famous school
at Harrow, had as classmates Lord Byron and Sir Robert Peel, and went
the usual rounds of continental travel. For nearly four decades he had
been conspicuous in public life as assemblyman, senator, congressman,
and in the diplomatic service. Starting as a Federalist and an early
advocate of anti-slavery sentiments, he had been an Anti-Mason, a
National Republican, and a Whig. Only when he acted with Martin Van
Buren against DeWitt Clinton did he flicker in his political
consistency. Although now sixty-eight years old, he was still
rugged--a man of vigorous sense and great public spirit. His
congressional experience came when the hosts of slavery and freedom
were marshalling for the great contest for the territory between the
Mississippi and the Pacific, and at the side of Preston King he
resisted Clay's compromise measures, especially the fugitive slave
law, and warmly supported the admission of California as a free State.
"I have come to have a great liking for the Kings," wrote Seward, in
1850. "They have withstood the seduction of the seducers, and are like
a rock in the defence of the right. They have been tried as through
fire."[490] John A. King was not ambitious for public place. He waited
to be called to an office, but he did not wait to be called to join a
movement which would be helpful to the public. His ear was to the sky
rather than to the ground. He believed Ralph Waldo Emerson's saying:
"That is the one base thing in the universe, to receive benefits and
render none." Like his distinguished father, he was tolerant in
dealing with men who differed from him, but he never shrank from the
expression of an opinion because it would bring sacrifice or
ostracism.

[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 of
Monroe for lieutenant-governor. Selden belonged to a family that had
been prominent for two centuries in the Connecticut Valley. Like his
older brother, Samuel L. Selden, who lived at Rochester, he was an
able lawyer and a man of great industry. These brothers brought to the
service of the people a perfect integrity, coupled with a gracious
urbanity that kept them in public life longer than either desired to
remain. One was a Republican, the other a Democrat. Samuel became a
partner of Addison Gardiner in 1825, and Henry, after studying law
with them, opened an office at Clarkson in the western part of the
county. In 1851, Henry became reporter for the Court of Appeals, and
then, lieutenant-governor. Samuel's public service began earlier. He
became judge of the Court of Common Pleas in 1831, of the Supreme
Court in 1847, and of the Court of Appeals in 1856. When he resigned
in 1862, Henry took his place by appointment, and afterward by
election. Finally, in 1865, he also resigned. The brothers were much
alike in the quality they brought to the public service; and their
work, as remarkable for its variety as for its dignity, made Samuel an
original promoter of the electric telegraph system and Henry a
defender of Susan B. Anthony when arrested on the charge of illegally
voting at a presidential election.

The Americans nominated Erastus Brooks for governor. He was a younger
brother of James Brooks, who founded the New York _Express_ in 1836.
The Brookses were born in Maine, and early exhibited the industry and
courage characteristic of the sons of the Pine Tree State. At eight
years of age, Erastus began work in a grocery store, fitting himself
for Brown University at a night school, and, at twenty, he became an
editor on his brother's paper. His insistence upon the taxation of
property of the Catholic Church, because, being held in the name of
the Bishops, it should be included under the laws governing personal
holdings in realty, brought him prominently before the Americans, who
sent him to the State Senate in 1854. But Brooks' political career,
like that of his brother, really began after the Civil War, although
his identification with the Know-Nothings marked him as a man of
force, 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 Fillmore
for President. At the time, the former President was in Europe. On his
return he accepted the compliment and later received the indorsement
of the old-line Whigs. Age had not left its impress. Of imposing
appearance, he looked like a man formed to rule. The peculiar tenets
of the Americans, except as exemplified in the career of their
candidate for governor, did not enter into Fillmore's campaign. He
rested his hopes upon the conservative elements of all parties who
condemned the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and opposed the
formation of a party which, he declared, had, for the first time in
the history of the Republic, selected candidates for President and
Vice President from the free States alone, with the avowed purpose of
electing them by the suffrages of one part of the Union to rule over
the other part.

This was also the argument of Buchanan. In his letter of acceptance he
sounded the keynote of his party, claiming that it was strictly
national, devoted to the Constitution and the Union, and that the
Republican party, ignoring the historic warning of Washington, was
formed on geographic lines.[491] All this made little impression upon
the host of Northern men who exulted in the union of all the
anti-slavery elements. But their intense devotion to the positive
utterances of their platform took away the sense of humour which often
relieves the tension of political activity, and substituted an element
of profound seriousness that was plainly visible in speakers and
audiences. Seward did not hasten into the campaign. Richard H. Dana
wrote, confidentially, that "Seward was awful grouty." It was October
2 when he began speaking. Congress had detained him until August 30,
and then his health was so impaired, it was explained, that he needed
rest. But other lovers of freedom were deeply stirred. The pulpit
became a platform, and the great editors spoke as well as wrote.
Henry Ward Beecher seemed ubiquitous; Greeley and Raymond made
extended tours through the State; Bryant was encouraged to overcome
his great timidity before an audience; and Washington Irving declared
his intention of voting, if not of speaking, for Fremont.

[Footnote 491: Horatio Seymour used the same argument with great
effect. "Another tie which has heretofore held our country together
has been disbanded, and from its ruins has sprung a political
organisation trusting for its success to sectional prejudices. It
excludes from its councils the people of nearly one-half of the Union;
it seeks a triumph over one-half our country. The battlefields of
Yorktown, of Camden, of New Orleans, are unrepresented in their
conventions; and no delegates speak for the States where rest the
remains of Washington, Jefferson, Marion, Sumter, or Morgan, or of the
later hero, Jackson. They cherish more bitter hatred of their own
countrymen 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 national
constitution would not have been formed; and if their spirit of hatred
continues, our Constitution and Government will cease to
exist."--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 of
1856; he did not, however, take an active part in the contest."--Morgan
Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 319.]

This campaign also welcomed into political life a young man whose
first speech made it plain that a new champion, with bright and
well-tempered sword, had taken up the cause of freedom with the
courage of the cavalier. George William Curtis was then thirty-two
years old. He had already written the Howadji books, which earned him
recognition among men of letters, and _Prue and I_, which had secured
his fame as an author. In the campaign of 1856, the people for the
first time saw and knew this man whose refined rhetoric, characterised
by tender and stirring appeal, and guided by principle and conviction,
was, thereafter, for nearly forty years, to be heard at its best on
one side of every important question that divided American political
life. Nathaniel P. Willis, who drove five miles in the evening to hear
him deliver a "stump speech," thought Curtis would be "too handsome
and too well dressed" for a political orator; but when he heard him
unfold his logical argument step by step, occasionally bursting into a
strain of inspiring eloquence that foreshadowed the more studied work
of his riper years, it taught him that the author was as caustic and
unconstrained on the platform as he appeared in _The Potiphar Papers_.

Curtis' theme was resistance to the extension of slavery. His wife's
father, Francis G. Shaw, had stimulated his zeal in the cause of
freedom; and he treated the subject with a finish and strength that
came from larger experience and longer observation than a young man of
thirty-two could usually boast. To him, the struggle for freedom in
Kansas was not less glorious than the heroic resistance in 1776, and
he made it vivid by the use of historic associations. "Through these
very streets," he said, "they marched who never returned. They fell
and were buried, but they can never die. Not sweeter are the flowers
that make your valley fair, not greener are the pines that give your
valley its name, than the memory of the brave men who died for
freedom. And yet no victim of those days, sleeping under the green
sod, is more truly a martyr of Liberty than every murdered man whose
bones lie bleaching in this summer sun upon the silent plains of
Kansas. And so long as Liberty has one martyr, so long as one drop of
blood is poured out for her, so long from that single drop of bloody
sweat of the agony of humanity shall spring hosts as countless as the
forest 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 administered
solely in the interest of three hundred and fifty thousand
slave-holders." He did not believe that these millions would dissolve
the Union in the interest of these thousands. "I see a rising
enthusiasm," he said, in closing; "but enthusiasm is not an election;
and I hear cheers from the heart, but cheers are not voters. Every man
must labour with his neighbour--in the street, at the plough, at the
bench, early and late, at home and abroad. Generally we are concerned
in elections with the measures of government. This time it is with the
essential principle of government itself."[493]

[Footnote 493: _Ibid._, August 16, 1856.]

The result of the election was not a surprise. Fremont's loss of
Pennsylvania and Indiana had been foreshadowed in October, making his
defeat inevitable, but the Republican victory in New York was more
sweeping than the leaders had anticipated, Fremont securing a majority
of 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 1676
votes, was now elected by 8000 over the same opponent. The Assembly
stood 82 Republicans, 37 Democrats, and 8 Know-Nothings. In the
country at large, Buchanan obtained 174 electoral votes out of 296,
but he failed to receive a majority of the popular vote, leaving the
vanquished more hopeful and not less cheerful than the victors.
Fillmore received the electoral vote of Maryland and a popular vote of
874,534, nearly one-half as many as Buchanan and two-thirds as many as
Fremont. In other words, he had divided the vote of the North, making
it 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 to
Hamilton Fish, whose term as United States senator expired on the 4th
of March. Fish had not been a conspicuous member of the Senate; but
his great wisdom brought him large influence at a time when slavery
strained the courtesy of that body. He was of a most gracious and
sweet nature, and, although he never flinched from uttering or
maintaining his opinions, he was a lover and maker of peace. In his
_Autobiography of Seventy Years_, Senator Hoar speaks of him as the
only man of high character and great ability among the leaders of the
Republican party, except President Grant, who retained the friendship
of Roscoe Conkling.

The contest over the senatorship brought into notice a disposition
among Republicans of Democratic antecedents not to act in perfect
accord with Thurlow Weed, a danger that leading Whigs had anticipated
at the formation of the party. Weed's management had been disliked by
anti-slavery Democrats as much as it had been distrusted by a portion
of the Whig party, and, although political associations now brought
them under one roof, they did not accept him as a guiding or
controlling spirit. This disposition manifested itself at the state
convention in the preceding September; and to allay any bitterness of
feeling which the nomination of John A. King might occasion, it was
provided that, in the event of success, the senator should be of
Democratic antecedents. The finger of fate then pointed to Preston
King. He had resisted the aggressions of the slave power, and in the
formation of the Republican party his fearless fidelity to its
cornerstone principle made him doubly welcome in council; but when
the Legislature met, other aspirants appeared, prominent among whom
were 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 taken
little interest in politics. He belonged to the Democratic party, and,
in 1839, had served one term in the Assembly; but his consistent
devotion to Free-soilism, and his just and almost prescient
appreciation of the true principles of the Republican party, gave him
great prominence in the ranks of the young organisation and created a
strong desire to send him to the United States Senate. Hunt was
anxious and Wadsworth active. The latter's supporters, standing for
him as their candidate for governor, had forced the agreement of the
year before, and they now demanded that he become senator; but in the
interest of harmony, both finally withdrew in favour of David Dudley
Field.

The inspiration of an historic name did not yet belong to the Field
family. The projector of the Atlantic cable, the future justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States, and the eminent New York editor,
had not taken their places among the most gifted of the land, but
David Dudley's activity in the Free-soil contests had made him as
conspicuous a member of the new party as his celebrated Code of Civil
Procedure, passed by the Legislature of 1848, had distinguished him in
his profession. Promotion did not move his way, however. Thurlow Weed
insisted upon Preston King. It is likely the Albany editor had not
forgotten that Field, acting for George Opdyke, a millionaire client,
had sued him for libel, and that, although the jury disagreed, the
exciting trial had crowded the courtroom for nineteen days and cost
seventeen thousand dollars; but Weed did not appeal to Field's record,
since he claimed the agreement at the state convention included John
A. King for governor and Preston King for senator, and to avoid
controversy he adroitly consented to leave the matter to Republican
legislators 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 New
York. Public interest in Kansas had largely died out, and, although
the Dred Scott decision, holding inferentially that the Constitution
carried with it the right and power to hold slaves everywhere, had
startled the nation, leading press, pulpit, and public meetings to
denounce it as a blow at the rights of States and to the rights of
man, yet the Democrats carried the State in November, electing Gideon
J. Tucker secretary of state, Sanford E. Church comptroller, Lyman
Tremaine attorney-general, and Hiram Denio to the Court of Appeals. It
was not a decisive victory. The Know-Nothings, who held the balance of
power, involuntarily contributed a large portion of their strength to
the Democratic party, giving it an aggregate vote of 194,000 to
175,000 for the Republicans, and reducing the vote of James O. Putnam,
of Buffalo, the popular American candidate for secretary of state, to
less than 67,000, or one-half the number polled in the preceding year.

Other causes contributed to the apparent decrease of Republican
strength. The financial disturbance of 1857 appeared with great
suddenness in August. There had been fluctuations in prices, with a
general downward tendency, but when the crisis came it was a surprise
to many of the most watchful financiers. Industry and commerce were
less affected than in 1837, but the failures, representing a larger
amount of capital than those of any other year in the history of the
country up to 1893, astonished the people, associating in the public
mind the Democratic charge of Republican extravagance with the general
cry of hard times.

But whatever the cause of defeat, the outlook for the Republicans
again brightened when Stephen A. Douglas opposed President Buchanan's
Lecompton policy. The Kansas Lecompton Constitution was the work of a
rump convention controlled by pro-slavery delegates who declared that
"the right of property is before and higher than any constitutional
sanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its
increase is as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property
whatever." To secure its approval by the people it was ingeniously
arranged that the vote taken in December, 1857, should be "for the
constitution 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 the
South to fix slavery upon a territory that had already declared for
freedom by several thousand majority, obtained the support of the
President. Douglas immediately pronounced it "a trick" and "a fraud
upon the rights of the people."[495] The breach between the Illinois
Senator and the Administration thus became complete.

[Footnote 495: This debate occurred December 22, 1857.]

Meantime, the governor of Kansas convened the territorial legislature
in an extra session, which provided for a second election in January,
1858. The December election had stood: for the constitution with
slavery, 6226; for the constitution without slavery, 569. Of these
2720 were subsequently shown to be fraudulent. The January election
stood: for the constitution with slavery, 138; for the constitution
without slavery, 24; against the constitution, 10,226. The President,
accepting the "trick election," as Douglas called it, in which the
free-state men declined to participate, forwarded a copy of the
constitution to Congress, and, in spite of Douglas, it passed the
Senate. An amendment in the House returned it to the people with the
promise, if accepted, of a large grant of government land; but the
electors spurned the bribe--the free-state men, at a third election
held on August 2, 1858, rejecting the constitution by 11,000 out of
13,000 votes.

This ended the Lecompton episode, but it was destined to leave a
breach in the ranks of the Democrats big with consequences. Stephen
A. Douglas was now the best known and most popular man in the North,
and his popular sovereignty doctrine, as applied to the Lecompton
Constitution, seemed so certain of settling the slavery question in
the interest of freedom that leading Republicans of New York, notably
Henry J. Raymond and Horace Greeley, not only favoured the return of
Douglas to the Senate unopposed by their own party, but seriously
considered the union of Douglas Democrats and Republicans. It was even
suggested that Douglas become the Republican candidate for President.
This would head off Seward and please Greeley, whose predilection for
an "available" candidate was only equalled by his growing distrust of
the New York Senator. The unanimous nomination of Abraham Lincoln for
United States senator and his great debate with Douglas, disclosing
the incompatibility between Douglasism and Republicanism, abruptly
ended this plan; but the plausible assumption that the inhabitants of
a territory had a natural right to establish, as well as prohibit,
slavery had made such a profound impression upon Northern Democrats
that they did not hesitate to approve the Douglas doctrine regardless
of its unpopularity in the South.

In the summer of 1858, candidates for governor were nominated in New
York. The Republican convention, convened at Syracuse on the 8th of
September, like its predecessor in 1856, was divided into Weed and
anti-Weed delegates. The latter, composed of Know-Nothings, Radicals
of Democratic antecedents, and remnants of the prohibition party,
wanted Timothy Jenkins for governor. Jenkins was a very skilful
political organiser. He had served Oneida County as district attorney
and for six years in Congress, and he now had the united support of
many men who, although without special influence, made a very
formidable showing. But Weed was not looking in that direction. His
earliest choice was Simeon Draper of New York City, whom he had thrust
aside two years before, and when sudden financial embarrassment
rendered Draper unavailable, he encouraged the candidacy of James H.
Cook of Saratoga until Jenkins' strength alarmed him. Then he took up
Edwin D. Morgan, and for the first time became a delegate to a state
convention.

Weed found a noisy company at Syracuse. Horace Greeley as usual was in
a receptive mood. The friends of George Patterson thought it time for
his promotion. Alexander S. Diven of Elmira, a state senator and
forceful speaker, who subsequently served one term in Congress, had
several active, influential backers, while John A. King's friends
feebly resisted his retirement. The bulk of the Americans opposed
Edwin D. Morgan because of his broad sympathies with foreign-born
citizens; but Weed clung to him, and on the first ballot he received
116 of the 254 votes. Jenkins got 51 and Greeley 3. On the next ballot
one of Greeley's votes went to Jenkins, who received 52 to 165 for
Morgan. Robert Campbell of Steuben was then nominated for
lieutenant-governor by acclamation and Seward's senatorial course
unqualifiedly indorsed.

Edwin D. Morgan was in his forty-eighth year. He had been alderman,
merchant, and railroad president; for four years in the early fifties
he served as a state senator; more recently, he had acted as chairman
of the Republican state committee and of the Republican national
convention. Weed did not have Morgan's wise, courageous course as war
governor, Union general, and United States senator to guide him, but
he knew that his personal character was of the highest, his public
life without stain, and that he had wielded the power of absolute
disinterestedness. Morgan was a fine specimen of manhood. He stood
perfectly erect, with well poised head, his large, lustrous eyes
inviting confidence; and the urbanity of his manner softening the
answers that showed he possessed a mind of his own. No man among his
contemporaries had a larger number of devoted friends. He was a New
Englander by birth. More than one person of his name and blood in
Connecticut was noted for public spirit, but none developed greater
courage, or evidenced equal sagacity and efficiency.

For several weeks before the convention, the Americans talked of a
fusion ticket with the Republicans, and to encourage the plan both
state conventions met at the same time and place. In sentiment they
were in substantial accord, and men like Washington Hunt, the former
governor, and James O. Putnam, hoped for union. Hunt had declined to
join the Republican party at its formation, and, in 1856, had followed
Fillmore into the ranks of the Americans; but their division in 1857
disgusted him, and, with Putnam and many others, he was now favourable
to a fusion of the two parties. After conferring for two days,
however, the Republicans made the mistake of nominating candidates for
governor and lieutenant-governor before agreeing upon a division of
the offices, at which the Americans took offence and put up a separate
ticket, with Lorenzo Burrows for governor. Burrows was a man of
considerable force of character, a native of Connecticut, and a
resident 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, in
spite of the bitter contest for seats in the New York City delegation,
exhibited confidence and some enthusiasm at their state convention on
September 15. The Softs, led by Daniel E. Sickles, represented
Tammany; the Hards, marshalled by Fernando Wood, were known as the
custom-house delegation. In 1857, the city delegates had been evenly
divided between the two factions; but this year the Softs, confident
of their strength, insisted upon having their entire delegation
seated, and, on a motion to make Horatio Seymour temporary chairman,
they proved their control by a vote of 54 to 35. The admission of
Tammany drew a violent protest from Fernando Wood and his delegates,
who then left the convention in a body amidst a storm of hisses and
cheers.

A strong disposition existed to nominate Seymour for governor. Having
been thrice a candidate and once elected, however, he peremptorily
declined to stand. This left the way open to Amasa J. Parker, an
exceptionally strong candidate, but one who had led the ticket to
defeat in 1856. John J. Taylor of Oswego, whose congressional career
had been limited to a single term because of his vote for the
Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854, became the nominee for lieutenant-governor
by acclamation. In its platform, the convention very cunningly
resolved that it was "content" to have the American people judge
President Buchanan's administration by its acts, and that it "hailed
with satisfaction" the fact that the people of Kansas had settled the
Lecompton question by practically making the territory a free State.

Thus Parker stood for Buchanan and popular sovereignty, while the
Republicans denounced the Lecompton trick as a wicked scheme to
subvert popular sovereignty. It was a sharp issue. The whole power of
the Administration had been invoked to carry out the Lecompton plan,
and New York congressmen were compelled to support it or be cast
aside. But in their speeches, Parker and his supporters sought to
minimise the President's part and to magnify the Douglas doctrine. It
was an easy and plausible way of settling the slavery question, and
one which commended itself to those who wished it settled by the
Democratic party. John Van Buren's use of it recalled something of the
influence and power that attended his speeches in the Free-soil
campaign 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 the
doctrine that seemed to have brought peace and a free State to the
people appealed to him as a correct principle of government that must
make for good. He presented it in the clear, impassioned style for
which he was so justly noted. His speeches contained much that did not
belong in the remarks of a statesman; but, upon the question of
popular sovereignty, as illustrated in Kansas, John Van Buren prepared
the 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 characterised
his subsequent career. The public, friends and foes, did not yet
judge him by a few striking and picturesque qualities, for his vanity,
imperiousness, and power to hate had not yet matured, but already he
was a close student of political history, and of great capacity as an
orator. The intense earnestness of purpose, the marvellous power of
rapidly absorbing knowledge, the quickness of wit, and the firmness
which Cato never surpassed, marked him then, as afterward upon the
floor of Congress, a mighty power amidst great antagonists. Perhaps
his anger was not so quickly excited, nor the shafts of his sarcasm so
barbed and cruel, but his speeches--dramatic, rhetorical, with the
ever-present, withering sneer--were rapidly advancing him to
leadership in central New York. A quick glance at his tall, graceful
form, capacious chest, and massive head, removed him from the class of
ordinary persons. Towering above his fellows, he looked the patrician.
It was known, too, that he had muscle as well as brains. Indeed, his
nomination to Congress had been influenced somewhat by the recent
assault on Charles Sumner. "Preston Brooks won't hurt him," said the
leader of the Fifth Ward, in Utica.[496]

[Footnote 496: Alfred R. Conkling, _Life and Letters of Roscoe
Conkling_, p. 77.]

The keynote of the campaign, however, was not spoken until Seward made
his historic speech at Rochester on October 25. The October success in
Pennsylvania had thrilled the Republicans; and the New York election
promised a victory like that of 1856. Whatever advantage could be
gained by past events and future expectations was now Seward's.
Lincoln's famous declaration, "I believe this government cannot endure
permanently half slave and half free," had been uttered in June, and
his joint debate with Douglas, concluded on October 15, had cleared
the political atmosphere, making it plain that popular sovereignty was
not 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. Seward
had shown much independence of late. In the preceding February his
course on the army bill caused severe comment. Because of
difficulties with the Mormons in Utah it was proposed to increase the
army; but Republicans objected, believing the additional force would
be improperly used in Kansas. Seward, however, spoke and voted for the
bill. "He is perfectly bedevilled," wrote Senator Fessenden; "he
thinks himself wiser than all of us."[497] Later, in March, he caught
something of the popular-sovereignty idea--enough, at least, to draw a
mild protest from Salmon P. Chase. "I regretted," he wrote, "the
apparent countenance you gave to the idea that the Douglas doctrine of
popular sovereignty will do for us to stand upon for the
present."[498] Seward did not go so far as Greeley and Raymond, but
his expressions indicated that States were to be admitted with or
without slavery as the people themselves decided. Before, he had
insisted that Congress had the right to make conditions; now, his
willingness cheerfully to co-operate with Douglas and other "new
defenders of the sacred cause in Kansas" seemed to favour a new
combination, if not a new party. In other words, Seward had been
feeling his way until it aroused a faint suspicion that he was
trimming to catch the moderate element of his party. If he had had any
thought of harmony of feeling between Douglas and the Republicans,
however, the Lincoln debate compelled him to abandon it, and in his
speech of October 25 he confined himself to the discussion of the two
radically different political systems that divided the North and the
South.

[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 internal
communication, he declared, had rapidly brought these two systems into
close contact, and collision was the result. "Shall I tell you what
this collision means? They who think it is accidental, unnecessary,
the work of interested or fanatical agitators, and therefore
ephemeral, mistake the case altogether. It is an irrepressible
conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the
United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a
slave-holding nation, or entirely a free labour nation. Either the
cotton and rice fields of South Carolina and the sugar plantations of
Louisiana will ultimately be tilled by free labour, and Charleston and
New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the
rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again
be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production
of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets for trade
in 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 had
ever come from his eloquent lips, but there was nothing new in it. As
early as 1848 he had made the antagonism between freedom and slavery
the leading feature of a speech that attracted much attention at the
time, and in 1856 he spoke of "an ancient and eternal conflict between
two entirely antagonistic systems of human labour." Indeed, for ten
years, in company with other distinguished speakers, he had been
ringing the changes on this same idea. Only four months before,
Lincoln had proclaimed that "A house divided against itself cannot
stand."[500] Yet no one had given special attention to it. But now the
two words, "irrepressible conflict," seemed to sum up the antipathy
between the two systems, and to alarm men into a realisation of the
real 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 his
political teachings, among his opponents it had fallen upon unheeding
ears and incredulous minds. But now, at last, the country was
beginning to wake up to the gravity of the crisis, and when he pointed
to the 'irrepressible conflict' he was formulating, in clear words, a
vague and unwilling belief that was creeping over every intelligent
Northern 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 became
hysterical, denouncing him as "vile," "wicked," "malicious," and
"vicious." The _Herald_ called him an "arch-agitator," more dangerous
than Beecher, Garrison, or Theodore Parker. It was denied that any
conflict existed except such as he was trying to foment. Even the New
York _Times_, his own organ, thought the idea of abolishing slavery in
the slave States rather fanciful, while the Springfield _Republican_
pronounced his declaration impolitic and likely to do him and his
party harm. On the other hand, the radical anti-slavery papers thought
it bold and commendable. "With the instinct of a statesman," the
_Tribune_ said, "Seward discards all minor, temporary, and delusive
issues, and treats only of what is final and essential. Clear, calm,
sagacious, profound, and impregnable, showing a masterly comprehension
of the present aspect and future prospects of the great question which
now engrosses our politics, this speech will be pondered by every
thoughtful man in the land and confirm the eminence so long maintained
by 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 the
standard-bearer in 1860.

[Footnote 502: New York _Daily Tribune_, October 27, 1858.

"Few speeches from the stump have attracted so great attention or
exerted so great an influence. The eminence of the man combined with
the startling character of the doctrine to make it engross the public
mind. Republicans looked upon the doctrine announced as the
well-weighed conclusion of a profound thinker and of a man of wide
experience, who united the political philosopher with the practical
politician. It is not probable that Lincoln's 'house divided against
itself' speech had any influence in bringing Seward to this position.
He would at this time have scorned the notion of borrowing ideas from
Lincoln; and had he studied the progress of the Illinois canvass, he
must have seen that the declaration did not meet with general favour.
In February of this year there had been bodied forth in Seward the
politician. Now, a far-seeing statesman spoke. One was compared to
Webster's 7th-of-March speech,--the other was commended by the
Abolitionists."--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol.
2, pp. 344-5.]

The result of the election was favourable to the Republicans, Morgan's
majority over Parker being 17,440.[503] Ninety-nine members of the
Legislature and twenty-nine congressmen were either Republicans or
anti-Lecompton men. But, compared with the victory of 1856, it was a
disappointment. John A. King had received a majority of 65,000 over
Parker. The _Tribune_ was quick to charge some of this loss to Seward.
"The clamour against Sewardism lost us many votes," it declared the
morning after the election. Two or three days later, as the reduced
majority became more apparent, it explained that "A knavish clamour
was raised on the eve of election by a Swiss press against Governor
Seward'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 precedent
set in 1857, had voted for Parker, while the other half, irritated by
the failure of the union movement at Syracuse, had supported Burrows.
Had the coalition succeeded, Morgan's majority must have been larger
than King's. But, small as it was, there was abundant cause for
Republican rejoicing, since it kept the Empire State in line with the
Republican 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 Oregon
had 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 of
New York_ (1887), p. 166.]




CHAPTER XIX

SEWARD'S BID FOR THE PRESIDENCY

1859-1860


The elections in 1858 simplified the political situation. With the
exception of Pennsylvania, where the tariff question played a
conspicuous part, all the Northern States had disapproved President
Buchanan's Lecompton policy, and the people, save the old-line Whigs,
the Abolitionists, and the Americans, had placed themselves under the
leadership of Seward, Lincoln, and Douglas, who now clearly
represented the political sentiments of the North. If any hope still
lingered among the Democrats of New York, that the sectional division
of their party might be healed, it must have been quickly shattered by
the fierce debates over popular sovereignty and the African
slave-trade which occurred in the United States Senate in February,
1859, between Jefferson Davis, representing the slave power of the
South, and Stephen A. Douglas, the recognised champion of his party in
the free States.

Under these circumstances, the Democratic national convention, called
to meet in Charleston, South Carolina, on April 23, 1860, became the
centre of interest in the state convention, which met at Syracuse on
the 14th of September, 1859. Each faction desired to control the
national delegation. As usual, Daniel S. Dickinson was a candidate for
the Presidency. He believed his friends in the South would prefer him
to Douglas if he could command an unbroken New York delegation, and,
with the hope of having the delegates selected by districts as the
surer road to success, he flirted with Fernando Wood until the
latter's perfidy turned his ear to the siren song of the Softs, who
promised him a solid delegation whenever it could secure his
nomination. Dickinson listened with distrust. He was the last of the
old leaders of the Hards. Seymour and Marcy had left them; but
"Scripture Dick," as he was called, because of his many Bible
quotations, stood resolutely and arrogantly at his post, defying the
machinations of his opponents with merciless criticism. The Binghamton
Stalwart did not belong in the first rank of statesmen. He was neither
an orator nor a tactful party leader. It cannot be said of him that he
was a quick-witted, incisive, and successful debater;[504] but, on
critical days, when the fate of his faction hung in the balance, he
was a valiant fighter, absolutely without fear, who took blows as
bravely as he gave them, and was loyal to all the interests which he
espoused. He now dreaded the Softs bearing gifts. But their evident
frankness and his supreme need melted the estrangement that had long
existed between them.

[Footnote 504: "'Scripture Dick,' whom we used to consider the
sorriest of slow jokers, has really brightened up."--New York
_Tribune_, March 17, 1859.]

In the selection of delegates to the state convention Fernando Wood
and Tammany had a severe struggle. Tammany won, but Wood appeared at
Syracuse with a full delegation, and for half an hour before the
convention convened Wood endeavoured to do by force what he knew could
not be accomplished by votes. He had brought with him a company of
roughs, headed by John C. Heenan, "the Benicia Boy," and fifteen
minutes before the appointed hour, in the absence of a majority of the
delegates, he organised the convention, electing his own chairman and
appointing his own committees. When the bulk of the Softs arrived they
proceeded to elect their chairman. This was the signal for a riot, in
the course of which the chairman of the regulars was knocked down and
an intimidating display of pistols exhibited. Finally the regulars
adjourned, leaving the hall to the Wood contestants, who completed
their organisation, and, after renominating the Democratic state
officers elected in 1857, adjourned without day.

Immediately, the regulars reappeared; and as the Hards from the
up-state counties answered to the roll call, the Softs vociferously
applauded. Then Dickinson made a characteristic speech. He did not
fully decide to join the Softs until Fernando Wood had sacrificed the
only chance of overthrowing them; but when he did go over, he burned
the bridges behind him. The Softs were delighted with Dickinson's
bearing and Dickinson's speech. It united the party throughout the
State and put Tammany in easy control of New York City.

With harmony restored there was little for the convention to do except
to renominate the state officers, appoint delegates to the Charleston
convention who were instructed to vote as a unit, and adopt the
platform. These resolutions indorsed the administration of President
Buchanan; approved popular sovereignty; condemned the "irrepressible
conflict" speech of Seward as a "revolutionary threat" aimed at
republican institutions; and opposed the enlargement of the Erie canal
to a depth of seven feet.

The Republican state convention had previously assembled on September
7 and selected a ticket, equally divided between men of Democratic and
Whig antecedents, headed by Elias W. Leavenworth for secretary of
state. Great confidence was felt in its election until the Americans
met in convention on September 22 and indorsed five of its candidates
and four Democrats. This, however, did not abate Republican activity,
and, in the end, six of the nine Republican nominees were elected. The
weight of the combined opposition, directed against Leavenworth,
caused his defeat by less than fifteen hundred, showing that
Republicans were gradually absorbing all the anti-slavery elements.

Upon what theory the American party nominated an eclectic ticket did
not appear, although the belief obtained that it hoped to cloud
Seward's presidential prospects by creating the impression that the
Senator was unable, without assistance, to carry his own State on the
eve of a great national contest. But whatever the reason, the result
deeply humiliated the party, since its voting strength, reduced to
less than 21,000, proved insufficient to do more than expose the
weakness. This was the last appearance of the American party. It had
endeavoured to extend its life and increase its influence; but after
its refusal to interdict slavery in the territories it rapidly melted
away. Henry Wilson, senator and Vice President, declared that he would
give ten years of his life if he could blot out his membership in the
Know-Nothing party, since it associated him throughout his long and
attractive public career with proscriptive principles of which he was
ashamed.

In the midst of the campaign the country was startled by John Brown's
raid at Harper's Ferry. For two years Brown had lived an uneventful
life in New York on land in the Adirondack region given him by Gerrit
Smith. In 1851, he moved to Ohio, and from thence to Kansas, where he
became known as John Brown of Osawatomie. He had been a consistent
enemy of slavery, working the underground railroad and sympathising
with every scheme for the rescue of slaves; but once in Kansas, he
readily learned the use of a Sharpe's rifle. In revenge for the
destruction of Lawrence, he deliberately massacred the pro-slavery
settlers living along Pottawatomie creek. "Without the shedding of
blood there is no remission of sins," was a favourite text. His
activity made him a national character. The President offered $250 for
his arrest and the governor of Missouri added $3000 more. In 1858, he
returned East, collected money to aid an insurrection among the slaves
of Virginia, and on October 17, 1859, with eighteen men, began his
quixotic campaign by cutting telegraph wires, stopping trains, and
seizing the national armory at Harper's Ferry. At one time he had
taken sixty prisoners.

The affair was soon over, but not until the entire band was killed or
captured. Brown, severely hurt, stood between two of his sons, one
dead and the other mortally wounded, refusing to surrender so long as
he could fight. After his capture, he said, coolly, in reply to a
question: "We are Abolitionists from the North, come to release and
take your slaves."

The trial, conviction, and execution of Brown and his captured
companions ended the episode, but its influence was destined to be
far-reaching. John Brown became idealised. His bearing as he stood
between his dead and dying sons, his truth-telling answers, and the
evidence of his absolute unselfishness filled many people in the North
with a profound respect for the passion that had driven him on, while
his bold invasion of a slave State and his reckless disregard of life
and property alarmed the South into the sincere belief that his
methods differed only in degree from the teachings of those who talked
of an irrepressible conflict and a higher law. To aid him in regaining
his lost position in the South, Stephen A. Douglas proclaimed it as
his "firm and deliberate belief that the Harper Ferry crime was the
natural, logical, and inevitable result of the doctrine and teachings
of 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, and
who, if he shall suffer, will make the gallows glorious like the
cross."[506] In the same spirit Thoreau called him "an angel of
light," and Longfellow wrote in his diary on the day of the execution:
"The date of a new revolution, quite as much needed as the old
one."[507] But the Republican leaders deprecated the affair,
characterising it as "among the gravest of crimes," and denying that
it had any relation to their party except as it influenced the minds
of 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 shouts
and music, bells and whistles, and the waving of hats and
handkerchiefs. Such a scene is common enough nowadays, but then it was
unique. His return at the close of December, after an absence of eight
months, was the occasion of great rejoicing. A salute of a hundred
guns was fired in City Hall Park, the mayor and common council
tendered him a public reception, and after hours of speech-making and
hand-shaking he proceeded slowly homeward amidst waiting crowds at
every 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 his
nomination and election to the Presidency.

On going to Washington Seward found the United States Senate
investigating the Harper's Ferry affair and the House of
Representatives deadlocked over the election of a speaker. Bitterness
and threats of disunion characterised the proceeding at both ends of
the Capitol. "This Union," said one congressman, "great and powerful
as it is, can be tumbled down by the act of any one Southern State. If
Florida 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 Republican
President, another declared that "We will never submit to the
inauguration of a Black Republican President. You may elect Seward to
be President of the North; but of the South, never! Whenever a
President is elected by a fanatical majority of the North, those whom
I represent are ready, let the consequences be what they may, to fall
back on their reserved rights, and say, 'As to this Union we have no
longer 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 of
February, 1860, Seward introduced a bill for the admission of Kansas
into the Union. After the overwhelming defeat of the Lecompton
Constitution, the free-state men had controlled the territorial
legislature, repealed the slave code of 1855, and, in the summer of
1859, convened a constitutional convention at Wyandotte. A few weeks
later the people ratified the result of its work by a large majority.
It was this Wyandotte Constitution under which Seward proposed to
admit Kansas, and he fixed the consideration of his measure for the
29th of February. This would be two days after Abraham Lincoln had
spoken in New York City.

Lincoln, whose fame had made rapid strides in the West since his
debate with Douglas in 1858, had been anxious to visit New York. It
was the home of Seward, the centre of Republican strength, and to him
practically an unknown land. Through the invitation of the Young Men's
Central Republican Union he was now to lecture at Cooper Institute on
the 27th of February. It was arranged at first that he speak in Henry
Ward Beecher's church, but the change, relieving him from too close
association with the great apostle of abolition, opened a wider door
for his reception. Personally he was known to very few people in the
city 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 visited
Millard Fillmore, then candidate for Vice President; but the meeting
made such a slight impression upon the editor of the _Evening Journal_
that he had entirely forgotten it. Thirty years before, in one of his
journeys to Illinois, William Cullen Bryant had met him. Lincoln was
then a tall, awkward lad, the captain of a militia company in the
Black Hawk War, whose racy and original conversation attracted the
young poet; but Bryant, too, had forgotten him, and it was long after
the famous debate that he identified his prairie acquaintance as the
opponent of Douglas. Lincoln, however, did not come as a stranger. His
encounter with the great Illinoisan had marked him as a powerful and
logical reasoner whose speeches embraced every political issue of the
day and cleared up every doubtful point. Well-informed people
everywhere knew of him. He was not yet a national character, but he
had a national reputation.

Though Lincoln's lecture was one of a course, the admission fee did
not restrain an eager audience from filling the commodious hall.
"Since the day of Clay and Webster," said the _Tribune_, "no man has
spoken to a larger assemblage of the intellect and mental culture of
our city."[510] Bryant acted as chairman of the meeting, and other
well-known men of the city occupied the stage. In his _Life of
Lincoln_, Herndon suggests that the new suit of clothes which seemed
so fine in his Springfield home was in such awkward contrast with the
neatly fitting dress of the New Yorkers that it disconcerted him, and
the brilliant audience dazzled and embarrassed him; but his hearers
thought only of the pregnant matter of the discourse, so calmly and
logically discussed that Horace Greeley, years afterward, pronounced
it "the very best political address to which I ever listened, and I
have 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 of
Greeley written in 1868.]

Lincoln had carefully prepared for the occasion. He came East to show
what manner of man he was, and while he evidenced deep moral feeling
which kept his audience in a glow, he combined with it rare political
sagacity, notably in omitting the "house divided against itself"
declaration. He argued that the Republican party was not
revolutionary, but conservative, since it maintained the doctrine of
the fathers who held and acted upon the opinion that Congress had the
power to prohibit slavery in the territories. "Some of you," he said,
addressing himself to the Southern people, "are for reviving the
foreign slave trade; some for Congress forbidding the territories to
prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in
the 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 is
in favour of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories,
according to the practice of our fathers who formed the government
under which we live. You say we have made the slavery question more
prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more
prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you who
discarded the old policy of the fathers." Of Southern threats of
disunion, he said: "Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you
will destroy the government unless you be allowed to construe and
enforce the Constitution as you please on all points in dispute
between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." Referring to
the Harper's Ferry episode, he said: "That affair in its philosophy
corresponds with the many attempts related in history at the
assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the
oppression of a people, until he fancies himself commissioned by
heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt which ends in little
else than his own execution."

Lincoln's lecture did not disappoint. He had entertained and
interested the vast assemblage, which frequently rang with cheers and
shouts of applause as the gestures and the mirth-provoking look
emphasised the racy hits that punctuated the address. "No man," said
the _Tribune_, "ever before made such an impression on his first
appeal 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 no
evidence that he fixed this date because of the Cooper Institute
lecture. The gravity of the political situation demanded some
expression from him; but the knowledge of the time of Lincoln's speech
gave him ample opportunity to arrange to follow it with one of his
own, if he wished to have the last word, or to institute a comparison
of their respective views on the eve of the national convention.
However this may be, Seward regarded his utterances on this occasion
of the utmost importance. He was the special object of Southern
vituperation. A "Fire-Eater" of the South publicly advertised that he
would be one of one hundred "gentlemen" to give twenty-five dollars
each for the heads of Horace Greeley, Henry Ward Beecher, and forty
other prominent Northern leaders in and out of Congress, but for the
head of Seward his proposed subscription was multiplied twenty fold.
It is noticeable that in this long list of "traitors" the name of
Abraham Lincoln does not appear. It was Seward whom the South expected
the Republican party would nominate for President, and in him it saw
the narrow-minded, selfish, obstinate Abolitionist who hated them as
intensely as they despised him. To dispossess the Southern mind of
this feeling the Auburn statesman now endeavoured to show that if
elected President he would not treat the South unfriendly.

Seward's speech bears evidence of careful preparation. It was not only
read to friends for criticism, but Henry B. Stanton, in his _Random
Recollections_, says that Seward, before the day of its delivery,
assisted him in describing such a scene in the Senate as he desired
laid before the public. On his return to Washington, Seward had not
been received with a show of friendship by his associates from the
South. It was remarked that while Republican senators greeted him
warmly, "his Southern friends were afraid to be seen talking to him."
On the occasion of his speech, however, he wished the record to show
every senator in his place and deeply interested.

Visitors to the Senate on the 29th of February crowded every available
spot in the galleries. "But it was on the floor itself," wrote Stanton
to the _Tribune_, "that the most interesting spectacle presented
itself. Every senator seemed to be in his seat. Hunter, Davis, Toombs,
Mason, Slidell, Hammond, Clingman, Brown, and Benjamin paid closest
attention to the speaker. Crittenden listened to every word. Douglas
affected to be self-possessed; but his nervousness of mien gave token
that the truths now uttered awakened memories of the Lecompton
contest, when he, Seward, and Crittenden, the famous triumvirate, led
the allies in their attack upon the Administration. The members of the
House streamed over to the north wing of the Capitol almost in a
body, leaving Reagan of Texas to discourse to empty benches, while
Seward 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 look
of Lincoln. His voice was husky, his manner didactic, and his physique
unimposing, but he had the gift of expression, and the ability to
formulate his opinions and marshal his facts in lucid sentences that
harmonised with Northern sentiments and became at once the creed and
rallying cry of his party; and, on this occasion, he held the Senate
spellbound for two hours, the applause at one time becoming so long
continued that the presiding officer threatened to clear the
galleries. He was always calm and temperate. But it seemed now to be
his desire, in language more subdued, perhaps, than he had ever used
before, to allay the fears of what would happen should the Republican
party succeed in electing a President; and, without the sacrifice of
any principle, he endeavoured to outline the views of Republicans and
the spirit that animated himself. There was nothing new in his speech.
He avoided the higher law and irrepressible conflict doctrines, and
omitted his former declarations that slavery "can and must be
abolished, and you and I can and must do it." In like manner he failed
to demand, as formerly, that the Supreme Court "recede from its
spurious judgment" in the Dred Scott case. But he reviewed with the
same logic that had characterised his utterances for twenty years, the
relation of the Constitution to slavery; the influence of slavery upon
both parties; the history of the Kansas controversy; and the manifest
advantages of the Union, dwelling at length and with much originality
upon the firm hold it had upon the people, and the certainty that it
would survive the rudest shocks of faction. Of the Harper's Ferry
affair, Seward spoke with more sympathy than Lincoln. "While generous
and charitable natures will probably concede that John Brown acted on
earnest, though fatally erroneous convictions," he said, "yet all good
citizens will nevertheless agree that this attempt to execute an
unlawful purpose in Virginia by invasion, involving servile war, was
an act of sedition and treason, and criminal in just the extent that
it affected the public peace and was destructive of human happiness
and 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 the
convictions and aspirations of his party. The spirit of an unsectarian
patriotism that characterised Seward's speech proved highly
satisfactory to the great mass of Republicans. The New York _Times_
rejoiced that its tone indicated "a desire to allay and remove
unfounded prejudice from the public mind," and pronounced "the whole
tenor of it in direct contradiction to the sentiments which have been
imputed to him on the strength of declarations which he has hitherto
made."[514] Samuel Bowles of the Springfield _Republican_ wrote
Thurlow Weed that the state delegation--so "very marked" is the
reaction in Seward's favour--would "be so strong for him as to be
against anybody else," and that "I hear of ultra old Whigs in Boston
who 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 "there
seems to be at present a considerable set toward Seward." Nathaniel P.
Banks, who was himself spoken of as a candidate, thought Seward's
prospects 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 party
severely criticised the speech because it lacked the moral earnestness
of the "higher law" spirit. To them it seemed as if Seward had made a
bid for the Presidency, and that the irrepressible conflict of 1858
was suddenly transformed into the condition of a mild and patient
lover who is determined not to quarrel. "Differences of opinion, even
on the subject of slavery," he said, "are with us political, not
social or personal differences. There is not one disunionist or
disloyalist among us all. We are altogether unconscious of any process
of dissolution going on among us or around us. We have never been more
patient, and never loved the representatives of other sections more
than now. We bear the same testimony for the people around us here. We
bear the same testimony for all the districts and States we
represent."

This did not sound like the terrible "irrepressible conflict" pictured
at Rochester. Wendell Phillips' famous epigram that "Seward makes a
speech in Washington on the tactics of the Republican party, but
phrases it to suit Wall street,"[516] voiced the sentiment of his
critics. Garrison was not less severe. "The temptation which proved
too powerful for Webster," he wrote, "is seducing Seward to take the
same downward course."[517] Greeley did not vigorously combat this
idea. "Governor Seward," he said, "has so long been stigmatised as a
radical that those who now first study his inculcations carefully will
be astonished to find him so eminently pacific and conservative.
Future generations will be puzzled to comprehend how such sentiments
as his, couched in the language of courtesy and suavity which no
provocation can induce him to discard, should ever have been denounced
as 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 to
the old prejudice against him as a Whig leader who had kept himself in
accord with the changing tendencies of a progressive people,
alternately exciting them with irrepressible conflicts and soothing
them with sentences of conservative wisdom; but Bowles, in approving
the speech because it had brought ultra old Whigs of Boston to
Seward's support, exposed the real reason for the adverse criticism,
since an address that would capture an old-line Whig, who indorsed
Fillmore in 1856, could scarcely satisfy the type of Republicans who
believed, with John A. Andrew, that whether the Harper's Ferry
enterprise was wise or foolish, "John Brown himself is right." It is
little wonder, perhaps, that these people began to doubt whether
Seward had strong convictions.




CHAPTER XX

DEAN RICHMOND'S LEADERSHIP AT CHARLESTON

1860


When the Democratic national convention opened at Charleston, South
Carolina, on April 23, 1860, Fernando Wood insisted upon the admission
of his delegation on equal terms with Tammany. The supreme question
was the nomination of Stephen A. Douglas, and the closeness of the
contest between the Douglas and anti-Douglas forces made New York's
thirty-five votes most important. Wood promised his support, if
admitted, to the anti-Douglas faction; the Softs, led by Dean
Richmond, encouraged Douglas and whispered kindly words to the
supporters of James Guthrie of Kentucky. It was apparent that Wood's
delegation had no standing. It had been appointed before the legal
hour for the convention's assembling in the absence of a majority of
the delegates, and upon no theory could its regularity be accepted;
but Wood, mild and bland in manner, made a favourable impression in
Charleston. No one would have pointed him out in a group of gentlemen
as 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 pledged
himself to the ultra men of the South his admission became a necessary
factor to their success. This, naturally, threw the Softs into the
camp of Douglas, whose support made their admission possible.[519]

[Footnote 519: "The Fernando Wood movement was utterly overthrown in
the preliminary stages. Several scenes in the fight were highly
entertaining. Mr. Fisher of Virginia was picked out to make the
onslaught, when John Cochrane of New York, who is the brains of the
Cagger-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 and
adroit politicians, was divided into two factions, each one fancying
itself the more truly patriotic, public-spirited, and independent.[520]
The Softs had trapped the Hards into allegiance with the promise of a
solid support for Dickinson whenever the convention manifested a
disposition to rally around him--and then gagged them by a rigid unit
rule. This made Dickinson declamatory and bitter, while the Softs
themselves, professing devotion to Douglas, exhibited an unrest which
indicated that changed conditions would easily change their devotion.
Altogether, it was a disappointing delegation, distrusted by the
Douglas men, feared by the South, and at odds with itself; yet, it is
doubtful if the Empire State ever sent an abler body of men to a
national convention. Its chairman, Dean Richmond, now at the height of
his power, was a man of large and comprehensive vision, and, although
sometimes charged with insincerity, his rise in politics had not been
more rapid than his success in business. Before his majority he had
become the director of a bank, and at the age of thirty-eight he had
established himself in Buffalo as a prosperous dealer and shipper.
Then, he aided in consolidating seven corporations into the New York
Central Railroad--securing the necessary legislation for the
purpose--and in 1853 had become its vice president. Eleven years
later, and two years before his death, he became its president. In
1860, Dean Richmond was in his forty-seventh year, incapable of any
meanness, yet adroit, shrewd, and skilful, stating very perfectly the
judgment of a clear-headed and sound business man. As chairman of the
Democratic state committee, he was a somewhat rugged but an intensely
interesting personality, who had won deservedly by his work a foremost
place among the most influential national leaders of the party. His
opinion carried great weight, and, though he spoke seldom, his mind
moved rapidly by a very simple and direct path to correct
conclusions.[521]

[Footnote 520: "Many of New York's delegates were eminent men of
business, anxious for peace; others were adroit politicians, adept at
a 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, Richmond
carried on his broad shoulders one of the clearest heads in the ranks
of the Barnburners."--H.B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 183.]

Around Richmond were clustered August Belmont and Augustus Schell of
New York City, Peter Cagger and Erastus Corning of Albany, David L.
Seymour of Troy, Sanford E. Church of Albion, and a dozen others quite
as well known. Perhaps none of them equalled the powerful Richardson
of Illinois, who led the Douglas forces, or his brilliant lieutenant,
Charles E. Stuart of Michigan, whose directions and suggestions on the
floor of the convention, guided by an unerring knowledge of
parliamentary law, were regarded with something of dread even by Caleb
Cushing, the gifted president of the convention; but John Cochrane of
New York City, who had attended Democratic state and national
conventions for a quarter of a century, was quite able to represent
the Empire State to its advantage on the floor or elsewhere. He was a
man of a high order of ability, and an accomplished and forceful
public speaker, whose sonorous voice, imposing manner, and skilful
tactics made him at home in a parliamentary fight. "Cochrane is a
large but not a big man," said a correspondent of the day, "full in
the region of the vest, and wears his beard, which is coarse and
sandy, trimmed short. His head is bald, and his countenance bold, and
there are assurances in his complexion that he is a generous liver. He
is a fair type of the fast man of intellect and culture, whose
ambition is to figure in politics. He is in Congress and can command
the ear of the House at any time. His great trouble is his Free-soil
record. He took Free-soilism like a distemper and mounted the Buffalo
platform. He is well over it now, however, with the exception of a
single heresy--the homestead law. He is for giving homesteads to the
actual 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 of
the thirty-three States. This gave it a majority of the committee on
resolutions, and, after five anxious days of protracted and earnest
debate, that committee reported a platform declaring it the duty of
the federal government to protect slavery in the territories, and
denying the power of a territory either to abolish slavery or to
destroy the rights of property in slaves by any legislation whatever.
The minority reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform of 1856, with the
following preamble and resolution: "Inasmuch as differences of opinion
exist in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the
powers of a territorial legislature, and as to the powers and duties
of Congress over the institution of slavery within the territories;
Resolved, that the Democratic party will abide by the decisions of the
Supreme Court on the questions of constitutional law."

It was quickly evident that the disagreement which had plunged the
committee into trouble extended to the convention. The debate became
hot and bitter. In a speech of remarkable power, William L. Yancey of
Alabama upbraided the Northern delegates for truckling to the
Free-soil spirit. "You acknowledged," he said, "that slavery did not
exist by the law of nature or by the law of God--that it only existed
by state law; that it was wrong, but that you were not to blame. That
was your position, and it was wrong. If you had taken the position
directly that slavery was right ... you would have triumphed. But you
have gone down before the enemy so that they have put their foot upon
your neck; you will go lower and lower still, unless you change front
and change your tactics. When I was a schoolboy in the Northern
States, abolitionists were pelted with rotten eggs. But now this band
of abolitionists has spread and grown into three bands--the black
Republican, the Free-soilers, and squatter sovereignty men--all
representing the common sentiment that slavery is wrong."[523] Against
this extreme Southern demand that Northern Democrats declare slavery
right and its extension legitimate, Senator Pugh of Ohio vigorously
protested. "Gentlemen of the South," he thundered, "you mistake
us--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 allowing
individual delegates from uninstructed States to vote as they pleased
had given the Douglas men an assured majority, and on the seventh day,
when the substitution of the minority for the majority report by a
vote of 165 to 138 threatened to culminate in the South's withdrawal,
the Douglas leaders permitted a division of their report into its
substantive propositions. Under this arrangement, the Cincinnati
platform was reaffirmed by a vote of 237-1/2 to 65. The danger point
had now been reached, and Edward Driggs of Brooklyn, scenting the
brewing mischief, moved to table the balance of the report. Driggs
favoured Douglas, but, in common with his delegation, he favoured a
united party more, and could his motion have been carried at that
moment with a show of unanimity, the subsequent secession might have
been checked if not wholly avoided. The Douglas leaders, however, not
yet sufficiently alarmed, thought the withdrawal of two or three
Southern States might aid rather than hinder the nomination of their
chief, and on this theory Driggs' motion was tabled. But, when
Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi withdrew their votes, and nearly
the entire South refused to express an opinion on the popular
sovereignty plank, the extent of the secession suddenly flashed upon
Richardson, who endeavoured to speak in the din of the wildest
excitement. Richardson had withdrawn Douglas' name at the Cincinnati
convention in 1856; and, thinking some way out of their present
trouble might now be suggested by him, John Cochrane, in a voice as
musical as it was far-reaching, urged the convention to hear one whom
he believed brought another "peace offering;" but objection was made,
and the roll call continued. Richardson's purpose, however, had not
escaped the vigilant New Yorkers, who now retired for consultation.
The question was, should they strike out the only resolution having
the slightest significance in the minority report? By the time they
had decided in the affirmative, and returned to the hall, the whole
Douglas army was in full retreat, willing, finally, to stand solely
upon the reaffirmation of the Cincinnati platform, where the Driggs
motion would have landed them two hours earlier.

But the Douglas leaders were not yet satisfied. Writhing under their
forced surrender, Stuart of Michigan took the floor, and by an
inflammatory speech of the most offensive type started the stampede
which 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 not
conceived in passion or carried out from mere caprice or
disappointment. It is the firm resolve of the great body we represent.
The people of Mississippi ask, what is the construction of the
platform of 1856? You of the North say it means one thing; we of the
South another. They ask which is right and which is wrong? The North
have maintained their position, but, while doing so, they have not
acknowledged the rights of the South. We say, go your way and we will
go ours. But the South leaves not like Hagar, driven into the
wilderness, friendless and alone, for in sixty days you will find a
united 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 the
most enthusiastic applause that had thus far marked the proceedings of
the convention. "The South Carolinians cheered long and loud," says an
eye-witness, "and the tempest of shouts made the circuit of the
galleries and the floor several times before it subsided. A large
number of ladies favoured the secessionists with their sweetest smiles
and with an occasional clapping of hands."[526]

[Footnote 526: _Ibid._, p. 68.]

All this was telling hard upon the New York delegation.[527] It wanted
harmony more than Douglas. Dickinson aspired to bring Southern friends
to his support,[528] while Dean Richmond was believed secretly to
indulge 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 shown
that Douglas need not be nominated; that with the South present he
could not receive a two-thirds majority; that with another candidate
the Southern States would continue in control. It was known that a
majority of the delegation stood ready even to vote for a conciliatory
resolution, a mild slave code plank, declaring that all citizens of
the United States have an equal right to settle, with their property,
in the territories, and that under the Supreme Court's decisions
neither rights of person nor property could be destroyed or impaired
by congressional or territorial legislation. This was Richmond's last
card. In playing it he took desperate chances, but he was tired of the
strain of maintaining the leadership of one faction, and of avoiding a
total disruption with the other.

[Footnote 527: "There was a Fourth of July feeling in Charleston that
night--a jubilee. The public sentiment was overwhelmingly and
enthusiastically in favour of the seceders. The Douglas men looked
badly, as though they had been troubled with bad dreams. The
disruption is too serious for them. They find themselves in the
position of a semi-Free Soil sectional party, and the poor fellows
take it hard. The ultra South sectionalists accuse them of cleaving
unto heresies as bad as Sewardism."--M. Halstead, _National Political
Conventions of 1860_, p. 76.]

[Footnote 528: "Dickinson has ten votes in the New York delegation and
no more."--New York _Tribune's_ report from Charleston, April 24,
1860.]

To the Southern extremists, marshalled by Mason and Slidell, the
platform 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-thirds
majority, it was no less evident that the Douglas vote could nominate
Guthrie. To break up this combination, therefore, the ultras saw no
way open except to break up the convention on the question of a
platform. This phase of the case left Richmond absolutely helpless.
The secession of the cotton States might weaken Douglas, but it could
in 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. The
secession left the convention with 253 out of 304 votes; and a motion
requiring a candidate to obtain two-thirds of the original number
became a test of devotion to Douglas, who hoped to get two-thirds of
the remaining votes, but who could not, under any circumstances,
receive two-thirds of the original number. As New York's vote was now
decisive, it put the responsibility directly upon Richmond. It was his
opportunity to help or to break Douglas. The claim that precedent
required two-thirds of the electoral vote to nominate was rejected by
Stuart as not having the sanction of logic. "Two-thirds of the vote
given in this convention" was the language of the rule, he argued, and
it could not mean two-thirds of all the votes originally in the
convention. Cushing admitted that a rigid construction of the rule
seemed 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 the
rule apply to the votes cast for the candidate, but to two-thirds of
all the votes to be cast by the convention." This ruling in nowise
influenced the solid delegations of Douglas' devoted followers from
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota; and
if Richmond had been as loyal in his support, it was reasoned, New
York would have followed the Northwestern States. But Cushing's ruling
afforded Richmond a technical peg upon which to hang a reason for not
deliberately and decisively cutting off the Empire State from the
possibilities of a presidential nomination, and, apparently without
any scruples whatever, he decided that the nominee must receive the
equivalent of two-thirds of the electoral college.[529] After that
vote one can no more think of Richmond or the majority of his
delegation as inspired with devoted loyalty to Douglas. One delegate
declared that it sounded like clods falling upon the Little Giant's
coffin.[530]

[Footnote 529: "The drill of the New York delegation and its united
vote created a murmur of applause at its steady and commanding
front."--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 were
placed in nomination--Douglas of Illinois, Guthrie of Kentucky, Hunter
of Virginia, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, Lane of Oregon, and
Dickinson of New York. George W. Patrick of California named
Dickinson, and on the first ballot he received two votes from
Pennsylvania, one from Virginia, and four from California, while New
York cast its thirty-five votes for Douglas with as much éclat as if
it had not just made his nomination absolutely impossible.[531] The
result gave Douglas 145-1/2 to 107-1/2 for all others, with 202
necessary to a choice. On the thirty-third ballot, Douglas, amidst
some enthusiasm, reached 152-1/2 votes, equivalent to a majority of
the electoral college; but, as the balloting proceeded, it became
manifest that this was his limit, and on the ninth day motions to
adjourn to New York or Baltimore in June became frequent. The
fifty-seventh ballot, the last of the session, gave Douglas 151-1/2,
Guthrie 65-1/2, Dickinson 4, and all others 31. Dickinson had
flickered between half a vote and sixteen, with an average of five.
Never perhaps in the history of political conventions did an ambitious
candidate keep so far from the goal of success.

[Footnote 531: "After the vote of New York had decided that it was
impossible to nominate Douglas, it proceeded, the roll of States being
called, 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. The
listless delegates, the absence of enthusiasm, and the uncrowded
galleries, showed that all hope of a nomination was abandoned,
especially since the friends of Douglas, who could prevent the
selection of another, declared that the Illinoisan would not withdraw
under any contingency. It is dreary reading, the record of the last
three days. If any further evidence were needed to show the utter
collapse of the dwindling, discouraged convention, the dejected,
despairing appearance of Richardson, until now supported by a bright
heroism and cheery good humour, would have furnished it. Accordingly,
on the tenth day of the session, it was agreed to reassemble at
Baltimore on Monday, June 18. Meantime the seceders had formed
themselves into a convention, adopted the platform recently reported
by the majority, and adjourned to meet at Richmond on the same day.

Bitter thoughts filled the home-going delegates. Douglas' Northwestern
friends talked rancorously of the South; while, in their bitterness,
Yancey and his followers exulted in the defeat of the Illinois
Senator. "Men will be cutting one another's throats in a little
while," said Alexander H. Stephens. "In less than twelve months we
shall be in war, and that the bloodiest in history. Men seem to be
utterly 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 party
is split forever. Douglas will not retire from the stand he has taken.
The only hope was at Charleston. If the party would be satisfied with
the Cincinnati platform and would cordially nominate Douglas, we
should 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 the
United States Senate. "We claim protection for slavery in the
territories," said Jefferson Davis, "first, because it is our right;
secondly, because it is the duty of the general government."[534] In
replying to Davis several days later, Douglas said: "My name never
would have been presented at Charleston except for the attempt to
proscribe me as a heretic, too unsound to be the chairman of a
committee in this body, where I have held a seat for so many years
without a suspicion resting on my political fidelity. I was forced to
allow my name to go there in self-defence; and I will now say that had
any gentleman, friend or foe, received a majority of that convention
over me the lightning would have carried a message withdrawing my
name."[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 a
declining respect for platforms," he said. "I would sooner have an
honest man on any sort of a rickety platform you could construct than
to have a man I did not trust on the best platform which could be
made." This stung Douglas. "If the platform is not a matter of much
consequence," he demanded, "why press that question to the disruption
of the party? Why did you not tell us in the beginning of this debate
that the whole fight was against the man and not upon the
platform?"[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 heads
and impersonal argument should prevail over misrepresentation and
passion. 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 was
the prototype of the modern convention. In 1856, an ordinary hall in
Philadelphia, with a seating capacity of two thousand, sufficed to
accommodate delegates and spectators, but in 1860 the large building,
called a "wigwam," specially erected for the occasion and capable of
holding ten thousand, could not receive one-half the people seeking
admission, while marching clubs, bands of music, and spacious
headquarters for state delegations, marked the new order of things. As
usual in later years, New York made an imposing demonstration. The
friends of Seward took an entire hotel, and an organised, well-drilled
body of men from New York City, under the lead of Tom Hyer, a noted
pugilist, headed by a gaily uniformed band, paraded the streets amidst
admiring crowds. For the first time, too, office-seekers were present
in force at a Republican convention; and, to show their devotion, they
packed hotel corridors and the convention hall itself with bodies of
men who vociferously cheered every mention of their candidate's name.
Such tactics are well understood and expected nowadays, but in 1860
they were unique.

The convention, consisting of 466 delegates, represented one southern,
five border, and eighteen free States. "As long as conventions shall
be held," wrote Horace Greeley, "I believe no abler, wiser, more
unselfish body of delegates will ever be assembled than that which met
at Chicago."[537] Governor Morgan, as chairman of the Republican
national committee, called the convention to order, presenting David
Wilmot, author of the famous proviso, for temporary chairman. George
Ashmun of Massachusetts, the favourite friend of Webster, became
permanent president. The platform, adopted by a unanimous vote on the
second day, denounced the Harper's Ferry invasion "as among the
gravest of crimes;" declared the doctrine of popular sovereignty "a
deception and fraud;" condemned the attempt of President Buchanan to
force the Lecompton Constitution upon Kansas; denied "the authority of
Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of an individual to give
legal existence to slavery in any territory;" demanded a liberal
homestead law; and favoured a tariff "to encourage the development of
the industrial interests of the whole country." The significant
silence as to personal liberty bills, the Dred Scott decision, the
fugitive slave law, and the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia, evidenced the handiwork of practical men.

[Footnote 537: New York _Tribune_, June 2, 1860.]

Only one incident disclosed the enthusiasm of delegates for the
doctrine which affirms the equality and defines the rights of man.
Joshua E. Giddings sought to incorporate the sentiment that "all men
are created free and equal," but the convention declined to accept it
until the eloquence of George William Curtis carried it amidst
deafening applause. It was not an easy triumph. Party leaders had
preserved the platform from radical utterances; and, with one
disapproving yell, the convention tabled the Giddings amendment.
Instantly Curtis renewed the motion; and when it drowned his voice, he
stood with folded arms and waited. At last, the chairman's gavel gave
him another chance. In the calm, his musical voice, in tones that
penetrated and thrilled, begged the representatives of the party of
freedom "to think well before, upon the free prairies of the West, in
the summer of 1860, you dare to shrink from repeating the words of the
great men of 1776."[538] The audience, stirred by an unwonted emotion,
applauded the sentiment, and then adopted the amendment with a shout
more 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 absolute
confidence.[539] They represented not only the discipline of the
machine, with its well-drilled cohorts, called the "irrepressibles,"
and its impressive marching clubs, gay with banners and badges, but
the ablest leaders on the floor of the convention. And back of all,
stood Thurlow Weed, the matchless manager, whose adroitness and wisdom
had been crowned with success for a whole generation. "He is one of
the most remarkable men of our time," wrote Samuel Bowles, in the
preceding February. "He is cool, calculating, a man of expedients, who
boasts that for thirty years he had not in political affairs let his
heart 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 his
assistants. The brilliant rhetoric of George William Curtis, when
insisting upon an indorsement of the Declaration of Independence, gave
the opposition a taste of their mettle.

[Footnote 539: "Mr. Seward seemed to be certain of receiving the
nomination at Chicago. He felt that it belonged to him. His flatterers
had encouraged him in the error that he was the sole creator of the
Republican party."--H.B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 214. "I
hear of so many fickle and timid friends as almost to make me sorry
that 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 of
W.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 come
from the _Tribune_ and from the Keystone State; but on the eve of his
departure Simon Cameron assured him of Pennsylvania, and Greeley,
apparently reconciled, had dined with him at the Astor House. "The sky
is bright, and the waters are calm," was the farewell to his
wife.[540] After his return there came an occasional shadow. "I hear
of so many fickle and timid friends," he wrote;[541] yet he had
confidence in Greeley, who, while calling with Weed, exhibited such
friendly interest that Seward afterward resented the suggestion of his
disloyalty.[542] On reaching Auburn to await the action of the
convention, his confidence of success found expression in the belief
that he would not again return to Congress during that session. As the
work 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 New
England and other States on a second roll call, made the nomination
certain. Edward Bates had Missouri, Delaware, and Oregon, but their
votes barely equalled one-half of New York's; Lincoln was positively
sure of only Illinois, and several of its delegates preferred Seward;
Chase had failed to secure the united support of Ohio, and Dayton in
New Jersey was without hope. Cameron held Pennsylvania in reversion
for the New York Senator. So hopeless did the success of the
opposition appear at midnight of the second day, that Greeley
telegraphed the _Tribune_ predicting Seward's nomination, and the
"irrepressibles" anticipated victory in three hundred bottles of
champagne. As late as the morning of the third day, the confidence of
the Seward managers impelled them to ask whom the opposition preferred
for 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 true
friend of Mr. Weed, met Mr. Seward in Washington, and reiterated his
fears in connection with the accumulation of candidates. 'Mr. Lincoln
was brought to New York to divide your strength,' he said. But Mr.
Seward was not disconcerted by these warnings. Less than a fortnight
afterwards Mr. Wood was at the Astor House, where he again met Mr.
Weed and Mr. Seward. Sunday afternoon Mr. Greeley visited the hotel
and passing through one of the corridors met Mr. Wood, with whom he
began 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. 'Greeley
has just been here with Weed,' said Mr. Seward. 'Weed brought him up
here. You were wrong in what you said to me at Washington about
Greeley; 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 zeal
sometimes gets a little the better of your judgment.'"--Thurlow Weed
Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 269.]

But opponents had been industriously at work. They found that
Republicans of Know-Nothing antecedents, especially in Pennsylvania,
still disliked Seward's opposition to their Order, and that
conservative Republicans recoiled from his doctrine of the higher law
and the irrepressible conflict. Upon this broad foundation of unrest,
the opposition adroitly builded, poisoning the minds of unsettled
delegates with stories of his political methods and too close
association with Thurlow Weed. No one questioned Seward's personal
integrity; but the distrust of the political boss existed then as much
as now, and his methods were no less objectionable. "The
misconstruction put on his phrase 'the irrepressible conflict between
freedom and slavery' has, I think, damaged him a good deal," wrote
William Cullen Bryant, "and in this city there is one thing which has
damaged him still more. I mean the project of Thurlow Weed to give
charters for a set of city railways, for which those who receive them
are to furnish a fund of from four to six hundred thousand dollars, to
be expended for the Republican cause in the next presidential
election."[543] Such a scheme would be rebuked even in this day of
trust and corporation giving. People resented the transfer to
Washington of the peculiar state of things at Albany, and when James
S. Pike wrote of Seward's close connection with men who schemed for
public grants, it recalled his belief in the adage that "Money makes
the mare go." Allusion to Seward's "bad associates," as Bryant called
them, and to the connection between "Seward stock" and "New York
street railroads" had become frequent in the correspondence of leading
men, and now, when delegates could talk face to face in the
confidence of the party council chamber, these accusations made a
profound impression. The presence of Tom Hyer and his rough marchers
did not tend to eliminate these moral objections. "If you do not
nominate Seward, where will you get your money?" was their stock
argument.[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 the
friends of Bates and Lincoln at the Tremont Hotel. The announcement
startled the New Yorkers. He had visited Weed at Albany on his way to
Chicago, leaving the impression that he would support Seward,[545] but
once in the convention city his disaffection became quickly known. Of
all the members of the convention none attracted more attention, or
had greater influence with the New England and Western delegates. His
peculiar head and dress quickly identified him as he passed through
the hotel corridors from delegation to delegation, and whenever he
stopped to speak, an eager crowd of listeners heard his reasons why
Seward could not carry the doubtful States. He marshalled all the
facts and forgot no accusing rumour. His remarkable letter of 1854,
dissolving the firm of Weed, Seward, and Greeley, had not then been
published, leaving him in the position of a patriot and prophet who
opposed the Senator because he sincerely believed him a weak
candidate. "If we have ever demurred to his nomination," he said in
the _Tribune_ of April 23, in reply to the _Times'_ charge of
hostility, "it has been on the ground of his too near approximation in
principle and sentiment to our standard to be a safe candidate just
yet. We joyfully believe that the country is acquiring a just and
adequate conception of the malign influence exerted by the slave power
upon its character, its reputation, its treatment of its neighbour,
and all its great moral and material interests. In a few years more we
believe it will be ready to elect as its President a man who not only
sees but proclaims the whole truth in this respect--in short, such a
man as Governor Seward. We have certainly doubted its being yet so far
advanced in its political education as to be ready to choose for
President one who looks the slave oligarchy square in the eye and
says, 'Know me as your enemy.'"

[Footnote 545: "At this time there was friendly intercourse between
Mr. Greeley and Mr. Weed, nor did anybody suppose that Mr. Greeley was
not on good terms with Governor Seward. He had, indeed, in 1854,
written to Mr. Seward a remarkable letter, 'dissolving the firm of
Seward, 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 old
cordiality, perhaps, but still they had by no means quarrelled. Mr.
Greeley wrote often to Mr. Weed, in the old way, and he and his family
were visitors at Mr. Weed's house. Indeed--though that seems
impossible--Mr. Greeley stopped at Mr. Weed's house, in Albany, on his
way West, before the Chicago convention, and made a friendly visit of
a day or so, leaving the impression that he was going to support Mr.
Seward when he reached Chicago."--Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of
Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 268.]

Greeley favoured Bates of Missouri, but was ready to support anybody
to beat Seward. Bryant, disliking what he called the "pliant politics"
of the New York Senator, had been disposed to favour Chase until the
Cooper Institute speech. Lincoln left a similar trail of friends
through New England. The Illinoisan's title of "Honest Old Abe,"
given, him by his neighbours, contrasted favourably with the whispered
reports of "bad associates" and the "New York City railroad scheme."
Gradually, even the radical element in the unpledged delegations began
questioning the advisability of the New Yorker's selection, and when,
on the night preceding the nomination, Andrew Curtin of Pennsylvania
and Henry S. Lane[546] of Indiana, candidates for governor in their
respective States, whose defeat in October would probably bring
defeat in November, declared that Seward's selection would cost them
their election, the opposition occupied good vantage ground. David
Davis, the Illinois manager for Lincoln, against the positive
instructions of his principal, strengthened these declarations by
promising to locate Simon Cameron and Caleb B. Smith in the Cabinet.
The next morning, however, the anti-Seward forces entered the
convention without having concentrated upon a candidate. Lincoln had
won Indiana, but Pennsylvania and Ohio were divided; New Jersey stood
for Dayton; Bates still controlled Missouri, Delaware, and Oregon.

[Footnote 546: "I was with my husband in Chicago, and may tell you
now, as most of the actors have joined the 'silent majority,' what no
living person knows, that Thurlow Weed, in his anxiety for the success
of Seward, took Mr. Lane out one evening and pleaded with him to lead
the Indiana delegation over to Seward, saying they would send enough
money from New York to insure his election for governor, and carry the
State 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 at
the mention of Lincoln's the vigour of the cheers surprised the
delegates. The Illinois managers had cunningly filled the desirable
seats with their shouters, excluding Tom Hyer and his marchers, who
arrived too late, so that, although the applause for Seward was
"frantic, shrill, and wild," says one correspondent, the cheers for
Lincoln were "louder and more terrible."[547] Whether this had the
influence ascribed to it at the time by Henry J. Raymond and others
has been seriously questioned, but it undoubtedly aided in fixing the
wavering delegates, and in encouraging the friends of other candidates
to 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 the
pledged States were in line, New England fell short, Pennsylvania
showed 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 a
choice, 233. On the second ballot Seward gained four votes from New
Jersey, two each from Texas and Kentucky, and one each from
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska--making a total of 184-1/2.
Lincoln moved up to 133. The action of Ohio in giving fourteen votes
to Lincoln had been no less disappointing to the Seward managers than
the transfer of Vermont's vote to the same column; but, before they
could recover from this shock, Cameron was withdrawn and 48 votes from
Pennsylvania carried Lincoln's total to 181.

The announcement of this change brought the convention to its feet
amid scenes of wild excitement. Seward's forces endeavoured to avert
the danger, but the arguments of a week were bearing fruit. As the
third 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 for
three others. At this moment, an Ohio delegate authorised a change of
four votes from Chase to Lincoln, and instantly one hundred guns,
fired from the top of an adjoining building, announced the nomination
of "Honest Old Abe." In a short speech of rare felicity and great
strength, William M. Evarts moved to make the nomination unanimous.

The New York delegation, stunned by the result, declined the honour of
naming a candidate for Vice President; and, on reassembling in the
afternoon, the convention nominated Hannibal Hamlin of Maine. As
Evarts was leaving the wigwam he remarked, with characteristic humour:
"Well, Curtis, at least we have saved the Declaration of
Independence!"

Three days after the nomination Greeley wrote James S. Pike:
"Massachusetts was right in Weed's hands, contrary to all reasonable
expectation. It was all we could do to hold Vermont by the most
desperate exertions; and I at some times despaired of it. The rest of
New England was pretty sound, but part of New Jersey was somehow
inclined to sin against the light and knowledge. If you had seen the
Pennsylvania delegation, and known how much money Weed had in hand,
you would not have believed we could do so well as we did. Give Curtin
thanks for that. Ohio looked very bad, yet turned out well, and
Virginia had been regularly sold out; but the seller could not
deliver. We had to rain red-hot bolts on them, however, to keep the
majority from going for Seward, who got eight votes here as it was.
Indiana was our right bower, and Missouri above praise. It was a
fearful week, such as I hope and trust I shall never see
repeated."[548] That Greeley received credit for all he did is
evidenced by a letter from John D. Defrees, then a leading politician
of Indiana, addressed to Schuyler Colfax. "Greeley slaughtered Seward
and saved the party," he wrote. "He deserves the praises of all men
and 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 of
Henry Clay's supporters in 1840. It was not chagrin; it was not the
selfish fear that considers the loss of office or spoils; it was not
discouragement or despair. Apprehensions for the future of the party
and the country there may have been, but their grief found its
fountain-head in the feeling that "his fidelity to the country, the
Constitution and the laws," as Evarts put it; "his fidelity to the
party, and the principle that the majority govern; his interest in the
advancement of our party to victory, that our country may rise to its
true glory,"[550] had led to his sacrifice solely for assumed
availability. The belief obtained that a large majority of the
delegates preferred him, and that had the convention met elsewhere he
would probably have been successful. In his _Life of Lincoln_, Alex.
K. McClure of Pennsylvania, an anti-Seward delegate, says that "of the
two hundred and thirty-one men who voted for Lincoln on the third and
last ballot, not less than one hundred of them voted reluctantly
against the candidate of their choice."[551]

[Footnote 550: William M. Evarts' speech making Lincoln's nomination
unanimous. 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 for
Seward's great ability, and a just pride in the exalted position he
occupied in his party and before the country, had long ago displaced
the local spirit that refused him a seat in the constitutional
convention of 1846; and after the defeat his fellow townsmen could not
be comforted. Sincere sorrow filled their hearts. But Seward's bearing
was heroic. When told that no Republican could be found to write a
paragraph for the evening paper announcing and approving the
nominations, he quickly penned a dozen lines eulogistic of the
convention and its work. To Weed, who shed bitter tears, he wrote
consolingly. "I wish I were sure that your sense of disappointment is
as light as my own," he said. "It ought to be equally so, if we have
been equally thoughtful and zealous for friends, party, and country. I
know not what has been left undone that could have been done, or done
that ought to be regretted."[553] During the week many friends from
distant parts of the State called upon him, "not to console," as they
expressed it, "but to be consoled." His cheerful demeanour under a
disappointment so overwhelming to everybody else excited the inquiry
how he could exhibit such control. His reply was characteristic. "For
twenty years," he said, "I have been breasting a daily storm of
censure. Now, all the world seems disposed to speak kindly of me. In
that pile of papers, Republican and Democratic, you will find hardly
one unkind word. When I went to market this morning I confess I was
unprepared for so much real grief as I heard expressed at every
corner."[554]

[Footnote 552: "On the day the convention was to ballot for a
candidate, Cayuga County poured itself into Auburn. The streets were
full, and Mr. Seward's house and grounds overflowed with his admirers.
Flags were ready to be raised and a loaded cannon was placed at the
gate whose pillars bore up two guardian lions. Arrangements had been
perfected 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 a
telegram and handed it to Seward, who passed it to Morgan. For Seward,
it read, 173-1/2; for Lincoln, 102. Morgan repeated it to the
multitude, who cheered vehemently. Then came the tidings of the second
ballot: For Seward, 184-1/2--for Lincoln, 181. 'I shall be nominated
on the next ballot,' said Seward, and the throng in the house
applauded, 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 sad
tidings crept through the vast concourse. The flags were furled, the
cannon was rolled away, and Cayuga County went home with a clouded
brow. Mr. Seward retired to rest at a late hour, and the night breeze
in the tall trees sighed a requiem over the blighted hopes of New
York'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 reappearance
at Washington in the character of a leader deposed by his own party,
in the hour of organisation for decisive battle, thank God is
past--and so the last of the humiliations has been endured," he wrote
his wife. "Preston King met me at the depot and conveyed me to my
home. It seemed sad and mournful. Dr. Nott's benevolent face, Lord
Napier's complacent one, Jefferson's benignant one, and Lady Napier's
loving one, seemed all like pictures of the dead. Even 'Napoleon at
Fontainebleau' seemed more frightfully desolate than ever. At the
Capitol the scene was entirely changed from my entrance into the
chamber last winter. Cameron greeted me kindly; Wilkinson of
Minnesota, and Sumner cordially and manfully. Other Republican
senators came to me, but in a manner that showed a consciousness of
embarrassment, which made the courtesy a conventional one; only Wilson
came half a dozen times, and sat down by me. Mason, Gwin, Davis, and
most of the Democrats, came to me with frank, open, sympathising
words, thus showing that their past prejudices had been buried in the
victory they had achieved over me. Good men came through the day to
see me, and also this morning. Their eyes fill with tears, and they
become speechless as they speak of what they call 'ingratitude.' They
console themselves with the vain hope of a day of 'vindication,' and
my letters all talk of the same thing. But they awaken no response in
my heart. I have not shrunk from any fiery trial prepared for me by
the enemies of my cause. But I shall not hold myself bound to try, a
second time, the magnanimity of its friends."[555] To Weed he wrote:
"Private life, as soon as I can reach it without grieving or
embarrassing my friends, will be welcome to me. It will come the 4th
of 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-nigh
friendless. The letter to his wife after he reached Washington was a
threnody. He was firmly convinced that he was a much injured man, and
his attitude was that of the martyr supported by the serenity of the
saint. But to the world he bore himself with the courage and the
dignity that belong to one whose supremacy is due to superiority of
talents. The country could not know that he was to become a secretary
of state of whom the civilised world would take notice; but one of
Seward'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 a
greater political career.




CHAPTER XXII

NEW YORK'S CONTROL AT BALTIMORE

1860


The recess between the Charleston and Baltimore conventions did not
allay hostilities. Jefferson Davis' criticism and Douglas' tart
retorts transferred the quarrel to the floor of the United States
Senate, and by the time the delegates had reassembled at Baltimore on
June 18, 1860, the factions exhibited greater exasperation than had
been shown at Charleston. Yet the Douglas men seemed certain of
success. Dean Richmond, it was said, had been engaged in private
consultation with Douglas and his friends, pledging himself to stand
by them to the last. On the other hand, rumours of a negotiation in
which the Southerners and the Administration at Washington had offered
the New Yorkers their whole strength for any man the Empire State
might name other than Douglas and Guthrie, found ready belief among
the Northwestern delegates. It was surmised, too, that the defeat of
Seward at Chicago had strengthened the chances of Horatio Seymour, on
the ground that the disappointed and discontented Seward Republicans
would allow him to carry the State. Whatever truth there may have been
in these reports, all admitted that the New York delegation had in its
hands the destiny of the convention, if not that of the party
itself.[557]

[Footnote 557: "There was no question that the New York delegation had
the fate of the convention in its keeping; and while it was understood
that the strength of Douglas in the delegation had been increased
during the recess by the Fowler defalcation (Fowler's substitute being
reported a Douglas man) and by the appearance of regular delegates
whose alternates had been against Douglas at Charleston, it was
obvious that the action of the politicians of New York could not be
counted upon in any direction with confidence. Rumours circulated that
a negotiation had been carried on in Washington by the New Yorkers
with the South, to sell out Douglas, the Southerners and the
Administration offering their whole strength to any man New York might
name, provided that State would slaughter Douglas. On the other hand,
it appeared that Dean Richmond, the principal manager of the New
Yorkers, had pledged himself, as solemnly as a politician could do, to
stand by the cause of Douglas to the last."--M. Halstead, _National
Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 159.]

The apparent breaking point at Charleston was the adoption of a
platform; at Baltimore it was the readmission of seceding delegates.
Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas presented their original
delegations, who sought immediate admission; but a resolution,
introduced by Sanford E. Church of New York, referred them to the
committee on credentials, with the understanding that persons
accepting seats were bound in honour to abide the action of the
convention. The Douglas men, greeting this resolution with tremendous
applause, proposed driving it through without debate; but New York
hesitated to order the previous question. Then it asked permission to
withdraw for consultation, and when it finally voted in the negative,
deeming it unwise to stifle debate, it revealed the fact that its
action was decisive on all questions.

An amendment to the Church resolution proposed sending only contested
seats to the credentials committee, without conditions as to loyalty,
and over this joinder of issues some very remarkable speeches
disclosed malignant bitterness rather than choice rhetoric.
Richardson, still the recognised spokesman of Douglas, received marked
attention as he argued boldly that the amendment admitted delegates
not sent there, and decided a controversy without a hearing. "I do not
propose," he said, "to sit side by side with delegates who do not
represent the people; who are not bound by anything, when I am bound
by everything. We are not so hard driven yet as to be compelled to
elect 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, in
the interest of fair play, to cling to the Democracy of the South. "If
we are to be constrained to silence," he vociferated, "I beg gentlemen
to consider the silence of Virginia ominous. If we are not
gentlemen--if we are such knaves that we cannot trust one another--we
had better scatter at once, and cease to make any effort to bind each
other."[559] Speaking on similar lines, Ewing of Tennessee asked what
was 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 of
this convention come exclamations of bitterness and words that burn,
with a view to open the breach in our ranks wider and wider, until at
last, Curtius-like, we will be compelled to leap into it to close it
up."

[Footnote 559: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_,
p. 168.]

But it remained for Montgomery of Pennsylvania, in spite of Cochrane's
conciliatory words, to raise the political atmosphere to the
temperature at Charleston just before the secession. "For the first
time in the history of the Democratic party," he said, "a number of
delegations of sovereign States, by a solemn instrument in writing,
resigned their places upon the floor of the convention. They went out
with a protest, not against a candidate, but against the principles of
a party, declaring they did not hold and would not support them. And
not only that, but they called a hostile convention, and sat side by
side with us, deliberating upon a candidate and the adoption of a
platform. Principles hostile to ours were asserted and a nomination
hostile to ours was threatened. Our convention was compelled to
adjourn in order to have these sovereign States represented. What
became of the gentlemen who seceded? They adjourned to meet at
Richmond. 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. God
knows I love the star spangled banner of my country, and it is because
I love the Union that I am determined that any man who arrays himself
in hostility to it shall not, with my consent, take a seat in this
convention. I am opposed to secession either from this Union or from
the Democratic convention, and when men declare the principles of the
party are not their principles, and that they will neither support
them nor stay in a convention that promulgates them, then I say it is
high time, if they ask to come back, that they shall declare they have
changed 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 an
adjournment had closed it in the hall, the crowds continued it in the
street. At midnight, while Yancey made one of his silver-toned
speeches, which appears, by all accounts, to have been a piece of
genuine eloquence, the friends of Douglas, on the opposite side of
Monument Square, kept the bands playing and crowds cheering.

When the convention assembled on the second day, Church, in the
interest of harmony, withdrew the last clause of his resolution, and,
without a dissenting voice, all contested seats went to the committee
on credentials. Then the convention impatiently waited three days for
a report, while the night meetings, growing noisier and more arrogant,
served to increase the bitterness. The Douglasites denounced their
opponents as "disorganisers and disunionists;" the Southerners
retorted by calling them "a species of sneaking abolitionists." Yancey
spoke of them as small men, with selfish aims. "They are
ostrich-like--their head is in the sand of squatter sovereignty, and
they 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 a
remarkably strong document of singular skill and great clearness,
seating the seceders on the ground that their withdrawal was not a
resignation and was not so considered by the convention. A
resignation, it argued, must be made to the appointing power. The
withdrawing delegates desired the instruction of their constituencies,
who authorised them in every case except South Carolina to repair to
Baltimore and endeavour once more to unite their party and promote
harmony and peace in the great cause of their country.

This report made a profound impression upon the convention, and the
motion to substitute it for the majority report at once threw New York
into confusion. That delegation had already decided to sustain the
majority, but the views of the seceders, so ably and logically
presented, had reopened the door of debate, and a resolute minority,
combining more than a proportionate share of the talent and worth of
the delegation, insisted upon further time. After the convention had
grudgingly taken a recess to accommodate the New Yorkers, William H.
Ludlow reappeared and apologised for asking more time. This created
the impression that Richmond's delegation, at the last moment,
proposed to slaughter Douglas[561] as it did at Charleston, and the
latter's friends, maddened and disheartened over what they called "New
York's dishonest and cowardly procrastination," would gladly have
prevented an adjournment. But the Empire State held the key to the
situation. Without it Douglas could get nothing and in a hopeless sort
of 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 has
been the squelching of Douglas, which is understood to be as good as
bargained for. The South is in due time to concentrate on a
candidate--probably Horatio Seymour of our own State--and then New
York is to desert Douglas for her own favourite son. Such is the
programme as it stood up to last evening."--New York _Tribune_
(editorial), June 20, 1860. "There are plenty of rumours, but nothing
has really form and body unless it be a plan to have Virginia bring
forward Horatio Seymour, whom New York will then diffidently accept in
place of Douglas."--_Ibid._ (telegraphic report).]

The situation of the New York delegation was undoubtedly most
embarrassing. Their admission to the Charleston convention had
depended upon the Douglas vote, but their hope of success hinged upon
harmony with the cotton States. A formidable minority favoured the
readmission of the seceders and the abandonment of Douglas regardless
of their obligation. This was not the policy of Dean Richmond, who
was the pivotal personage. His plan included the union of the party
by admitting the seceders, and the nomination of Horatio Seymour with
the consent of the Northwest, after rendering the selection of Douglas
impossible. It was a brilliant programme, but the inexorable demand of
the Douglas men presented a fatal drawback. Richmond implored and
pleaded. He knew the hostility of the Douglasites could make Seymour's
nomination impossible, and he knew, also, that a refusal to admit the
seceders would lead to a second secession, a second ticket, and a
hopelessly divided party. Nevertheless, the Douglas men were
remorseless.[563] Even Douglas' letter, sent Richardson on the third
day, and his dispatch to Dean Richmond,[564] received on the fifth
day, authorising the withdrawal of his name if it could be done
without sacrificing the principle of non-intervention, did not relieve
the situation. Rule or ruin was now their motto, as much as it was the
South's, and between them Richmond's diplomatic resistance,[565] which
once seemed of iron, became as clay. Nevertheless, Richmond's control
of the New York delegation remained unbroken. The minority tried new
arguments, planned new combinations, and racked their brains for new
devices, but when Richmond finally gave up the hopeless and thankless
task of harmonising the Douglasites and seceders, a vote of 27 to 43
forced the minority of the delegation into submission by the screw of
the Syracuse unit rule, and New York finally sustained the majority
report.

[Footnote 563: "The Soft leaders still shiver on the brink of a
decision. But a new light broke on them yesterday, when they
discovered that, if they killed Douglas, his friends were able and
resolved to kill Seymour in turn."--New York _Tribune_ (editorial),
June 21. "The action of New York is still a subject of great doubt and
anxiety. 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 a
letter containing similar suggestions to Richardson had been kept in
the latter's pocket. But Richmond suppressed the dispatch as
Richardson had suppressed the letter."--M. Halstead, _National
Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 195. "Richardson afterward
explained that the action of the Southerners had put it out of his
power to use Douglas' letter."--James F. Rhodes, _History of the
United States_, Vol. 2, p. 415.]

[Footnote 565: "It was asserted in Baltimore and believed in political
circles that New York offered to reconsider her vote on the Louisiana
case, and make up the convention out of the original materials, with
the exception of the Alabama delegation. It could not agree to admit
Yancey & Co. But the seceders and their friends would not hear to any
such proposition. They scorned all compromise."--M. Halstead,
_National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 195. "Many were the
expedients devised to bring about harmony; but it was to attempt the
impossible. The Southerners were exacting, the delegates from the
Northwest bold and defiant."--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United
States_, Vol. 2, p. 474.]

After this, the convention became the theatre of a dramatic event
which made it, for the moment, the centre of interest to the political
world. The majority report seated the Douglas faction from Alabama and
Louisiana, and then excluded William L. Yancey, a representative
seceder, and let in Pierre Soulé, a representative Douglasite. It is
sufficient proof of the sensitiveness of the relations between the two
factions that an expressed preference for one of these men should
again disrupt the convention, but the moving cause was far deeper than
the majority's action. Yancey belonged to the daring, resolute, and
unscrupulous band of men who, under the unhappy conditions that
threatened their defeat, had already decided upon disunion; and, when
the convention repudiated him, the lesser lights played their part.
Virginia led a new secession, followed by most of the delegates from
North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Maryland, and
finally by Caleb Cushing himself, the astute presiding officer, whose
action anticipated the withdrawal of Massachusetts.

When they were gone, Pierre Soulé took the floor and made the speech
of the convention, fascinating all who saw and heard. An eye-witness
speaks of his rolling, glittering, eagle eye, Napoleonic head and
face, 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 in
this body by those who have seceded from it. We from the furthest
South were prepared; we had heard the rumours which were to be
initiatory of the exit which you have witnessed on this day, and we
knew that conspiracy, which had been brooding for months past, would
break out on this occasion, and for the purposes which are obvious to
every member. Sirs, there are in political life men who were once
honoured by popular favour, who consider that the favour has become to
them an inalienable property, and who cling to it as to something that
can no longer be wrested from their hands--political fossils so much
incrusted in office that there is hardly any power that can extract
them. They saw that the popular voice was already manifesting to this
glorious nation who was to be her next ruler. Instead of bringing a
candidate to oppose him; instead of creating issues upon which the
choice of the nation could be enlightened; instead of principles
discussed, what have we seen? An unrelenting war against the
individual presumed to be the favourite of the nation! a war waged by
an army of unprincipled and unscrupulous politicians, leagued with a
power which could not be exerted on their side without disgracing
itself and disgracing the nation." Secession, he declared, meant
disunion, "but the people of the South will not respond to the call of
the secessionists."[566]

[Footnote 566: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_,
p. 207.]

The effect of Soulé's speech greatly animated and reassured the
friends of Douglas, who now received 173-1/2 of the 190-1/2 votes
cast. Dickinson got half a vote from Virginia, and Horatio Seymour one
vote 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 no
circumstances 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 the
resolution which Dean Richmond passed at Charleston, Douglas was
declared, amidst great enthusiasm, the nominee of the convention,
since two-thirds of the delegates present had voted for him. Benjamin
Fitzpatrick, United States senator from Alabama, was then nominated
for Vice President. When he afterwards declined, the national
committee appointed Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia in his place.

Meantime the Baltimore seceders, joined by their seceding colleagues
from Charleston, met elsewhere in the city, adopted the Richmond
platform, and nominated John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky for
President, and Joseph Lane of Oregon for Vice President. A few days
later 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 the
majority's purpose at Charleston and Baltimore. Dickinson was not
depressed or abashed by his failure; neither was he a man to be rudely
snuffed out or bottled up; and, although his speech at the Cooper
Institute mass-meeting, called to ratify the Breckenridge and Lane
ticket, revealed a vision clouded with passion and prejudice, it
clearly disclosed the minority's estimate of the cardinal object of
Dean Richmond's majority. "Waiving all questions of the merits or
demerits of Mr. Douglas as a candidate," he said, his silken white
hair bringing into greater prominence the lines of a handsome face,
"his pretensions were pressed upon the convention in a tone and
temper, and with a dogged and obstinate persistence, which was well
calculated, if it was not intended, to break up the convention, or
force it into obedience to the behests of a combination. The authors
of this outrage, who are justly and directly chargeable with it, were
the ruling majority of the New York delegation. They held the balance
of power, and madly and selfishly and corruptly used it for the
disruption of the Democratic party in endeavouring to force it to
subserve their infamous schemes. They were charged with high
responsibilities in a crisis of unusual interest in our history, and
in an evil moment their leprous hands held the destinies of a noble
party. They proclaimed personally and through their accredited organs
that the Southern States were entitled to name a candidate, but from
the moment they entered the convention at Charleston until it was
finally broken up at Baltimore by their base conduct and worse faith,
their every act was to oppose any candidate who would be acceptable to
those States.

"Those who controlled the New York delegation through the fraudulent
process of a unit vote--a rule forced upon a large minority to stifle
their sentiments--will hereafter be known as political gamblers. The
Democratic party of New York, founded in the spirit of Jefferson, has,
in the hands of these gamblers, been disgraced by practices which
would dishonour a Peter Funk cast-off clothing resort; cheating the
people of the State, cheating a great and confiding party, cheating
the convention which admitted them to seats, cheating delegations who
trusted them, cheating everybody with whom they came in contact, and
then lamenting from day to day, through their accredited organ, that
the convention had not remained together so that they might finally
have cheated Douglas. Political gamblers! You have perpetrated your
last cheat--consummated your last fraud upon the Democratic party.
Henceforth you will be held and treated as political outlaws. There is
no 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 that
an opponent is necessarily a blockhead or a scoundrel. But there was
little or no truth in his severe arraignment. Richmond's purpose was
plainly to nominate Horatio Seymour if it could be done with the
consent of the Northwestern States, and his sudden affection for a
two-thirds rule came from a determination to prolong the convention
until it yielded consent. At no time did he intend leaving Douglas for
any one other than Seymour. On the other hand, Dickinson had always
favoured slavery.[568] Neither the Wilmot Proviso nor the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise disturbed him. What slavery demanded he
granted; what freedom sought he denounced. His belief that the South
would support him for a compromise candidate in return for his
fidelity became an hallucination. It showed itself at Cincinnati in
1852 when he antagonised Marcy; and his position in 1860 was even less
advantageous. Nevertheless, Dickinson nursed his delusion until the
guns at Fort Sumter disclosed the real design of Yancey and the men in
whom he had confided.

[Footnote 568: "The obduracy, the consistency of Mr. Dickinson's
Democracy are of the most marked type. Ever since he changed his vote
from Van Buren to Polk, with such hearty alacrity in the Baltimore
convention of 1844, he has promptly yielded to every requisition which
the Southern Democracy has made upon their Northern allies. All along
through the stormy years when the star of the Wilmot Proviso was in
the ascendant, and when Wright and Dix bowed to the gale, and even
Marcy and Bronson bent before it, Dickinson, on the floor of the
Senate, 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 some
attempt to fix the responsibility. To Thurlow Weed's sorrow[569] was
added the mortification of defeat. He had staked everything upon
success, and, although he doubtless wished to avoid any unseemly
demonstration of disappointment, the rankling wound goaded him into a
desire to relieve himself of any lack of precaution. Henry J. Raymond
scarcely 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, disclosed
between the lines of assumed modesty an exultant attitude.

[Footnote 569: "Mr. Weed was for a time completely unnerved by the
result. He even shed tears over the defeat of his old friend."--Thurlow
Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 271.

"After the joy of Lincoln's nomination had subsided," wrote Leonard
Swett of Chicago, "Judge Davis and I called upon Mr. Weed. This was
the first time either of us had met him. He did not talk angrily as to
the result, nor did he complain of any one. Confessing with much
feeling to the great disappointment of his life, he said, 'I hoped to
make my friend, Mr. Seward, President, and I thought I could serve my
country in so doing.' He was a larger man intellectually than I
anticipated, and of finer fibre. There was in him an element of
gentleness and a large humanity which won me, and I was pleased no
less 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 it
in his jubilant letter to Pike; but after returning to New York he
seemed to think it wise to minimise his influence, claiming that the
result would have been the same had he remained at home. "The fact
that the four conspicuous doubtful States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Indiana, and Illinois," he wrote, "unanimously testified that they
could not be carried for Seward was decisive. Against this Malakoff
the most brilliant evolutions of political strategy could not
avail."[570] This two-column article, modestly concealing his own
work, might not have led to an editorial war between the three great
Republican editors of the State, had not Greeley, in the exordium of a
speech, published in the _Tribune_ of May 23, exceeded the limits of
human endurance. "The past is dead," he said. "Let the dead past bury
it, 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 which
generally obtained among New York Republican leaders, that Greeley's
persistent hostility was not only responsible for Seward's defeat, but
that under the guise of loyalty to the party's highest interests he
had been insidious and revengeful, and Raymond believed it needed only
a bold and loud-spoken accusation against him to fill the mind of the
public with his guilt. In this spirit he wrote a stinging reply. "With
the generosity which belongs to his nature, and which a feeling not
unlike remorse may have stimulated into unwonted activity," said this
American Junius, "Mr. Greeley awards to others the credit which
belongs transcendently to himself. The main work of the Chicago
convention was the defeat of Governor Seward, and in that endeavour
Mr. Greeley laboured harder, and did tenfold more, than the whole
family of Blairs, together with all the gubernatorial candidates, to
whom he modestly hands over the honours of the effective campaign. Mr.
Greeley had special qualifications, as well as a special love, for
this task. For twenty years he had been sustaining the political
principles and vindicating the political conduct of Mr. Seward
through the columns of the most influential political newspaper in the
country. His voice was potential precisely where Governor Seward was
strongest, because it was supposed to be that of a friend, strong in
his personal attachment and devotion, and driven into opposition on
this occasion solely by the despairing conviction that the welfare of
the country and the triumph of the Republican cause demanded the
sacrifice. For more than six months Mr. Greeley had been preparing the
way for this consummation. He was in Chicago several days before the
meeting of the convention and he devoted every hour of the interval to
the most steady and relentless prosecution of the main business which
took him thither.

"While it was known to some that nearly six years ago he had
privately, but distinctly, repudiated all further political friendship
for and alliance with Governor Seward, for the avowed reason that
Governor Seward had never aided or advised his elevation to office, no
use was made of this knowledge in quarters where it would have
disarmed the deadly effect of his pretended friendship for the man
upon whom he was thus deliberately wreaking the long hoarded revenge
of a disappointed office-seeker.... Being thus stimulated by a hatred
he had secretly cherished for years, protected by the forbearance of
those whom he assailed, and strong in the confidence of those upon
whom he sought to operate, it is not strange that Mr. Greeley's
efforts should have been crowned with success. But it is perfectly
safe to say that no other man--certainly no one occupying a position
less favourable for such an assault--could possibly have accomplished
that result."[571]

[Footnote 571: New York _Times_, May 25, 1860.]

Raymond's letter produced a profound impression. It excited the
astonishment and incredulity of every one. He had made a distinct
charge that Greeley's opposition was the revenge of a disappointed
office-seeker, and the public, resenting the imputation, demanded the
evidence. Greeley himself echoed the prayer by a blast from his silver
trumpet which added to the interest as well as to the excitement.
"This carefully drawn indictment," he said, "contains a very artful
mixture of truth and misrepresentation. No intelligent reader of the
_Tribune_ has for months been left in doubt of the fact that I deemed
the nomination of Governor Seward for President at this time unwise
and unsafe; and none can fail to understand that I did my best at
Chicago to prevent that nomination. My account of 'Last Week at
Chicago' is explicit on that point. True, I do not believe my
influence was so controlling as the defeated are disposed to represent
it, but this is not material to the issue. It is agreed that I did
what I could.

"It is not true--it is grossly untrue--that at Chicago I commended
myself to the confidence of delegates 'by professions of regard and
the most zealous friendship for Governor Seward, but presented defeat,
_even in New York_, as the inevitable result of his nomination.' The
very reverse of this is the truth. I made no professions before the
nomination, as I have uttered no lamentations since. It was the simple
duty of each delegate to do just whatever was best for the Republican
cause, regardless of personal considerations. And this is exactly what
I did.... As to New York, I think I was at least a hundred times asked
whether Governor Seward could carry this State;[572] and I am sure I
uniformly responded affirmatively, urging delegates to consider the
New York delegation the highest authority on that point as I was
strenuously urging that the delegations from Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Indiana, and Illinois must be regarded as authority as to who
could and who could not carry their respective States.

[Footnote 572: "At Chicago, Seward encountered the opposition from his
own State of such powerful leaders as Greeley, Dudley Field, Bryant,
and Wadsworth. The first two were on the ground and very busy. The two
latter sent pungent letters that were circulated among the delegates
from the various States. The main point of the attack was that Seward
could not carry New York. Soon after the adjournment of the
convention, William Curtis Noyes, a delegate, told me that a careful
canvass of the New York delegation showed that nearly one-fourth of
its members believed it was extremely doubtful if Seward could obtain
a majority at the polls in that State."--H.B. Stanton, _Random
Recollections_, pp. 214-15. "Perhaps the main stumbling block over
which 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 friendship
for and alliance with Governor Seward, and menaced him with hostility
wherever it could be made most effective; for the avowed reason that
Governor Seward had never advised my elevation to office,' &c. This is
a very grave charge, and, being dated 'Auburn, Tuesday, May 22, 1860,'
and written by one who was there expressly and avowedly to console
with Governor Seward on his defeat and denounce me as its author, it
is impossible not to see that Governor Seward is its responsible
source. I, therefore, call on him for the private letter which I did
write him in November, 1854, that I may print it verbatim in the
_Tribune_, and let every reader judge how far it sustains the charges
which his mouthpiece bases thereon. I maintain that it does not
sustain them; but I have no copy of the letter, and I cannot discuss
its contents while it remains in the hands of my adversaries, to be
used at their discretion. I leave to others all judgment as to the
unauthorised use which has already been made of this private and
confidential letter, only remarking that this is by no means the first
time it has been employed to like purpose. I have heard of its
contents being dispensed to members of Congress from Governor Seward's
dinner-table; I have seen articles based on it paraded in the columns
of such devoted champions of Governor Seward's principles and aims as
the Boston _Courier_. It is fit that the New York _Times_ should
follow 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 have
the letter and it shall appear verbatim in every edition of the
_Tribune_. Meantime, I only say that, when I fully decided that I
would no longer be devoted to Governor Seward's personal fortunes, it
seemed due to candour and fair dealing that I should privately but in
all frankness apprise him of the fact. It was not possible that I
could in any way be profited by writing that letter; I well understood
that it involved an abdication of all hopes of political advancement;
yet it seemed due to my own character that the letter should be
written. Of course I never dreamed that it could be published, or used
as it already has been; but no matter--let us have the letter in
print, and let the public judge between its writer and his open and
covert assailants. At all events I ask no favour and fear no open
hostility.

"There are those who will at all events believe that my opposition to
Governor 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 no
vindication. But there is another and far larger class who will
realise that the obstacles to Governor Seward's election were in no
degree of my creation, and that their removal was utterly beyond my
powers. The whole course of the _Tribune_ has tended to facilitate the
elevation to the Presidency of a statesman cherishing the pronounced
anti-slavery views of Governor Seward; it is only on questions of
finance and public economy that there has been any perceptible
divergence between us. Those anti-democratic voters of Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Indiana, and Illinois, who could not be induced to vote
for Governor Seward, have derived their notions of him in some measure
from the _Times_, but in no measure from the _Tribune_. The
delegations from those States, with the candidates for governor in
Pennsylvania and Indiana, whose representations and remonstrances
rendered the nomination of Governor Seward, in the eyes of all
intelligent, impartial observers, a clear act of political suicide,
were nowise instructed or impelled by me. They acted on views
deliberately formed long before they came to Chicago. It is not my
part 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 establish
our struggling brethren in the border slave States. If it had seemed
to me possible to obtain one more vote in the doubtful States for
Governor Seward than for any one else, I should have struggled for him
as ardently as I did against him, even though I had known that the
Raymonds who hang about our party were to be his trusted counsellors
and I inflexibly shut out from his confidence and favour. If there be
any who do not believe this, I neither desire their friendship nor
deprecate their hostility."[573]

[Footnote 573: New York _Tribune_, June 2, 1860.]

Greeley's demand for his letter did not meet with swift response. It
was made on June 2. When Seward passed through New York on his way to
Washington on the 8th, a friend of Greeley waited upon him, but he had
nothing for the _Tribune_. Days multiplied into a week, and still
nothing came. Finally, on June 13, Greeley received it through the
hands of Thurlow Weed and published it on the 14th. It bore date "New
York, Saturday evening, November 11, 1854," and was addressed simply
to "Governor Seward." Its great length consigned it to nonpareil in
strange contrast to the long primer type of the editorial page, but
its publication became the sensation of the hour. To this day its fine
thought-shading is regarded the best illustration of Greeley's
matchless prose.

"The election is over," he says, "and its results sufficiently
ascertained. It seems to me a fitting time to announce to you the
dissolution of the political firm of Seward, Weed & Greeley, by the
withdrawal of the junior partner--said withdrawal to take effect on
the morning after the first Tuesday in February next. And, as it may
seem 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 me
out of the Whig party, that I was esteemed no longer either useful or
ornamental in the concern, you will, I am sure, indulge me in some
reminiscences which seem to befit the occasion.

"I was a poor young printer and editor of a literary journal--a very
active and bitter Whig in a small way, but not seeking to be known out
of my own ward committee--when, after the great political revulsion of
1837, I was one day called to the City Hotel, where two strangers
introduced themselves as Thurlow Weed and Lewis Benedict, of Albany.
They told me that a cheap campaign paper of a peculiar stamp at Albany
had been resolved on, and that I had been selected to edit it. The
announcement might well be deemed flattering by one who had never even
sought the notice of the great, and who was not known as a partisan
writer, and I eagerly embraced their proposals. They asked me to fix
my salary for the year; I named $1,000, which they agreed to; and I
did the work required to the best of my ability. It was work that made
no 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 my
garret and my crust, and my desperate battle with pecuniary
obligations heaped upon me by bad partners in business and the
disastrous events of 1837. I believe it did not then occur to me that
some of these abundant places might have been offered to me without
injustice; I now think it should have occurred to you. If it did occur
to me, I was not the man to ask you for it; I think that should not
have been necessary. I only remember that no friend at Albany inquired
as to my pecuniary circumstances; that your friend (but not mine),
Robert C. Wetmore, was one of the chief dispensers of your patronage
here; and that such devoted compatriots as A.H. Wells and John Hooks
were lifted by you out of pauperism into independence, as I am glad I
was not; and yet an inquiry from you as to my needs and means at that
time would have been timely, and held ever in grateful remembrance.

"In the Harrison campaign of 1840 I was again designated to edit a
campaign paper. I published it as well, and ought to have made
something by it, in spite of its extremely low price; my extreme
poverty was the main reason why I did not. It compelled me to hire
presswork, mailing, etc., done by the job, and high charges for extra
work nearly ate me up. At the close I was still without property and
in debt, but this paper had rather improved my position.

"Now came the great scramble of the swell mob of coon minstrels and
cider suckers at Washington--I not being counted in. Several regiments
of them went on from this city; but no one of the whole crowd--though
I say it who should not--had done so much toward General Harrison's
nomination and election as yours respectfully. I asked nothing,
expected nothing; _but you_, Governor Seward, _ought to have asked
that I be postmaster of New York_. Your asking would have been in
vain; but it would have been an act of grace neither wasted nor
undeserved.

"I soon after started the _Tribune_, because I was urged to do so by
certain of your friends, and because such a paper was needed here. I
was promised certain pecuniary aid in so doing; it might have been
given me without cost or risk to any one. All I ever had was a loan by
piecemeal of $1000, from James Coggeshall. God bless his honoured
memory! I did not ask for this, and I think it is the one sole case in
which I ever received a pecuniary favour from a political associate. I
am very thankful that he did not die till it was fully repaid.

"And let me here honour one grateful recollection. When the Whig party
under your rule had offices to give, my name was never thought of; but
when in '42-'43, we were hopelessly out of power, I was honoured with
the nomination for state printer. When we came again to have a state
printer to elect, as well as nominate, the place went to Weed, as it
ought. Yet it was worth something to know that there was once a time
when it was not deemed too great a sacrifice to recognise me as
belonging to your household. If a new office had not since been
created on purpose to give its valuable patronage to H.J. Raymond and
enable St. John to show forth his _Times_ as the organ of the Whig
state administration, I should have been still more grateful.

"In 1848 your star again rose, and my warmest hopes were realised in
your election to the Senate. I was no longer needy, and had no more
claim than desire to be recognised by General Taylor. I think I had
some claim to forbearance from you. What I received thereupon was a
most humiliating lecture in the shape of a decision in the libel case
of Redfield and Pringle, and an obligation to publish it in my own and
the other journal of our supposed firm. I thought and still think this
lecture needlessly cruel and mortifying. The plaintiffs, after using
my columns to the extent of their needs or desires, stopped writing
and called on me for the name of their assailant. I proffered it to
them--a thoroughly responsible man. They refused to accept it unless
it should prove to be one of the four or five first men in
Batavia!--when they had known from the first who it was, and that it
was neither of them. They would not accept that which they had
demanded; they sued me instead for money, and money you were at
liberty 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 your
public as you did. I think you exalted your own judicial sternness and
fearlessness unduly at my expense. I think you had a better occasion
for the display of these qualities when Webb threw himself entirely
upon 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 respect
to fusion, Nebraska, and party designations. I will not repeat any of
that. I have referred also to Weed's reading me out of the Whig
party--my crime being, in this as in some other things, that of doing
to-day what more politic persons will not be ready to do till
to-morrow.

"Let me speak of the late canvass. I was once sent to Congress for
ninety days merely to enable Jim Brooks to secure a seat therein for
four years. _I think I never hinted to any human being that I would
have liked to be put forward for any place._ But James W. White (you
hardly know how good and true a man he is) started my name for
Congress, and Brooks' packed delegation thought I could help him
through; so I was put on behind him. But this last spring, after the
Nebraska question had created a new state of things at the North, one
or two personal friends, of no political consideration, suggested my
name as a candidate for governor, and I did not discourage them. Soon,
the persons who were afterward mainly instrumental in nominating Clark
came about me, and asked if I could secure the Know-Nothing vote. I
told them I neither could nor would touch it; on the contrary, I
loathed and repelled it. Thereupon they turned upon Clark.

"I said nothing, did nothing. A hundred people asked me who should be
run for governor. I sometimes indicated Patterson; I never hinted at
my own name. But by and by Weed came down, and called me to him, to
tell me why he could not support me for governor. I had never asked
nor counted on his support.

"I am sure Weed did not mean to humiliate me; but he did it. The
upshot of his discourse (very cautiously stated) was this: If I were a
candidate for governor, I should beat not myself only, but you.
Perhaps that was true. But as I had in no manner solicited his or your
support, I thought this might have been said to my friends rather than
to me. I suspect it is true that I could not have been elected
governor as a Whig. But had he and you been favourable, there would
have been a party in the State ere this which could and would have
elected me to _any_ post, without injuring itself or endangering your
re-election.

"It was in vain that I urged that I had in no manner asked a
nomination. 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 see
whether I am really so odious.'

"I should have hated to serve as lieutenant-governor, but I should
have gloried in running for the post. I want to have my enemies all
upon me at once; am tired of fighting them piecemeal. And, though I
should have been beaten in the canvass, I know that my running would
have helped the ticket, and helped my paper.

"It was thought best to let the matter take another course. No other
name could have been put on the ticket so bitterly humbling to me as
that which was selected. The nomination was given to Raymond; the
fight left to me. And, Governor Seward, _I have made it_, though it be
conceited in me to say so. Even Weed has not been (I speak of his
paper) hearty in this contest, while the journal of the Whig
lieutenant-governor has taken care of its own interests and let the
canvass take care of itself, as it early declared it would do. That
journal has (because of its milk-and-water course) some twenty
thousand subscribers in this city and its suburbs, and of these twenty
thousand, I venture to say more voted for Ullman and Scroggs than for
Clark and Raymond; the _Tribune_ (also because of its character) has
but eight thousand subscribers within the same radius, and I venture
to say that of its habitual readers, nine-tenths voted for Clark and
Raymond--very few for Ullman and Scroggs. I had to bear the brunt of
the contest....

"Governor Seward, I know that some of your most cherished friends
think me a great obstacle to your advancement; that John Schoolcraft,
for one, insists that you and Weed should not be identified with me. I
trust, after a time, you will not be. I trust I shall never be found
in opposition to you; I have no further wish than to glide out of the
newspaper world as quietly and as speedily as possible, join my family
in Europe, and, if possible, stay there quite a time--long enough to
cool my fevered brain and renovate my over-tasked energies. All I ask
is that we shall be counted even on the morning after the first
Tuesday in February, as aforesaid, and that I may thereafter take such
course as seems best without reference to the past.

"You have done me acts of valued kindness in the line of your
profession; let me close with the assurance that these will ever be
gratefully 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 a
passing cloud-shadow. "To-day I have a long letter from Greeley, full
of sharp, pricking thorns," he wrote Weed. "I judge, as we might
indeed well know from his nobleness of disposition, that he has no
idea of saying or doing anything wrong or unkind; but it is sad to see
him so unhappy. Will there be a vacancy in the Board of Regents this
winter? Could one be made at the close of the session? Could he have
it? Raymond's nomination and election is hard for him to bear."[575]
Two or three weeks later, after a call at the _Tribune_ office, Seward
again wrote Weed, suggesting that "Greeley's despondency is
overwhelming, and seems to be aggravated by the loss of subscribers.
But below this is chagrin at the failure to obtain official
position."[576] With such inquiries and comments Seward put the famous
letter 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 wholly
unchanged by this letter. We met frequently and cordially after it was
written, and we very freely conferred and co-operated during the long
struggle in Congress for Kansas and Free Labour. He understood as well
as I did that my position with regard to him, though more independent
than it had been, was nowise hostile, and that I was as ready to
support his advancement as that of any other statesman, whenever my
judgment should tell me that the public good required it. I was not
his 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. People
were amazed, and deep in their hearts many persons felt that Greeley
had been treated unfairly. The inquiry as to a vacancy in the Board of
Regents showed that Seward himself shared this opinion at the time.
But the question that most interested the public in 1860 was, why, if
Greeley had declared war upon Seward in 1854, did not Weed make it
known in time to destroy the influence of the man who had
"deliberately wreaked the long-hoarded revenge of a disappointed
office-seeker?" This question reflected upon Weed's management of
Seward'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, Weed
wrote an editorial, the dignity and patriotism of which contrasted
favourably 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 full
appreciation of Mr. Greeley's friendship and services. The letter was
evidently written under a morbid state of feeling, and it is less a
matter of surprise that such a letter was thus written, than that its
writer should not only cherish the ill-will that prompted it for six
years, but allow it to influence his action upon a question which
concerns his party and his country.

"Mr. Greeley's first complaint is that this journal, in an 'editorial
rescript formally read him out of the Whig party.' Now, here is the
'editorial rescript formally reading' Mr. Greeley out of the Whig
party, 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 not
clearly understood! At the time it appeared, the _Tribune_ was under
high 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 'Maine
law' candidates for the legislature, and for state offices, regardless
of their political or party principles and character. And this, too,
when senators to be elected had to choose a senator in Congress. But
instead of 'reading' Mr. Greeley 'out of the Whig party,' it will be
seen that after Mr. Greeley had read himself out of the party by
discarding 'party usages, mandates, and platforms,' the _Evening
Journal_, in the language and spirit of friendship, predicted just
what happened, namely, that, in due time, Mr. Greeley would 'return to
his long-cherished belief that great and beneficent aims must
continue, as they commenced, to be wrought out through Whig
instrumentalities.'

"We submit, even to Mr. Greeley himself, whether there is one word or
thought in the article to which he referred justifying his accusation
that he had been 'read out of the Whig party' by the _Evening
Journal_.

"In December, 1837, when we sought the acquaintance and co-operation
of Mr. Greeley, we were, like him, a 'poor printer,' working as hard
as he worked. We had then been sole editor, reporter, news collector,
'remarkable accident,' 'horrid murder,' 'items' man, etc., etc., for
seven years, at a salary of $750, $1000, $1250, and $1500. We had also
been working hard, for poor pay, as an editor and politician, for the
twelve years preceding 1830. We stood, therefore, on the same footing
with Mr. Greeley when the partnership was formed. We knew that Mr.
Greeley was much abler, more indomitably industrious, and, as we
believed, a better man in all respects. We foresaw for him a brilliant
future; and, if we had not started with utterly erroneous views of his
objects, we do not believe that our relations would have jarred. We
believed him indifferent alike to the temptations of money and office,
desiring only to become both 'useful' and 'ornamental,' as the editor
of a patriotic, enlightened, leading, and influential public journal.
For years, therefore, we placed Horace Greeley far above the 'swell
mob' of office-seekers, for whom, in his letter, he expresses so much
contempt. Had Governor Seward known, in 1838, that Mr. Greeley coveted
an inspectorship, he certainly would have received it. Indeed, if our
memory be not at fault, Mr. Greeley was offered the clerkship of the
Assembly in 1838. It was certainly pressed upon us, and, though at
that 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' which
had been promised. When, about that period, we suggested to him (after
consulting 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 never
was a day when, if he had chosen to come to Albany, he might not have
taken whatever interest he pleased in the _Journal_ and its state
printing. But he wisely regarded his position in New York, and the
future of the _Tribune_, as far more desirable.

"For the 'creation of the new office for the _Times_,' Mr. Greeley
knows perfectly well that Governor Seward was in no manner
responsible.

"That Mr. Greeley should make the adjustment of the libel suit of
Messrs. Redfield and Pringle against the _Tribune_ a ground of
accusation against Governor Seward is a matter of astonishment.
Governor Seward undertook the settlement of that suit as the friend of
Mr. Greeley, at a time when a systematic effort was being made to
destroy both the _Tribune_ and _Journal_ by prosecutions for libel. We
were literally plastered over with writs, declarations, etc. There
were at least two judges of the Supreme Court in the State, on whom
plaintiffs were at liberty to count for verdicts. Governor Seward
tendered his professional services to Mr. Greeley, and in the case
referred to, as in others, foiled the adversary. For such service this
seems a strange requital. Less fortunate than the _Tribune_, it cost
the _Journal_ over $8000 to reach a point in legal proceedings that
enabled 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 what
others have said, that his congressional _début_ was a failure. There
were no other reasons, and this seems a fitting occasion to state
them. Mr. Greeley's 'isms' were in his way at conventions. The sharp
points and rough edges of the _Tribune_ rendered him unacceptable to
those who nominate candidates. This was more so formerly than at
present, for most of the rampant reforms to which the _Tribune_ was
devoted have subsided. We had no sympathy with, and little respect
for, 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 easiest
and most politic. The former, which we have chosen, has made us much
trouble 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 educated
the people up to the point of demanding a 'Maine law' candidate for
governor. But its followers would not accept their chief reformer! It
was evident that the state convention was to be largely influenced by
'Maine law' and 'Choctaw' Know-Nothing delegates. It was equally
evident that Mr. Greeley could neither be nominated nor elected. Hence
the conference to which he refers. We found, as on two other occasions
during thirty years, our state convention impracticable. We submitted
the names of Lieutenant-Governor Patterson and Judge Harris (both
temperance 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, is
true. We did our duty, but with less of enthusiasm than when we were
supporting either Granger, Seward, Bradish, Hunt, Fish, King, or
Morgan for governor.

"One word in relation to the supposed 'political firm.' Mr. Greeley
brought into it his full quota of capital. But were there no
beneficial results, no accruing advantages, to himself? Did he not
attain, 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 we
wish 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's
money 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 as
conferring favours. In giving them the worth of their money, he holds
that the account is balanced. We, on the other hand, have ever held
the relation of newspaper editor and subscriber as one of fraternity.
Viewed in this aspect, the editors of the _Tribune_ and _Evening
Journal_ have manifold reasons for cherishing grateful recollections
of the liberal and abiding confidence and patronage of their party and
friends.

"In conclusion, we cannot withhold an expression of sincere regret
that this letter has been called out. After remaining six years in
'blissful ignorance' of its contents, we should have preferred to have
ever remained so. It jars harshly upon cherished memories. It destroys
ideals of disinterestedness and generosity which relieved political
life from so much that is selfish, sordid, and rapacious."

Henry B. Stanton once asked Seward, directly, if he did not think it
would have been better to let Greeley have office. "Mr. Seward looked
at me intently, rolled out a cloud of tobacco smoke, and then slowly
responded: '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 a
good 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 them
all it is because some of them did not give him a chance to strike
back. Greeley caught the first knockout blow in February, 1861; and in
1862, says Stanton, "he doubtless defeated James S. Wadsworth for
governor of New York. Wadsworth, who was then military commander of
Washington, told me that Seward was 'dead against him' all through the
campaign."[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 the
Democratic party became a subject of much anxiety. Dean Richmond's
persistent use of the unit rule had driven the Hards into open
rebellion, and at a great mass-meeting, held at Cooper Institute and
addressed by Daniel S. Dickinson, it was agreed to hold a Breckenridge
and Lane state convention at Syracuse on August 8. At the appointed
time three hundred delegates appeared, representing every county, but
with the notable exception of the chairman, Henry S. Randall, the
biographer of Thomas Jefferson, who had advocated the Wilmot Proviso
in 1847, written the Buffalo platform in 1848, and opposed the
fugitive slave law in 1850, practically all of them had steadily
opposed the Free-soil influences of their party. To many it seemed
strange, if not absolutely ludicrous, to hoist a pro-slavery flag in
the Empire State. But Republicans welcomed the division of their
opponents, and the Hards were terribly in earnest. They organised with
due formality; spent two days in conference; adopted the pro-slavery
platform of the seceders' convention amidst loud cheering; selected
candidates for a state and electoral ticket with the care that
precedes certain election; angrily denounced the leadership of Dean
Richmond at Charleston and Baltimore; appointed a new state committee,
and, with the usual assurance of determined men, claimed a large
following.

The indomitable Dickinson, in a speech not unlike his Cooper Institute
address, declared that Breckenridge, the regularly nominated candidate
of seventeen States and portions of other States, would secure one
hundred and twenty-seven electoral votes in the South and on the
Pacific coast. This made the election, he argued, depend upon New
York, and since Douglas would start without the hope of getting a
single vote, it became the duty of every national Democrat to insist
that the Illinoisan be withdrawn. People might scoff at this movement
as "a cloud no bigger than a man's hand," he said, but it would grow
in size and send forth a deluge that would refresh and purify the arid
soil of politics. The applause that greeted this prophecy indicated
faith in a principle that most people knew had outlived its day in the
State; and, although Dickinson was always altogether on one side, it
is scarcely credible that he could sincerely believe that New York
would support Breckenridge, even if Douglas withdrew.

The Hards conjured with a few distinguished names which still gave
them prestige. Charles O'Conor, Greene C. Bronson, and John A. Dix, as
conservative, moderate leaders, undoubtedly had the confidence of many
people, and their ticket, headed by James T. Brady, the brilliant
lawyer, looked formidable. Personally, Brady was perhaps the most
popular man in New York City; and had he stood upon other than a
pro-slavery platform his support must have been generous. But the fact
that he advocated the protection of slave property in the territories,
although opposed to Buchanan's Lecompton policy, was destined to
subject him to humiliating defeat.

The Softs met in convention on August 15. In numbers and noisy
enthusiasm they did not seem to represent a larger following than the
Hards, but their principles expressed the real sentiment of whatever
was 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 of
non-intervention very adroitly avoided quarrels. It accepted Fernando
Wood's delegation on equal terms with Tammany; refused to notice the
Hards' attack upon Dean Richmond and the majority of the Charleston
delegation; and nominated William Kelley of Hudson for governor by
acclamation. Kelley was a large farmer of respectable character and
talents, who had served with credit in the State Senate and supported
Van Buren in 1848 with the warmth of a sincere Free-soiler. He was
evidently a man without guile, and, although modest and plain-spoken,
he knew what the farmer and workingman most wanted, and addressed
himself to their best thought. It was generally conceded that he would
poll the full strength of his party.

But the cleverest act of the convention was its fusion with the
Constitutional Union party. In the preceding May, the old-line Whigs
and Know-Nothings had met at Baltimore and nominated John Bell of
Tennessee for President and Edward Everett of Massachusetts for Vice
President, on the simple platform: "The Constitution of the country,
the union of the States, and the enforcement of the laws." Washington
Hunt, the former governor of New York, had become the convention's
president, and, in company with James Brooks and William Duer, he had
arranged with the Softs to place on the Douglas electoral ticket ten
representatives of the Union party, with William Kent, the popular son
of the distinguished Chancellor, at their head.

Hunt had become a thorn in the side of his old friends, now the
leading Republican managers. He had joined them as a Whig in the
thirties. After sending him to Congress for three terms and making him
comptroller of state in 1848, they had elected him governor in 1850;
but, in the division of the party, he joined the Silver-Grays, failed
of re-election in 1852, dropped into the American party in 1854, and
supported Fillmore in 1856. Thurlow Weed thought he ought to have
aided them in the formation of the Republican party, and Horace
Greeley occasionally reminded him that a decent regard for consistency
should impel him to act in accordance with his anti-slavery record;
but when, in 1860, Hunt began the crusade that successfully fused the
Douglas and Bell tickets in New York, thus seriously endangering the
election of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican editors opened their
batteries upon him with well-directed aim. In his one attempt to face
these attacks, Hunt taunted Greeley with being "more dangerous to
friend than to foe." To this the editor of the _Tribune_ retorted:
"When I was your friend, you were six times before the people as a
candidate for most desirable offices, and in five of those six were
successful, while you were repeatedly a candidate before and have been
since, and always defeated. Possibly some have found me a dangerous
friend, 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 gave
rise to a bitter controversy which at once impaired its value. The
Bell negotiators declared that the ten electors, if chosen, would be
free to vote for their own candidate, while the Douglas mediators
stated with emphasis that each elector was not only pledged by the
resolution of the convention to support Douglas, but was required to
give his consent to do so or allow another to fill his place. "We
cannot tell which answer is right," said the New York _Sun_, "but it
looks as if there were deception practised." The _Tribune_ presented
the ridiculous phase of it when it declared that the Bell electors
were put up to catch the Know-Nothings, while the others would trap
the Irish and Germans. "Is this the way," it asked, referring to
William Kent and his associates, "in which honourable men who have
characters to support, conduct political contests?"[581] To dissipate
the confusion, Hunt explained that the defeat of Lincoln would
probably throw the election into Congress, in which event Bell would
become President. "But we declare, with the same frankness, that if
Douglas, and not Bell, shall become President, we will welcome that
result as greatly preferable to the success of sectional
candidates."[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 Democratic
party. Seward and his friends had regained their composure. A
midsummer trip to New England, chiefly for recreation, had brought
great crowds about the Auburn statesmen wherever he appeared, and,
encouraged by their enthusiastic devotion, he returned satisfied with
the place he held in the hearts of Republicans. His followers, too,
indicated their disappointment by no public word or sign. To the end
of the convention its proceedings were marked by harmony and
unanimity. Edwin D. Morgan was renominated for governor by
acclamation; the platform of Chicago principles was adopted amidst
prolonged cheers, and the selection of electors approved without
dissent. The happy combination of the two electors-at-large, William
Cullen Bryant and James O. Putnam, evidenced the spirit of loyalty to
Abraham Lincoln that inspired all participants. Bryant had been an
oracle of the radical democracy for more than twenty years, and had
stubbornly opposed Seward; Putnam, a Whig of the school of Clay and
Webster, had, until recently, zealously supported Millard Fillmore and
the American party. In its eagerness to unite every phase of
anti-slavery sentiment the convention buried the past in its desire to
know, in the words of Seward, "whether this is a constitutional
government under which we live."

During the campaign, Republican demonstrations glorified Lincoln's
early occupation of rail-splitting, while the Wide-awakes, composed
largely of young men who had studied the slavery question since 1852
solely as a moral issue, illuminated the night and aroused enthusiasm
with their torches and expert marching. As early as in September, the
New York _Herald_ estimated that over four hundred thousand were
already uniformed and drilled. In every town and village these
organisations, unique then, although common enough nowadays, were
conscious appeals for sympathy and favour, and undoubtedly contributed
much to the result by enlisting the hearty support of first voters.
Indeed, on the Republican side, it was largely a campaign of young
men. "The Republican party," said Seward at Cleveland, "is a party
chiefly of young men. Each successive year brings into its ranks an
increasing 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 almost
numberless speeches were the feature of the canvass of 1860. There
had, perhaps, been more exciting and enthusiastic campaigns, but the
number of meetings was without precedent. The _Tribune_ estimated that
ten thousand set addresses were made in New York alone, and that the
number in the country equalled all that had been made in previous
presidential canvasses since 1789. It is likewise true that at no time
in the history of the State did so many distinguished men take part in
a campaign. Though the clergy were not so obtrusive as in 1856, Henry
Ward Beecher and Edwin H. Chapin, the eminent Universalist, did not
hesitate to deliver political sermons from their pulpits, closing
their campaign on the Sunday evening before election.

But the New Yorker whom the Republican masses most desired to hear and
see was William H. Seward. Accordingly, in the latter part of August
he started on a five weeks' tour through the Western States, beginning
at Detroit and closing at Cleveland. At every point where train or
steamboat stopped, if only for fifteen minutes, thousands of people
awaited his coming. The day he spoke in Chicago, it was estimated that
two 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, attracting
such attention and honour, and arousing such enthusiasm, that the
closing months of the campaign were the most brilliant epoch of his
life. 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 they
resembled one another. But in freshness of thought and kaleidoscopic
phraseology, they were attractive, full of eloquence, and of
statesmanlike comment, lifting the campaign, then just opening, upon
a high plane of political and moral patriotism. He avoided all
personalities; he indicated no disappointment;[585] his praise of
Lincoln was in excellent taste; and without evasion or concealment,
but with a ripeness of experience that had mellowed and enlightened
him, he talked of "higher law" and the "irrepressible conflict" in
terms that made men welcome rather than fear their discussion. "Let
this battle be decided in favour of freedom in the territories," he
declared, "and not one slave will ever be carried into the territories
of the United States, and that will end the irrepressible
conflict."[586]

[Footnote 585: "Seward charged his defeat chiefly to Greeley. He felt
toward that influential editor as much vindictiveness as was possible
in a man of so amiable a nature. But he did not retire to his
tent."--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 2, p.
494.

"The magnanimity of Mr. Seward, since the result of the convention was
known," wrote James Russell Lowell, "has been a greater ornament to
him and a greater honour to his party than his election to the
Presidency 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 he
attributed to the exclusion of slave labour, seemed to inspire him
with the hope and faith of youth, and he spoke of its reservation for
freedom and its settlement and upbuilding in the critical moment of
the country's history as providential, since it must rally the free
States of the Atlantic coast to call back the ancient principles which
had been abandoned by the government to slavery. "We resign to you,"
he said, "the banner of human rights and human liberty on this
continent, and we bid you be firm, bold, and onward, and then you may
hope that we will be able to follow you." It was in one of these
moments of exaltation when he seemed to be lifted into the higher
domain of prophecy that he made the prediction afterward realised by
the Alaska treaty. "Standing here and looking far off into the
Northwest," he said, "I see the Russian as he busily occupies himself
in establishing seaports and towns and fortifications on the verge of
this continent as the outposts of St. Petersburg, and I can say, 'Go
on, and build up your outposts all along the coast, up even to the
Arctic Ocean, for they will yet become the outposts of my own
country--monuments of the civilisation of the United States in the
Northwest."[587]

[Footnote 587: F.W. Seward, _Life of W.H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 464.]

At the beginning of the canvass, Republican confidence and enthusiasm
contrasted strangely with the apathy of the Democratic party, caused
by its two tickets, two organisations, and two incompatible platforms.
It was recognised early in the campaign that Douglas could carry no
slave State unless it be Missouri; and, although the Douglas and Bell
fusion awaked some hope, it was not until the fusion electoral ticket
included supporters of Breckenridge that the struggle became vehement
and energetic. New York's thirty-five votes were essential to the
election of Lincoln, and early in September a determined effort began
to unite the three parties against him. The Hards resisted the
movement, 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 the
substitution of seven Breckenridge electors in place of as many
Douglas supporters, giving Bell ten, Breckenridge seven, and Douglas
eighteen. "It is understood," said the _Tribune_, "that four nabobs
have already subscribed twenty-five thousand dollars each, and that
one million is to be raised."[588]

[Footnote 588: New York _Tribune_, October 19, 1860.]

All this disturbed Lincoln. "I think there will be the most
extraordinary effort ever made to carry New York for Douglas," he
wrote Weed on August 17. "You and all others who write me from your
State think the effort cannot succeed, and I hope you are right.
Still, it will require close watching and great efforts on the other
side."[589] After fusion did succeed, the Republican managers found
encouragement in the fact that a majority of the Americans in the
western part of the State,[590] following the lead of Putnam,
belonged to the party of Lincoln, while the Germans gave comforting
evidence of their support. On his return from the West Seward assured
Lincoln "that this State will redeem all the pledges we have
made."[591] Then came the October verdict from Pennsylvania and
Indiana. "Emancipation or revolution is now upon us," said the
Charleston _Mercury_.[592] Yet the hope of the New York fusionists,
encouraged by a stock panic in Wall Street and by the unconcealed
statement of Howell Cobb of Georgia, then secretary of the treasury,
that Lincoln's election would be followed by disunion and a serious
derangement of the financial interests of the country, kept the Empire
State violently excited. It was reported in Southern newspapers that
William B. Astor had contributed one million of dollars in aid of the
fusion ticket.[593] It was a formidable combination of elements.
Heretofore the Republican party had defeated them separately--now it
met them as a united whole, when antagonisms, ceasing to be those of
rational debate, had become those of fierce and furious passion.
Greeley pronounced it "a struggle as intense, as vehement, and as
energetic, as had ever been known," in New York.[594] Yet Thurlow
Weed's confidence never wavered. "The fusion leaders have largely
increased their fund," he wrote Lincoln, three days before the
election, "and they are now using money lavishly. This stimulates and
to some extent inspires confidence, and all the confederates are at
work. Some of our friends are nervous. But I have no fear of the
result 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 who
voted for Fillmore in 1856 are inscribed on Republican poll-lists."--New
York _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 _National
Intelligencer_, 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 they
foreshadowed Lincoln's success, and the next morning's _Tribune_
estimated that the Republicans had carried the electoral and state
tickets by 30,000 to 50,000, with both branches of the Legislature and
twenty-three out of thirty-three congressmen. The official figures did
not change this prophecy, except to fix Lincoln's majority at 50,136
and Morgan's plurality at 63,460. Lincoln received 4374 votes more
than 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 the
pro-slavery candidate's small support, leaving Morgan a clear majority
of 43,619.[596] "Mr. Dickinson and myself," said James T. Brady, six
years later, in his tribute to the former's memory, "belonged to the
small, despairing band in this State who carried into the political
contest of the North, for the last time, the flag of the South,
contending that the South should enjoy to the utmost, and with liberal
recognition, all the rights she could fairly claim under the
Constitution of the United States. How small that band was all
familiar 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 of
Daniel S. Dickinson.]




CHAPTER XXV

GREELEY, WEED, AND SECESSION

1860-1861


Upon the election of Lincoln in November, 1860, South Carolina almost
immediately gave evidence of its purpose to secede from the Union.
Democrats generally, and many supporters of Bell and Everett, had
deemed secession probable in the event of Republican success--a belief
so fully shared by the authorities at Washington, who understood the
Southern people, that General Scott, then at the head of the army,
wrote to President Buchanan before the end of October, advising that
forts in all important Southern seaports be strengthened to avoid
capture by surprise. On the other hand, the Republicans had regarded
Southern threats as largely buncombe. They had been heard in 1820, in
1850, and so frequently in debate leading up to the contest in 1860,
that William H. Seward, the most powerful leader of opinion in his
party, had declared: "These hasty threats of disunion are so unnatural
that 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 Legislature
passed an act calling a convention to meet on December 17, the
Republicans, still enthusiastic over their success, began seriously to
consider the question of disunion. "Do you think the South will
secede?" became as common a salutation as "Good-morning;" and,
although a few New Yorkers, perhaps, gave the indifferent reply of
Henry Ward Beecher--"I don't believe they will; and I don't care if
they do"[599]--the gloom and uncertainty which hung over business
circles 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 Watson
Webb of the _Courier_, had been quick to meet any emergency, and their
followers now looked to them for direction.

[Footnote 599: New York _Tribune_, November 30, 1860. The quotation is
from an address delivered in Boston.]

Horace Greeley was admittedly the most influential Republican
journalist. He had not always agreed with the leaders, and just now an
open break existed in the relations of himself and the powerful
triumvirate headed by Thurlow Weed; but Greeley had voiced the
sentiment of the rank and file of his party more often than he had
misstated it, and the _Tribune_ readers naturally turned to their
prophet for a solution of the pending trouble. As usual, he had an
opinion. The election occurred on November 6, and on the 9th he
declared that "if the cotton States shall decide that they can do
better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in
peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists
nevertheless.... Whenever a considerable section of our Union shall
deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures
designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic, whereof
one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets."[600] Two weeks
later, on November 26, he practically repeated these views. "If the
cotton States unitedly and earnestly wish to withdraw peacefully from
the Union, we think they should and would be allowed to go. Any
attempt to compel them by force to remain would be contrary to the
principles enunciated in the immortal Declaration of Independence,
contrary to the fundamental ideas on which human liberty is
based."[601] As late as December 17, when South Carolina and other
Southern States were on the threshold of secession, Greeley declared
that "if the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from
the British Empire of three millions of colonists in 1776, we do not
see why it should not justify the secession of five millions of
Southrons from the Union in 1861."[602] In January, he recanted in a
measure. Yet, on February 23, he announced that "Whenever it shall be
clear that the great body of the Southern people have become
conclusively 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] also
inclined to this view; and, in November and December, a few
Republicans, because of a general repugnance to the coercion of a
State, did not despise it. Naturally, however, the Greeley policy did
not please the great bulk of Lincoln's intelligent supporters. The
belief obtained that, the election having been fair and
constitutional, the South ought to submit to the decision as readily
as Northern Democrats acquiesced in it. Besides, a spontaneous feeling
existed that the United States was a nation, that secession was
treason, and seceders were traitors. Such people sighed for "an hour
of Andrew Jackson;" and, to supply the popular demand, Jackson's
proclamation against the nullifiers, written by Edward Livingston, a
native of New York, then secretary of state, was published in a cheap
and convenient edition. To the readers of such literature Greeley's
peaceable secession seemed like the erratic policy of an eccentric
thinker, and its promulgation, especially when it began giving comfort
and encouragement to the South, contributed not a little to the defeat
of its author for the United States Senate in the following February.

[Footnote 604: _Ibid._, November 30. "In so far as the Free States are
concerned," he said, "I hold that it will be an advantage for the
South to go off."]

[Footnote 605: _The Liberator_, November and December.]

Thurlow Weed also had a plan, which quickly attracted the attention of
people in the South as well as in the North. He held that suggestions
of compromise which the South could accept might be proposed without
dishonour to the victors in the last election, and, in several
carefully written editorials in the _Evening Journal_, he argued in
favour of restoring the old line of the Missouri Compromise, and of
substituting for the fugitive slave act, payment for rescued slaves by
the counties in which the violation of law occurred. "When we refer,
as we often do, triumphantly to the example of England," he said, "we
are prone to forget that emancipation and compensation were provisions
of 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 little
less energy than in 1824, when he drove about the State in his first
encounter with Martin Van Buren. The success of the views he had
fearlessly maintained, in defiance of menacing opponents, had been
achieved in full measure, and he had reason to be proud of his
conspicuous part in the result; but now, in the presence of secession
which threatened the country because of that success, he seemed
suddenly to revolt against the policy he himself had fostered. As his
biographer expressed it, "he cast aside the weapons which none could
wield so well,"[607] and, betraying the influences of his early
training under the great Whig leaders, began to show his love for the
Union 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 discussion
provoked by it might result in working out some plan to avoid
disunion.[608] Raymond, in the _Times_, and Webb in the _Courier_,
gave it cordial support; the leading New York business men of all
parties expressed themselves favourable to conciliation and
compromise. "I can assure you," wrote August Belmont to Governor
Sprague of Rhode Island, on December 13, "that all the leaders of the
Republican party in our State and city, with a few exceptions of the
ultra radicals, are in favour of concessions, and that the popular
mind of the North is ripe for them." On December 19 he wrote again:
"Last evening I was present at an informal meeting of about thirty
gentlemen, comprising our leading men, Republicans, Union men, and
Democrats, composed of such names as Astor, Aspinwall, Moses H.
Grinnell, Hamilton Fish, R.M. Blatchford, &c. They were unanimous in
their voice for reconciliation, and that the first steps have to be
taken 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 the
bulk of the Republicans did not like a plan that overthrew the
cornerstone of their party, which had won on its opposition to the
extension of slavery into free territory. To go back to the line of
36° 30´, permitting slavery to the south of it, meant the loss of all
that had been gained, and a renewal of old issues and hostilities in
the near future. Republican congressmen from the State, almost without
exception, yielded to this view, voicing the sentiment that it was
vain to temporise longer with compromises. With fluent invective,
James B. McKean of Saratoga assailed the South in a speech that
recalled the eloquence of John W. Taylor, his distinguished
predecessor, who, in 1820, led the forces of freedom against the
Missouri Compromise. "The slave-holders," he said, "have been fairly
defeated in a presidential election. They now demand that the victors
shall concede to the vanquished all that the latter have ever claimed,
and vastly more than they could secure when they themselves were
victors. They take their principles in one hand, and the sword in the
other, and reaching out the former they say to us, 'Take these for
your own, or we will strike.'"[610]

[Footnote 610: _Congressional Globe_, 1860-61, _Appendix_, p. 221.
"Never, with my consent, shall the Constitution ordain or protect
human slavery in any territory. Where it exists by law I will
recognise it, but never shall it be extended over one acre of free
territory." Speech of James Humphrey of Brooklyn.--_Ibid._, p. 158.
"Why should we now make any concessions to them? With our experience
of the little importance attached to former compromises by the South,
it is ridiculous to talk about entering into another. The restoration
of the Missouri line, with the protection of slavery south of it, will
not save the Union." Speech of John B. Haskin of Fordham.--_Ibid._, p.
264. "The people of the North regard the election of Mr. Lincoln as
the assurance that the day of compromise has ended; that henceforth
slavery shall have all the consideration which is constitutionally due
it and no more; that freedom shall have all its rights recognised and
respected." Speech of Charles L. Beale of Kinderhook.--_Ibid._, p.
974. "We of the North are called upon to save the Union by making
concessions and giving new guarantees to the South.... But I am
opposed to tinkering with the Constitution, especially in these
exciting times. I am satisfied with it as it is." Speech of Alfred Ely
of Rochester.--_Ibid._, _Appendix_, p. 243. "I should be opposed to
any alteration of the Constitution which would extend the area of
slavery." Speech of Luther C. Carter of Flushing.--_Ibid._, p. 278. "I
am 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 suggested
a "Convention of the people consisting of delegates appointed by the
States, to which North and South might bring their respective griefs,
claims, and reforms to a common arbitrament, to meet, discuss, and
determine upon a future. It will be said that we have done nothing
wrong, and have nothing to offer. This is precisely why we should both
purpose and offer whatever may, by possibility, avert the evils of
civil war and prevent the destruction of our hitherto unexampled
blessings of Union."[611]

[Footnote 611: Albany _Evening Journal_, November 30, 1860.]

Preston King, the junior United States senator from New York, clearly
voicing the sentiment of the majority of his party in Congress and out
of it, bitterly opposed such a policy. "It cannot be done," he wrote
Weed, on December 7. "You must abandon your position. It will prove
distasteful to the majority of those whom you have hitherto led. You
and Seward should be among the foremost to brandish the lance and
shout for joy."[612] To this the famous editor, giving a succinct view
of his policy, replied with his usual directness. "I have not dreamed
of anything inconsistent with Republican duty. We owe our existence as
a party to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. But for the ever
blind spirit of slavery, Buchanan would have taken away our ammunition
and spiked our guns. The continued blindness of Democracy and the
continued madness of slavery enabled us to elect Lincoln. That success
ends our mission so far as Kansas and the encroachments of slavery
into free territory are concerned. We have no territory that invites
slavery for any other than political objects, and with the power of
territorial organisation in the hands of Lincoln, there is no
political temptation in all the territory belonging to us. The fight
is over. Practically, the issues of the late campaign are obsolete. If
the Republican members of Congress stand still, we shall have a
divided North and a united South. If they move promptly, there will be
a 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 in
favour of his proposition, since the same compromise and the same
arguments were made use of a few weeks later by no less a person than
the venerable John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, the Nestor of the United
States Senate. Crittenden was ten years older than Weed, and, like
him, was actuated by sincere patriotism. Although his compromise
contained six proposed amendments to the Constitution, it was believed
that all differences between the sections could easily be adjusted
after the acceptance of the first article, which recognised slavery as
existing south of latitude 36° 30´, and pledged it protection "as
property by all the departments of the territorial government during
its continuance." The article also provided that States should be
admitted from territory either north or south of that line, with or
without slavery, as their constitutions might declare.[614] This part
of the compromise was not new to Congress or to the country. It had
been made, on behalf of the South, in 1847, and defeated by a vote of
114 to 82, only four Northern Democrats sustaining it. It was again
defeated more decisively in 1848, when proposed by Douglas. "Thus the
North," wrote Greeley, "under the lead of the Republicans, was
required, in 1860, to make, on pain of civil war, concessions to
slavery which it had utterly refused when divided only between the
conservative parties of a few years before."[615]

[Footnote 614: The full text of the Crittenden compromise is given in
the _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 influences
that supported the Weed plan. "I would most cheerfully accept it,"
wrote John A. Dix. "I feel a strong confidence that we could carry
three-fourths of the States in favour of it as an amendment to the
Constitution."[616] August Belmont said he had "yet to meet the first
conservative Union-loving man, in or out of politics, who does not
approve of your compromise propositions.... In our own city and State
some of the most prominent men are ready to follow the lead of Weed.
Restoration of the Missouri line finds favour with most of the
conservative Republicans, and their number is increasing daily."[617]
Belmont, now more than earlier in the month, undoubtedly expressed a
ripening sentiment that was fostered by the gloomy state of trade,
creating feverish conditions in the stock market, forcing New York
banks to issue clearing-house certificates, and causing a marked
decline in the Republican vote at the municipal election in
Hudson.[618] Indeed, there is abundant evidence that the Crittenden
proposition, if promptly carried out in December, might have resulted
in peace. The Senate committee of thirteen to whom it was
referred--consisting of two senators from the cotton States, three
from the border States, three Northern Democrats, and five
Republicans--decided that no report should be adopted unless it had
the assent of a majority of the Republicans, and also a majority of
the eight other members. Six of the eight voted for it. All the
Republicans, and Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs, representing the
cotton States, voted against it. The evidence however, is almost
convincing that Davis and Toombs would have supported it in December
if the Republicans had voted for it. In speeches in the open Senate,
Douglas declared it,[619] Toombs admitted it,[620] and Davis implied
it.[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 should
offer all you suggest, and with it the restoration of the Missouri
Compromise line. But persons acting for those States intimate that
they might be so arrested, because they think that the Republicans are
not going to concede the restoration of that line."[622] It is likely
Seward hesitated to believe that his vote against the compromise, for
whatever reason it was given, helped to inaugurate hostilities; and
yet nothing is clearer, in spite of his letter to Lincoln, than that
in December the Republicans defeated the Crittenden compromise, the
adoption 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, every
member from the South, including those from the cotton States,
expressed their readiness to accept the proposition of my venerable
friend from Kentucky as a final settlement of the controversy, if
tendered and sustained by the Republican members." Douglas in the
Senate, 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." Toombs
in the Senate, January 7, 1861.--_Globe_, p. 270. "I can confirm the
Senator's declaration that Senator Davis himself, when on the
committee of thirteen, was ready, at all times, to compromise on the
Crittenden proposition. I will go further and say that Mr. Toombs was
also." Douglas in the Senate, March 2, 1861.--_Globe_, p. 1391.]

[Footnote 621: See Davis's speech of January 10, 1861. _Congressional
Globe_, 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 were
grooming him for United States senator, Greeley, before the end of
December, had, in a measure, given up his damaging doctrine of
peaceable secession, and accepted the "no compromise" policy, laid
down by Benjamin F. Wade, as "the only true, the only honest, the only
safe doctrine."[624] It was necessary to Greeley's position just then,
and to the stage of development which his candidacy had reached, that
he should oppose Weed's compromise. On the 22d of December, therefore,
he wrote the President-elect: "I fear nothing, care for nothing, but
another disgraceful backdown of the free States. That is the only real
danger. Let the Union slide--it may be reconstructed; let Presidents
be assassinated--we can elect more; let the Republicans be defeated
and crushed--we shall rise again. But another nasty compromise,
whereby everything is conceded and nothing secured, will so thoroughly
disgrace and humiliate us that we can never raise our heads, and this
country becomes a second edition of the Barbary States, as they were
sixty years ago. 'Take any form but that.'"[625] On the same day the
_Tribune_ announced that "Mr. Lincoln is utterly opposed to any
concession or compromise that shall yield one iota of the position
occupied by the Republican party on the subject of slavery in the
territories, and that he stands now, as he stood in May last, when he
accepted the nomination for the Presidency, square upon the Chicago
platform."[626] Thus Lincoln had reassured Greeley's shrinking faith,
and thenceforward his powerful journal took a more healthy and hopeful
tone.[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 to
Washington, interviewed Republican members of Congress, and finally
visited Lincoln at Springfield. Tickling the ear with a pleasing
sentiment and alliteration, he wanted Republicans, he said, "to meet
secession as patriots and not as partisans."[628] He especially urged
forbearance and concession out of consideration for Union men in
Southern States. "Apprehending that we should be called upon to test
the strength of the Government," he wrote, on January 9, 1861, "we
saw, what is even more apparent now, that the effort would tax all its
faculties and strain all its energies. Hence our desire before the
trial came to make up a record that would challenge the approval of
the world. This was due not less to ourselves than to the Union men of
Southern States, who, with equal patriotism and more of sacrifice,
amidst the pitiless peltings of the disunion storm, sought, like the
dove sent out from the ark, a dry spot on which to set their
feet."[629]

[Footnote 628: _Ibid._, p. 261.]

[Footnote 629: Albany _Evening Journal_, January 9, 1861.]

Weed's sincerity remained unquestioned, and his opinion, so ardently
supported outside his party, would probably have had weight within his
party under other conditions; but the President-elect, with his mind
inflexibly made up on the question of extending slavery into the
territories, refused to yield the cardinal principle of the Chicago
platform. "Entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to the
extension of slavery," he wrote, December 11, to William Kellogg, a
member of Congress from Illinois. "The instant you do, they have us
under again; all our labour is lost, and sooner or later must be done
over.... The tug has to come, and better now than later. You know I
think the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution ought to be
enforced--to put it in its mildest form, ought not to be
resisted."[630] Two days later, in a letter to E.B. Washburne, also an
Illinois member of Congress, he objected to the scheme for restoring
the Missouri Compromise line. "Let that be done and immediately
filibustering and extending slavery recommences. On that point hold
firm as a chain of steel."[631] To Weed himself, on December 17, he
repeated 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 a
strenuous, hard hitter, who gave everybody as much sport as he wanted,
he was a fair fighter, whom the bitterest critics of the radical
Republican press united in praising for his consistency; but his
epigrams and incisive arguments, sending a vibrating note of
earnestness across the Alleghanies, could not move the modest and, as
yet, unknown man of the West, who, unswayed by the fears of Wall
Street, and the teachings of the great Whig compromisers, saw with a
statesman's clearness the principle that explained the reason for his
party's existence.




CHAPTER XXVI

SEYMOUR AND THE PEACE DEMOCRATS

1860-1861


While the contest over secession was raising its crop of disturbance
and disorder at Washington, newspapers and politicians in the North
continued 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 perils
darkening the national skies, and Bell men sought for a compromise.
Four days after the election of Lincoln, the Albany _Argus_ clearly
and temperately expressed the view generally taken of the secession
movement by Democratic journals of New York. "We are not at all
surprised at the manifestations of feeling at the South," it said. "We
expected and predicted it; and for so doing were charged by the
Republican press with favouring disunion; while, in fact, we simply
correctly appreciated the feeling of that section of the Union. We
sympathise with and justify the South, as far as this--their rights
have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of
the Constitution; and, if we deemed it certain that the real animus of
the Republican party could become the permanent policy of the nation,
we should think that all the instincts of self-preservation and of
manhood rightfully impelled them to resort to revolution and a
separation from the Union, and we would applaud them and wish them
God-speed in the adoption of such a remedy."[633]

[Footnote 633: Albany _Argus_, November 10, 1860. On November 12 the
Rochester _Union_ argued that the threatened secession of the slave
States was but a counterpoise of the personal liberty bills and other
measures of antagonism to slave-holding at the North. See, also, the
New York _Herald_, November 9.]

This was published in the heat of party conflict and Democratic
defeat, when writers assumed that a compromise, if any adjustment was
needed, would, of course, be forthcoming as in 1850. A little later,
as conditions became more threatening, the talk of peaceable secession
growing out of a disinclination to accept civil war, commended itself
to persons who thought a peaceful dissolution of the Union, if the
slave-holding South should seek it, preferable to such an
alternative.[634] But as the spectre of dismemberment of the nation
came nearer, concessions to the South as expressed in the Weed plan,
and, later, in the Crittenden compromise, commended itself to a large
part of the people. A majority of the voters at the preceding election
undoubtedly favoured such an adjustment. The votes cast for Douglas,
Bell, and Breckenridge in the free States, with one-fourth of those
cast 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 of
conciliation, forbearance, and compromise."[635] Rhodes, the
historian, approving this estimate, expresses the belief that the
Crittenden compromise, if submitted to the people, would have
commanded 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, this
belief dominated the Democratic party as well as a large number of
conservative Republicans; but, as the winter passed without
substantial progress toward an effective compromise, the cloud of
trouble assumed larger proportions and an alarmist spirit spread
abroad. After Major Anderson, on the night of December 27, had
transferred his command from its exposed position at Fort Moultrie to
the stronger one at Fort Sumter, it was not uncommon to hear upon the
streets disloyal sentiments blended with those of willing sacrifice
to maintain the Union. This condition was accentuated by the action of
the Legislature, which convened on January 2, 1861, with twenty-three
Republicans and nine Democrats in the Senate, and ninety-three
Republicans and thirty-five Democrats in the House. In his message,
Governor Morgan urged moderation and conciliation. "Let New York," he
said, "set an example; let her oppose no barrier, but let her
representatives in Congress give ready support to any just and
honourable sentiment; let her stand in hostility to none, but extend
the hand of friendship to all, cordially uniting with other members of
the Confederacy in proclaiming and enforcing a determination that the
Constitution shall be honoured and the Union of the States be
preserved."

On January 7, five days after this dignified and conservative appeal,
Fernando Wood, imitating the example of South Carolina, advocated the
secession of the city from the State. "Why should not New York City,"
said the Mayor, as if playing the part of a satirist, "instead of
supporting by her contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses
of the United States, become, also, equally independent? As a free
city, with a nominal duty on imports, her local government could be
supported without taxation upon her people.... Thus we could live free
from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free.... When disunion
has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York disrupt the
bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master--to a people and a
party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her
commerce, taken away the power of self-government, and destroyed the
confederacy 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 that
makes him content with being a blackguard."[638] The next day
Confederate forts fired upon the _Star of the West_ while endeavouring
to 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 were
quickly followed by the passage, through the Legislature, of a
concurrent resolution, tendering the President "whatever aid in men
and money may be required to enable him to enforce the laws and uphold
the authority of the Federal Government; and that, in the defence of
the Union, which has conferred prosperity and happiness upon the
American people, renewing the pledge given and redeemed by our
fathers, we are ready to devote our fortunes, our lives, and our
sacred honour."[639] This resolution undoubtedly expressed the
overwhelming preponderance of sentiment in the State,[640] but its
defiant tone, blended with the foolish words of Wood and the menacing
act of South Carolina, called forth greater efforts for compromise, to
the accomplishment of which a mammoth petition, signed by the leading
business men of the State, was sent to Congress, praying that
"measures, either of direct legislation or of amendment of the
Constitution, may be speedily adopted, which, we are assured, will
restore 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 are
waiting with impatience for your assumption of the great office to
which the suffrage of a free people has called you, and will hail you
as a deliverer from treason and anarchy. In New York City all classes
and parties are rapidly uniting in this sentiment, and here in Albany,
where I am spending a few days in attendance upon Court, the general
tone of feeling and thinking about public affairs shows little
difference between Republicans and Democrats."--W.M. Evarts to Abraham
Lincoln, January 15, 1861. Unpublished letter on file in Department of
State at Washington.]

[Footnote 641: _Appleton's Cyclopædia_, 1861, p. 520.]

On January 18, a meeting of the merchants of New York City, held in
the Chamber of Commerce, unanimously adopted a memorial, addressed to
Congress, urging the acceptance of the Crittenden compromise. Similar
action to maintain peace in an honourable way was taken in other
cities of the State, while congressmen were daily loaded with appeals
favouring any compromise that would keep the peace. Among other
petitions of this character, Elbridge G. Spaulding presented one from
Buffalo, signed by Millard Fillmore, Henry W. Rogers, and three
thousand 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 conference
to be held at Washington on February 4. Nothing had occurred in the
intervening weeks to change the sentiment of the Legislature,
expressed earlier in the session; but, after much discussion and many
delays, it was resolved, in acceding to the request of Virginia, that
"it is not to be understood that this Legislature approves of the
propositions submitted, or concedes the propriety of their adoption by
the proposed convention. But while adhering to the position she has
heretofore occupied, New York will not reject an invitation to a
conference, which, by bringing together the men of both sections,
holds out the possibility of an honourable settlement of our national
difficulties, and the restoration of peace and harmony to the
country."

The balloting for commissioners resulted in the election of David
Dudley 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 the
proviso, however, that they were to take no part in the proceedings
unless a majority of the non-slave-holding States were represented.
The appearance of Francis Granger upon the commission was the act of
Thurlow Weed. Granger, happy in his retirement at Canandaigua, had
been out of office and out of politics so many years that, as he said
in a letter to the editor of the _Evening Journal_, "it is with the
greatest repugnance that I think of again appearing before the
public."[642] But Weed urged him, and Granger accepted "the
flattering honour."[643] Thus, after many years of estrangement, the
leader of the Woolies clasped hands again with the chief of the
Silver-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 boxes
of muskets by the New York police kept the people conscious of the
strained relations between the States. The ownership of the guns, left
for shipment to Savannah, would ordinarily have been promptly settled
in a local court; but the detention now became an affair of national
importance, involving the governors of two States and leading to the
seizure of half a dozen merchant vessels lying peacefully at anchor in
Savannah harbour. Instead of entering the courts, the consignor
telegraphed the consignees of the "seizure," the consignees notified
Governor Brown of Georgia, and the Governor wired Governor Morgan of
New York, demanding their immediate release. Receiving no reply to his
message, Brown, in retaliation, ordered the seizure of all vessels at
Savannah belonging to citizens of New York. Although Governor Morgan
gave the affair no attention beyond advising the vessel owners that
their rights must be prosecuted in the United States courts, the
shipment of the muskets and the release of the vessels soon closed the
incident; but Brown's indecent zeal to give the episode an
international character by forcing into notice the offensive
assumption of an independent sovereignty, had much influence in
hardening the "no compromise" attitude of many Northern people.

Nevertheless, the men of New York who desired peace on any honourable
terms, seemed to grow more earnest as the alarm in the public mind
became more intense. South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,
Louisiana, and Mississippi had now seceded, and, as a last appeal to
them, a monster and notable Union meeting, held at Cooper Institute on
January 28 and addressed by eminent men of all parties, designated
James T. Brady, Cornelius K. Garrison, and Appleton Oaksmith, as
commissioners to confer with delegates to the conventions of these
seceding States "in regard to measures best calculated to restore the
peace and integrity of this Union."[644] Scarcely had the meeting
adjourned, however, before John A. Dix, as secretary of the treasury,
thrilled the country by his fearless and historic dispatch, "If any
one 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 a
wise, prudent, sagacious statesman of undaunted courage and integrity.
With the exception of his connection with the Barnburners in 1848, he
had been an exponent of the old Democratic traditions, and, next to
Horatio Seymour, did more, probably, than any other man to bring about
a reunion of his party in 1852. Nevertheless, the Southern politicians
never forgave him. President Pierce offered him the position of
secretary of state, and then withdrew it with the promise of sending
him as minister to France; but the South again defeated him. From that
time until his appointment as postmaster of New York, following the
discovery, 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 by
Fowler's embezzlement, such characteristics were more in demand, in
January, 1861, at the treasury, when the government was compelled to
pay twelve per cent. for a loan of five millions, while New York State
sevens were taken at an average of 101-1/4.[646] Bankers refused
longer to furnish money until the Cabinet contained men upon whom the
friends of the government and the Union could rely, and Buchanan,
yielding to the inevitable, appointed the man clearly indicated by the
financiers.[647]

[Footnote 645: Fowler, who was appointed postmaster of New York by
President Pierce, began a system of embezzlements in 1855, which
amounted, at the time of his removal, to $155,000.--Report of
Postmaster-General Holt, _Senate Document_, 36th Congress, 1st
Session, XI., 48. "In one year Fowler's bill at the New York Hotel,
which he made the Democratic headquarters, amounted to $25,000. His
brother, John Walker Fowler, clerk to Surrogate Tucker, subsequently
absconded with $31,079, belonging to orphans and others."--Gustavus
Myers, _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 the
President to come at once to the White House. He went immediately and
was offered the War Department. This he declined, informing Mr.
Buchanan, as had been agreed upon, that at that moment he could be of
no service to him in any position except that of the Treasury
Department, and that he would accept no other post. The President
asked for time. The following day he had Mr. Philip Thomas's
resignation in his hand, and sent General Dix's name to the Senate. It
was 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 his
soldier days, Dix had no ambition to be in advance of his party. He
favoured the Crittenden compromise, advocated Southern rights under
the limits of the Constitution, and wrote to leaders in the South with
the familiarity of an old friend. "I recall occasions," wrote his son,
"when my father spoke to me on the questions of the day, disclosing
the grave trouble that possessed his thoughts. On one such occasion he
referred to the possibility that New York might become a free city,
entirely independent, in case of a general breakup;[648] not that he
advocated the idea, but he placed it in the category of possibilities.
It was his opinion that a separation, if sought by the South through
peaceful means alone, must be conceded by the North, as an evil less
than that of war.... Above all else, however, next to God, he loved
the country and the flag. He did everything in his power to avert the
final catastrophe. But when the question was reduced to that simple,
lucid proposition presented by the leaders of secession, he had but
one answer, and gave it with an emphasis and in words which were as
lightning coming out of the east and shining even unto the west."[649]

[Footnote 648: The plan advocated by Fernando Wood in his annual
message 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 the
Administration, Dix resided at the White House as the guest of the
President, and under his influence, coupled with that of Black, Holt,
and Stanton, Buchanan assumed a more positive tone in dealing with
secession. Heretofore, with the exception of Major Anderson's
movements at Fort Sumter, and Lieutenant Slemmer's daring act at Fort
Pickens, the seizure of federal property had gone on without
opposition or much noise; but now, at last, a prominent New Yorker,
well known to every public man in the State, had flashed a patriotic
order into the heart of the Southern Confederacy, startling the
country into a realising sense of the likelihood of civil war.

In the midst of this excitement, a state convention, called by the
Democratic state committee and composed of four delegates from each
assembly district, representing the party of Douglas, of Breckenridge,
and of Bell and Everett, assembled at Albany on January 31. Tweddle
Hall was scarcely large enough to contain those who longed to be
present at this peace conference. Of the prominent public men of the
Commonwealth belonging to the three parties, the major part seemed to
make up the assemblage, which Greeley pronounced "the strongest and
most imposing ever convened within the State."[650] On the platform
sat Horatio Seymour, Amasa J. Parker, and William Kelley, the Softs'
recent candidate for governor, while half a hundred men flanked them
on either side, who had been chosen to seats in Congress, in the
Legislature, and to other places of honour. "No convention which had
nominations to make, or patronage to dispose of, was ever so
influentially 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, his
abilities ran with swiftness along many channels of industry. In
stating the object of the convention, the vociferous applause which
greeted his declaration that the people of the State, demanding a
peaceful settlement of the questions leading to disunion, have a right
to insist upon conciliation and compromise, disclosed the almost
unanimous sentiment of the meeting; but the after-discussion developed
differences that anticipated the disruption that was to come to the
Democratic party three months later. One speaker justified Southern
secession by urgent considerations of necessity and safety; another
scouted the idea of coercing a seceding State; to a third, peaceful
separation, though painful and humiliating, seemed the only safe and
honourable way. Reuben H. Walworth, the venerable ex-chancellor,
declared that civil war, instead of restoring the Union, would forever
defeat its reconstruction. "It would be as brutal," he said, "to send
men to butcher our own brethren of the Southern States, as it would be
to massacre them in the Northern States."

Horatio Seymour received the heartiest greeting. Whether for good or
evil, according to the standards by which his critics may judge him,
he swayed the minds of his party to a degree that was unequalled among
his contemporaries. For ten years his name had been the most
intimately associated with party policies, and his influence the most
potent. The exciting events of the past three months, with six States
out of the Union and revolution already begun, had profoundly stirred
him. He had followed the proceedings of Congress, he had studied the
disposition of the South, he understood the sentiment in the North,
and his appeal for a compromise, without committing himself to some of
the extravagances which were poured forth in absolute good faith by
Walworth, earned him enthusiastic commendation from friends and
admirers. "The question is simply this," he said; "Shall we have
compromise _after_ war, or compromise _without_ war?" He eulogised the
valour of the South, he declared a blockade of its extended sea coast
nearly impossible, he hinted that successful coercion by the North
might not be less revolutionary than successful secession by the
South, he predicted the ruin of Northern industries, and he scolded
Congress, urging upon it a compromise--not to pacify seceding States,
but to save border States. "The cry of 'No compromise' is false in
morals," he declared; "it is treason to the spirit of the
Constitution; it is infidelity in religion; the cross itself is a
compromise, and is pleaded by many who refuse all charity to their
fellow-citizens. It is the vital principle of social existence; it
unites the family circle; it sustains the church, and upholds
nationalities.... But the Republicans complain that, having won a
victory, we ask them to surrender its fruits. We do not wish them to
give up any political advantage. We urge measures which are demanded
by 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 dined
with Horatio Seymour, Samuel J. Tilden and George Bancroft, wrote that
"the result left on my mind by their conversation and arguments was
that, according to the Constitution, the government could not employ
force to prevent secession, or to compel States which had seceded by
the will of the people to acknowledge the federal power."--Entry March
17, _Diary_, p. 20.]

It remained for George W. Clinton of Buffalo, the son of the
illustrious DeWitt Clinton, to lift the meeting to the higher plane of
genuine loyalty to the Union. Clinton was a Hard in politics. He had
stood with John A. Dix and Daniel S. Dickinson, had been defeated for
lieutenant-governor on their ticket, and had supported Breckenridge;
but when the fateful moment arrived at which a decision had to be made
for 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 government
under which we have been so happy and which will yet do so much for
the happiness of mankind. Gentlemen, I hate to use a word that will
offend my Southern brother, but we have reached a time when, as a
man--if you please, as a Democrat--I must use plain terms. There is no
such thing as legal secession. The Constitution of these United States
was intended to form a firm and perpetual Union. If secession be not
lawful, then, what is it? I use the term reluctantly but truly--it is
rebellion! rebellion against the noblest government man ever framed
for his own benefit and for the benefit of the world. What is it--this
secession? I am not speaking of the men. I love the men, but I hate
treason. What is it but nullification by the wholesale? I have
venerated Andrew Jackson, and my blood boiled, in old time, when that
brave patriot and soldier of Democracy said--'the Union, it must and
shall be preserved.' (Loud applause.) Preserve it? Why should we
preserve 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? Look
at it for a moment. Congress, for just cause, declares war, but one
State says, 'War is not for me--I secede.' And so another and another,
and the government is rendered powerless. I am not prepared to humble
the general government at the feet of the seceding States. I am
unwilling 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 the
wishes of my constituents--that, while I abhor coercion, in one sense,
as war, I wish to preserve the dignity of the government of these
United 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 and
planted themselves by the side of the country. But those who clung to
the party organisation, what did they do? A month before Mr. Lincoln
was inaugurated they held a state convention for the Democratic party
of the State of New York. It was said it was to save the country,--it
was whispered it was to save the party. The state committee called it
and representative men gathered to attend it.... They applauded to the
echo the very blasphemy of treason, but they attempted by points of
order to silence DeWitt Clinton's son because he dared to raise his
voice for the Constitution of his country and to call rebellion by its
proper 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 patriotic
sentiment, which, until then, had found no opportunity for expression;
yet the convention, in adopting a series of resolutions, was of one
mind on the question of submitting the Crittenden compromise to a
direct vote of the people. "Their voice," said the chairman, "will be
omnipresent here, and if it be raised in time it may be effectual
elsewhere."

There is something almost pathetic in the history of these efforts
which were made during the progress of secession, to avert, if
possible, the coming shock. The great peace conference, assembled by
the action of Virginia, belongs to these painful and wasted
endeavours. On February 4, the day that delegates from six cotton
States assembled at Montgomery to form a Southern confederacy, one
hundred and thirty-three commissioners, representing twenty-one
States, of which fourteen were non-slave-holding, met at Washington
and 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 mind
to avoid civil war, attracted wide attention. David Dudley Field
represented New York on the committee on resolutions, which proposed
an amendment of seven sections to the Constitution. On February 26,
these were taken up in their order for passage. The first section
provided for the restoration of the Missouri Compromise line under the
then existing conditions, provided that whenever a new State was
formed north or south of that line it should be admitted with or
without slavery, as its constitution might declare. This was the
important concession; but, though it was less favourable to the South
than the Crittenden compromise, it failed to satisfy the radical
Republicans, who had from the first opposed the convention.
Accordingly, the vote, taken by States, stood eight to eleven against
it, New York being included among the noes. The next morning,
however, after agreeing to a reconsideration of the question, the
convention passed the section by a vote of nine to eight, New York,
divided by the absence of David Dudley Field, being without a voice in
its determination. Field never fully recovered from this apparent
breach of trust.[654] In committee, he had earnestly opposed the
proposed amendment, talking almost incessantly for three weeks, but,
at the supreme moment, when the report came up for passage, he
withdrew from the convention, without explanation, thus depriving his
State of a vote upon all the sections save one, because of an evenly
divided delegation.

[Footnote 654: See New York _Tribune_, March 23, 1861, for Field's
statement in defence of his action. Also _Tribune_, March 7, for John
A. 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 of
any power for good, declared his opposition to any amendment to the
Constitution. "The Union," he said, "is indissoluble, and no State can
secede. I will lay down my life for it.... We must have the
arbitration 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 do
so," he said, mildly. "But when you begin it, the government will
carry it on until the Union is restored and its enemies put
down."[655] If any stronger Union sentiment were needed, the remarks
of Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, in disclosing the attitude of his party,
supplied it. "The election of Lincoln," he said, "must be regarded as
the triumph of principles cherished in the hearts of the people of the
free States. Chief among these principles is the restriction of
slavery within State limits; not war upon slavery within those limits,
but fixed opposition to its extension beyond them. By a fair and
unquestionable majority we have secured that triumph. Do you think
we, who represent this majority, will throw it away? Do you think the
people would sustain us if we undertook to throw it away?"[656]

[Footnote 655: Lucius E. Chittenden, _Report of Proceedings of Peace
Conference_, pp. 157, 170, 303, 428.]

[Footnote 656: Lucius E. Chittenden, _Report of Proceedings of Peace
Conference_, p. 304.]

After three weeks of such talk, even Virginia, whose share in forming
the Union exceeded that of any other State, manifested its
discouragement by repudiating the proposed amendment as an
insufficient guarantee for bringing back the cotton States or holding
the border States. When, finally, on March 4, the result of the
conference was offered in the United States Senate, only seven votes
were cast in its favour. So faded and died the last great effort for
compromise and peace. For months it must have been apparent to every
one that the party of Lincoln would not yield the cornerstone of its
principles. It desired peace, was quick to co-operate, and ready to
conciliate, but its purpose to preserve free territory for free labour
remained fixed and unalterable.




CHAPTER XXVII

WEED'S REVENGE UPON GREELEY

1861


In the winter of 1860-61, while the country was drifting into civil
war, a desperate struggle was going on at Albany to elect a United
States senator in place of William H. Seward, whose term expired on
the fourth of March. After the defeat of the Senator at Chicago,
sentiment settled upon his return to Washington; but when Lincoln
offered him the position of secretary of state, Thurlow Weed announced
William M. Evarts as his candidate for the United States Senate.
Evarts was now forty-three years of age. Born in Boston, a graduate of
Yale, and of the Harvard law school, he had been a successful lawyer
at the New York bar for twenty years. Union College had conferred upon
him, in 1857, the degree of Doctor of Laws, and the rare ability and
marvellous persistence manifested in the Lemmon slave case, in which
he was opposed by Charles O'Conor, had given abundant evidence of the
great intellectual powers that subsequently distinguished him. He had,
also, other claims to recognition. The wit and great learning that
made him the most charming of conversationalists increased his
popularity, while his love of books, his excellent taste, and good
manners made him welcome in the club and the social circle. Indeed, he
seems to have possessed almost every gift and grace that nature and
fortune could bestow, giving him high place among his contemporaries.

Evarts had not then held office. The places that O'Conor and Brady had
accepted presented no attractions for him; nor did he seem to desire
the varied political careers that had distinguished other brilliant
young members of the New York bar. But he had taken pleasure in
bringing to his party a wisdom in council which was only equalled by
his power in debate. If this service were insufficient to establish
his right to the exalted preferment he now sought, his recent valuable
work at the Chicago convention was enough to satisfy Thurlow Weed, at
least, that generous assistance of such surpassing value should be
richly rewarded.

Up to this time, Weed's authority in his party in the State had been
supreme. He failed to have his way in 1846 when John Young seized the
nomination for governor, and some confusion existed as to his
influence in the convention that selected Myron Clark in 1854; but for
all practical purposes Weed had controlled the Whig and Republican
parties since their formation, almost without dissent. Circumstances
sometimes favoured him. The hard times of 1837 made possible Seward's
election as governor; the split in the Democratic party over the
canal, and later over the Wilmot Proviso, secured Seward a seat in the
United States Senate; and the sudden and wholly unexpected repeal of
the Missouri Compromise defeated the Silver-Grays and aided in rapidly
reducing the strength of the Know-Nothings; but these changes in the
political situation, although letting Weed's party into power,
burdened his leadership with serious problems. It required a master
hand safely to guide a party between the Radical and Abolition
factions on one side and the Conservatives on the other, and his
signal success commended him to President Lincoln, who frequently
counselled with him, often inviting him to Washington by telegram
during the darkest days of civil war.

But the defection of Greeley, supplemented by William Cullen Bryant
and the union of radical leaders who came from the Democratic party,
finally blossomed into successful rebellion at Chicago. This
encouraged Greeley to lead one at Albany. The Legislature had one
hundred and sixteen Republican members, requiring fifty-nine to
nominate in caucus. Evarts could count on forty-two and Greeley upon
about as many. In his effort to secure the remaining seventeen, Weed
discovered that Ira Harris had a considerable following, who were
indisposed to affiliate with Evarts, while several assemblymen
indicated a preference for other candidates. This precipitated a
battle royal. Greeley did not personally appear in Albany, but he
scorned none of the ordinary crafts of party management. Charles A.
Dana, then of the _Tribune_, represented him, and local leaders from
various parts of the State rallied to his standard and industriously
prosecuted his canvass. Their slogan was "down with the Dictator." It
mattered not that they had approved Weed's management in the past,
their fight now proposed to end the one-man power, and every
place-hunter who could not secure patronage under Lincoln's
administration if Evarts went to the Senate, ranged himself against
Weed. On the side of the _Tribune's_ editor, also, stood the
independent, whose dislike of a party boss always encourages him to
strike whenever the way is open to deal an effective blow. This was
Greeley'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 county
officials, and an army of politicians who filled the hotels and
crowded the lobbies of the capitol. The _Tribune_ estimated Evarts'
backers at not less than one thousand.[657] For two weeks the battle
raged with all the characteristics of an intense personal conflict.
Greeley declared it "a conflict which was to determine whether a
dynasty was to stand and give law to its subjects, or be overthrown
and annihilated. Fully appreciating this, not Richmond at Bosworth
Field, Charles at Naseby, nor Napoleon at Waterloo made a more
desperate fight for empire than did the one-man power at Albany to
retain the sceptre it has wielded for so many years over the politics
and placemen of this State."[658] In their desperation both sides
appealed to the President-elect, who refused to be drawn into the
struggle. "Justice to all" was his answer to Weed. "I have said
nothing 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 would
nominate him. This sacrifice, however, was not to be made so long as
Harris held the balance of power; and since Weed's desire to defeat
Greeley was well understood, Harris counted with some degree of
certainty upon Evarts' supporters whenever a serious break threatened.
Weed's relations with Harris were not cordial. For years they had
lived in Albany, and as early as 1846 their ways began to diverge; but
Harris' character for wisdom, learning, and integrity compelled
respect. He had been an assemblyman in 1844 and 1845, a state senator
in 1846, a delegate to the constitutional convention of 1846, and a
justice of the Supreme Court from 1847 to 1859. His name was familiar
throughout the State. From the time he took up the cause of the
Anti-Renters in 1846 he had possessed the confidence of the common
people, and his great fairness and courtesy upon the bench had added
largely to his reputation. He was without any pretence to oratory. The
gifts that made Evarts a leader of the New York bar for three decades
did not belong to him; but everybody knew that in the United States
Senate he would do as much as Evarts to uphold President Lincoln.

The caucus convened on the evening of February 4. Only one member was
absent. Weed and Evarts sat with Governor Morgan in the executive
chamber--Harris in the rooms of Lieutenant-Governor Campbell at
Congress Hall. The first ballot gave Evarts 42, Greeley 40, Harris 20,
with 13 scattering. Bets had been made that Evarts would get 50, and
some over-sanguine ones fixed it at 60. What Weed expected does not
appear; but the second ballot, which reduced Evarts to 39 and raised
Greeley to 42, did not please Speaker Littlejohn, who carried orders
between the executive and assembly chambers. It seemed to doom Evarts
to ultimate defeat. The chamber grew dark with the gloomy frowns of
men who had failed to move their stubborn representatives. The next
four ballots, quickly taken, showed little progress, but the seventh
raised Greeley to 47 and dropped Harris to 19, while Evarts held on at
39. An assurance that the object of their labours would be reached
with the assistance of some of Harris' votes on the next ballot, made
the friends of Greeley jubilant. It was equally apparent to the
astonished followers of the grim manager who was smoking vehemently in
the executive chamber, that Evarts would be unable to weather another
ballot. A crisis, therefore, was inevitable, but it was the crisis for
which Weed had been waiting and watching, and without hesitation he
sent word to elect Harris.[660] This settled it. Greeley received 49,
Harris 60, with 6 scattering. Weed did not get all he wanted, but he
got revenge.

[Footnote 660: "Pale as ashes, Weed sat smoking a cigar within earshot
of the bustle in the crowded assembly room where the caucus sat.
Littlejohn stalked over the heads of the spectators and reported to
Weed. Unmindful of the fact that he had a cigar in his mouth, Weed
lighted another and put it in, then rose in great excitement and said
to Littlejohn, 'Tell the Evarts men to go right over to Harris--to
_Harris_--to HARRIS!' The order was given in the caucus. They wheeled
into 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 men
vigorously opposed to secession to resent the candidacy of Horace
Greeley.[661] The editor of the _Tribune_ certainly did not want the
Southern States to secede, nor did he favour secession, as has often
been charged, but his peculiar treatment of the question immediately
after the November election gave the would-be secessionists comfort,
if it did not absolutely invite and encourage the South to believe in
the possibility of peaceable secession.

[Footnote 661: "It is quite possible that the _Tribune's_ articles of
November, 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. He
professed to regard it as the downfall of Weed rather than the defeat
of himself. His friends who knew of the antagonistic relations long
existing between Harris and Weed, said the _Tribune_, exultingly, were
willing to see Harris nominated, since "he would become an agent for
the accomplishment of their main purpose--the overthrow of the
dictatorship, and the establishment upon its ruins of the principle of
political independence in thought and action."[662] But whatever its
influence upon Weed, the nomination of Harris was a bitter
disappointment to Greeley. He was extraordinarily ambitious for public
preferment. The character or duties of the office seemed to make
little difference to him. Congressman, senator, governor,
lieutenant-governor, comptroller of state, and President of the United
States, at one time or another greatly attracted him, and to gain any
one of them he willingly lent his name or gave up his time; but never
did he come so near reaching the goal of his ambition as in February,
1861. The promise of Harris' supporters to transfer their votes
encouraged a confidence that was not misplaced. The Greeley men were
elated, the more ardent entertaining no doubt that the eighth ballot
would bring victory; and, had Weed delayed a moment longer, Greeley
must have been a United States senator. But Weed did not delay, and
Greeley closed his life with an office-holding record of ninety days
in Congress. Like George Borrow, he seemed never to realise that his
simple, clear, vigorous English was to be the crown of an undying
fame.[663]

[Footnote 662: New York _Tribune_, February 5, 1861.]

[Footnote 663: "It is one of the curiosities of human nature that
Greeley, who exceeded in influence many of our Presidents, should have
hankered so constantly for office. It is strange enough that the man
who wrote as a dictator of public opinion in the _Tribune_ on the 9th
of November could write two days later the letter to Seward,
dissolving the political firm of Seward, Weed, and Greeley. In that
letter the petulance of the office-seeker is shown, and the grievous
disappointment that he did not get the nomination for lieutenant-governor,
which went to Raymond, stands out plainly."--James F. Rhodes, _History
of 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, December
3, 1860, William H. Seward left Auburn for Washington. At this time he
possessed the most powerful influence of any one in the Republican
party. While other leaders, his rivals in eloquence and his peers in
ability, exercised great authority, the wisdom of no one was more
widely appreciated, or more frequently drawn upon. "Sumner, Trumbull,
and Wade," says McClure, speaking from personal acquaintance, "had
intellectual force, but Trumbull was a judge rather than a politician,
Wade was oppressively blunt, and Sumner cultivated an ideal
statesmanship that placed him outside the line of practical politics.
Fessenden was more nearly a copy of Seward in temperament and
discretion, but readily conceded the masterly ability of his
colleague. Seward was not magnetic like Clay or Blaine, but he knew
how 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 the
issues that now began to disturb the nation. Writing to Thurlow Weed
on November 18, 1860, he declared he was "without schemes or plans,
hopes, desires, or fears for the future, that need trouble anybody so
far as I am concerned."[665] Nevertheless, he had scarcely reached the
capital before he discovered that he was charged with being the author
of Weed's compromise policy. "Here's a muss," he wrote, on December
3. "Republican members stopped at the _Tribune_ office on their way,
and when they all lamented your articles, Dana told them they were not
yours but mine; that I 'wanted to make a great compromise like Clay
and 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 of
conciliation, so carefully and ably presented, could be published
without the assistance, or, at least, the approval of his warm
personal and political friend,--an impression that gained readier
credence 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 talk
very little, and nothing in detail," he wrote his wife, on December 2;
"but I am engaged busily in studying and gathering my thoughts for the
Union."[667] To Weed, on the same day, he gave the political
situation. "South Carolina is committed. Georgia will debate, but she
probably follows South Carolina. Mississippi and Alabama likely to
follow.... Members are coming in, all in confusion. Nothing can be
agreed on in advance, but silence for the present, which I have
insisted must not be _sullen_, as last year, but respectful and
fraternal."[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 broken
silence even to his Republican colleagues in the Senate, and "to smoke
him out," as one of them expressed it, a caucus was called. But it
failed of its purpose. "Its real object," he wrote Weed, "was to find
out whether I authorised the _Evening Journal_, _Times_, and _Courier_
articles. I told them they would know what I think and what I propose
when I do myself. The Republican party to-day is as uncompromising as
the secessionists in South Carolina. A month hence each may come to
think that moderation is wiser."[669]

[Footnote 669: _Ibid._, Vol. 2, p. 308.]

It is not easy to determine from his correspondence just what was in
Seward's mind from the first to the thirteenth of December, but it is
plain 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 any
courage or confidence in the Union;[673] and the action of the Sumner
radicals annoyed him.[674] Rhodes, the historian, says he was
wavering.[675] He was certainly waiting,--probably to hear from
Lincoln; but while he waited his epigrammatic criticism of Buchanan's
message, which he wrote his wife on December 5, got into the
newspapers and struck a popular note. "The message shows
conclusively," he said, "that it is the duty of the President to
execute the laws--unless somebody opposes him; and that no State has a
right to go out of the Union--unless it wants to."[676]

[Footnote 670: "Weed's articles have brought perplexities about me
which 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 and
kindness. But others fear that I will figure, and so interfere and
derange all."--_Ibid._, p. 480.]

[Footnote 672: "The debates in the Senate are hasty, feeble,
inconclusive and unsatisfactory; presumptuous on the part of the
ill-tempered South; feeble and frivolous on the part of the
North."--_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, in
this 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 for
the passage in which he describes Lafayette as rejecting all and every
compromise, and the knowing ones told him those cheers laid out
Thurlow Weed, and then he came and told me, of course."--Thurlow Weed
Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 308.]

[Footnote 675: "While the evidence is not positive that Seward
contemplated heading a movement of Republicans that would have
resulted in the acceptance by them of a plan similar in essence to the
Crittenden compromise, yet his private correspondence shows that he
was wavering, and gives rise to the belief that the pressure of Weed,
Raymond, and Webb would have outweighed that of his radical Republican
colleagues if he had not been restrained by the unequivocal
declarations of Lincoln."--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United
States_, 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 the
President-elect, formally tendering him the office of secretary of
state. The proffer was not unexpected. Press and politicians had
predicted it and conceded its propriety. "From the day of my
nomination at Chicago," Lincoln said, in an informal and confidential
letter of the same day, "it has been my purpose to assign you, by your
leave, this place in the Administration. I have delayed so long to
communicate that purpose, in deference to what appeared to me a proper
caution in the case. Nothing has been developed to change my view in
the premises; and I now offer you the place in the hope that you will
accept it, and with the belief that your position in the public eye,
your integrity, ability, learning, and great experience all combine to
render 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 aroused
such enthusiasm, that James Russell Lowell thought his magnanimity,
since the result of the convention was known, "a greater ornament to
him and a greater honour to his party than his election to the
Presidency would have been."[678] Seward's friends had followed his
example. "We all feel that New York and the friends of Seward have
acted nobly," wrote Leonard Swett to Weed.[679] A month after the
offer of the portfolio had been made, Lincoln wrote Seward that "your
selection for the state department having become public, I am happy to
find scarcely any objection to it. I shall have trouble with every
other cabinet appointment--so much so, that I shall have to defer them
as long as possible, to avoid being teased into insanity, to make
changes."[680]

[Footnote 678: _Atlantic Monthly_, October, 1860; _Lowell's Political
Essays_, 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 of
state, without temptations for him, but, in 1860, amidst the gathering
clouds of a grave crisis, the championship of the Union in a great
political arena seemed to appeal, in an exceptional degree, to his
desire to help guide the destinies of his country; and, after
counselling with Weed at Albany, and with his wife at Auburn, he wrote
the President-elect that he thought it his duty to accept the
appointment.[681] Between the time of its tender and of its acceptance
Seward had gained a clear understanding of Lincoln's views; for, after
his conference with Weed, the latter visited Springfield and obtained
a written statement from the President-elect. This statement has never
appeared in print, but it practically embodied the sentiment written
Kellogg and Washburn, and which was received by them after Seward left
Washington 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, stopping
over night at the Astor House in New York, where he unexpectedly found
the New England Society celebrating Forefathers' Day. The knowledge of
his arrival quickly reached the banqueters. They knew that Weed had
seen Lincoln, and that, to hear the tidings from Springfield, Seward
had travelled with his friend from Syracuse to Albany. Eagerly,
therefore, they pressed him for a speech, for words spoken by the man
who would occupy the first place in Lincoln's Cabinet, meant to the
business men of the great metropolis, distracted by the disturbed
conditions growing out of the disunion movement, words of national
salvation. Seward never spoke from impulse. He understood the value of
silence and the necessity of thought before utterance. All of his many
great speeches were prepared in a most painstaking manner. But, as
many members of the society were personal or political friends, he
consented to address them, talking briefly and with characteristic
optimism, though without disclosing Lincoln's position or his own on
the question of compromise. "I know that the necessities which created
this Union," he said, in closing, "are stronger to-day than they were
when the Union was cemented; and that these necessities are as
enduring as the passions of men are short-lived and effervescent. I
believe that the cause of secession was as strong, on the night of
November 6, when the President and Vice President were elected, as it
has been at any time. Some fifty days have now passed; and I believe
that every day the sun has set since that time, it has set upon
mollified passions and prejudices; and if you will only await the
time, sixty more suns will shed a light and illuminate a more cheerful
atmosphere."[682]

[Footnote 682: New York _Times_, December 24, 1860.]

This speech has been severely criticised for its unseemly jest, its
exuberant optimism, and its lack of directness. It probably discloses,
in the copy published the next morning, more levity than it seemed to
possess when spoken, with its inflections and intonations, while its
optimism, made up of hopeful generalities which were not true, and of
rhetorical phrases that could easily be misapprehended, appeared to
sustain the suggestion that he did not realise the critical juncture
of affairs. But the assertion that he predicted the "war will be over
in sixty days" was a ridiculous perversion of his words. No war
existed at that time, and his "sixty suns" plainly referred to the
sixty days that must elapse before Lincoln's inauguration.
Nevertheless, the "sixty days prediction," as it was called, was
repeated 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 believed
that he had a difficult role to play. Had he so desired he could not
support the restoration of the Missouri Compromise line, for the
President-elect had ruled inflexibly against it; neither could he
openly oppose it, lest it hurry the South into some overt act of
treason before Lincoln's inauguration. So he began exalting the Union,
skilfully creating the impression, at least by inference, that he
would not support the compromise, although his hearers and readers
held to the belief that he would have favoured it had he not submitted
to Lincoln's leadership by accepting the state department.

During Seward's absence from Washington he was placed upon the Senate
committee of thirteen to consider the Crittenden compromise. It was
admitted that the restoration of the Missouri line was the nub of the
controversy; that, unless it could be accepted, compromise would fail;
and that failure meant certain secession. "War of a most bitter and
sanguinary character will be sure to follow," wrote Senator Grimes of
Iowa.[683] "The heavens are, indeed, black," said Dawes of
Massachusetts, "and an awful storm is gathering. I am well-nigh
appalled at its awful and inevitable consequences."[684] Seward did
not use words of such alarming significance, but he appreciated the
likelihood of secession. On December 26 he wrote Lincoln that
"sedition will be growing weaker and loyalty stronger every day from
the acts of secession as they occur;" but, in the same letter, he
added: "South Carolina has already taken the attitude of defiance.
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have pushed on to the
same attitude. I think that they could not be arrested, even if we
should offer all you suggest, and with it the restoration of the
Missouri Compromise line."[685] To his wife, also, to whom alone he
confided his secret thoughts, he wrote, on the same day: "The South
will force on the country the issue that the free States shall admit
that slaves are property, and treat them as such, or else there will
be 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 first
resolution of the Crittenden compromise. They consented that Congress
should have no power either to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia without compensation and the consent of its inhabitants, or
to prohibit the transportation of slaves between slave-holding States
and territories; but they refused to protect slavery south of the
Missouri line, especially since such an amendment, by including future
acquisitions of territory, would, as Lincoln declared, popularise
filibustering for all south of us. "A year will not pass till we shall
have to take Cuba as a condition upon which they will stay in the
Union."[687]

[Footnote 687: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 288.]

Upon the failure of the Crittenden compromise, Seward, on the part of
the Republicans, offered five propositions, declaring (1) that the
Constitution should never be altered so as to authorise Congress to
abolish or interfere with slavery in the States; (2) that the fugitive
slave law should be amended by granting a jury trial to the fugitive;
(3) that Congress recommend the repeal by the States of personal
liberty acts which contravene the Constitution or the laws; (4) that
Congress pass an efficient law for the punishment of all persons
engaged in the armed invasion of any State from another; and (5) to
admit into the Union the remaining territory belonging to the United
States as two States, one north and one south of the parallel of 36°
30´, with the provision that these States might be subdivided and new
ones erected therefrom whenever there should be sufficient population
for one representative in Congress upon sixty thousand square
miles.[688] Only the first of these articles was adopted. Southern
Democrats objected to the second on principle, and to the third on the
ground that it would affect their laws imprisoning coloured seamen,
while they defeated the fourth by amending it into Douglas' suggestion
for the revival of the sedition law of John Adams' administration.[689]
This made it unacceptable to the Republicans. The fifth failed because
it gave the South no opportunity of acquiring additional slave lands.
On December 28, therefore, the committee, after adopting a resolution
that 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 the
leadership laid down by John C. Calhoun in 1850, to end all effort at
compromise, 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 us
equality. Your votes refuse to recognise our domestic institutions
which pre-existed the formation of the Union, our property which was
guarded by the Constitution. You refuse us that equality without which
we should be degraded if we remained in the Union. You elect a
candidate upon the basis of sectional hostility; one who, in his
speeches, now thrown broadcast over the country, made a distinct
declaration of war upon our institutions.... What boots it to tell me
that no direct act of aggression will be made? I prefer direct to
indirect hostile measures which will produce the same result. I prefer
it, as I prefer an open to a secret foe. Is there a senator upon the
other side who to-day will agree that we shall have equal enjoyment of
the territories of the United States? Is there one who will deny that
we have equally paid in their purchases, and equally bled in their
acquisition 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 had
seceded on December 20, Mississippi on January 9, Florida on the 10th,
and Alabama on the 11th. Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas were preparing
to follow. The people felt that if a settlement was to come it must be
made quickly. "Your propositions would have been most welcome if they
had been made before any question of coercion, and before any vain
boastings of powers," Davis had said. "But you did not make them when
they would have been effective. I presume you will not make them
now."[691]

[Footnote 691: _Ibid._, p. 307.]

If the position of the New York senator had been an embarrassing one
at the Astor House on December 22, it was much more difficult on
January 12. He had refused to vote for the Crittenden compromise.
Moreover, the only proposition he had to make stood rejected by the
South. What could he say, therefore, that would settle anything? Yet
the desire to hear him was intense. An eye-witness described the scene
as almost unparalleled in the Senate. "By ten o'clock," wrote this
observer, "every seat in the gallery was filled, and by eleven the
cloak-rooms and all the passages were choked up, and a thousand men
and women stood outside the doors, although the speech was not to
begin until one o'clock. Several hundred visitors came on from
Baltimore. It was the fullest house of the session, and by far the
most respectful one."[692] Such was the faith of the South in Seward's
unbounded influence with Northern senators and Northern people that
the Richmond _Whig_ asserted that his vote for the Crittenden
compromise "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, North
and South, cast themselves upon me."[694] Judged by his letters at
this period, it is suggested that he had an overweening sense of his
own importance; he thought that he held in his hands the destinies of
his country.[695] However this may be, it is certain that he wanted to
embarrass Lincoln by no obstacles of his making. "I must gain time,"
he said, "for the new Administration to organise and for the frenzy of
passion to subside. I am doing this, without making any compromise
whatever, by forbearance, conciliation, magnanimity. What I say and do
is said and done, not in view of personal objects, and I am leaving to
posterity 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," Seward
wrote 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 labouring
night and day with the cities and States."--_Ibid._, 491. "I am the
only hopeful, calm, conciliatory person."--_Ibid._, 497. "It seems to
me that if I am absent only three days, this Administration, the
Congress, and the district would fall into consternation and
despair."--_Ibid._, 497. "The present Administration and the incoming
one unite in devolving upon me the responsibility of averting civil
war."--_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 the
fallacies of secession, showing that it had no grounds, or even
excuse, and declaring that disunion must lead to civil war. Then he
avowed his adherence to the Union in its integrity and in every event,
"whether of peace or of war, with every consequence of honour or
dishonour, of life or death." Referring to the disorder, he said: "I
know not to what extent it may go. Still my faith in the Constitution
and in the Union abides. Whatever dangers there shall be, there will
be the determination to meet them. Whatever sacrifices, private or
public, shall be needful for the Union, they will be made. I feel sure
that the hour has not come for this great nation to fall."

In blazing the new line of thought which characterised his speech at
the Astor House, Seward rose to the plane of higher patriotism, and he
now broadened and enlarged the idea. During the presidential campaign,
he said, the struggle had been for and against slavery. That contest
having ended by the success of the Republicans in the election, the
struggle was now for and against the Union. "Union is not more the
body than liberty is the soul of the nation. Freedom can be saved with
the Union, and cannot be saved without it." He deprecated mutual
criminations and recriminations, a continuance of the debate over
slavery in the territories, the effort to prove secession illegal, and
the right of the federal government to coerce seceding States. He
wanted the Union glorified, its blessings exploited, the necessity of
its existence made manifest, and the love of country substituted for
the prejudice of faction and the pride of party. When this millennial
day had come, when secession movements had ended and the public mind
had resumed its wonted calm, then a national convention might be
called--say, in one, two, or three years hence, to consider the matter
of 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 delivery
of portions of it," said one correspondent, "senators were in tears.
When the sad picture of the country, divided into confederacies, was
given, Mr. Crittenden, who sat immediately before the orator, was
completely overcome by his emotions, and bowed his white head to
weep."[698] The _Tribune_ considered it "rhetorically and as a
literary performance unsurpassed by any words of Seward's earlier
productions,"[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 destroyed
the last hope of compromise, because he gave up nothing, not even
prejudices, to save peace in the Union. For the same reason, Union men
of Kentucky and other border States turned from it with profound
grief. On the other hand, the radical Republicans, disappointed that
it did not contain more powder and shot, charged him with surrendering
his principles and those of his party, to avert civil war and
dissolution of the Union. But the later-day historian, however,
readily admits that the rhetorical words of this admirable speech had
an effectual influence in making fidelity to the Union, irrespective
of 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 now
came into frequent conference with loyal men of both sections and of
all parties, including General Scott and the new members of Buchanan's
Cabinet. John A. Dix had become secretary of the treasury, Edwin
Stanton 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 the
hour and a basement as the place of conference. "At length," he wrote
Lincoln, "I have gotten a position in which I can see what is going on
in the councils of the President."[701] To his wife, he adds: "The
revolution gathers apace. It has its abettors in the White House, the
treasury, the interior. I have assumed a sort of dictatorship for
defence."[702] He advised the President-elect to reach Washington
somewhat earlier than usual, and suggested having his secretaries of
war and navy designated that they might co-operate in measures for the
public safety. Under his advice, on the theory that the national
emblem would strengthen wavering minds and develop Union sentiment,
flags began to appear on stores and private residences. Seward was
ablaze with zeal. "Before I spoke," he wrote Weed, "not one utterance
made for the Union elicited a response. Since I spoke, every word for
the 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 avoid
giving the secession leaders the excuse and opportunity to open the
civil war before the new Administration and new Congress could be in
authority to subdue it. I conferred throughout with General Scott, and
Mr. Stanton, then in Mr. Buchanan's Cabinet. I presume I conversed
with others in a way that seemed to me best calculated to leave the
inauguration of a war to the secessionists, and to delay it, in any
case, until the new Administration should be in possession of the
Government. On the 22d of February, in concert with Mr. Stanton, I
caused the United States flag to be displayed throughout all the
northern and western portions of the United States." Letters of W.H.
Seward, June 13, 1867.--William Schouler, _Massachusetts in the Civil
War_, Vol. 1, pp. 41, 42.]

But, amidst it all, Seward's enemies persistently charged him with
inclining to the support of the Crittenden compromise. "We have
positive information from Washington," declared the _Tribune_, "that a
compromise on the basis of Mr. Crittenden's is sure to be carried
through Congress either this week or the next, provided a very few
more Republicans can be got to enlist in the enterprise.... Weed goes
with the Breckenridge Democrats.... The same is true, though less
decidedly, of Seward."[704] It is probable that in the good-fellowship
of after-dinner conversations Seward's optimistic words and
"mysterious allusions,"[705] implied more than he intended them to
convey, but there is not a private letter or public utterance on which
to base the _Tribune's_ statements. Greeley's attacks, however, became
frequent now. Having at last swung round to the "no compromise"
policy of the radical wing of his party, he found it easy to condemn
the attitude of Weed and the Unionism of Seward, against whom his
lieutenants at Albany were waging a fierce battle for his election as
United 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 for
an adjustment of sectional difficulties.]

On January 31, Seward had occasion to present a petition, with
thirty-eight thousand signatures, which William E. Dodge and other
business men of New York had brought to Washington, praying for "the
exercise of the best wisdom of Congress in finding some plan for the
adjustment of the troubles which endanger the safety of the nation,"
and in laying it before the Senate he took occasion to make another
plea for the Union. "I have asked them," he said, "that at home they
act in the same spirit, and manifest their devotion to the Union,
above all other interests, by speaking for the Union, by voting for
the Union, by lending and giving their money for the Union, and, in
the last resort, fighting for the Union--taking care, always, that
speaking goes before voting, voting goes before giving money, and all
go before a battle. This is the spirit in which I have determined for
myself to come up to this great question, and to pass through it."

Senator Mason of Virginia, declaring that "a maze of generalities
masked the speech," pressed Seward as to what he meant by
"contributing money for the Union." Seward replied: "I have
recommended to them in this crisis, that they sustain the government
of this country with the credit to which it is entitled at their
hands." To this Mason said: "I took it for granted that the money was
to sustain the army which was to conduct the fight that he recommends
to his people." Seward responded: "If, then, this Union is to stand or
fall by the force of arms, I have advised my people to do, as I shall
be ready to do myself--stand with it or perish with it." To which the
Virginia Senator retorted: "The honourable senator proposes but one
remedy 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 and
bloodshed, to be fought on Southern soil, for the purpose of reducing
the South to colonies. To Seward, who was still cultivating the
attitude of "forbearance, conciliation, and magnanimity," this sounded
like a harsh conclusion of the position he had sought to sugar-coat
with much rhetoric, and, in reply, he pushed bloodshed into the
far-off future by restating what he had already declared in fine
phrases, closing as follows: "Does not the honourable senator know
that when all these [suggestions for compromise] have failed, then the
States of this Union, according to the forms of the Constitution,
shall take up this controversy about twenty-four negro slaves
scattered over a territory of one million and fifty thousand square
miles, and say whether they are willing to sacrifice all this liberty,
all this greatness, and all this hope, because they have not
intelligence, wisdom, and virtue enough to adjust a controversy so
frivolous and contemptible."[706]

[Footnote 706: W.H. Seward, _Works of_, Vol. 4, p. 670. _Congressional
Globe_, 1861, p. 657.]

Seward's speech plainly indicated a purpose to fight for the
preservation of the Union, and his talk of first exhausting
conciliatory methods was accepted in the South simply as a "resort to
the gentle powers of seduction,"[707] but his argument of the few
slaves in the great expanse of territory sounded so much like Weed,
who was advocating with renewed strength the Crittenden plan along
similar lines of devotion to the Union, that it kept alive in the
North the impression that the Senator would yet favour compromise, and
gave Greeley further opportunity to assail him. "Seward, in his speech
on Thursday last," says the _Tribune_, "declares his readiness to
renounce Republican principles for the sake of the Union."[708] The
next day his strictures were more pronounced. "The Republican party
... is to be divided and sacrificed if the thing can be done. We are
boldly told it must be suppressed, and a Union party rise upon its
ruins."[709] Yet, in spite of such criticism, Seward bore himself with
indomitable courage and with unfailing skill. Never during his whole
career did he prove more brilliant and resourceful as a leader in what
might be called an utterly hopeless parliamentary struggle for the
preservation of the Union, and the highest tributes[710] paid to his
never-failing tact and temper during some of the most vivid and
fascinating passages of congressional history, attest his success. It
was easy to say, with Senator Chandler of Michigan, that "without a
little blood-letting this Union will not be worth a rush,"[711] but it
required great skill to speak for the preservation of the Union and
the retention of the cornerstone of the Republican party, without
grieving the Unionists of the border States, or painfully affecting
the radical Republicans of the Northern States. Seward knew that the
latter censured him, and in a letter to the _Independent_ he explains
the cause of it. "Twelve years ago," he wrote, "freedom was in danger
and the Union was not. I spoke then so singly for freedom that
short-sighted men inferred that I was disloyal to the Union. To-day,
practically, freedom is not in danger, and Union is. With the attempt
to maintain Union by civil war, _wantonly_ brought on, there would be
danger of reaction against the Administration charged with the
preservation of both freedom and Union. Now, therefore, I speak singly
for Union, striving, if possible, to save it peaceably; if not
possible, then to cast the responsibility upon the party of slavery.
For this singleness of speech I am now suspected of infidelity to
freedom."[712]

[Footnote 707: "Oily Gammon Seward, aware that intimidation will not
do, is going to resort to the gentle powers of seduction."--Washington
correspondent 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 certainly
have done, in the spirit of conciliation which has repeatedly been
manifested, during the present session of Congress, by your
distinguished senator, Governor Seward." Robert C. Winthrop to the
Constitutional Union Committee of Troy, February 17.--_Winthrop's
Addresses and Speeches_, Vol. 2, p. 701. "If Mr. Seward moves in
favour of compromise, the whole Republican party sways like a field of
grain before his breath." Letter of Oliver Wendell Holmes, February
16, 1861.--_Motley's Correspondence_, Vol. 1, p. 360.]

[Footnote 711: Detroit _Post and Tribune_; _Life of Zachariah
Chandler_, 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 such
changes in his inaugural address as he thought advisable, and in the
performance of this delicate duty the New York Senator continued his
policy of conciliation. "I have suggested," he wrote, in returning the
manuscript, "many changes of little importance, severally, but in
their general effect, tending to soothe the public mind. Of course the
concessions are, as they ought to be, if they are to be of avail, at
the cost of the winning, the triumphant party. I do not fear their
displeasure. They will be loyal whatever is said. Not so the defeated,
irritated, angered, frenzied party.... Your case is quite like that of
Jefferson. He brought the first Republican party into power against
and over a party ready to resist and dismember the government.
Partisan as he was, he sank the partisan in the patriot, in his
inaugural address; and propitiated his adversaries by declaring, 'We
are all Federalists; all Republicans.' I could wish that you would
think it wise to follow this example, in this crisis. Be sure that
while all your administrative conduct will be in harmony with
Republican principles and policy, you cannot lose the Republican party
by practising, in your advent to office, the magnanimity of a
victor."[713]

[Footnote 713: F.W. Seward, _Life of W.H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 512.]

Of thirty-four changes suggested by Seward, the President-elect
adopted twenty-three outright, and based modifications on eight
others. Three were ignored. Upon only one change did the Senator
really insist. He thought the two paragraphs relating to the
Republican platform adopted at Chicago should be omitted, and, in
obedience to his judgment, Lincoln left them out. Seward declared the
argument of the address strong and conclusive, and ought not in any
way be changed or modified, "but something besides, or in addition to
argument, 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 cheerful
confidence."[714] In line with this suggestion, he submitted the draft
of two concluding paragraphs. The first, "made up of phrases which had
become extremely commonplace by iteration in the six years' slavery
discussion," was clearly inadmissible.[715] The second was as follows:
"I close. We are not, we must not be, aliens or enemies, but fellow
countrymen and brethren. Although passion has strained our bonds of
affection too hardly, they must not, I am sure they will not, be
broken. The mystic chords which, proceeding from so many battlefields
and so many patriot graves, pass through all the hearts and all the
hearths in this broad continent of ours, will yet again harmonise in
their ancient music when breathed upon by the guardian angel of the
nation."

[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 it
the life and spirit and beauty which have made it celebrated." As it
appears in the President-elect's clear, firm handwriting, it reads as
follows: "I am loth to close. We are not enemies but friends. We must
not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break
our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from
every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and
hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of
the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better
angels of our nature."[716]

[Footnote 716: _Ibid._, pp. 343, 344, and _note_.

For fac-simile of the paragraph as written by Seward and rewritten by
Lincoln, see _Ibid._, Vol. 3, p. 336. For the entire address, with all
suggested and adopted changes, see _Ibid._, Vol. 3, pp. 327 to 344.

At Seward's dinner table on the evening of March 4, the peroration of
the 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 that
touched every heart, had breathed into the debates of Congress the
conciliation and forbearance that marked the divide between the
conservative and radical Republican. This difference, at the last
moment, occasioned Lincoln much solicitude. He had come to Washington
with his Cabinet completed except as to a secretary of the treasury
and a secretary of war. For the latter place Seward preferred Simon
Cameron, and, in forcing the appointment by his powerful advocacy, he
dealt a retributive blow to Governor Curtin of Pennsylvania, who had
vigorously opposed him at Chicago and was now the most conspicuous of
Cameron's foes.[717] But Senator Chase of Ohio, to whom Seward
strenuously objected because of his uncompromising attitude, was given
the treasury. The shock of this defeat led the New York Senator to
decline entering the Cabinet. "Circumstances which have occurred since
I expressed my willingness to accept the office of secretary of
state," he wrote, on March 2, "seem to me to render it my duty to ask
leave to withdraw that consent."[718]

[Footnote 717: "Seward and his friends were greatly offended at the
action of Curtin at Chicago. I was chairman of the Lincoln state
committee and fighting the pivotal struggle of the national battle,
but not one dollar of assistance came from New York, and my letters to
Thurlow Weed and to Governor Morgan, chairman of the national
committee, were unanswered. Seward largely aided the appointment of a
Cabinet officer in Pennsylvania, who was the most conspicuous of
Curtin'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 at
that department."--Alex. K. McClure, _Recollections of Half a
Century_, p. 220.]

[Footnote 718: Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 3, p. 370.]

The reception of the unexpected note sent a shiver through Lincoln's
stalwart form. This was the man of men with whom for weeks he had
confidentially conferred, and upon whose judgment and information he
had absolutely relied and acted, "I cannot afford to let Seward take
the first trick," he said to his secretary,[719] after pondering the
matter during Sunday, and on Monday morning, while the inauguration
procession was forming, he penned a reply. "Your note," he said, "is
the subject of the most painful solicitude with me; and I feel
constrained to beg that you will countermand the withdrawal. The
public interest, I think, demands that you should; and my personal
feelings are deeply enlisted in the same direction. Please consider
and answer by nine o'clock a.m. to-morrow." That night, after the
day's pageant and the evening's reception had ended, the President and
Seward talked long and confidentially, resulting in the latter's
withdrawal of his letter and his nomination and confirmation as
secretary of state. "The President is determined that he will have a
compound Cabinet," Seward wrote his wife, a few days after the unhappy
incident; "and that it shall be peaceful, and even permanent. I was at
one time on the point of refusing--nay, I did refuse, for a time, to
hazard myself in the experiment. But a distracted country appeared
before me, and I withdrew from that position. I believe I can endure
as much as any one; and may be that I can endure enough to make the
experiment 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 one
of indecent zeal to obtain office. A new party had come into power,
and, in the absence of any suggestion of civil service, patronage was
conceded to the political victors. Office-seekers in large numbers had
visited 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 insistent
in 1853 when the Whigs again gave way to the Democrats. But never in
the history of the country had such a cloud of applicants settled down
upon the capital of the nation as appeared in 1861. McClure, an
eye-witness of the scene, speaks of the "mobs of office-seekers,"[721]
and Edwin M. Stanton, who still remained in Washington, wrote Buchanan
that "the scramble for office is terrific. Every department is
overrun, and by the time all the patronage is distributed the
Republican party will be dissolved."[722] Schuyler Colfax declared to
his mother that "it makes me heart-sick. All over the country our
party is by the ears, fighting for offices."[723] Seward, writing to
his wife on March 16, speaks of the affliction. "My duties call me to
the White House one, two, or three times a day. The grounds, halls,
stairways, closets, are filled with applicants, who render ingress
and egress difficult."[724] Lincoln himself said: "I seem like one
sitting in a palace, assigning apartments to importunate applicants,
while the structure is on fire and likely soon to perish in
ashes."[725] Stanton is authority for the statement "that Lincoln
takes 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 offices
is already quite extraordinary, and these poor people undoubtedly
belong to the horde which has pressed in here seeking places under the
new Administration, which neither has nor can hope to have places
enough to satisfy one-twentieth the number." November, 1879, p. 488.]

In this bewildering mass of humanity New York had its share. Seward
sought protection behind his son, Frederick W. Seward, whom the
President had appointed assistant secretary of state. "I have placed
him where he must meet the whole army of friends seeking office," he
wrote his wife on March 8--"an hundred taking tickets when only one
can draw a prize."[727] Roscoe Conkling, then beginning his second
term in Congress, needed no barrier of this kind. "Early in the year
1861," says his biographer, "a triumvirate of Republicans assumed to
designate candidates for the offices which President Lincoln was about
to fill in the Oneida district. To accomplish this end they went to
Washington and called upon their representative, handing him a list of
candidates 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 in
our district, I shall let you know.' This retort, regarded by some of
his friends as indiscreet, was the seed that years afterward ripened
into 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 of
patronage, he was not less vigilant and tenacious. Almost immediately
after inauguration it became apparent that differences relative to
local appointments existed between him and Ira Harris, the newly
elected New York senator. Harris' tall and powerful form,
distinguished by a broad and benevolent face, was not more marked than
the reputation that preceded him as a profound and fearless judge. At
the Albany bar he had been the associate of Marcus T. Reynolds, Samuel
Stevens, Nicholas Hill, and the venerable Daniel Cady, and if he did
not possess the wit of Reynolds or the eloquence of Cady, the
indomitable energy of Stevens and the mental vigour of Nicholas Hill
were his, making conspicuous his achievements in the pursuit of truth
and justice. His transfer to the Senate at the age of fifty-eight and
his appointment upon the judiciary and foreign relations committees,
presented a new opportunity to exhibit his deep and fruitful interest
in public affairs, and, as the friend of Senators Collamer of Vermont
and Sumner of Massachusetts, he was destined to have an influential
share in the vital legislation of the war period.

Harris took little interest in the distribution of patronage, or in
questions of party politics that quicken local strife, but he insisted
upon a fair recognition of his friends, and to adjust their
differences Seward arranged an evening conference to which the
President was invited. At this meeting the discussion took a broad
range. The secretary of state had prepared a list covering the
important offices in New York, but before he could present it,
Lincoln, with the ready intuitions of a shrewd politician, remarked
that he reserved to himself the privilege of appointing Hiram Barney
collector of the port of New York. This announcement did not surprise
Seward, for, at the conclusion of Weed's visit to Springfield in the
preceding December, Lincoln reminded the journalist that he had said
nothing about appointments. "Some gentlemen who have been quite
nervous about the object of your visit here," said the President-elect,
"would be surprised, if not incredulous, were I to tell them that
during the two days we have passed together you have made no
application, suggestion, or allusion to political appointments."

To this the shrewd manager, willing to wait until Seward's appointment
and confirmation as secretary of state had placed him in a position to
direct rather than to beg patronage, replied that nothing of that
nature had been upon his mind, since he was much more concerned about
the welfare of the country. "This," said Lincoln, "is undoubtedly a
proper view of the question, and yet so much were you misunderstood
that I have received telegrams from prominent Republicans warning me
against your efforts to forestall important appointments in your
State. Other gentlemen who have visited me since the election have
expressed similar apprehensions." The President, thus cunningly
leading up to what was on his mind, said further that it was
particularly pleasant to him to reflect that he was coming into office
unembarrassed by promises. "I have not," said he, "promised an office
to any man, nor have I, but in a single instance, mentally committed
myself to an appointment; and as that relates to an important office
in your State, I have concluded to mention it to you--under strict
injunctions of secrecy, however. If I am not induced by public
considerations to change my purpose, Hiram Barney will be collector of
the 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 formation
of the Republican party he had found it easier to affiliate with
Lucius Robinson and David Dudley Field than to act in accord with the
Whig leader, and the result at Chicago had emphasised this
independence. Too politic, however, to antagonise the appointment, and
too wary to indorse it, Weed replied that prior to the Chicago
convention he had known Barney very slightly, but that, if what he had
learned of him since was true, Barney was entitled to any office he
asked for. "He has not asked for this or any other office," said
Lincoln, 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, he
had tactfully given notice of his intention not to be controlled by
him. A political boss, outside his own State, usually bears the
reputation that home opponents give him, and, although Weed was never
so bad as painted by his adversaries, he had long been a chief with an
odious notoriety. Apparently disinterested, and always refusing to
seek or to accept office himself, he loved power, and for years,
whenever Whig or Republican party was ascendant in New York, his
ambition to prescribe its policy, direct its movements, and dictate
the men who might hold office, had been discreetly but imperiously
exercised, until his influence was viewed with abhorrence by many and
with distrust by the country.[731] It is doubtful if Lincoln's opinion
corresponded with the accepted one,[732] but his desire to have some
avenue of information respecting New York affairs opened to him other
than through the Weed machine, made the President bold to declare his
independence at the outset.

[Footnote 731: Gideon Welles, _Lincoln and Seward_, p. 22.

"In pecuniary matters Weed was generous to a fault while poor; he is
said to be less so since he became rich.... I cannot doubt, however,
that if he had never seen Wall Street or Washington, had never heard
of the Stock Board, and had lived in some yet undiscovered country,
where legislation is never bought nor sold, his life would have been
more blameless, useful, and happy. I was sitting beside him in his
editorial room soon after Governor Seward's election, when he opened a
letter 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 draw
on me for whatever sum you may see fit. Yours truly.' In an instant
his face became prematurely black with mingled rage and mortification.
'My God,' said he, 'I knew that my political adversaries thought me a
scoundrel, but I never till now supposed that my friends
did.'"--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. It
was Mr. Lincoln's habit at such times to telegraph Mr. Weed to come to
Washington from Albany or New York, perhaps at an hour's notice. He
often spent the day with the President, coming and returning by night,
regardless of his age and infirmities. His services in these
exigencies were often invaluable."--Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of
Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 288.]

The immediate influence that led to the announcement of Barney's
selection, however, is not entirely clear. At the Cooper Institute
meeting in February, 1860, at which Lincoln spoke, Barney occupied a
seat on the stage, and was among the few gentlemen having opportunity
to pay the distinguished Illinoisan those courtesies which especially
please one who felt, as Lincoln did "by reason of his own modest
estimate of himself,"[733] that he was under obligation to any person
showing him marked attention. But neither this fact nor Barney's
subsequent support at Chicago sufficiently accounts for the strong
preference indicated by such an important and far-reaching
appointment. Among the few indorsements on file in the treasury
department at Washington, one letter, dated March 8, 1861, and
addressed to Salmon P. Chase, speaks of Barney as "a personal friend
of yours." Six days later a New York newspaper announced that "the
appointment of Barney has been a fixed fact ever since Chase went into
the Cabinet. It was this influence that persuaded Chase to accept the
position."[734] The biographer of Thurlow Weed, probably basing the
statement upon the belief of Weed himself, states, without
qualification, that "Barney was appointed through the influence of
Secretary Chase."[735] This may, in part, account for Weed's and
Seward's bitter hostility to the Ohioan's becoming a member of the
Cabinet; for, if Chase, before his appointment as secretary of the
treasury, had sufficient influence to control the principal federal
office in New York, what, might they not have asked, would be the
measure of this influence after the development of his great ability
as a financier has made him necessary to the President as well as to
the 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 to
Lincoln does not lead to the open. Chase's entrance into the Cabinet
being settled, his influence firmly sustained Barney, but, before
that, very early after the election, between November 7 and Weed's
visit to Springfield on December 17, some one spoke the word in
Barney's behalf which left such a deep and lasting impression upon the
President's mind that he determined to advise Weed, before Seward
could accept the state portfolio, of his intention to appoint Barney
collector of the port of New York. The name of the person exerting
such an influence, however, is now unknown. During this period Chase
neither saw the President-elect, nor, so far as the records show,
wrote him more than a formal note of congratulations. Another possible
avenue of communication may have been Bryant or Greeley, but the
latter distinctly denied that he asked, or wanted, or manipulated the
appointment of any one.[736] Bryant, who had great influence with
Lincoln,[737] and who strongly opposed Seward's going into the
Cabinet,[738] had presided at the Cooper Institute meeting and sat
beside Hiram Barney. He knew that such a man, placed at the head of
the custom-house and wielding its vast patronage, could be a potent
factor in breaking Weed's control, but the editor's only published
letter to Lincoln during this period was confined to reasons for
making Chase secretary of state. In it he did not deprecate the
strengthening of the Weed machine which would probably ignore the
original New York supporters of Lincoln, or in any wise refer to local
matters. Bryant had been partial to Chase for President until after
Lincoln's Cooper Institute speech, and now, after election, he thought
Chase, as secretary of state, would be best for the country.
Lincoln's reply of "a few lines," convincing his correspondent "that
whatever selection you make it will be made conscientiously,"
contained no word about Barney. Other letters, or parties personally
interested in Barney, may have passed between the President-elect and
Bryant, or Chase. Indeed, Lincoln confessed to Weed that he had
received telegrams and visits from prominent Republicans, warning him
against the Albany editor's efforts to forestall important state
appointments, but no clue is left to identify them. The mystery
deepens, too, since, whatever was done, came without Barney's
suggestion 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 of
William 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 Union
College in 1834, and the head of a well-known law firm, was a lawyer
of high character and a Republican of Democratic antecedents, who had
stood with Greeley and Bryant in opposing Seward at Chicago, and whose
appointment to the most important federal office in the State meant
mischief for Weed.[740] In its effect it was not unlike President
Garfield's selection of William H. Robertson for the same place; and,
although it did not at once result so disastrously to Weed as
Robertson's appointment did to Conkling twenty years later, it gave
the editor's adversaries vantage ground, which so seriously crippled
the Weed machine, that, in the succeeding November, George Opdyke, a
personal enemy of Thurlow Weed,[741] was nominated and elected mayor
of New York City.

[Footnote 740: "Hiram Barney belongs to the Van Buren Democratic
Buffalo Free-soil wing of the Republican party. He studied law with
C.C. Cambreling and practised it with Benjamin F. Butler. For
President he voted for Jackson, for Van Buren in 1840 and 1848, for
Hale in 1852, and for Fremont and Lincoln. He was also a delegate to
the Buffalo convention of 1848; so that as an out-and-out Van Buren
Democratic Free-soil Republican, Barney is a better specimen than Van
Buren himself."--New York _Herald_, March 28, 1861.

"Mr. Barney's quiet, unostentatious bearing has deprived him of the
notoriety which attaches to most of our politicians of equal
experience and influence. Nevertheless, he is well known to the
Republican party and universally respected as one of its foremost and
most 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's
appointment in chilling silence. Without openly disclosing itself, the
proposed step had been the cause of much friction, and was yet to be
opposed with coolness and candour,[742] but Lincoln's firmness in
declaring that Barney was a man of integrity who had his confidence,
and that he had made the appointment on his own responsibility and
from personal knowledge,[743] impressed his hearers with the belief
that, with whatever disfavour Seward listened, he had practically
surrendered to the will of his superior. Another scene occurred, as
the interview proceeded, which also indicated the master spirit. After
reviewing the extended list of names presented for collectors and
other officers, Seward expressed the wish that the nominations might
be sent forthwith to the Senate. The embarrassed senators, unprepared
for such haste, found in the secretary of the navy, who had
accompanied the President on the latter's invitation, a ready opponent
to such a plan because other members of the Cabinet had been wholly
ignored. Welles inquired if the secretary of the treasury and
attorney-general had been consulted, insisting that a proper
administration of the departments made their concurrence in the
selection of competent subordinates upon whom they must rely, not only
proper but absolutely necessary. Seward objected to this as
unnecessary, for these were New York appointments, he said, and he
knew better than Chase and Bates what was best in that State for the
party and the Administration. The President, however, agreed with the
secretary of the navy, declaring that nothing conclusive would be done
until he had advised with interested heads of departments. "With
this," says Welles, "the meeting soon and somewhat abruptly
terminated."[744] So far as it related to the distribution of
patronage, this conference, held early in March, settled nothing
beyond Barney's appointment; as to the question whether Seward was
President or Premier, however, the New Yorker soon learned that he was
to have influence with his chief only by reason of his assiduous
attention to the public business and his dexterity and tact in
promoting the views of the President.[745]

[Footnote 742: "Strong protests against Barney have been received
within 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. The
President 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 the
strife is deadly and bitter."[746] The anti-Weed forces, reinforced by
the arrival of Greeley,[747] the coming of Barney,[748] and the
persistence of Harris,[749] were elated over reported changes in the
Weed slate, believing the fruit of their long labours was about to
come at last, but from the sum-total of the nominations, made day by
day, it appeared that while several attachés of the _Tribune's_ staff
had been recognised,[750] Seward had secured all the important
offices save collector of the port.[751] During this turmoil the
Secretary's unfailing calmness was not disturbed, nor his uniform
courtesy ruffled.

[Footnote 746: New York _Herald_, March 30, 1861.]

[Footnote 747: "Thurlow Weed patched up the New York appointments and
left this morning. Greeley arrived about the same time and has been
sponging Weed's slate at an awful rate."--_Ibid._, March 26.]

[Footnote 748: "Barney arrived this morning in response to a summons
from the President and the secretary of the treasury."--_Ibid._, April
1.]

[Footnote 749: "Senator Harris has proved himself more than a match
for Weed."--_Ibid._, April 4.]

[Footnote 750: "Thus far four attachés of the _Tribune_ have been
appointed.... These appointments except the last were Mr. Lincoln's
regardless of Mr. Seward, who bears the _Tribune_ no love."--_Ibid._,
March 29.]

[Footnote 751: "Seward secures all the important offices save the
collectorship, which was given to Greeley."--New York _Herald_, March
30, 1861.]

Seward never forgot a real friend. Out of thirty-five diplomatic posts
carrying a salary of five thousand dollars and upward, the Empire
State was credited with nine; and, of these, one, a minister
plenipotentiary, received twelve thousand dollars, and seven ministers
resident, seventy-five hundred each. Seward, with the advice of
Thurlow Weed, filled them all with tried and true supporters. Greeley,
who, for some time, had been murmuring about the Secretary's
appointments, let fly, at last, a sarcastic paragraph or two about the
appointment of Andrew B. Dickinson, the farmer statesman of Steuben,
which betrayed something of the bitterness existing between the
Secretary of State and the editor of the _Tribune_. For more than a
year no such thing had existed as personal relations. Before the
spring of 1860 they met frequently with a show of cordiality, and,
although the former understood that the latter boasted an independence
of control whenever they differed in opinion, the _Tribune_
co-operated and its editor freely conferred with the New York senator
during the long struggle in Congress for Kansas and free labour; but
after Seward's defeat at Chicago they never met,[752] dislike
displaced regard, and the _Tribune_, with eye and ear open to catch
whatever would make its adversary wince, indulged in bitter sarcasm.
William B. Taylor's reappointment as postmaster at New York City gave
it opportunity to praise Taylor and criticise Seward, claiming that
the former, who had held office under Buchanan, though an excellent
official, was not a Republican. This proved so deep a thrust, arraying
office-seekers and their friends against the Secretary and Thurlow
Weed, 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 the
Atlantic, visiting Egypt, traversing Syria, and other portions of Asia
Minor as well as much of Europe. Soon after his return he came one
evening to my seat in Dr. Chapin's church,--as he had repeatedly done
during former visits to our city,--and I now recall this as the last
occasion on which we ever met."--Horace Greeley, _Recollections of a
Busy 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 often
benefited by his ardent and influential friendship, bade him make his
own selection from the good things he had to offer. More than ordinary
reasons existed why the Secretary desired to assist the Steuben
farmer. Dickinson served in the State Senate throughout Seward's two
terms as governor, and during these four years he had fearlessly and
faithfully explained and defended Seward's recommendation of a
division of the school fund, which proved so offensive to many
thousand voters in New York. Indeed, it may be said with truth, that
Seward's record on that one question did more to defeat him at Chicago
than 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 or
Know-Nothing element in Pennsylvania and Indiana would not only
maintain its organisation, but largely increase its strength, because
of its strong prejudices against a division of the school fund.

[Footnote 753: "'Bray Dickinson,' as he was generally and familiarly
called, whose early education was entirely neglected but whose
perceptions and intuitions were clear and ready, was an enterprising
farmer,--too enterprising, indeed, for he undertook more than he could
accomplish. His ambition was to be the largest cattle and produce
grower in his county (Steuben). If his whole time and thoughts had
been given to farming, his anticipations might have been realised,
but, as it was, he experienced the fate of those who keep too many
irons in the fire. In 1839 he was elected to the State Senate, where
for four years he was able, fearless, and inflexibly honest. On one
occasion a senator from Westchester County criticised and ridiculed
Dickinson's language. Dickinson immediately rejoined, saying that
while his difficulty consisted in a want of suitable language with
which to express his ideas, his colleague was troubled with a flood of
words without any ideas to express."--Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of
Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, pp. 441, 442.]

Dickinson met this issue squarely. He followed the powerful
Pennsylvanian and Indianian from delegation to delegation, explaining
that Seward had sought simply to turn the children of poor foreigners
into the path of moral and intellectual cultivation pursued by the
American born,--a policy, he declared, in which all Republicans and
Christian citizens should concur. He pictured school conditions in New
York City in 1840, the date of Seward's historic message; he showed
how prejudices arising from differences of language and religion kept
schoolhouses empty and slum children ignorant, while reform schools
and prisons were full. Under these circumstances, thundered the
Steuben farmer, Seward did right in recommending the establishment of
schools in which such children might be instructed by teachers
speaking the same language with themselves, and professing the same
faith.

This was the sort of defence Seward appreciated. His recommendation
had not been the result of carelessness or inadvertence, and, although
well-meaning friends sought to excuse it as such, he resented the
insinuation. "I am only determined the more," he wrote, "to do what
may be in my power to render our system of education as comprehensive
as the interests involved, and to provide for the support of the
glorious superstructure of universal suffrage,--the basis of universal
education."[754] In his defence, Dickinson maintained the excellence
of Seward's suggestion, and it deeply angered the Steuben farmer that
the _Tribune's_ editor, who knew the facts as well as he, did not also
attempt to silence the arguments of the two most influential Lincoln
delegates, who boldly based their opposition, not upon personal
hostility or his advanced position in Republican faith, but upon what
Greeley had known for twenty years to be a perversion of Seward's
language 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 of
grammar 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] protested
against such an appointment to such an important post. "We have long
known him," said the _Tribune_, "as a skilful farmer, a cunning
politician, and a hearty admirer of Mr. Seward, but never suspected
him of that intimate knowledge of the Spanish language which is almost
indispensable to that country, which, just at this moment, from the
peculiar designs of the Southern rebels, is one of the most important
that the secretary of state has to fill."[756] Dickinson recognised
the odium that would attach to Seward because of the appointment, and
in a characteristic letter he assured the Secretary of State that,
whatever Greeley might say, he need have no fear of his ability to
represent 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 to
take a Gentleman with me that can speak the Spanish language and
correct bad English. That being well done I can take care of the
ballance [Transcriber's Note: so in original] Greeley to the contrary
notwithstanding.... You have much at stake in my appointment as it is
charged (and I know how justly) to your account."--Unpublished letter
in files of State Department.]

James S. Pike's selection for minister resident to The Hague seemed to
contradict Greeley's declaration that he neither asked nor desired the
appointment 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 to
Maine and was supported by its delegation in Congress, the real power
behind the throne lived in New York. Nevertheless, the _Tribune's_
editor, drifting in thought and speech in the inevitable direction of
his 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 for
the new Administration.[759] The _Tribune's_ editor seems never to
have shown an exalted appreciation of Abraham Lincoln. Although they
served together in Congress, and, for twenty years, had held to the
same political faith, Greeley, apparently indifferent to his
colleague's success, advocated, in 1858, the return of Stephen A.
Douglas to the United States Senate, because of his hostility to the
Lecompton policy of the Buchanan administration, and it was intimated
that this support, backed by his powerful journal, may have resulted
in Douglas' carrying the Legislature against Lincoln. In 1860, Greeley
favoured Bates for President. He was not displeased to have Lincoln
nominated, but his battle had been to defeat Seward, and when Lincoln
turned to Seward for secretary of state, which meant, as Greeley
believed, the domination of the Weed machine to punish his revolt
against Seward, Greeley became irretrievably embittered against the
President.

[Footnote 759: "I am charged with having opposed the selection of
Governor Seward for a place in President Lincoln's Cabinet. That is
utterly, absolutely false, the President himself being my witness. I
might 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, could
have had close personal relations. Lack of sympathy because they did
not see things alike must have kept them apart; but Seward's presence
in the Cabinet undoubtedly limited Greeley's intercourse with the
President at a time when frequent conferences might have avoided grave
embarrassments. His virile and brilliant talents, which turned him
into an independent and acute thinker on a wide range of subjects,
always interested his readers, giving expression to the thoughts of
many earnest men who aided in forming public opinion in their
neighbourhoods, so that it may be said with truth, that, in 1860 and
1861, everything he wrote was eagerly read and discussed in the North.
"Notwithstanding the loyal support given Lincoln throughout the
country," 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 as
the nervous, spirited rhetoric of an intense talker. With the air of
lofty detachment from sordid interests, his sentences, clear and
rapid, read like the clarion notes of a peroration, and impressed his
great audiences with an earnestness that often carried conviction even
to unwilling listeners.

[Footnote 760: Alex. K. McClure, _Lincoln and Men of War Times_, p.
295.]

Nevertheless, the _Tribune's_ columns did not manifest toward the
Administration a fine exhibition of the love of fair play. In the
hottest moment of excitement growing out of hostilities, it
patriotically supported the most vigorous prosecution of the war, and
mercilessly criticised its opponents; but Greeley would neither
conform to nor silently endure Lincoln's judgment, and, as every step
in the war created new issues, his constant criticism, made through
the columns of a great newspaper, kept the party more or less
seriously divided, until, by untimely forcing emancipation, he
inspired, despite the patient and conciliatory methods of Lincoln, a
factious hostility to the President which embarrassed his efforts to
marshal a solid North in support of his war policy. Greeley was a man
of clean hands and pure heart, and, at the outset, it is probable that
his attempted direction of Lincoln's policy existed without
ill-feeling; yet he was a good hater, and, as the contest went on, he
drifted into an opposition which gradually increased in bitterness,
and, finally, led to a temporary and foolish rebellion against the
President's renomination. Meantime, the great-hearted Lincoln, conning
the lesson taught by the voice of history, continued to practise the
precept,

    "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 Northern
District of New York_


VOL. III

1861-1882


[Illustration]


NEW YORK
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
1909

COPYRIGHT, 1909,
BY
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY

Published, September, 1909


THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESS
RAHWAY, 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 the
concluding chapter of the preceding volume, President Lincoln,
whenever escape from the patronage hunters permitted, was considering
the wisdom of provisioning Fort Sumter. Grave doubt obtained as to the
government's physical ability to succour the fort, but, assuming it
possible, was it wise as a political measure? The majority of the
Cabinet, including Seward, voted in the negative, giving rise to the
report that Sumter would be abandoned. Union people generally, wishing
to support the brave and loyal action of Major Anderson and his little
band, vigorously protested against such an exhibition of weakness, and
the longer the Government hesitated the more vigorously the popular
will resented such a policy. Finally, on March 29, in spite of General
Scott's advice and Secretary Seward's opinion, the President, guided
by public sentiment, directed a relief expedition to be ready to sail
as early as April 6.

Meanwhile a Confederate constitution had been adopted, a Confederate
flag raised over the capitol at Montgomery, and a Confederate Congress
assembled, which had authorised the enlistment of 100,000 volunteers,
the issue of $1,000,000 in treasury notes, and the organisation of a
navy. To take charge of military operations at Charleston, the
Confederate government commissioned Pierre T. Beauregard a
brigadier-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 responsibility
of reducing the fort before the relief expedition arrived. In
discussing this serious question Robert Toombs, the Confederate
secretary of state, did not hesitate to declare that "the firing upon
it at this time is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at
the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from
mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us
to 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 from
South Carolina, ordered Beauregard to demand its evacuation, and, if
refused, "to reduce it."[762] Answering Beauregard's aides, who
submitted the demand on the afternoon of April 11, Anderson refused to
withdraw, 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 the
Confederate Secretary of War replied: "Do not desire needlessly to
bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time at which,
as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree in the meantime he
will not use his guns against us unless ours should be employed
against Sumter, you are authorised thus to avoid the effusion of
blood. If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort as your
judgment decides to be the most practicable."[764] Four aides submitted
this proposition at a quarter before one o'clock on the morning of
April 12, to which Anderson, after conferring two hours and a half
with his officers, replied, "I will evacuate by noon on the 15th
instant, and I will not in the meantime open fire upon your forces
unless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort or the
flag of my Government, should I not receive, prior to that time,
controlling instructions from my Government or additional
supplies."[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 Confederate
Congress, 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 with
Beauregard notified Anderson that in one hour their batteries would
open fire on the fort. Prompt to the minute, at 4.30 o'clock in the
morning, a shell from Fort Johnson, signalling the bombardment to
begin, burst directly over Sumter. At seven o'clock Anderson's force,
numbering one hundred and twenty-eight officers, men, and
non-combatant labourers, who had breakfasted upon half rations of pork
and damaged rice, began returning the fire, which continued briskly at
first and afterwards intermittently until the evacuation on Sunday
afternoon, the 14th inst.[766]

[Footnote 766: _Ibid._, Vol. 1, p. 12.]

Within twenty-four hours the prophecy of Robert Toombs was practically
fulfilled, for when, on Monday, April 15, President Lincoln called for
75,000 State militia to execute the laws, the people of the North rose
almost as one man to support the government. "At the darkest moment in
the history of the Republic," Emerson wrote, "when it looked as if the
nation would be dismembered, pulverised into its original elements,
the attack on Fort Sumter crystalised the North into a unit, and the
hope 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 York
City. It was the heart of the Union and the home of Southern sympathy.
Men had argued coolly and philosophically about the right of
secession, and journals of wide influence daily exhibited strong
Southern leanings. Owing to business connections and social
intercourse with the South, merchants had petitioned for concessions
so offensive to Lincoln that Southern statesmen confidently relied
upon their friendship as an important factor in dividing the North. On
many platforms Daniel S. Dickinson, James T. Brady, John Cochrane, and
others equally well known and influential, had held the North
responsible for conditions that, it was claimed, were driving the
South into secession. So recently as December 20, in a meeting of more
than ordinary importance, held on Pine Street, at which Charles
O'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 with
them.... The South have not offended us.... But their slaves have been
run off in numbers by an underground railroad, and insult and injury
returned for a constitutional duty.... If we would remain a united
people we must treat the Southern States as we treated them on the
inauguration 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 York
would sustain Virginia in any policy it adopted,[769] and on April 4 a
Confederate commissioner, writing from Manhattan, reported to
Jefferson Davis that two hundred of the most influential and wealthy
citizens were then arranging the details to declare New York a free
city. Several army officers as well as leading ship-builders, said the
letter, had been found responsive, through whose assistance recruits
from 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 nothing
was known to the friends of the Union of the existence of such a
conspiracy, deep anxiety prevailed as to how far the spirit of
rebellion which had manifested itself in high places, extended among
the population of the great metropolis.

[Footnote 769: New York _Tribune_, March 15, 1861.]

[Footnote 770: Letter of John W. Forsyth, MSS. Confederate Diplomatic
Correspondence, April 4, 1861.]

The guns aimed at Sumter, however, quickly removed the impression that
the greed of commerce was stronger than the love of country. The Stock
Exchange resounded with enthusiastic cheers for Major Anderson, and
generous loans showed that the weight of the financial and trade
centre of the country was on the side of the national government. But
more convincing proof of a solid North found expression in the spirit
of 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 six
platforms, each occupied with a corps of patriotic orators, an
illustrious audience, numbering some of the most famous Democrats of
the State, who had quickly discarded political prejudices, stood for
hours listening to loyal utterances that were nobly illustrated by the
valour of Major Anderson, whose presence increased the enthusiasm into
a deafening roar of repeated cheers. If any doubt heretofore existed
as to the right of coercing a State, or upon whom rested the
responsibility for beginning the war, or who were the real enemies of
the Union, or where prominent members of the Democratic party would
stand, it had now disappeared. The partisan was lost in the patriot.

Daniel S. Dickinson travelled two hundred miles to be present at this
meeting, and his attitude, assumed without qualification or
reservation, especially pleased the lovers of the Union. Of all men he
had retained and proclaimed his predilections for the South with the
zeal and stubbornness of an unconverted Saul. Throughout the long
discussion of twenty years his sympathy remained with the South, his
ambitions centred in the South, and his words, whether so intended or
not, encouraged the South to believe in a divided North. But the guns
at Sumter changed him as quickly as a voice converted St. Paul. "It
were profitless," he said, his eyes resting upon the torn flag that
had waved over Sumter--"it were profitless to inquire for original or
remote causes; it is no time for indecision or inaction.... I would
assert the power of the government over those who owe it allegiance
and attempt its overthrow, as Brutus put his signet to the
death-warrant of his son, that I might exclaim with him, 'Justice is
satisfied, and Rome is free.' For myself, in our federal relations, I
know but one section, one Union, one flag, one government. That
section embraces every State; that Union is the Union sealed with the
blood and consecrated by the tears of the revolutionary struggle; that
flag is the flag known and honoured in every sea under heaven; that
government is the government of Washington, and Adams, and Jefferson,
and Jackson; a government which has shielded and protected not only
us, but God's oppressed children, who have gathered under its wings
from 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 independent
city, now declared the past buried, with its political associations
and sympathies, and pledged the municipality, its money and its men,
to the support of the Union. "I am with you in this contest. We know
no party, now."[772] Of the fifty or more speeches delivered from the
several platforms, perhaps the address of John Cochrane, whose
ridiculous Richmond oration was scarcely a month old, proved the most
impressive. Cochrane had a good presence, a clear, penetrating voice,
and spoke in round, rhetorical periods. If he sometimes illustrated
the passionate and often the extravagant declaimer, his style was
finished, and his fervid appeals deeply stirred the emotions if they
did not always guide the reason. It was evident that he now spoke with
the sincere emotion of one whose mind and heart were filled with the
cause for which he pleaded. In his peroration, pointing to the torn
flag of Sumter, he raised the vast audience to such a pitch of
excitement that when he dramatically proclaimed his motto to be, "Our
country, our whole country--in any event, a united country," the
continued cheering was with great difficulty sufficiently suppressed
to 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. Governor
Morgan immediately communicated it to the Legislature, which
authorised in a few hours the enlistment of 30,000 volunteers for two
years. Instantly every drill room and armory in the State became a
scene of great activity, and by April 19, four days after the call,
the Seventh New York, each man carrying forty-eight rounds of ball
cartridge, received an enthusiastic ovation as it marched down
Broadway on its way to Washington. Thereafter, each day presented,
somewhere in the State, a similar pageant. Men offered their services
so much faster than the Government could take them that bitterness
followed the fierce competition.[774] By July 1 New York had despatched
to the seat of war 46,700 men--an aggregate that was swelled by
December 30 to 120,361. Loans to the government, offered with an
equally 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 of
troops and forwarding of supplies, President Lincoln, during the
excitement incident to the isolation of Washington, conferred
extraordinary powers upon Governor Morgan, William M. Evarts, and
Moses H. Grinnell, to whom army officers were instructed to report for
orders. Similar powers to act for the Treasury Department in the
disbursement of public money were conferred upon John A. Dix, George
Opdyke, and Richard M. Blatchford. These gentlemen gave no security
and received no compensation, but "I am not aware," wrote Lincoln, at
a later day, "that a dollar of the public funds, thus confided,
without authority of law, to unofficial persons, was either lost or
wasted."[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 raise
money, provide supplies, and equip regiments. For the time this
committee became the executive arm of the national government in New
York, giving method to effort and concentrating the people's energies
for the highest efficiency. John A. Dix, who had seen sixteen years of
peace service in the regular army, equipped regiments and despatched
them to Washington, while James S. Wadsworth, a man without military
experience but of great public spirit, whose courage and energy
especially fitted him for the work, loaded steamboats with provisions
and accompanied them to Annapolis. Soon afterwards Dix became a
major-general of volunteers, while Wadsworth, eager for active
service, accepted an appointment on General McDowell's staff with the
rank of major. This took him to Manassas, and within a month gave him
a "baptism of fire" which distinguished him for coolness, high
courage, and great capacity. On August 9 he was made a brigadier-general
of volunteers, thus preceding in date of commission all other New
Yorkers of similar rank not graduates of West Point.

A few weeks later Daniel E. Sickles, no less famous in the political
arena, who was to win the highest renown as a fighter, received
similar rank. Sickles, at the age of twenty-two, began public life as
a member of the Assembly, and in the succeeding fourteen years served
as corporation attorney, secretary of legation at London, State
senator, and congressman. A Hunker in politics, an adept with the
revolver, and fearless in defence, he had the habit of doing his own
thinking. Tammany never had a stronger personality. He was not always
a successful leader and he cared little for party discipline, but as
an antagonist bent on having his own way his name had become a
household word in the metropolis and in conventions. In the
anti-slavery crusade his sympathies were Southern. He opposed Lincoln,
he favoured compromise, and he encouraged the cotton States to believe
in a divided North. Nevertheless, when the Union was assaulted, the
soldier spirit that made him major of the Twelfth National Guards in
1852 took him to Washington at the head of the Excelsior Brigade,
consisting of five regiments, fully armed and equipped, and ready to
serve during the war. He reached the capital at the time when more
regiments were offered than General Scott would accept, but with the
energy that afterward characterised his action at Gettysburg he sought
the President, who promptly gave him the order that mustered his men
and put him in command.[776] Other leaders who had voiced Southern
sentiments, notably John Cochrane, soon found places at the front.
Indeed, those who had professed the warmest friendship for the South
were among the first to speak or take up arms against it.

[Footnote 776: "He went direct to the President, and asked him, in
proper language, if he approved of the petty intrigues that sought to
defeat his patriotic purpose. 'I know nothing of them, General,' said
the President, 'and have only this to say, that, whatever are the
obstacles thrown in your way, come to me, and I will remove them
promptly. Should you stand in need of my assistance to hasten the
organisation of your brigade, come to me again, and I will give or do
whatever is required. I want your men, General, and you are the man to
lead them. Go to the Secretary of War and get your instructions
immediately.'"--New York _Herald_, May 17, 1861.]

The Confederates, entering upon the path of revolution with the hope
of a divided North, exhibited much feeling over this unanimity of
sentiment. "Will the city of New York 'kiss the rod that smites her,'"
asked the leading paper in Virginia, "and at the bidding of her Black
Republican tyrants war upon her Southern friends and best customers?
Will she sacrifice her commerce, her wealth, her population, her
character, in order to strengthen the arm of her oppressors?"[777] Ten
days later another influential representative of Southern sentiment,
watching the proceedings of the great Union Square meeting, answered
the 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 coercing
and subjugating the South."[778] The Charleston _Mercury_ called the
roll of these statesmen in the several States. "Where," it asked, "are
Fillmore, Van Buren, Cochrane, McKeon, Weed, Dix, Dickinson, and
Barnard, of New York, in the bloody crusade proposed by President
Lincoln against the South? Unheard of in their dignified retirement,
or hounding on the fanatic warfare, or themselves joining 'the noble
army of martyrs for liberty' marching on the South."[779] Other papers
were no less indignant. "We are told," said the Richmond _Examiner_,
"that the whole North is rallying as one man--Douglas, veering as ever
with the popular breeze; Buchanan lifting a treacherous and
time-serving voice of encouragement from the icy atmosphere of
Wheatland; and well-fed and well-paid Fillmore, eating up all his past
words of indignation for Southern injuries, and joining in the popular
hue-and-cry against his special benefactors."[780] The _Enquirer_,
speaking of Daniel S. Dickinson as "the former crack champion of
Southern Rights," sneered at his having given his "adhesion to Lincoln
and all his abolition works."[781] To the South which believed in the
constitutional right of secession, the contest for the Union was a war
of subjugation, and whoever took part in it was stigmatised. "The
proposition to _subjugate_," said the _Examiner_, "comes from the
metropolis of the North's boasted conservatism, even from the largest
beneficiary 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 disappointing
and surprising to the South, an event occurred that cast a deep shadow
over New York in common with the rest of the country. The press,
presumably voicing public opinion, demanded that the army begin the
work for which it was organised. Many reasons were given--some
quixotic, some born of suspicion, and others wholly unworthy their
source. The New York _Tribune_, in daily articles, became alarmingly
impatient, expressing the fear that influences were keeping the armies
apart until peace could be obtained on humiliating terms to the
North.[783] Finally, on June 27, appeared a four-line, triple-leaded
leader, printed in small capitals, entitled "The Nation's War-Cry." It
was as mandatory as it was conspicuous. "Forward to Richmond! Forward
to Richmond! The Rebel Congress must not be allowed to meet there on
the 20th of July! By that date the place must be held by the National
Army!"[784] This war-cry appeared from day to day with editorials
indicating a fear of Democratic intrigue, and hinting at General
Scott's insincerity.[785]

[Footnote 783: June 24, 1861.]

[Footnote 784: _Ibid._, June 27.]

[Footnote 785: "Do you pretend to know more about military affairs than
General Scott? ask a few knaves, whom a great many simpletons know no
better 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 is
asked only to shuffle out of sight--is this: Does General Scott
contemplate the same ends, and is he animated by like impulses and
purposes, with the great body of the loyal, liberty-loving people of
this country? Does he want the Rebels routed, or would he prefer to
have them conciliated?"--_Ibid._, July 1, 1861.]

General Scott did not approve a battle at that time. He thought the
troops insufficiently drilled and disciplined. On the other hand, the
President argued that a successful battle would encourage the country,
maintain the unanimity of the war sentiment, and gain the respect of
foreign governments. General McDowell had 30,000 men in the vicinity
of Bull Run, Virginia, of whom 1,600 were regulars--the rest, for the
most part, three months' volunteers whose term of enlistment soon
expired. At Martinsburg, General Patterson, a veteran of two wars,
commanded 20,000 Federal troops. Opposed to the Union forces, General
Beauregard had an effective army of 22,000, with 9,000 in the
Shenandoah Valley under command of Joseph E. Johnston. In obedience to
the popular demand McDowell moved his troops slowly toward
Beauregard's lines, and on Sunday, July 21, attacked with his whole
force, gaining a complete victory by three o'clock in the afternoon.
Meantime, however, Johnston, having eluded Patterson, brought to the
field at the supreme moment two or three thousand fresh troops and
turned a Confederate defeat into a Union rout and panic.[786]

[Footnote 786: Of 49 regiments engaged, 19 were from New York, and of
the 3,343 killed, wounded, and missing, 1,230 were New Yorkers.--Official
Records, Series 1, Vol. 2, pp. 314, 315, 351, 387, 405, 426.]

After coolness and confidence had displaced the confusion of this wild
stampede, it became clear that the battle of Bull Run had been well
planned, and that for inexperienced and undisciplined troops
McDowell's army had fought bravely. It appeared plain that had
Patterson arrived with 2,300 fresh troops instead of Johnston, the
Confederates must have been the routed and panic-stricken party. To
the North, however, defeat was the source of much shame. It seemed a
verification of the Southern boast that one Confederate could whip two
Yankees, and deepened the conviction that the war was to be long and
severe. Moreover, fear was expressed that it would minimise the much
desired sympathy of England and other foreign governments. But it
brought no abatement of energy. With one voice the press of the North
demanded renewed activity, and before a week had elapsed every
department of government girded itself anew for the conflict.[787] The
vigour and enthusiasm of this period have been called a second
uprising of the North, and the work of a few weeks exhibited the
wonderful 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 antagonism
to the war. Certain journals violently resented the suspension of the
writ of _habeas corpus_, while the Act of Congress, approved August 3,
providing for the freedom of slaves employed in any military or naval
service, called forth such extreme denunciations that the United
States grand jury for the Southern District of New York asked the
Court if the authors were subject to indictment. "These
newspapers,"[788] said the foreman, "are in the frequent practice of
encouraging the rebels now in arms against the Federal Government by
expressing sympathy and agreement with them, the duty of acceding to
their demands, and dissatisfaction with the employment of force to
overcome them. Their conduct is, of course, condemned and abhorred by
all loyal men, but the grand jury will be glad to learn from the Court
that they are also subject to indictment and condign punishment." The
Postmaster-General's order excluding such journals from the mails
intensified the bitterness. The arrests of persons charged with giving
aid and comfort to the enemy also furnished partisans an opportunity
to make people distrustful of such summary methods by magnifying the
danger to personal liberty. In a word, the Bull Run disaster had
become 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 prominent
Democrat, who is entirely devoted to sustaining the government in the
present struggle. He informs me that the leaders of that party are
opposed to the war and sympathise with the South; that they keep quiet
because it will not advance their views to move just now." Letter of
William Gray, dated September 4, to Secretary Chase.--Chase Papers,
MS.]

Differences likewise appeared among Republicans. The Weed and
anti-Weed factions still existed, but these divisions now grew out of
differences far deeper than patronage. After the bombardment of Fort
Sumter, Thurlow Weed desired the conflict conducted on lines that
would unite the North into one party responding to the cry of "Union,
now and forever." He believed this might be done and that rebellion
could thus be confined to the extreme cotton region, if the loyal
element in the Border States was cherished and representatives of all
parties were permitted to participate in civil as well as military
affairs. To this end he sought to avoid the question of emancipation,
cordially approving the President's course in modifying Fremont's
proclamation of the preceding August, which liberated the slaves of
traitorous owners in Missouri. Weed pushed his contention to the
extreme. Following the spirit of his rejected compromise he insisted
that every act of the Government should strengthen and encourage the
Union men of the Border States, among which he included North Carolina
and Tennessee, and he bitterly resented the policy of urging the army,
hastily and without due preparation, to fight "political battles" like
that of Bull Run. On the other hand, the radical anti-slavery element
of the country, led by Secretary Chase in the Cabinet, by Senator
Sumner in Congress, and backed by Horace Greeley in the _Tribune_,
disliked the President's policy of trying to conciliate Kentucky and
other Border States by listening to the demands of slavery. This
factional difference became doubly pronounced after Lincoln's
modification of the Fremont proclamation.

Notwithstanding Democratic criticisms and Republican differences,
however, the supporters of Lincoln, anxious to teach the seceding
States an object lesson in patriotism, desired to unite both parties
into one Union organisation, pledged to the vigorous prosecution of
the war and the execution of the laws in all parts of the country. To
Republicans this plan looked easy. Most people professed to favour the
preservation of the Union, and thousands of young men irrespective of
party had enlisted for the suppression of armed rebellion. Moreover, a
union of parties at such a critical moment, it was argued, would be
more helpful in discouraging the South than victory on the
battlefield. Accordingly the Republican State Committee proposed to
the Democrats early in August that in the election to occur on
November 4 a single ticket be nominated, fairly representative of all
parties upon a simple war platform.

About Dean Richmond, chairman of the Democratic State Committee, still
clustered Peter Cagger, William B. Ludlow, Sanford E. Church, and
other Soft leaders, with Horatio Seymour substantially in control.
These men had not participated in the Union Square meeting on April
20, nor had their sentiments been voiced since the fall of Fort
Sumter; but it was well known that their views did not coincide with
those 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 public
offices with pure and able men who commanded the confidence of the
people, and suggested, with a play of sarcasm, that if such an example
were set in filling Federal offices, it would probably be followed in
the selection of State officers. But the politics of men in office, he
continued, was of little importance compared to sound principles.
Democrats would unite with all citizens opposed to any war and equally
to any peace which is based upon the idea of the separation of these
States, and who regard it the duty of the Federal government at all
times to hold out terms of peace and accommodation to the dissevered
States.

"Our political system," he continued, "was founded in compromise, and
it can never be dishonourable in any Administration to seek to restore
it by the same means. Above all, they repel the idea that there exists
between the two sections of the Union such an incompatibility of
institutions as to give rise to an irrepressible conflict between
them, which can only terminate in the subjugation of one or the other.
Repelling the doctrine that any State can rightfully secede from the
Union, they hold next in abhorrence that aggressive and fanatical
sectional policy which has so largely contributed to the present
danger of the country. They propose, therefore, to invite to union
with them all citizens of whatever party, who, believing in these
views, will act with them to secure honest administration in Federal
and State affairs, a rigid maintenance of the Constitution, economy in
public expenditures, honesty in the award of contracts, justice to the
soldier in the field and the taxpayer at home, and the expulsion of
corrupt men from office."[790]

[Footnote 790: New York _Herald_, August 9, 1861.]

It was hardly to be expected, perhaps, that Dean Richmond and other
representatives of a great party would be willing, even if moved by no
other motive than a love of country, to abandon a political
organisation that had existed for years, and that had already shown
its patriotism by the generous enlistment of its members; but it is
doubtful if they would have proclaimed, without the guidance of a
State convention, such an elaborate and positive platform of
principles, had not the serious defeat at Bull Run and the action of
the President in suspending the writ of _habeas corpus_, subjected the
national Administration to severe criticism. This, at least, was the
view taken by the radical Republican press, which viciously attacked
the patriotism of Richmond and his associates, charging them with
using 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 at
Syracuse on September 4. It was not an enthusiastic body. The division
upon national affairs plainly had a depressing influence. Francis
Kernan became temporary chairman. At the Oneida bar, Kernan, then
forty-five years old, had been for nearly two decades the peer of
Hiram Denio, Samuel Beardsley, Ward Hunt, and Joshua Spencer. He was a
forceful speaker, cool and self-possessed, with a pleasing voice and
good manner. He could not be called an orator, but he was a master of
the art of making a perfectly clear statement, and in defending his
position, point by point, with never failing readiness and skill, he
had few if any superiors. He belonged, also, to that class of able
lawyers who are never too busy to take an active interest in public
affairs.

In his brief address Kernan clearly outlined the position which the
Democracy of the whole country was to occupy. "It is our duty," he
said, "to oppose abolitionism at the North and secession at the South,
which are equally making war upon our Government. Let us consign them
both to a common grave. Never will our country see peace unless we
do.... We care not what men are in charge of the Government, it is our
duty as patriots and as Democrats to protect and preserve that
Government, and resist with arms, and, if need be, with our lives, the
men who seek to overthrow it; but this must be no war for the
emancipation of slaves."[792]

[Footnote 792: New York _Tribune_, September 5, 1861.]

The vigor of Kernan as a speaker and presiding officer exaggerated by
contrast the feebleness of Herman J. Redfield, the permanent president
of the convention. Redfield was an old man, a mere reminiscence of the
days of DeWitt Clinton, whose speech, read in a low, weak voice, was
directed mainly to a defence of the sub-treasury plan of 1840 and the
tariff act of 1846.[793] He professed to favour a vigorous prosecution
of the war, but there were no words of reprobation for its authors,
while he expressed the belief that "civil war will never preserve, but
forever destroy the union of States." This was the prophecy of Reuben
H. Walworth, the ex-chancellor, made at the Albany peace convention in
the preceding January, and the applause that greeted the statement
then, as it did at Syracuse, indicated a disposition on the part of
many to favour concessions that would excuse if it did not absolutely
justify secession.

[Footnote 793: "From what lodge in some vast wilderness, from what lone
mountain in the desert, the convention obtained its Rip Van Winkle
president, we are at a loss to conceive. He evidently has never heard
of the Wilmot Proviso struggle of 1848, the compromise contest of
1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Lecompton constitution of
1858, nor the presidential election of 1860. It is plain that he has
never even dreamed of the secession ordinances and of the fall of
Sumter."--New York _Tribune_, September 6, 1861.

"The speech of Mr. Redfield is universally laughed at. He has
completely proven that he does not belong to the present century, or,
at least, that he has been asleep for the last twenty years. Barnum
should deposit it among the curiosities of his shop."--New York
_Herald_, September 5, 1861.]

The party platform, however, took little notice of the Redfield speech
and the Redfield cheers. It declared that the right of secession did
not anywhere or at any time exist; that the seizure of United States
property and the sending out of privateers to prey on American
commerce had precipitated the war; and that it was the duty of the
government to put down rebellion with all the means in its power, and
the duty of the people to rally about the government; but it also
demanded that Congress call a convention of all the States to revise
the Constitution, and that the Administration abandon the narrow
platform of the Chicago convention, expel corrupt men from office, and
exclude advocates of abolition from the Cabinet, declaring that it
would "regard any attempt to pervert the conflict into a war for the
emancipation of slaves as fatal to the hope of restoring the Union."

The debate upon the platform was destined to bring into prominence a
broader loyalty than even Francis Kernan had exhibited. Arphaxed
Loomis moved to restore the resolution, expunged in the committee's
report, protesting against the passport system, the State police
system, the suppression of free discussion in the press, and the
suspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_. It is doubtful if the
freedom of the press had been materially abridged, since restrictions
upon a few newspapers, charged with giving aid and comfort to the
enemy, scarcely exceeded the proscription of anti-slavery papers
before 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. Among
others arrested were two men at Malone, besides an editor of the New
York _News_, and a crippled newsboy who sold the _News_. Public
sentiment generally sustained the Administration in such action, but
many persons, including conservative Republicans, frequently
questioned the right or justice of such procedure. "What are we coming
to," asked Senator Trumbull of Illinois, "if arrests may be made at
the whim or the caprice of a cabinet minister?"[794] Loomis, in
insisting upon his resolution, had these arbitrary arrests in mind,
maintaining that it embodied the true principles of Democracy, which
he was unwilling to see violated without recording a protest.

[Footnote 794: "Lieber says that _habeas corpus_, free meetings like
this, and a free press, are the three elements which distinguish
liberty from despotism. All that Saxon blood has gained in the battles
and 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 the
republic. We live to-day, every one of us, under martial law. The
Secretary of State puts into his bastille, with a warrant as
irresponsible as that of Louis, any man whom he pleases. And you know
that neither press nor lips may venture to arraign the government
without being silenced. At this moment at least one thousand men are
'bastilled' by an authority as despotic as that of Louis, three times
as many as Eldon and George III seized when they trembled for his
throne. For the first time on this continent we have passports, which
even Louis Napoleon pronounces useless and odious. For the first time
in our history government spies frequent our cities."--Lecture of
Wendell Phillips, delivered in New York, December, 1861.]

This brought to his feet Albert P. Laning of Buffalo. He was younger
by a score of years than Loomis, and although never as prominent,
perhaps, as the great advocate of legal reformative measures, his
remarkable memory and thorough grasp of legal principles had listed
him among the strong lawyers of Western New York. To the convention he
was well known as a clear, forceful speaker, who had been a student of
political history as well as of law, and who, in spite of his ardent
devotion to his profession, had revealed, when shaping the policy of
his party, the personal gifts and remarkable power of sustained
argument that win admiration.

At Syracuse, in 1861, Laning, just then in his early forties, was in
the fulness of his intellectual power. He had followed Douglas and
favored the Crittenden Compromise, but the fall of Sumter crippled his
sympathy for the South and stiffened his support of the Federal
administration. Moreover, he understood the difficulty, during a
period of war, of conducting an impartial, constitutional opposition
to the policy of the Administration, without its degeneration into a
faction, 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 of
all good men not to embarrass the Government in such a crisis. Rather
than that bold rebellion should destroy the government, he said, he
preferred to allow the President to take his own course. The
responsibility was upon him, and the people, irrespective of party,
should strengthen his hands until danger had disappeared and the
government was re-established in all its strength.

Kernan did not take kindly to these sentiments. Like Loomis he
resented 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 wild
cheering. Though brief, this speech resulted in restoring the Loomis
resolution to its place in the platform, and in increasing the
clamour that Kernan lead the party as a candidate for attorney-general.
Kernan was not averse to taking office. For three years, from 1856 to
1859, he had been official reporter for the Court of Appeals, and in
1860 served in the Assembly. Later, he entered Congress, finally
reaching the United States Senate. But in 1861 prudence prompted him
to decline the tempting offer of a nomination for attorney-general,
and although entreated to reconsider his determination, he stubbornly
resisted, and at last forced the nomination of Lyman Tremaine of
Albany, who had previously held the office.[795]

[Footnote 795: The State ticket was made up as follows: Secretary of
State, David R. Floyd Jones of Queens; Judge of the Court of Appeals,
George F. Comstock of Onondaga; Comptroller, George F. Scott of
Saratoga; Attorney-General, Lyman Tremaine of Albany; Treasurer of
State, Francis C. Brouck of Erie; Canal Commissioners, Jarvis B. Lord
of 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. To
some the drift of the speeches and resolutions seemed an encouragement
to armed rebellion; to others, although jealous of individual rights,
it appeared to confuse the liberty of the press with license. One
paper, an able representative of the party, disclaiming any desire "to
rekindle animosities by discussing its various objectionable points,"
felt "bound to express its heartfelt repugnance of the malignant and
traitorous spirit which animates the Loomis resolution."[796] These
were severe words, showing that others than Laning opposed such
criticism of the President.

[Footnote 796: New York _Leader_, September 9, 1861.]

Dean Richmond's refusal to unite in a Union convention did not stifle
the hope that many Democrats might participate in such a meeting, and
to afford them an opportunity a People's convention met at Wieting
Hall in Syracuse, on September 11, contemporaneously with the
Republican State convention. It became evident that the purpose was
attained when the Democrats present declared that the banner of their
former party no longer marked a place for them to muster. In character
the members resembled determined Abolitionists in the forties. Its
president, Thomas G. Alvord of Onondaga, had been speaker of the
Assembly, a competitor of Gordon Granger for Congress, and a
pronounced Hard Shell until the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
drove 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, and
subsequently to distinguish himself at Antietam and Chancellorsville
at the head of the One Hundred and Seventh; other participants,
conspicuous in their respective localities, were to suffer bitterly
and struggle bravely to maintain the Union. One delegate sung the
"Star Spangled Banner," while the others, with radiant faces, broke
into cheers. This was followed by several brief and vigorous speeches
approving the war and the methods by which it was conducted. "There is
no medium, no half way now," said one delegate, "between patriots and
traitors."[797] This was the sentiment of the platform, which waived
all political divisions and party traditions, declaring that the
convention sought only, in this hour of national peril, to proclaim
devotion to the Constitution and Union, and to defend and sustain the
chosen authorities of the government at whatever cost of blood and
treasure.

[Footnote 797: New York _Tribune_, September 10, 1861.]

Rumours of Daniel S. Dickinson's nomination had been in the air from
the outset. He had been much in the public eye since the 20th of
April. In his zeal for the Union, said the _Tribune_, "his pointed
utterances have everywhere fired the hearts of patriots." Freedom from
the blighting influence of slavery seemed to give him easier flight,
and his criticism of the Democratic convention was so felicitous, so
full of story and wit and ridicule and the fire of genuine patriotism,
that his name was quickly upon every lip, and his happy, homely hits
the common property of half the people of the State.[798] The mention
of his name for attorney-general, therefore, evoked the most
enthusiastic applause. Since the constitutional convention of 1846 it
had been the custom, in the absence of a candidate for governor, to
write the name of the nominee for secretary of state at the head of
the ticket; but in this instance the committee deemed it wise to
nominate for attorney-general first and give it to the man of first
importance. The nomination proved a popular hit. Instantly Syracuse
and the State were ablaze, and Republican as well as many Democratic
papers prophesied that it settled the result in November. The
convention professed to discard party lines and traditions, and its
sincerity, 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 the
Democratic 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. Lewis
of Kings; Court of Appeals, William B. Wright, Sullivan; Canal
Commissioners, Franklin A. Alberger of Erie and Benjamin F. Bruce of
New York; State Engineer, William B. Taylor of Oneida; State Prison
Inspector, Abram B. Tappan of Westchester.]

Whenever the People's convention recessed delegates to the Republican
convention immediately took control. Indeed, so closely related were
the two assemblies that spectators at one became delegates to the
other. Weed did not attend the convention, but it adopted his
conciliatory policy. "The popular fiat has gone forth in opposition,
on the one hand, to secession and disunion, whether in the shape of
active rebellion, or its more insidious ally, advocacy of an
inglorious and dishonourable peace; and, on the other, to everything
that savors of abolition, or tends towards a violation of the
guarantees 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 flattering
conditions. Loomis' resolution, known as the ninth or "secession"
plank, had led to serious difficulty. Men recognised that in time of
war more reserve was necessary in dealing with an Administration than
during a period of peace, for if the government's arm was paralysed it
could not stay the arm of the public enemy. This had been the position
of Laning, and it appealed strongly to Lyman Tremaine, who believed
the machinations of treason had forced the Government to suspend the
writ of _habeas corpus_, and to organise systems of passports and
State police. He boldly declined, therefore, to accept a nomination as
attorney-general on a platform that emphatically condemned such
measures, when deemed essential to the government's safety.

Tremaine, tall, portly, and commanding, belonged to the more
independent members of the party. He was not a stranger to public
life. Although but forty-two years old he had been an active party
worker for a quarter of a century and an office-holder since his
majority. Greene County made him supervisor, district attorney, and
county judge, and soon after his removal to Albany in 1854 he became
attorney-general. But these honours did not break his independence. He
inherited a genius for the forum, and although his gifts did not put
him into the first class, his name was familiar throughout the State.

Francis C. Brouck's withdrawal soon followed Tremaine's.[801] Then
Tammany repudiated the Loomis resolutions,[802] and the Albany _Argus_
shouted lustily for war.[803] But the blow that staggered Richmond came
from the candidates who caught the drift of public sentiment, and in a
proclamation of few words declared "in favour of vigorously sustaining
the Government in its present struggle to maintain the Constitution
and the Union, at all hazards, and at any cost of blood and
treasure."[804] This was the act of despair. For days they had waited,
and now, alarmed by the evident change, they jumped from the plank
that was sinking under them. "It is the first instance on record,"
said the _Herald_, "where the nominees of a convention openly and
defiantly spit upon the platform, and repudiated party leaders and
their secession heresies."[805]

[Footnote 801: Marshal M. Champlain of Allegany and William Williams of
Erie 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 and
the supporters of the People's party was more apparent than real.[806]
Each professed undying devotion to the Union. Each, also, favoured a
vigorous prosecution of the war. As the campaign advanced the activity
of the army strengthened this loyalty and minimised the criticism of
harsh methods. Moreover, the impression obtained that the war would
soon be over.[807] McClellan was in command, and the people had not yet
learned that "our chicken was no eagle, after all," as Lowell
expressed it.[808] Controversy over the interference with slavery also
became less acute. John Cochrane, now commanding a regiment at the
front, declared, in a speech to his soldiers, that slaves of the
enemy, being elements of strength, ought to be captured as much as
muskets or cannon, and that whenever he could seize a slave, and even
arm him to fight for the government, he would do so.

[Footnote 806: "There are sympathisers with the secessionists still
remaining in the Democratic ranks, but they compose a small portion of
the party. Nine-tenths of it is probably strenuous in the
determination that the constitutional authority of the government
shall be maintained and enforced without compromise. This sentiment is
far 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 flagitious
rebellion 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 any
criticism of the Government's efforts to restore the Union. "It is not
Lincoln and the Republicans we are sustaining," wrote Daniel S.
Dickinson. "They have nothing to do with it. It is the government of
our fathers, worth just as much as if it was administered by Andrew
Jackson. There is but one side to it."[809] As a rule the Hards
accepted this view, and at the ratification of the ticket in New York,
on September 20, Lyman Tremaine swelled the long list of speakers. A
letter was also read from Greene C. Bronson. To those who heard James
T. Brady at Cooper Institute on the evening of October 28 he seemed
inspired. His piercing eyes burned in their sockets, and his animated
face, now pale with emotion, expressed more than his emphatic words
the loathing felt for men who had plunged their country into bloody
strife.

[Footnote 809: Daniel S. Dickinson's _Life, Letters, and Speeches_,
Vol. 2, pp. 550-551.]

Nevertheless, it remained for Daniel S. Dickinson to stigmatise the
Democratic party. At the Union Square meeting he had burned his
bridges. It was said he had nowhere else to go; that the Hards went
out of business when the South went out of the Union; and that to the
Softs he was _non persona grata_. There was much truth in this
statement. But having once become a Radical his past affiliations gave
him some advantages. For more than twenty years he had been known
throughout the State as a Southern sympathiser. In the United States
Senate he stood with the South for slavery, and in the election of
1860 he voted for Breckinridge. He was the most conspicuous doughface
in New York. Now, he was an advocate of vigorous war and a pronounced
supporter of President Lincoln. This gave him the importance of a new
convert at a camp meeting. The people believed he knew what he was
talking about, and while his stories and apt illustrations, enriched
by a quick change in voice and manner, convulsed his audiences,
imbedded in his wit and rollicking fun were most convincing arguments
which appealed to the best sentiments of his hearers.[810] Indeed, it
is not too much to say that Daniel S. Dickinson, as an entertaining
and forceful platform speaker, filled the place in 1861 which John Van
Buren occupied in the Free-soil campaign in 1848.

[Footnote 810: "I have just finished a second reading of your speech in
Wyoming County, and with so much pleasure and admiration that I cannot
refrain from thanking you. It is a speech worthy of an American
statesman, and will command the attention of the country by its high
and generous patriotism, no less than by its eloquence and
power."--Letter of John K. Porter of Albany to D.S. Dickinson, August
23, 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 difficult
task to perform. Men had changed front in a day, and to one of his
views, holding rebellion as a thing to be crushed without impairing
existing conditions, it seemed imperative to divorce "revolutionary
emancipators" from the conservative patriots who loved their country
as it was. He manifested a desire to appear scrupulously loyal to the
Government, counseling obedience to constituted authorities, respect
for constitutional obligations, and a just and liberal support of the
President, in whose favour every presumption should be given. The
suspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_ and the long list of
arbitrary arrests had provoked Seymour as it did many conservative
Republicans, but however much individual rights may be violated, he
said, so long as the country is engaged in a struggle for its
existence, confidence, based upon the assumption that imperative
reasons exist for these unusual measures, must be reposed in the
Administration. 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 practised
debater, he blended the history of past wrongs with those of the
present, thus harrowing his auditors into a frame of mind as
resentful and passionate as his own. When the public safety permits,
he said threateningly, there will be abundant time to condemn and
punish the authors of injustice and wrong, whether they occupy the
presidential chair or seats in the cabinet. "Let them remember the
teachings of history. Despotic governments do not love the agitators
that call them into existence. When Cromwell drove from Parliament the
latter-day saints and higher-law men of his day, and 'bade them cease
their babblings;' and when Napoleon scattered at the point of the
bayonet the Council of Five Hundred and crushed revolution beneath his
iron heel, they taught a lesson which should be heeded this day by men
who are animated by a vindictive piety or a malignant philanthropy....
It is the boast of the Briton that his house is his castle. However
humble it may be, the King cannot enter. Let it not be said that the
liberties of American citizens are less perfectly protected, or held
less sacred than are those of the subjects of a Crown."

The slavery question was less easily and logically handled. He denied
that it caused the war, but admitted that the agitators did, putting
into the same class "the ambitious man at the South, who desired a
separate confederacy," and "the ambitious men of the North, who reaped
a political profit from agitation." In deprecating emancipation he
carefully avoided the argument of military necessity, so forcibly put
by John Cochrane, and strangely overlooked the fact that the South, by
the act of rebellion, put itself outside the protection guaranteed
under the Constitution to loyal and law-abiding citizens. "If it be
true," he said, "that slavery must be abolished to save this Union,
then the people of the South should be allowed to withdraw themselves
from the Government which cannot give them the protection guaranteed
by its terms." Immediate emancipation, he continued, would not end the
contest. "It would be only the commencement of a lasting, destructive,
terrible domestic conflict. The North would not consent that four
millions of free negroes should live in their midst.... With what
justice do we demand that the South should be subjected to the evils,
the insecurity, and the loss of constitutional rights, involved in
immediate abolition?" Then, dropping into prophecy, the broad,
optimistic statesmanship of the forties passed into eclipse as he
declared 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 whole
system of government is to fall!"

Seymour, in closing, very clearly outlined his future platform. "We
are willing to support this war as a means of restoring our Union, but
we will not carry it on in a spirit of hatred, malice, or revenge. We
cannot, therefore, make it a war for the abolition of slavery. We will
not permit it to be made a war upon the rights of the States. We shall
see that it does not crush out the liberties of the citizen, or the
reserved powers of the States. We shall hold that man to be as much a
traitor who urges our government to overstep its constitutional
powers, as he who resists the exercise of its rightful authority. We
shall contend that the rights of the States and the General Government
are 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 contend
against, the election, giving Dickinson over 100,000 majority,
furnished little encouragement. The People's party also carried both
branches of the Legislature, securing twenty out of thirty-two
senators, and seventy out of the one hundred and twenty-eight
assemblymen. 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 Opdyke
defeated Fernando Wood by a small plurality for mayor of New York.
Wood had long been known as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He talked
reform and grew degenerate; he proclaimed patriotic views and held
disloyal sentiments; he listened respectfully to public opinion, and
defied it openly in his acts. He did not become a boss. It was ten
years later before William M. Tweed centralised Tammany's power in one
man. But Wood developed the system that made a boss possible. He
dominated the police, he organised the lawless, he allied himself with
the saloon, and he used the judiciary. In 1858, being forced out of
Tammany, he retreated like a wounded tiger to Mozart Hall, organised
an opposition society that took its name from the assembly room in
which it met, and declared with emphasis and expletives that he would
fight Tammany as long as he lived. From that moment his shadow had
kept sachems alarmed, and his presence had thrown conventions into
turmoil.

The arts of the card-sharper and thimble-rigger had been prodigally
employed to save the candidate of Mozart Hall. Even the sachems of
Tammany, to avert disaster, nominated James T. Brady, whose great
popularity it was believed would draw strength from both Opdyke and
Wood; 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 and
coöperated with Greeley in defeating Seward in 1860. He had also
enjoyed the career of a busy and successful merchant, and, although
fifty years old, was destined to take a prominent part in municipal
politics for the next two decades. One term in the Assembly summed up
his office-holding experience; yet in that brief and uneventful period
jobbers learned to shun him and rogues to fear him. This was one
reason why the brilliant and audacious leader of Mozart Hall, in his
death struggle with an honest man, suddenly assumed to be the champion
of public purity.




CHAPTER III

"THE MAD DESPERATION OF REACTION"

1862


Notwithstanding its confidence in General McClellan, whose success in
West Virginia had made him the successor of General Scott, giving him
command of all the United States forces, the North, by midsummer,
became profoundly discouraged. Many events contributed to it. The
defeat at Ball's Bluff on the Potomac, which Roscoe Conkling likened
to the battle of Cannæ, because "the very pride and flower of our
young men were among its victims,"[812] had been followed by
conspicuous incompetence at Manassas and humiliating failure on the
Peninsula. Moreover, financial difficulties increased the despondency.
At the outbreak of hostilities practical repudiation of Southern debts
had brought widespread disaster. "The fabric of New York's mercantile
prosperity," said the _Tribune_, "lies in ruins, beneath which ten
thousand fortunes are buried. Last fall the merchant was a capitalist;
to-day he is a bankrupt."[813] In September, 1861, these losses
aggregated $200,000,000.[814] Besides, the strain of raising sufficient
funds to meet government expenses had forced a suspension of specie
payment and driven people to refuse United States notes payable on
demand 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 installment
of 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 of
Buffalo, then a member of Congress, had been designated to prepare an
emergency 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, then
fifty-two years of age, was president of a bank, a trained financier,
and already the possessor of a large fortune. Having served in the
Thirty-first Congress, he had returned in 1859, after an absence of
eight years, to remain four years longer. Strong, alert, and
sufficiently positive to be stubborn, he possessed the confidence of
Thaddeus Stevens, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who
approved his plan of issuing $100,000,000 legal-tender, non-interest
bearing treasury notes, exchangeable at par for six-twenty bonds.
Spaulding fully appreciated the objections to his policy, but the only
other 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 conducting
hostilities. However, his plea of necessity found a divided committee
and in Roscoe Conkling a most formidable opponent, who attacked the
measure as unnecessary, extravagant, unsound, without precedent, of
doubtful 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 time
and the proper subject, impressed the country with his power as an
orator and his ability as a brilliant, resourceful debater, although,
perhaps, a destructive rather than constructive legislator. Nature had
lavished upon him superb gifts of mind and person. He was of
commanding, even magnificent presence, six feet three inches tall,
with regular features, lofty forehead, and piercing eyes,--blond and
gigantic as a viking. It was difficult, indeed, for a man so
superlatively handsome not to be vain, and the endeavour upon his part
to conceal the defect was not in evidence. Although an unpopular and
unruly schoolboy, who refused to go to college, he had received a good
education, learning much from a scholarly father, a college-bred man,
and an ornament to the United States District Court for more than a
quarter of a century. Moreover, from early youth Conkling had studied
elocution, training a strong, slightly musical voice, and learning the
use of secondary accents, the choice of words, the value of deliberate
speech, and the assumption of an impressive earnestness. In this
debate, too, he discovered the talent for ridicule and sarcasm that
distinguished him in later life, when he had grown less considerate of
the feelings of opponents, and indicated something of the
imperiousness and vanity which clouded an otherwise attractive manner.

As he stubbornly and eloquently contested the progress of the
legal-tender measure with forceful argument and a wealth of
information, Conkling seemed likely to deprive Spaulding of the title
of "father of the greenback" until the Secretary of the Treasury,
driven to desperation for want of money, reluctantly came to the
Congressman's rescue and forced the bill through Congress.[818] By
midsummer, however, gold had jumped to seventeen per cent., while the
cost of the war, augmented by a call for 300,000 three years' men and
by a draft of 300,000 nine months' militia, rested more heavily than
ever upon the country. Moreover, by September 1 McClellan had been
deprived of his command, the Army of the Potomac had suffered defeat
at the second battle of Bull Run, and Lee and Longstreet, with a
victorious army, were on their way to Maryland. The North stood
aghast!

[Footnote 818: On Spaulding's motion to close debate, Conkling demanded
tellers, and the motion was lost,--yeas, 52; nays, 62.--_Congressional
Globe_, February 5, 1862; _Ibid._, p. 618.]

Much more ominous than military disaster and financial embarrassment,
however, was the divisive sentiment over emancipation. Northern
armies, moving about in slave communities, necessarily acted as a
constant disintegrating force. Slaves gave soldiers aid and
information, and soldiers, stimulated by their natural hostility to
slave-owners, gave slaves protection and sympathy. Thus, very early in
the war, many men believed that rebellion and slavery were so
intertwined that both must be simultaneously overthrown. This
sentiment found expression in the Fremont proclamation, issued on
August 30, 1861, setting free all slaves owned by persons who aided
secession in the military department of Missouri. On the other hand,
the Government, seeking to avoid the slavery question, encouraged
military commanders to refuse refuge to the negroes within their
lines, and in modifying Fremont's order to conform to the Confiscation
Act of August 6, the President aroused a discussion characterised by
increasing acerbity, which divided the Republican party into Radicals
and Conservatives. The former, led by the _Tribune_, resented the
attitude of army officers, who, it charged, being notoriously in more
or less thorough sympathy with the inciting cause of rebellion, failed
to seize opportunities to strike at slavery. Among Radicals the belief
obtained that one half of the commanding generals desired to prosecute
the war so delicately that slavery should receive the least possible
harm, and in their comments in Congress and in the press they made no
concealment of their opinion, that such officers were much more
anxious to restore fugitive slaves to rebel owners than to make their
owners prisoners of war.[819] They were correspondingly flattering to
those 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 of
General 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 not
understand 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 the
Administration's policy with the declaration that slaves were used as
fast as obtained,[821] the _Tribune_ minimized the intelligence of its
editor. "Consider," it said, "the still unmodified order of McDowell,
issued a full year ago, forbidding the harbouring of negroes within
our lines. Consider Halleck's order, now nine months old and still
operative, forbidding negroes to come within our lines at all.
McClellan has issued a goodly number of orders and proclamations, but
not one of them offers protection and freedom to such slaves of rebels
as might see fit to claim them at his hands. His only order bearing
upon their condition and prospects is that which expelled the
Hutchinsons from his camp for the crime of singing anti-slavery
songs."[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 the
Radicals, and under the pressure of McClellan's reverses before
Richmond, the House, on July 11, and the Senate on the following day,
passed the Confiscation Act, freeing forever the slaves of rebel
owners whenever within control of the Government. The Administration's
failure to enforce this act in the spirit and to the extent that
Congress intended, finally brought out the now historic "Prayer of
Twenty Millions"--an editorial signed by Horace Greeley and addressed
to Abraham Lincoln. It charged the President with being disastrously
remiss in the discharge of his official duty and unduly influenced by
the menaces of border slave State politicians. It declared that the
Union was suffering from timid counsels and mistaken deference to
rebel slavery; that all attempts to put down rebellion and save
slavery are preposterous and futile; and that every hour of obeisance
to slavery is an added hour of deepened peril to the Union. In
conclusion, he entreated the Chief Executive to render hearty and
unequivocal obedience to the law of the land.[823]

[Footnote 823: _Ibid._, August 20.

Lincoln's reply appeared in the _National Intelligencer_ of
Washington. He said in part: "I would save the Union. If there be
those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time
save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would
not 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 to
save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I
could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if
I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I
could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do
that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I
believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear
because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do
less whenever I believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall
do more when I shall believe doing more will help the cause."--_Lincoln's
Works_, Vol. 2, p. 227.]

Thus did Greeley devote his great powers to force Lincoln into
emancipation. It is impossible, even at this distance of time, to turn
the pages of his ponderous volumes without feeling the matchless force
of his energy, the strength of his masterly array of facts, his biting
sarcasm, his bold assumptions, and his clear, unadorned style. There
is about it all an impassioned conviction, as if he spoke because he
could not keep silent, making it impossible to avoid the belief that
the whole soul and conscience of the writer were in his work. Day
after day, with kaleidoscopic change, he marshalled arguments, facts,
and historical parallels, bearing down the reader's judgment as he
swept away like a great torrent the criticisms of himself and the
arguments of his opponents. Nothing apparently could withstand his
onslaught on slavery. With one dash of his pen he forged sentences
that, lance-like, found their way into every joint of the monster's
armour.

Greeley's criticism of the President and the army, however, gave his
enemies vantage ground for renewed attacks. Ever since he suggested,
at the beginning of hostilities, that the _Herald_ did not care which
flag floated over its office, James Gordon Bennett, possessing the
genuine newspaper genius, had daily evinced a deep, personal dislike
of the _Tribune's_ editor, and throughout the discussion of
emancipation, the _Herald_, in bitter editorials, kept its columns in
a glow, tantalising the _Tribune_ with a persistency that recalls
Cheetham's attacks upon Aaron Burr. The strategical advantage lay with
the _Herald_, since the initiative belonged to the _Tribune_, but the
latter had with it the preponderating sentiment of its party and the
growing influence of a war necessity. Greeley fought with a
broad-sword, swinging it with a vigorous and well-aimed effect, while
Bennett, with lighter weapon, pricked, stabbed, and cut. Never
inactive, the latter sought to aggravate and embitter. Greeley, on the
contrary, intent upon forcing the Administration to change its policy,
ignored his tormentor, until exasperation, like the gathering steam in
a geyser, drove him into further action. In this prolonged controversy
the _Tribune_ invariably referred to its adversary as "the _Herald_,"
but in the _Herald_, "Greeley," "old Greeley," "poor Greeley," "Mars
Greeley," "poor crazy Greeley," became synonyms for the editor of the
_Tribune_.

The fight of these able and conspicuous journals represented the
fierceness with which emancipation was pushed and opposed throughout
the State. Conservative men, therefore, realising the danger to which
a bitter campaign along strict party lines would subject the Union
cause, demanded that all parties rally to the support of the
Government with a candidate for governor devoted to conservative
principles and a vigorous prosecution of the war. Sentiment seemed to
point to John A. Dix as such a man. Though not distinguished as a
strategist 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 by
Thurlow Weed, sanctioned by Seward, and heartily approved by John Van
Buren, who, since the beginning of hostilities, had avoided party
councils. The Constitutional Union party, composed of old line Whigs
who opposed emancipation,[824] proposed to lead this movement at its
convention, to be held at Troy on September 9, but at the appointed
time James Brooks, by prearrangement, appeared with a file of
instructed followers, captured the meeting, and gave Horatio Seymour
32 votes to 20 for Dix and 6 for Millard Fillmore. This unexpected
result made Seymour the candidate of the Democratic State convention
which met at Albany on the following day.

[Footnote 824: New York _Herald_, October 15, 1862.]

Seymour sincerely preferred another. Early in August he travelled from
Utica to Buffalo to resist the friendship and the arguments of Dean
Richmond. It cannot be said that he had outlived ambition. He
possessed wealth, he was advancing in his political career, and he
aspired to higher honours, but he did not desire to become governor
again, even though the party indicated a willingness to follow his
leadership and give him free rein to inaugurate such a policy as his
wisdom and conservatism might dictate. He clearly recognised the
difficulties in the way. He had taken ultra ground against the Federal
Administration, opposing emancipation, denouncing arbitrary arrests,
and expressing the belief that the North could not subjugate the
South; yet he would be powerless to give life to his own views, or to
modify Lincoln's proposed conduct of the war. The President, having
been elected to serve until March, 1865, would not tolerate
interference with his plans and purposes, so that an opposition
Governor, regardless of grievances or their cause, would be compelled
to furnish troops and to keep the peace. Hatred of conscription would
be no excuse for non-action in case of a draft riot, and indignation
over summary arrests could in nowise limit the exercise of such
arbitrary methods. To be governor under such conditions, therefore,
meant constant embarrassment, if not unceasing humiliation. These
reasons were carefully presented to Richmond. Moreover, Seymour was
conscious of inherent defects of temperament. He did not belong to the
class of politicians, described by Victor Hugo, who mistake a
weather-cock for a flag. He was a gentleman of culture, of public
experience, and of moral purpose, representing the best quality of his
party; but possessed of a sensitive and eager temper, he was too often
influenced by the men immediately about him, and too often inclined
to have about him men whose influence did not strengthen his own
better judgment.

Richmond knew of this weakness and regretted it, but the man of iron,
grasping the political situation with the shrewdness of a phenomenally
successful business man, wanted a candidate who could win. It was
plain to him that the Republican party, divided on the question of
emancipation and weakened by arbitrary arrests, a policy that many
people bitterly resented, could be beaten by a candidate who added
exceptional popularity to a promised support of the war and a vigorous
protest against government methods. Dix, he knew, would stand with the
President; Seymour would criticise, and with sureness of aim arouse
opposition. While Richmond, therefore, listened respectfully to
Seymour's reasons for declining the nomination, he was deaf to all
entreaty, insisting that as the party had honoured him when he wanted
office, he must now honour the party when it needed him. Besides, he
declared that Sanford E. Church, whom Seymour favoured, could not be
elected.[825] Having gained the Oneidan's consent, Richmond exercised
his adroit methods of packing conventions, and thus opened the way for
Seymour's unanimous nomination by making the Constitutional Union
convention the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

[Footnote 825: The author is indebted to Henry A. Richmond, son of Dean
Richmond, for this outline of Seymour's interview.]

To a majority of the Democratic party Seymour's selection appealed
with something of historic pride. It recalled other days in the
beginning of his career, and inspired the hope that the peace which
reigned in the fifties, and the power that the Democracy then wielded,
might, under his leadership, again return to bless their party by
checking a policy that was rapidly introducing a new order of things.
After his nomination, therefore, voices became hoarse with long
continued cheering. For a few minutes the assembly surrendered to the
noise and confusion which characterise a more modern convention, and
only the presence of the nominee and the announcement that he would
speak brought men to order.

Seymour, as was his custom, came carefully prepared. In his party he
now had no rival. Not since DeWitt Clinton crushed the Livingstons in
1807, and Martin Van Buren swept the State in 1828, did one man so
completely dominate a political organisation, and in his arraignment
of the Radicals he emulated the partisan rather than the patriot. He
spoke respectfully of the President, insisting that he should "be
treated with the respect due to his position as the representative of
the dignity and honor of the American people," and declaring that
"with all our powers of mind and person, we mean to support the
Constitution and uphold the Union;" but in his bitter denunciation of
the Administration he confused the general policy of conducting a war
with mistakes in awarding government contracts. To him an honest
difference of opinion upon constitutional questions was as corrupt and
reprehensible as dishonest practices in the departments at Washington.
He condemned emancipation as "a proposal for the butchery of women and
children, 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 party
platform. But A.P. Laning, declining to surrender the prerogative of
the resolutions committee, presented a brief statement of principles,
"pledging the Democracy to continue united in its support of the
Government, 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 arbitrary
arrests of citizens of the State as unjustifiable," declaring such
arrests a usurpation and a crime, and insisting upon the liberty of
speech and the freedom of the press.[827]

[Footnote 827: The ticket nominated was as follows: Governor, Horatio
Seymour of Oneida; Lieutenant-Governor, David E. Floyd Jones of
Queens; Canal Commissioner, William I. Skinner of Herkimer; Prison
Inspector, 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 was
satisfactory to the Peace faction, at once aroused conservative
Republicans, and Weed and Raymond, backed by Seward, favored the
policy of nominating John A. Dix. Seward had distinguished himself as
one of the more conservative members of the Cabinet. After settling
into the belief that Lincoln "is the best of us"[828] his ambition
centered in the support of the President, and whatever aid he could
render in helping the country to a better understanding of the
Administration's aims and wishes was generously if not always adroitly
performed. He did not oppose the abolition of slavery. On the
contrary, his clear discernment exhibited its certain destruction if
the rebellion continued; but he opposed blending emancipation with a
prosecution of the war, preferring to meet the former as the necessity
for it arose rather than precipitate an academic discussion which
would 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 a
determination to issue an emancipation proclamation, the Secretary
questioned its expediency only as to the time of its publication. "The
depression of the public mind consequent upon our repeated reverses,"
he said, "is so great that I fear the effect of so important a
step.... I suggest, sir, that you postpone its issue until you can
give it to the country supported by military success, instead of
issuing it, as would be the case now, upon the greatest disasters of
the war."[829] Seward's view was adopted, and in place of the
proclamation appeared the Executive Order of July 22, the
unenforcement of which Greeley had so fiercely criticised in his
"Prayer of Twenty Millions." Thurlow Weed, who, in June, had returned
from London heavily freighted with good results for the Union
accomplished by his influence with leading Englishmen, held the
opinion of Seward. Raymond had also made the _Times_ an able defender
of the President's policy, and although not violent in its opposition
to the attitude of the Radicals, it never ceased its efforts to
suppress 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 a
conspicuous part. It had urged his selection upon the Democrats,
declaring him stronger than Seymour. It now urged him upon the
Republicans, insisting that he was stronger than Wadsworth.[830] This
was also the belief of Weed, whose sagacity as to the strength of
political leaders was rarely at fault.[831] On the contrary, Governor
Morgan expressed the opinion that "Wadsworth will be far more
available than any one yet mentioned as my successor."[832] Wadsworth's
service at the battle of Bull Run had been distinguished. "Gen.
McDowell told us on Monday," wrote Thurlow Weed, "that Major Wadsworth
rendered him the most important service before, during, and after
battle. From others we have learned that after resisting the stampede,
earnestly but ineffectually, he remained to the last moment aiding the
wounded and encouraging surgeons to remain on the field as many of
them did."[833] Wadsworth's subsequent insistence that the Army of the
Potomac, then commanded by McClellan, could easily crush the
Confederates, who, in his opinion, did not number over 50,000[834], had
again brought his name conspicuously before the country. Moreover,
since the 8th of March he had commanded the forces in and about
Washington, and had acted as Stanton's adviser in the conduct of the
war.

[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."--New
York _Tribune_, September 22, 1862.]

For twenty years Wadsworth had not been a stranger to the people of
New York. His vigorous defence of Silas Wright gave him a warm place
in the hearts of Barnburners, and his name, after the formation of the
Republican party, became a household word among members of that young
organisation. Besides, his neighbours had exploited his character for
generosity. The story of the tenant who got a receipt for rent and one
hundred dollars in money because the accidental killing of his oxen in
the midst of harvest had diminished his earning capacity, seemed to be
only one of many similar acts. In 1847 his farm had furnished a
thousand bushels of corn to starving Ireland. Moreover, he had endowed
institutions of learning, founded school libraries, and turned the
houses of tenants into homes of college students. But the Radicals'
real reason for making him their candidate was his "recognition of the
truth that slavery is the implacable enemy of our National life, and
that the Union can only be saved by grappling directly and boldly with
its deadly foe."[835]

[Footnote 835: New York _Tribune_, September 22, 1862.]

Prompted by this motive his supporters used all the methods known to
managing politicians to secure a majority of the delegates. Lincoln's
emancipation proclamation, published on September 23, five days after
the battle of Antietam, greatly strengthened them. They hailed the
event as their victory. It gave substance, too, to the Wadsworth
platform that "the Union must crush out slavery, or slavery will
destroy the Union." Reinforced by such an unexpected ally, it was well
understood before the day of the convention that in spite of the
appeals of Weed and Raymond, and of the wishes of Seward and the
President, the choice of the Radicals would be nominated. Wadsworth
was not averse. He had an itching for public life. In 1856 his
stubborn play for governor and his later contest for a seat in the
United States Senate had characterised him as an office-seeker. But
whether running for office himself, or helping some one else, he was
a fighter whom an opponent had reason to fear.

The Republican Union convention, as it was called, assembled at
Syracuse on September 25. Henry J. Raymond became its president, and
with characteristic directness made a vigorous reply to Seymour,
declaring that "Jefferson Davis himself could not have planned a
speech better calculated, under all the circumstances of the case, to
promote his end to embarrass the Government of the United States and
strengthen the hands of those who are striving for its overthrow."[836]
Then William Curtis Noyes read a letter from Governor Morgan declining
renomination.[837] The Governor had made a creditable executive,
winning the respect of conservatives in both parties, and although the
rule against a third term had become firmly established in a State
that had tolerated it but once since the days of Tompkins and DeWitt
Clinton, the propriety of making a further exception appealed to the
public with manifest approval. "But this," Weed said, "did not suit
the _Tribune_ and a class of politicians with whom it sympathised.
They demanded a candidate with whom abolition is the paramount
consideration."[838] Morgan's letter created a ripple of applause,
after which the presentation of Wadsworth's name aroused an enthusiasm
of longer duration than had existed at Albany. Nevertheless, Charles
G. Myers of St. Lawrence did not hesitate to speak for "a more
available candidate at the present time." Then, raising his voice
above the whisperings of dissent, he named John A. Dix, "who, while
Seymour 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 the
historic despatch in a well-balanced sentence, with the accent and
inflection of a trained orator; but in giving it an idiomatic,
thrilling ring in contrast with Seymour's record, Myers suddenly threw
the convention into wild, continued cheering, until it seemed as if
the noise of a moment before would be exceeded by the genuine and
involuntary outburst of patriotic emotion. A single ballot, however,
giving Wadsworth an overwhelming majority, showed that the Radicals
owned the convention.[839]

[Footnote 836: New York _Times_, September 25, 1862.]

[Footnote 837: "Though we met Governor Morgan repeatedly during the
summer, he never hinted that he expected or desired to be again a
candidate."--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 New
York; Clerk of Appeals, Charles Hughes of Washington.]

Parke Godwin of Queens, from the committee on resolutions, presented
the platform. Among other issues it urged the most vigorous
prosecution of the war; hailed, with the profoundest satisfaction, the
emancipation proclamation; and expressed pride in the knowledge that
the Republic's only enemies "are the savages of the West, the rebels
of the South, their sympathisers and supporters of the North, and the
despots of Europe."

The campaign opened with unexampled bitterness. Seymour's convention
speech inflamed the Republican party, and its press, recalling his
address at the Peace convention in January, 1861, seemed to uncork its
pent-up indignation. The _Tribune_ pronounced him a "consummate
demagogue," "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 the
arm of those who strike for the Union."[840] It disclosed Seymour's
intimate relations with "Vallandigham and the school of Democrats who
do not disguise their sympathy with traitors nor their hostility to
war," and predicted "that, if elected, Jeff Davis will regard his
success as a triumph."[841] Odious comparisons also became frequent.
Wadsworth at Bull Run was contrasted with Seymour's prediction that
the Union's foes could not be subdued.[842] Seymour's supporters, it
was said, believed in recognising the independence of the South, or in
a restored Union with slavery conserved, while Wadsworth's champions
thought rebellion a wicked and wanton conspiracy against human
liberty, to be crushed by the most effective measures.[843] Raymond
declared 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," whose
service in the field was "very brief," whose command in Washington was
"behind fortifications," and whose capacity was "limited to attacks
upon his superior officers."[845] The _Herald_ declared him "as arrant
an aristocrat as any Southern rebel. The slave-holder," it said, "lives
upon his plantation, which his ancestors begged, cheated, or stole
from the Indians. Wadsworth lives upon his immense Genesee farms,
which his ancestors obtained from the Indians in precisely the same
way. The slave-holder has a number of negroes who raise crops for him,
and whom he clothes, feeds, and lodges. Wadsworth has a number of
labourers on his farms, who support him by raising his crops or paying
him rent. The slave-holder, having an independent fortune and nothing
to do, joins the army, or runs for office. Wadsworth, in exactly the
same circumstances, does exactly the same thing. Wadsworth, therefore,
is quite as much an aristocrat as the slave-holder, and cares quite as
much for himself and quite as little for the people."[846] Democrats
everywhere endeavoured to limit the issue to the two opposing
candidates, claiming that Seymour, in conjunction with all
conservative men, stood for a vigorous prosecution of the war to save
the Union, while Wadsworth, desiring its prosecution for the
destruction 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 party
lines, throbbed feverishly with passion and ugly epithet. The
strategical advantage lay with Seymour, who made two speeches. Dean
Richmond, alarmed at the growing strength of the war spirit, urged him
to put more "powder" into his Brooklyn address than he used at the
ratification meeting, held in New York City on October 13; but he
declined to cater "to war Democrats," contenting himself with an
amplification of his convention speech. "God knows I love my country,"
he said; "I would count my life as nothing, if I could but save the
nation's life." He resented with much feeling Raymond's electioneering
statement that a vote for him was one for treason.[847] "Recognising at
this moment as we do," he continued, "that the destinies, the honour,
and the glory of our country hang poised upon the conflict in the
battlefield, we tender to the Government no conditional support" to
put down "this wicked and mighty rebellion." Once, briefly, and
without bitterness, he referred to the emancipation proclamation, but
he again bitterly arraigned the Administration for its infractions of
the Constitution, its deception as to the strength of the South, and
the corruption in its departments.

[Footnote 847: New York _Herald_, October 8 and 9, 1862.]

Seymour's admirers manifested his tendencies more emphatically than he
did himself, until denunciation of treason and insistence upon a
vigorous prosecution of the war yielded to an indictment of the
Radicals. The shibboleth of these declaimers was arbitrary arrests.
Two days after the edict of emancipation (September 24) the President
issued a proclamation ordering the arrest, without benefit of _habeas
corpus_, of all who "discouraged enlistments," or were guilty of "any
disloyal practice" which afforded "aid and comfort to the rebels."[848]
This gave rise to an opinion that he intended to "suppress free
discussion of political subjects,"[849] and every orator warned the
people that Wadsworth's election meant the arrest and imprisonment of
his political opponents. "If chosen governor," said the _Herald_, "he
will have his adversaries consigned to dungeons and their property
seized and confiscated under the act of Congress."[850] In accepting an
invitation to speak at Rome, John Van Buren, quick to see the humour
of the situation as well as the vulnerable point of the Radicals,
telegraphed that he would "arrive at two o'clock--if not in Fort
Lafayette."[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 of
political inactivity, broke his silence. He had earnestly and perhaps
sincerely advocated the nomination of John A. Dix, but after Seymour's
selection he again joined the ranks of the Softs and took the stump.
Among other appointments he spoke with Seymour at the New York
ratification meeting, and again at the Brooklyn rally on October 22.
Something remained of the old-time vigour of the professional
gladiator, but compared with his Barnburner work he seemed what Byron
called "an extinct volcano." He ran too heedlessly into a bitter
criticism of Wadsworth, based upon an alleged conversation he could
not substantiate, and into an acrimonious attack upon Lincoln's
conduct 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," called
him a "buffoon," a "political harlequin," a "repeater of mouldy
jokes,"[852] and in bitter terms denounced his "low comedy performance
at Tammany," his "double-shuffle dancing at Mozart Hall," his
possession of a letter "by dishonourable means for a dishonourable
purpose," and his wide-sweeping statements "which gentlemen over their
own signatures pronounced lies."[853] It was not a performance to be
proud of, and although Van Buren succeeded in stirring up the
advertising sensations which he craved, he did not escape without
wounds that left deep scars. "Prince John makes a statement," says the
_Herald_, "accusing Charles King of slandering the wife of Andrew
Jackson; King retorts by calling the Prince a liar; the poets of the
_Post_ take up the case and broadly hint that the Prince's private
history shows that he has not lived the life of a saint; the Prince
replies that he has half a mind to walk into the private antecedents
of Wadsworth, which, it is said, would disclose some scenes
exceedingly rich; while certain other Democrats, indignant at
Raymond's accusations of treason against Seymour, threaten to reveal
his individual history, hinting, by the way, that it would show him to
have been heretofore a follower of that fussy philosopher of the
twelfth century, Abelard--not in philosophy, however, but in
sentiment, 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 fun
relieving the prosaic rigour of an issue that to one side seemed
forced by Northern treachery, to the other to threaten the gravest
peril to the country. It is difficult to exaggerate the tension. Party
violence ran high and the result seemed in doubt. Finally,
conservatives appealed to both candidates to retire in favour of John
A. Dix,[855] and on October 20 an organisation, styling itself the
Federal Union, notified the General that its central committee had
nominated him for governor, and that a State Convention, called to
meet at Cooper Institute on the 28th, would ratify the nomination. To
this summons, Dix, without declining a nomination, replied from
Maryland that he could not leave his duties "to be drawn into any
party strife."[856] This settled the question of a compromise
candidate.

[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 the
opposition, defeating Galusha A. Grow, speaker of the House, and
seriously threatening the Radical majority in Congress. This
retrogression, accounted for by the absence of soldiers who could not
vote,[857] suggested trouble in New York, and to offset the influence
of the Seymour rally in Brooklyn a great audience at Cooper Institute
listened to a brief letter from the Secretary of State, and to a
speech from Wadsworth. Seward did not encourage the soldier candidate.
The rankling recollection of Wadsworth's opposition at Chicago in 1860
stifled party pride as well as patriotism, and although the _Herald_
thought it "brilliant and sarcastic," it emphasised Wadsworth's
subsequent statement that "Seward was dead against me throughout the
campaign."[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 been
absent from the State fifteen months, and although not continuously at
the front there was something inexcusably ungenerous in the taunts of
his opponents that he had served "behind fortifications." His superb
conduct at Bull Run entitled him to better treatment. But his party
was wholly devoted to him, and "amid a hurricane of approbation"[859]
he mingled censure of Seymour with praise of Lincoln, and the
experience of a brave soldier with bitter criticism of an unpatriotic
press. It was not the work of a trained public speaker. It lacked
poise, phrase, and deliberation. But what it wanted in manner it made
up in fire and directness, giving an emotional and loyal audience
abundant opportunity to explode into long-continued cheering.
Thoughtful men who were not in any sense political partisans gave
careful heed to his words. He stood for achievement. He brought the
great struggle nearer home, and men listened as to one with a message
from the field of patriotic sacrifices. The radical newspapers broke
into a chorus of applause. The Radicals themselves were delighted. The
air rung with praises of the courage and spirit of their candidate,
and if here and there the faint voice of a Conservative suggested that
emancipation was premature and arbitrary arrests were unnecessary, a
shout 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 their
cause not to run counter to the prejudices of men less earnest and
less self-forgetting. In a contest of such bitterness they were
certain to make enemies, whose hostilities would be subtle and
enduring, and the October elections showed that the inevitable
reaction was setting in. Military failure and increasing debt made the
avowed policy of emancipation more offensive. People were getting
tired of bold action without achievement in the field, and every
opponent of the Administration became a threnodist. However,
independent papers which strongly favoured Seymour believed in
Wadsworth's success. "Seymour's antecedents are against him," said the
_Herald_. "Wadsworth, radical as he is, will be preferred by the
people to a Democrat who is believed to be in favour of stopping the
war; because, whatever Wadsworth's ideas about the negro may be, they
are only as dust in the balance compared with his hearty and earnest
support of the war and the Administration."[860] This was the belief
of the Radicals,[861] and upon them the news of Seymour's election by
over 10,000 majority fell with a sickening thud.[862] Raymond declared
it "a vote of want of confidence in the President;"[863] Wadsworth
thought Seward did it;[864] Weed suggested that Wadsworth held "too
extreme party views;"[865] and Greeley insisted that it was "a gang of
corrupt Republican politicians, who, failing to rule the nominating
convention, took revenge on its patriotic candidate by secretly
supporting the Democratic nominee."[866] But the dominant reason was
what George William Curtis called "the mad desperation of
reaction,"[867] which showed its influence in other States as well as
in New York. That Wadsworth's personality had little, if anything, to
do with his overthrow was further evidenced by results in
congressional districts, the Democrats carrying seventeen out of
thirty-one. Even Francis Kernan carried the Oneida district against
Conkling. The latter was undoubtedly embarrassed by personal enemies
who controlled the Welsh vote, but the real cause of his defeat was
military disasters, financial embarrassments, and the emancipation
proclamation. "All our reverses, our despondence, our despairs," said
Curtis, "bring us to the inevitable issue, shall not the blacks strike
for 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 the
Legislature. In the Senate, elected in 1861, the Republicans had
twelve majority, but in the Assembly each party controlled sixty-four
members. This deadlocked the election of a speaker, and seriously
jeopardized the selection of a United States senator in place of
Preston King, since a joint-convention of the two houses, under the
law as it then existed, could not convene until some candidate
controlled a majority in each branch.[869] It increased the
embarrassment that either a Republican or Democrat must betray his
party 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. But
the caucus, upon the threat of a single Republican to bolt,[870]
selected Henry Sherwood of Steuben. After seventy-seven ballots Depew
was substituted for Sherwood. By this time Timothy C. Callicot, a
Brooklyn Democrat, refused longer to vote for Gilbert Dean, the
Democratic nominee. Deeply angered by such apostasy John D. Van Buren
and Saxton Smith, the Democratic leaders, offered Depew eight votes.
Later in the evening Depew was visited by Callicot, who promised, if
the Republicans would support him for speaker, to vote for John A. Dix
for senator and thus break the senatorial deadlock. It was a trying
position for Depew. The speakership was regarded as even a greater
honor then than it is now, and to a gifted young man of twenty-nine
its power and prestige appealed with tremendous force. Van Buren's
proposition would elect him; Callicot's would put him in eclipse.
Nevertheless, Depew unselfishly submitted the two proposals to his
Republican associates, who decided to lose the speakership and elect a
United States senator.[871]

[Footnote 870: Horace Bemis of Steuben.]

[Footnote 871: The writer is indebted to Mr. Depew for the interviews
between himself, Van Buren, and Callicot.]

The Democrats, alarmed at this sudden and successful flank movement,
determined to defeat by disorderly proceedings what their leaders
could not prevent by strategy, and with the help of thugs who filled
the floor and galleries of the Assembly Chamber, they instigated a
riot scarcely equalled in the legislative history of modern times.
Boisterous threats, display of pistols, savage abuse of Callicot, and
refusals to allow the balloting to proceed continued for six days,
subsiding at last after the Governor, called upon to protect a
law-making body, promised to use force. Finally, on January 26,
nineteen days after the session opened, Callicot, on the ninety-third
ballot, received two majority. This opened the way for the election of
a Republican United States senator.

Horace Greeley had hoped, in the event of Wadsworth's success, to ride
into the Senate upon "an abolition whirlwind."[872] He now wished to
elect Preston King or Daniel S. Dickinson. King had made a creditable
record in the Senate. Although taking little part in debate, his
judgment upon questions of governmental policy, indicating an accurate
knowledge of men and remarkable familiarity with details, commended
him as a safe adviser, especially in political emergencies. But Weed,
abandoning his old St. Lawrence friend, joined Seward in the support
of Edwin D. Morgan.

[Footnote 872: Albany _Evening Journal_, December 10, 1862.]

Morgan had a decided taste for political life. When a grocer, living
in Connecticut, he had served in the city council of Hartford, and
soon after gaining a residence in New York, he entered its Board of
Aldermen. 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, he
combined the qualities of a shrewd politician with those of a merchant
prince willing to spend money.

The stoutest opposition to Morgan came from extreme Radicals who
distrusted him, and in trying to compass his defeat half a dozen
candidates played prominent parts. Charles B. Sedgwick of Syracuse, an
all-around lawyer of rare ability, whose prominence as a persuasive
speaker began in the Free-Soil campaign of 1848, and who had served
with distinction for four years in Congress, proved acceptable to a
few Radicals and several Conservatives.[873] Henry J. Raymond, also
pressed by the opponents of Morgan, attracted a substantial following,
while David Dudley Field, Ward Hunt, and Henry R. Selden controlled
two or three votes each. Nevertheless, a successful combination could
not be established, and on the second formal ballot Morgan received a
large majority. The remark of Assemblyman Truman, on a motion to make
the nomination unanimous, evidenced the bitterness of the contest. "I
believe we are rewarding a man," he said, "who placed the knife at the
throat of the Union ticket last fall and slaughtered it."[874]

[Footnote 873: Sedgwick, assailed by damaging charges growing out of
his chairmanship of the Naval Committee, failed to be renominated for
Congress in 1864 after a most bitter contest in which 130 ballots were
taken.]

[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 of
Congress. Like Morgan, Corning was wealthy. Like Morgan, too, he had a
predilection for politics, having served as alderman, state senator,
mayor, and congressman. He belonged to a class of business men whose
experience and ability, when turned to public affairs, prove of
decided value to their State and country. "We should be glad," said
the _Tribune_, "to see more men of Mr. Corning's social and business
position brought forward for Congress and the Legislature."[875] The
first ballot, in joint convention, gave Morgan 86 to 70 for Corning,
Speaker Callicot voting for John A. Dix, and one fiery Radical for
Daniel S. Dickinson. Thus did Thurlow Weed score another victory.
Greeley was willing to make any combination. Raymond, Sedgwick, Ward
Hunt, and even David Dudley Field would quickly have appealed to him.
The deft hand of Weed, however, if not the money of Morgan, prevented
combinations until the Governor, as a second choice, controlled the
election.[876] This success resulted in a combination of Democrats and
conservative Republicans, giving Weed the vast patronage of the New
York canals.

[Footnote 875: New York _Tribune_, October 7, 1863.

The Democratic caucus stood 28 for Erastus Corning, 25 for Fernando
Wood, and scattering 18.

The vote of the Senate stood: Morgan, 23; Erastus Corning, 7; 2 absent
or silent. On the first ballot the Assembly gave Morgan 64, Corning
62, Fernando Wood 1, John A. Dix 1 (cast by Speaker Callicot). On a
second ballot all the Unionists voted with Callicot for Dix, giving
him 65 to 63 for Corning and placing him in nomination. In joint
convention 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 my
personal obligations to you for this renewed evidence of your
friendship, as manifested by the result of yesterday's proceedings at
Albany."--Letter of Edwin D. Morgan, February 3, 1863. Thurlow Weed
Barnes, _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 farewell
editorial, written while gloom and despondency filled the land,
indicated that he unerringly read the signs of the times. "I differ
widely with my party about the best means of crushing the rebellion,"
he said. "I can neither impress others with my views nor surrender my
own solemn convictions. The alternative of living in strife with those
whom I have esteemed, or withdrawing, is presented. I have not
hesitated in choosing the path of peace as the path of duty. If those
who differ with me are right, and the country is carried safely
through its present struggle, all will be well and 'nobody
hurt.'"[877] This did not mean that Weed "has ceased to be a
Republican," as Greeley put it,[878] but that, while refusing to
become an Abolitionist of the Chase and Sumner and Greeley type, he
declined longer to urge his conservative views upon readers who
possessed the spirit of Radicals. Years afterward he wrote that "from
the outbreak of the rebellion, I knew no party, nor did I care for any
except 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-six
years of age, able-bodied, rich, independent, and satisfied if not
surfeited. "So far as all things personal are concerned," he said, "my
work 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. For
thirty years he looked forward with pleasurable emotions to the time
when, released from the cares of journalism, he might return to
Rochester, spending his remaining days on a farm, in the suburbs of
that city, near the banks of the Genesee River; but in 1863 he found
his 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 blessed
thing for the country if the editor of the _Journal_ had been impelled
by the same passion. For avarice is more ignoble than ambition, and
the craving for jobs has a more corrupting influence, alike on the
individual 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 that
city. Indeed, No. 12 Astor House was as famous in its day as 49
Broadway became during the subsequent leadership of Thomas C. Platt.
It was the cradle of the "Amens" forty years before the Fifth Avenue
Hotel became the abode of that remarkable organization. From 1861 to
1865, owing to the enormous political patronage growing out of the
war, the lobbies of the Astor House were crowded with politicians from
all parts of New York, making ingress and egress almost impossible. In
the midst of this throng sat Thurlow Weed, cool and patient,
possessing the keen judgment of men so essential to leadership. "When
I was organizing the Internal Revenue Office in 1862-3," wrote George
S. Boutwell, "Mr. Weed gave me information in regard to candidates for
office in the State of New York, including their relations to the
factions that existed, with as much fairness as he could have
commanded 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 rebuked
those, now called Copperheads,[884] who endeavored to force peace by
paralysing the arm of the government. Their denunciation of arrests
and of the suspension of _habeas corpus_ gradually included the
discouragement of enlistments, the encouragement of desertion, and
resistance to the draft, until, at last, the spirit of opposition
invaded 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 of
party, formed loyal or Union League clubs in the larger cities, whose
densely packed meetings commanded the ablest speakers of the country.
John Van Buren, fully aroused to the seditious trend of peace
advocates, evidenced again the power that made him famous in 1848. In
his inimitable style, with admirable temper and freshness, he poured
his scathing sarcasm upon the authors of disloyal sentiments, until
listeners shouted with delight. The _Tribune_, forgetful of his
flippant work in the preceding year, accorded him the highest praise,
while strong men, with faces wet with tears, thanked God that this
Achilles of the Democrats spoke for the Republic with the trumpet
tones and torrent-like fluency that had formerly made the name of
Barnburner a terror to the South. Van Buren was not inconsistent.
While favouring a vigorous prosecution of the war he had severely
criticised arbitrary arrests and other undemocratic methods, but when
"little men of little souls," as he called them, attempted to control
the great party for illegal purposes, his patriotism flashed out in
the darkness like a revolving light on a rocky coast.

The call of the Loyal League also brought James T. Brady from his law
office. Unlike Dickinson, Brady did not approve the teachings or the
methods of the Radicals, neither had he like Van Buren supported
Seymour. Moreover, he had refused to take office from Tammany, or to
accept nomination from a Democratic State convention. However, when
the enemies of the Government seemed likely to carry all before them,
he spoke for the Union like one divinely inspired. Indeed, it may be
said with truth that the only ray of hope piercing the gloom and
suspense in the early months of 1863 came from the brilliant outbursts
of patriotism heard at the meetings of the Union League clubs.[885] "I
pray that my name may be enrolled in that league," wrote Seward. "I
would prefer that distinction to any honour my fellow-citizens could
bestow upon me. If the country lives, as I trust it will, let me be
remembered among those who laboured to save it. The diploma will grow
in value as years roll away."[886]

[Footnote 885: The Union League Club of New York was organized
February 6, 1863; its club house, No. 26 E. 17th St., was opened May
12.]

[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 his
inaugural message of January 7 gave no indication of a change of
heart. He spoke of his predecessor as having "shown high capacity" in
the performance of his duties; he insisted that "we must emulate the
conduct of our fathers, and show obedience to constituted authorities,
and respect for legal and constitutional obligations;" he demanded
economy and integrity; and he affirmed that "under no circumstances
can the division of the Union be conceded. We will put forth every
exertion of power; we will use every policy of conciliation; we will
hold out every inducement to the people of the South, consistent with
honour, to return to their allegiance; we will guarantee them every
right, every consideration demanded by the Constitution, and by that
fraternal regard which must prevail in a common country; but we can
never voluntarily consent to the breaking up of the Union of these
States, or the destruction of the Constitution." With his usual
severity he opposed arbitrary arrests, deemed martial law destructive
of the rights of States, and declared that the abolition of slavery
for the purpose of restoring the Union would convert the government
into a military despotism.

"It has been assumed," he said, "that this war will end in the
ascendency of the views of one or the other of the extremes in our
country. Neither will prevail. This is the significance of the late
elections. The determination of the great Central and Western States
is to defend the rights of the States, the rights of individuals, and
to restore our Union as it was. We must not wear out the lives of our
soldiers by a war to carry out vague theories. The policy of
subjugation and extermination means not only the destruction of the
lives and property of the South, but also the waste of the blood and
treasure of the North. There is but one way to save us from
demoralisation, discord, and repudiation. No section must be
disorganised. All must be made to feel that the mighty efforts we are
making to save our Union are stimulated by a purpose to restore peace
and prosperity in every section. If it is true that slavery must be
abolished by force; that the South must be held in military
subjection; that four millions of negroes must be under the management
of authorities at Washington at the public expense; then, indeed, we
must endure the waste of our armies, further drains upon our
population, and still greater burdens of debt. We must convert our
government into a military despotism. The mischievous opinion that in
this contest the North must subjugate and destroy the South to save
our Union has weakened the hopes of our citizens at home, and
destroyed confidence in our success abroad."[887]

[Footnote 887: Horatio Seymour, _Public Record_, pp. 85-105.]

Although this message failed to recognise the difference between a
peaceable South in the Union and a rebellious South attempting to
destroy the Union, it is not easy, perhaps, to comprehend how the
acknowledged leader of the opposition, holding such views and relying
for support upon the peace sentiment of the country, could have said
much less. Yet the feeling must possess the student of history that a
consummate politician, possessing Seymour's ability and popularity,
might easily have divided with Lincoln the honor of crushing the
rebellion and thus have become his successor. The President recognized
this opportunity, saying to Weed that the "Governor has greater power
just now for good than any other man in the country. He can wheel the
Democratic party into line, put down rebellion, and preserve the
government. Tell him for me that if he will render this service for
his 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's
message would scarcely appeal to one who disbelieved in the North's
ability 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 this
chiefly that we may become better acquainted. As to maintaining the
nation's life and integrity, I assume and believe there cannot be a
difference of purpose between you and me. If we should differ as to
the means it is important that such difference should be as small as
possible; that it should not be enhanced by unjust suspicions on one
side or the other. In the performance of my duty the coöperation of
your 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 good
understanding with you. Please write me at least as long a letter as
this, 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 this
letter. The more cultivated Democrats about him entertained the belief
that Lincoln, somewhat uncouth and grotesque, was a weak though
well-meaning man, and the Governor doubtless held a similar opinion.
Moreover, he believed that the President, alarmed by the existence of
a conspiracy of prominent Republicans to force him from the White
House, sought to establish friendly relations that he might have an
anchor to windward.[890] One can imagine the Governor, as the letter
lingered in his hand, smiling superciliously and wondering what manner
of man this Illinoisan is, who could say to a stranger what a little
boy frequently puts in his missive, "Please write me at least as long
a letter as this." At all events, he treated the President very
cavalierly.[891] On April 14, after delaying three weeks, he wrote a
cold and guarded reply, promising to address him again after the
Legislature adjourned. "In the meanwhile," he concluded, "I assure you
that no political resentments, or no personal objects, will turn me
aside from the pathway I have marked out for myself. I intend to show
to those charged with the administration of public affairs a due
deference and respect, and to yield to them a just and generous
support in all measures they may adopt within the scope of their
constitutional powers. For the preservation of this Union I am ready
to 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 his
fashion, but his hatred of the Lincoln Administration was evidently
deep; and it was also clear that he did not believe that the war for
the 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 his
honest convictions. He wanted no relations with a President who seemed
to prefer the abolition of slavery and the use of arbitrary methods. A
few days later, in vetoing a measure authorising soldiers to vote
while absent in the army, he again showed his personal antipathy,
charging the President with rewarding officers of high rank for
improperly interfering in State elections, while subordinate officers
were degraded "for the fair exercise of their political rights at
their own homes."[893] John Hay did not err in saying "there could be
no 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 act
lacked authority of law as well as the excuse of good judgment, and
although the President's change of sentence from imprisonment in Fort
Warren to banishment to the Southern Confederacy gave the proceeding a
humorous turn, the ugly fact remained that a citizen, in the dead of
night, with haste, and upon the evidence of disguised and partisan
informers, had been rudely deprived of liberty without due process of
law. Thoughtful men who reverenced the safeguard known to civil
judicial proceedings were appalled. The Republican press of New York
thought it indefensible, while the opposition, with unprecedented
bitterness, again assailed the Administration. In a moment the whole
North was in a turmoil. Everywhere mass meetings, intemperate
speeches, and threats of violence inflamed the people. The basest
elements in New York City, controlling a public meeting called to
condemn the "outrage," indicated how easily a reign of riot and
bloodshed might be provoked. To an assembly held in Albany on May 16,
at which Erastus Corning presided, Seymour addressed a letter
deploring the unfortunate event as a dishonour brought upon the
country by an utter disregard of the principles of civil liberty. "It
is a fearful thing," he said, "to increase the danger which now
overhangs us, by treating the law, the judiciary, and the authorities
of States with contempt. If this proceeding is approved by the
government and sanctioned by the people, it is not merely a step
toward revolution, it is revolution; it will not only lead to military
despotism, it establishes military despotism. In this respect it must
be accepted, or in this respect it must be rejected. If it is upheld
our liberties are overthrown." Then he grew bolder. "The people of
this country now wait with the deepest anxiety the decision of the
Administration upon these acts. Having given it a generous support in
the conduct of the war, we now pause to see what kind of government it
is for which we are asked to pour out our blood and our treasure. The
action of the Administration will determine, in the minds of more than
one-half the people of the loyal States, whether this war is waged to
put down rebellion in the South or to destroy free institutions at the
North."[895]

[Footnote 895: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1863, p. 689.]

At great length Lincoln replied to the resolutions forwarded by
Corning. "In my own discretion," wrote the President, "I do not know
whether I would have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham.... I was
slow to adopt the strong measures which by degrees I have been forced
to regard as being within the exceptions of the Constitution and as
indispensable to the public safety.... I think the time not unlikely
to come when I shall be blamed for having made too few arrests rather
than too many.... Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who
deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces
him to desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by
getting a father, a brother, or friend into a public meeting and then
working upon his feelings till he is persuaded to write the soldier
boy that he is fighting in a bad cause for a wicked administration and
contemptible government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall
desert."[896] This argument, undoubtedly the strongest that could be
made in justification, found great favour with his party, but the
danger Seymour apprehended lay in the precedent. "Wicked men ambitious
of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law," said Justice
Davis of the United States Supreme Court, in deciding a case of
similar character, "may fill the place once occupied by Washington and
Lincoln, and if this right [of military arrest] is conceded, and the
calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are
frightful 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 allow
the incident to interfere with his official action, and to the
Secretary of War's call for aid when General Lee began his midsummer
invasion of Pennsylvania, he responded promptly: "I will spare no
effort to send you troops at once," and true to his message he
forwarded nineteen regiments, armed and equipped for field service,
whose arrival brought confidence.[898] But governed by the sinister
reason that influenced him earlier in the year, he refused to
acknowledge the President's letter of thanks, preferring to express
his opinion of Administration methods unhindered by the exchange of
courtesies. This he did in a Fourth of July address, delivered at the
Academy of Music in New York City, in which he pleaded, not
passionately, not with the acrimony that ordinarily characterised his
speeches, but humbly, as if asking a despotic conqueror to return the
rights and liberty of which the people had been robbed. "We only ask
freedom of speech,--the right to exercise all the franchises conferred
by the Constitution upon an American. Can you safely deny us these
things?" Mingled also with pathetic appeals were joyless pictures of
the ravages of war, and cheerless glimpses into the future of a
Republic with its bulwarks of liberty torn away. "We stand to-day," he
continued, "amid new made graves; we stand to-day in a land filled
with mourning, and our soil is saturated with the blood of the
fiercest conflict of which history gives us an account. We can, if we
will, avert all these disasters and evoke a blessing. If we will do
what? Hold that Constitution, and liberties, and laws are suspended?
Will that restore them? Or shall we do as our fathers did under
circumstances of like trial, when they battled against the powers of a
crown? Did they say that liberty was suspended? Did they say that men
might be deprived of the right of trial by jury? Did they say that men
might be torn from their homes by midnight intruders?... If you would
save your country and your liberties, begin at the hearthstone; begin
in your family circle; declare that their rights shall be held sacred;
and having once proclaimed your own rights, claim for your own State
that jurisdiction and that government which we, better than all
others, can exercise for ourselves, for we best know our own
interests."[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 breeds
defiance of law in the people? Does the doctrine that in war laws are
silent, please them when put in practice in the streets of New
York?"--New York _World_, July 14, 1863.]

One week later, on Saturday, July 11, the draft began in the Ninth
Congressional District of New York, a portion of the city settled by
labourers, largely of foreign birth. These people, repeating the
information gained in neighbourhood discussions, violently denounced
the Conscription Act as illegal, claiming that the privilege of buying
an exemption on payment of $300 put "the rich man's money against the
poor man's blood." City authorities apprehended trouble and State
officials were notified of the threatened danger, but only the police
held themselves in readiness. The Federal Government, in the absence
of a request from the Governor, very properly declined to make an
exception in the application of the law in New York on the mere
assumption that violence would occur. Besides, all available troops,
including most of the militia regiments, had been sent to
Pennsylvania, and to withdraw them would weaken the Federal lines
about Gettysburg.

The disturbance began at the corner of Forty-sixth Street and Third
Avenue, the rioters destroying the building in which the
provost-marshal was conducting the draft. By this time the mob, having
grown into an army, began to sack and murder. Prejudice against
negroes sent the rioters into hotels and restaurants after the
waiters, some of whom were beaten to death, while others, hanged on
trees and lamp-posts, were burned while dying. The coloured orphan
asylum, fortunately after its inmates had escaped, likewise became
fuel for the flames. The police were practically powerless. Street
cars and omnibuses ceased to run, shopkeepers barred their doors,
workmen dropped their tools, teamsters put up their horses, and for
three days all business was stopped. In the meantime Federal and State
authorities coöperated to restore order. Governor Seymour, having
hastened from Long Branch, addressed a throng of men and boys from the
steps of the City Hall, calling them "friends," and pleading with
them to desist. He also issued two proclamations, declaring the city
in a state of insurrection, and commanding all people to obey the laws
and the legal authorities. Finally, the militia regiments from
Pennsylvania began to arrive, and cannon and howitzers raked the
streets. These quieting influences, coupled with the publication of an
official notice that the draft had been suspended, put an end to the
most exciting experience of any Northern community during the war.

After the excitement the _Tribune_ asserted that the riot resulted
from a widespread treasonable conspiracy,[900] and a letter, addressed
to the President, related the alleged confession of a well-known
politician, who, overcome with remorse, had revealed to the editors of
the _Tribune_ the complicity of Seymour. Lincoln placed no reliance in
the story, "for which," says Hay, "there was no foundation in
fact;"[901] but Seymour's speech "intimated," says the Lincoln
historian, "that the draft justified the riot, and that if the rioters
would cease their violence the draft should be stopped."[902] James B.
Fry, provost-marshal general, substantially endorsed this view. "While
the riot was going on," he says, "Governor Seymour insisted on Colonel
Nugent announcing a suspension of the draft. The draft had already
been stopped by violence. The announcement was urged by the Governor,
no doubt, because he thought it would allay the excitement; but it
was, under the circumstances, making a concession to the mob, and
endangering 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 after
its delivery, no two are alike.[904] Three, however, concur in his use
of the word "friends,"[905] and all agree that he spoke of trying to
secure a postponement of the draft that justice might be done. It was
a delicate position in which he placed himself, and one that ever
after gave him and his supporters much embarrassment and cause for
many apologies. Nevertheless, his action in nowise impugned his
patriotism. Assuming the riot had its inception in the belief which he
himself entertained, that the draft was illegal and unjust, he sought
by personal appeal to stay the destruction of life and property, and
if anyone in authority at that time had influence with the rioters and
their sympathisers it was Horatio Seymour, who probably accomplished
less 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, the
Governor, although his coöperation was sought, "gave no assistance,"
says Fry. "In fact, so far as the government officers engaged in the
enrolment could learn, he gave the subject no attention."[906] On the
day the drawing began, however, he became apprehensive of trouble and
sent 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 enrolment
or the assignment of quotas.[907] Nevertheless, his delay taught him a
lesson, and when the Federal authorities notified him later that the
drawing would be resumed in August, he lost no time in beginning the
now historic correspondence with the President. His letter of August 3
asked that the suspension of the draft be continued to enable the
State officials to correct the enrolment, and to give the United
States Supreme Court opportunity to pass upon the constitutionality of
the Conscription Act, suggesting the hope that in the meantime New
York's quota might be filled by volunteers. "It is believed by at
least one-half of the people of the loyal States," he wrote, "that the
Conscription Act, which they are called upon to obey, is in itself a
violation of the supreme constitutional law.... In the minds of the
American people the duty of obedience and the rights to protection are
inseparable. If it is, therefore, proposed on the one hand to exact
obedience at the point of the bayonet, and, upon the other hand, to
shut 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 the
quota of New York by volunteers in less than a month after the
Conscription Act was passed. This a clever executive could easily have
done 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 columns
of figures to prove the inaccuracy of the enrolment, it concealed the
fact that, although urged to coöperate with the enrolling officers, he
had ignored their invitation to verify the enrolment. In menacing
tones, too, he intimated "the consequences of a violent, harsh policy,
before the constitutionality of the Act is tested." It was evident he
had given much thought to the question, but his prolixity betrayed the
feeling of an official who, conscious of having erred in doing nothing
in anticipation of riot and bloodshed, wished now to make a big
showing of duty performed.

Lincoln's reply not only emphasised the difference between the
political aptitude of himself and Seymour, but marked him as the more
magnanimous and far the greater man. The President raised no issue as
to enrolments, wasted no arguments over columns of figures, and
referred in nowise to the past. He briefly outlined a method of
verification which quickly established,--what might have been shown in
June had the Governor given the matter attention,--an excess of 13,000
men enrolled in the Brooklyn and New York districts. Although he would
be glad, said Lincoln, to facilitate a decision of the Court and
abide by it,[909] he declined longer to delay the draft "because time
is too important.... We are contending with an enemy who, as I
understand, drives every able-bodied man he can reach into his ranks,
very much as a butcher drives bullocks into a slaughter-pen. No time
is wasted, no argument is used. This produces an army which will soon
turn upon our now victorious soldiers already in the field, if they
are not sustained by recruits as they should be."[910]

[Footnote 909: The constitutionality of the Conscription Act of March
3, 1863, was affirmed by the United States Circuit Courts of
Pennsylvania and Illinois.]

[Footnote 910: _The Public Record of Horatio Seymour_, p. 156.]

When the drawing was resumed on August 19, 10,000 infantry and three
batteries of artillery, picked troops from the Army of the Potomac,
beside a division of the State National Guard, backed the Governor's
proclamation counselling submission to the execution of the law. In
this presence the draft proceeded peacefully.

Meanwhile, the loyal millions of the North, longing for victory in the
field, found their prayers answered. Gettysburg and Vicksburg had
pierced the spirit of the South, Cumberland Gap had liberated East
Tennessee, Fort Smith and Little Rock supplied a firm footing for the
army beyond the Mississippi, and the surrender of Port Hudson
permitted Federal gunboats to pass unvexed to the sea. The rift in the
war cloud had, indeed, let in a flood of sunlight, and, while it
lasted, gave fresh courage and larger faith.




CHAPTER VI

SEYMOUR REBUKED

1863


The victories of Vicksburg and Gettysburg turned the Republican Union
convention, held at Syracuse on September 2, into a meeting of
rejoicing. Weed did not attend, but the Conservatives, led by Henry J.
Raymond and Edwin D. Morgan, boldly talked of its control. Ward Hunt
became temporary chairman. Hunt was a lawyer whom politics did not
attract. Since his unsuccessful effort to become a United States
senator in 1857 he had turned aside from his profession only when
necessary to strengthen the cause of the Union. At such times he shone
as the representative of a wise patriotism. He did not belong in the
class of attractive platform speakers, nor possess the weaknesses of
blind followers of party chieftains. His power rested upon the
strength of his character as a well-poised student of affairs. What he
believed came forcefully from a mind that formed its own judgments,
and whether his words gave discomfort to the little souls that
governed caucuses, or to the great journalists that sought to force
their own policies, he was in no wise disturbed.

Upon taking the chair Hunt began his remarks in the tone of one who
felt more than he desired to express, but as the mention of Gettysburg
and Vicksburg revealed the unbounded enthusiasm of the men before him,
the optimism that characterised the people's belief in the summer of
1863 quickly took possession of him, and he coupled with the
declaration that the rebel armies were nearly destroyed, the opinion
that peace was near at hand. For the moment the party seemed solidly
united. But when the echoes of long continued cheering had subsided
the bitterness of faction flashed out with increased intensity. To the
Radicals, Raymond's suggestion of Edwin D. Morgan for permanent
chairman was as gall and wormwood, and his talk of an entire new
ticket most alarming. However, George Opdyke and Horace Greeley, the
Radical leaders, chastened by the defeat of Wadsworth and the election
of Morgan to the Senate, did not now forget the value of discretion.
Hunt's selection as temporary chairman had been a concession, and in
the choice of a permanent presiding officer, although absolutely
unyielding in their hostility to Morgan, they graciously accepted
Abraham Wakeman, an apostle of the conservative school.[911] Their
attitude toward Morgan, however, cost Opdyke a place on the State
Committee, and for a time threatened to exclude the Radicals from
recognition upon the ticket.

[Footnote 911: Wakeman was postmaster at New York City.]

The refusal of men to accept nominations greatly embarrassed
Conservatives in harvesting their victory. Thomas W. Olcott of Albany
was nominated for comptroller in place of Lucius Robinson. Of all the
distinguished men who had filled that office none exhibited a more
inflexible firmness than Robinson in holding the public purse strings.
He was honest by nature and by practice. Neither threats nor ingenious
devices disturbed him, but with a fidelity as remarkable as it was
rare he pushed aside the emissaries of extravagance and corruption as
readily as a plow turns under the sod. After two years of such
methods, however, the representatives of a wide-open treasury noisily
demanded a change. But Olcott, a financier of wide repute, wisely
declined to be used for such a purpose, and Robinson was accepted.

Daniel S. Dickinson, after the inconsequential treatment accorded him
in the recent contest for United States senator, suddenly discovered
that domestic reasons disabled him from serving longer as
attorney-general. Then James T. Brady declined, although tendered the
nomination without a dissenting voice. This reduced the convention,
in its search for a conspicuous War Democrat, to the choice of John
Cochrane, the well-known orator who had left the army in the preceding
February. In choosing a Secretary of State the embarrassment
continued. Greeley encouraged the candidacy of Chauncey M. Depew, but
concluded, at the last moment, that Peter A. Porter, the colonel of a
regiment and a son of the gallant general of the war of 1812, must
head the ticket.[912] Porter, however, refused to exchange a military
for a civil office, and Depew was substituted.

[Footnote 912: "Porter received 213 votes to 140 for Depew, who made a
remarkable run under the circumstances."--New York _Herald_, September
3, 1863.

"Greeley sent for me some weeks before the convention and pressed me
with such vigour to take a position upon the State ticket that I
finally consented. He then secured from practically the whole State an
endorsement of the suggestion on my behalf. On the morning of the
convention he suddenly decided that some one connected with the army
must be chosen and sent around an order for a change of programme just
before the roll was called. It was the most fortunate thing that could
have happened to me, but created widespread distrust of his qualities
as a leader."--Speech of Chauncey M. Depew, April 4, 1902. _Addresses
of_, November, 1896, to April, 1902, pp. 238-239.]

Depew, then a young man of twenty-nine, gave promise of his subsequent
brilliant career. He lived a neighbour to Horace Greeley, whom he
greatly admired, and to whom he tactfully spoke the honeyed words,
always so agreeable to the _Tribune's_ editor.[913] Perhaps no one in
the State possessed a more pleasing personality. He made other people
as happy as he was himself. To this charm of manner were added a
singularly attractive presence, a pleasing voice, and the oratorical
gifts that won him recognition even before he left Yale College. From
the first he exhibited a marked capacity for public life. He had an
unfailing readiness, a wide knowledge of affairs, a keen sense of the
ridiculous, and a flow of clear and easy language which never failed
to give full and precise expression to all that was in his mind. He
rarely provoked enmities, preferring light banter to severe invective
or unsparing ridicule. Among his associates he was the prince of
raconteurs. In conventions few men were heard with keener interest,
and every Republican recognised the fact that a new force had come
into the councils of the party. There never was a time when people
regarded him as "a coming man," for he took a leading place at once.
In 1861, three years after his admission to the bar, the Peekskill
voters sent him to the Assembly, and the next year his colleagues
selected him for speaker, an honour which he generously relinquished
that his party might elect a United States senator. Now, within the
same year, he found a place at the head of the ticket, which he led
during the campaign with marked ability.[914]

[Footnote 913: "So far as politics were concerned, Greeley's
affections seemed to be lavished on politicians who flattered and
coddled him. Of this the rise of Governor Fenton was a striking
example."--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 of
Chemung; Canal Commissioner, Benjamin F. Bruce of Madison; Treasurer,
George W. Schuyler of Tompkins; State Engineer, William B. Taylor of
Oneida; Prison Inspector, James K. Bates of Jefferson; Judge of
Appeals, Henry S. Selden of Monroe; Attorney-General, John Cochrane of
New York.]

The platform endorsed the Administration, praised the soldiers,
opposed a peace that changed the Constitution except in the form
prescribed by it, deplored the creation of a spirit of partisan
hostility against the Government, and promised that New York would do
its full share in maintaining the Union; but it skilfully avoided
mentioning the conscription act and the emancipation proclamation,
which Seymour charged had changed the war for the Union into a war for
abolition. When a delegate, resenting the omission, moved a resolution
commending emancipation, Raymond reminded him that he was in a Union,
not a Republican convention, and that many loyal men doubted the
propriety of such an endorsement. This position proved too
conservative for the ordinary up-State delegate, and a motion to table
the resolution quickly failed. Thereupon Charles A. Folger of Geneva
moved to amend by adding the words, "and as a war measure is
thoroughly legal and justifiable." Probably no man in the convention,
by reason of his learning and solidity of character, had greater
influence. In 1854 he left the Democratic party with Ward Hunt, whom
he resembled as a lawyer, and whom he was to follow to the Court of
Appeals and like him attain the highest eminence. Just then he was
forty-five years old, a State senator of gentle bearing and stout
heart, who dared to express his positive convictions, and whose
suggested amendment, offered with the firmness of a man conscious of
being 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 language
Lincoln took the people into his confidence. There are but three ways,
he said, to stop the war; first, by suppressing rebellion, which he
was trying to do; second, by giving up the Union, which he was trying
to prevent; and third, by some imaginable compromise, which was
impossible if it embraced the maintenance of the Union. The strength
of the rebellion is in its army, which dominates all the country and
all the people within its range. Any offer of terms made by men within
that range, in opposition to that army, is simply nothing for the
present, because such men have no power whatever to enforce their side
of a compromise if one were made with them. Suppose refugees from the
South and peace men from the North hold a convention of the States,
how can their action keep Lee out of Pennsylvania? To be effective a
compromise must come from those in control of the rebel army, or from
the people after our army has suppressed that army. As no suggestion
of peace has yet come from that source, all thought of peace for the
present was out of the question. If any proposition shall hereafter
come, it shall not be rejected and kept a secret from you.

To be plain, he continued, you are dissatisfied about the negro. You
opposed compensated emancipation and you dislike proclaimed
emancipation. If slaves are property, is there any question that by
the law of war such property, both of enemies and friends, may be
taken when needed? And is it not needed when its taking helps us and
hurts our enemy? But you say the proclamation is unconstitutional. If
it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it cannot be
retracted any more than the dead can be brought to life. You profess
to think its retraction would help the Union. Why better _after_ the
retraction than _before_ the issue? Those in revolt had one hundred
days to consider it, and the war, since its issuance, has progressed
as favourably for us as before. Some of the commanders who have won
our most important victories believe the emancipation policy the
heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebels, and that in one instance, at
least, victory came with the aid of black soldiers. You say you will
not fight to free negroes. Whenever you are urged, after resistance to
the Union is conquered, to continue to fight, it will be time enough
to refuse. Do you not think, in the struggle for the Union, that the
withdrawal of negro help from the enemy weakens his resistance to you?
That what negroes can do as soldiers leaves so much less for white
soldiers to do? But why should negroes do anything for us, if we will
do nothing for them? and if they, on the promise of freedom, stake
their lives to save the Union, shall the promise not be kept?

The signs look better, he concluded. Peace does not appear so distant
as it did. When it comes, it will prove that no appeal lies from the
ballot to the bullet, and that those who take it are sure to lose
their case and pay the costs. "And then there will be some black men
who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and
steady eye, and well poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to
this great consummation; while I fear there will be some white ones
unable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful speech they
have striven to hinder it."[915]

[Footnote 915: New York _Herald_, September 3, 1863.]

The influence of this letter, increased by the dignity and power of
the President's office, proved a sharp thorn to the Democrats. Recent
military successes had made it appear for the time, at least, that
rebellion was about to collapse, and the Democratic State Union
convention, which convened at Albany on September 9, shifted its
policy from a protest against war measures to an appeal for
conciliation. In other words, it was against subjugation, which would
not leave "the Union as it was, and the Constitution as it is." In its
effort to emphasise this plea it refused to recognise or affiliate
with the Constitutional Union party, controlled by James Brooks and
other extreme peace advocates,[916] and although its platform still
condemned emancipation, conscription, and arbitrary arrests, the
pivotal declaration, based on "manifestations of a returning
allegiance on the part of North Carolina and other seceded States,"
favoured a wise statesmanship "which shall encourage the Union
sentiment of the South and unite more thoroughly the people of the
North." Amasa J. Parker, chairman of the convention, who still talked
of a "yawning gulf of ruin," admitted that such a policy brought a
gleam of hope to the country, and Governor Seymour, at the end of a
dreary speech explanatory of his part in the draft-riot,[917]
expressed a willingness to "bury violations of law and the rights of
States and individuals if such a magnanimous course shall be
pursued."[918] Lincoln's letter, however, unexpectedly spoiled such an
appeal, compelling the convention to "regret" that the President
contemplates no measure for the restoration of the Union, "but looking
to an indefinite protraction of the war for abolition purposes points
to no future save national bankruptcy and the subversion of our
institutions."[919]

[Footnote 916: The Constitutional Union convention, meeting at Albany
on September 8, named candidates for attorney-general and prison
inspector, with the request that the Democratic convention endorse
them; otherwise it would put a full ticket into the field. Among its
State Committee appeared the names of former governor Washington Hunt
and Lorenzo Burrows. It resolved to resist all departures from the
strict letter of the Constitution, whether based upon military
necessity or a usurpation of doubtful powers.

"We tender the Democratic State convention our hearty thanks for their
contemptuous 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 should
be squelched and its annual nuisance abated."--New York _Tribune_,
September 11, 1863.]

[Footnote 917: "Governor Seymour can talk more without saying
anything, and write more without meaning anything, than any other man
we know.... We consider Seymour not much of a man, and no Governor at
all."--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 of
Orleans; Attorney-General, Marshall B. Champlain of Allegany; State
Engineer, Van R. Richmond of Wayne; Treasurer, William B. Lewis of
Kings; Canal Commissioner, William W. Wright, of Ontario; Inspector of
Prisons, David B. McNeil of Clinton; Judge of Appeals, William F.
Allen, of Oswego.--_Ibid._]

The Republicans, backed by success in the field, started with an
advantage which the cheering news from Maine strengthened. It soon
become manifest, too, that the Gibraltar of Democracy resented the
destructive work of mobs and rioters. Criticism of Seymour also became
drastic. "He hobnobbed with the copperhead party in Connecticut," said
the _Herald_, "and lost that election; he endorsed Vallandigham, and
did nothing during the riot but talk. He has let every opportunity
pass and rejected all offers that would prove him the man for the
place. The sooner he is dropped as incompetent, the better it will be
for 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 the
executive departments."[921] But Martin I. Townsend, at a great mass
meeting in New York City, presented the crushing indictment against
him. Although the clock had tolled the midnight hour, the large
audience remained to hear Townsend for the same reason, suggested
Edwin D. Morgan, the chairman, that the disciples sat up all night
whenever the great apostle was with them. Townsend was then
fifty-three years old. For more than a decade his rare ability as a
speaker had kept him a favorite, and for a quarter of a century longer
he was destined to delight the people. On this occasion, however, his
arraignment left a deeper and more lasting impression than his words
ordinarily did. "Seymour," he said, "undertook to increase enlistments
by refusing the soldier his political franchise. On the supposition
that Meade would be defeated, he delivered a Fourth of July address
that indicted the free people of the North and placed him in the front
rank of men whom rebels delight to honour. If there was a traitor in
New York City on that day he was in the company of Horatio Seymour.
Finally, he pronounced as 'friends' the men, who, stirred to action by
his incendiary words, applied the torch and the bludgeon in the draft
riot 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 never
cleverer or more defiant.[923] He exhibited great skill in criticising
the Administration, charging that disasters had brought bankruptcy,
that ill-advised acts of subordinates had sapped the liberties of the
people, and that base motives inspired the policy of the Government.
He denounced the Radicals as craven Americans, devoid of patriotic
feeling, who were trying to make the humiliation and degradation of
their country a stepping-stone to continued power. "They say we must
fight until slavery is extinguished. We are to upturn the foundations
of our Constitution. At this very moment, when the fate of the nation
and of individuals trembles in the balance, these madmen ask us to
plunge 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 be
set aside at the will of one man, because, forsooth, he judges it to
be a military necessity? I never yet heard that Abraham Lincoln was a
military necessity.... The Vice-President says, 'There are men in your
midst who want the Union as it was and the Constitution as it is,' and
he adds, sneeringly, 'They can't have it.' We will tell him there are
many such men, and we say to him we will have it. There has never been
a sentiment in the North or South put forth more treasonable,
cowardly, and base than this." Referring to the President's call, on
October 17, for 300,000 volunteers, to be followed by a draft if not
promptly filled, he exclaimed: "Again, 600,000 men are called
for--600,000 homes to be entered. The young man will be compelled to
give up the cornerstone of his fortune, which he has laid away with
toil and care, to begin the race of life. The old man will pay that
which he has saved, as the support of his declining years, to rescue
his son. In God's name, let these operations be fair if they must be
cruel." 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 will
preserve the Constitution, we will preserve the Union, we will
preserve our flag with every star upon it, and we will see to it that
there is a State for every star."[924]

[Footnote 923: Seymour spoke at Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, and New York
City, 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 of
the President's call for more troops, issued a circular on the eve of
election, alleging that the State would receive no credit for drafted
men commuted; that towns which had furnished their quotas would be
subject to a new conscription; and that men having commuted were
liable to be immediately drafted again.[925] This was the prototype of
Burchard's "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" in 1884, and might have
become no less disastrous had not the Provost-marshal General quickly
contradicted it. As a parting shot, Seward, speaking at Auburn on the
night before election, declared that if the ballot box could be passed
through the camps of the Confederate soldiers, every man would vote
for the administration of our government by Horatio Seymour and
against 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. Although
the Democrats had derived great advantage in 1862 because of their
bold stand for civil liberty and freedom of speech, a year later such
arguments proved of little avail. Gettysburg and Vicksburg had turned
the tide, and Seymour and the draft riot carried it to the flood.
Depew's majority, mounting higher and higher as the returns came
slowly from the interior, turned the Governor's surprise into shame.
In his career of a quarter of a century Seymour had learned to accept
disappointment as well as success, but his failure in 1863 to forecast
the trend of changing public sentiment cost him the opportunity of
ever again leading his party to victory.[927]

[Footnote 927: "Depew received 29,405 votes more than St. John for
secretary of state." _Ibid._, December 5, 1863.]




CHAPTER VII

STRIFE OF RADICAL AND CONSERVATIVE

1864


In his Auburn speech Seward had declared for Lincoln's
renomination.[928] Proof of the intimate personal relations existing
between the President and his Secretary came into national notice in
1862 when a committee of nine Radical senators, charging to Seward's
conservatism the failure of a vigorous and successful prosecution of
the war, formally demanded his dismissal from the Cabinet. On learning
of their action the Secretary had immediately resigned. "Do you still
think Seward ought to be excused?" asked Lincoln at the end of a long
and stormy interview. Four answered "Yes," three declined to vote, and
Harris of New York said "No."[929] The result of this conference led
Secretary Chase, the chief of the Radicals, to tender his resignation
also. But the President, "after most anxious consideration," requested
each to resume the duties of his department. Speaking of the matter
afterward to Senator Harris, Lincoln declared with his usual
mirth-provoking illustration: "If I had yielded to that storm and
dismissed Seward, the thing would all have slumped one way. Now I can
ride; I have got a pumpkin in each end of my bag."[930]

[Footnote 928: Delivered November 3, 1863. New York _Herald_, November
6.]

[Footnote 929: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 6, p. 266.
Senators Sumner of Massachusetts, Trumbull of Illinois, Grimes of
Iowa, and Pomeroy of Kansas, voted Yes; Collamer of Vermont, Fessenden
of Maine, and Howard of Michigan declined to vote. Wade of Ohio was
absent.]

[Footnote 930: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 6, p. 268.]

Other causes than loyalty contributed to the President's regard for
Seward. In their daily companionship the latter took a genial,
philosophical view of the national struggle, not shared by all his
Cabinet associates, while Lincoln dissipated the gloom with quaint
illustrations of Western life.[931] At one of these familiar fireside
talks the President expressed the hope that Seward might be his
successor, adding that the friends so grievously disappointed at
Chicago would thus find all made right at last. To this Seward, in his
clear-headed and kind-hearted way, replied: "No, that is all past and
ended. The logic of events requires you to be your own successor. You
were elected in 1860, but the Southern States refused to submit. They
thought 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 party
will be voted down at the next election. When that election is held
and they find the people reaffirming their decision to have you
President, 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 of
customs, Weed thought Lincoln too tolerant of Radicals whose
opposition was ill concealed. "They will all be against him in '64,"
he wrote David Davis, then an associate justice of the United States
Supreme Court. "Why does he persist in giving them weapons with which
they may defeat his renomination?"[933] Barney had become a burden to
Lincoln, who really desired to be rid of him. Many complaints of
irregularity disclosed corrupt practices which warranted a change for
the public good. Besides, said the President, "the establishment was
being run almost exclusively in the interest of the Radicals. I felt
great 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 a
diplomatic position. Just then Chase became aware of my little
conspiracy. He was very angry and told me the day Barney left the
custom house, with or without his own consent, he would withdraw from
the 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 the
White House had not escaped notice. "I have been brought to fear
recently," the President wrote with characteristic tenderness, "that
somehow, by commission or omission, I have caused you some degree of
pain. I have never entertained an unkind feeling or a disparaging
thought towards you; and if I have said or done anything which has
been construed into such unkindness or disparagement it has been
misconstrued. I am sure if we could meet we would not part with any
unpleasant impression on either side."[935] Such a letter from such a
man stirred the heart of the iron-willed boss, who hastened to
Washington. He had much to say. Among other things he unfolded a plan
for peace. It proposed full amnesty to all persons engaged in the war
and an armistice for ninety days, during which time such citizens of
the Confederate States as embrace the offered pardon "shall, as a
State or States, or as citizens thereof, be restored in all respects
to the rights, privileges, and prerogatives which they enjoyed before
their secession from the Union." If, however, such offer is rejected,
the authority of the United States denied, and the war against the
Union continued, the President should partition all territory, whether
farms, villages, or cities, among the officers and soldiers conquering
the 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 it
would secure "a united North in favour of war to the knife." Besides,
the armistice, occurring when the season interrupts active army
movements, would cause little delay and give ample time for widespread
circulation of the proclamation. Respecting the division of lands
among soldiers, he said it would stop desertion, avoid the payment of
bounties, and quickly fill the army with enterprising yeomen who would
want homes after the termination of hostilities. It had long been
practised in maritime wars by all civilized nations, he said, and
being a part of international law it could not in reason be objected
to, especially as the sufferers would have rejected most liberal
offers of peace and prosperity. Weed frankly admitted that Seward did
not like the scheme, and that Senator Wilson of Massachusetts eyed it
askance; but Stanton approved it, he said, and Dean Richmond
authorised him to say that if fairly carried out the North would be a
unit in support of the war and the rebellion would be crushed within
six 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 skill
all the details. Nevertheless, the proposition now laid before the
President, leaving slavery as it was, could not be accepted. "The
emancipation proclamation could not be retracted," he had said in his
famous letter to the New York convention, "any more than the dead
could be brought to life." However, Lincoln did not let the famous
editor depart empty-handed. Barney should be removed, and Weed,
satisfied with such a scalp, returned home to enter the campaign for
the President's renomination.[938]

[Footnote 938: New York _Herald_, May 24, 1864.]

Something seemed to be wrong in New York. Other States through
conventions and legislatures had early favored the President's
renomination, while the Empire State moved slowly. Party machinery
worked well. The Union Central Committee, holding a special meeting on
January 4, 1864 at the residence of Edwin D. Morgan, recommended
Lincoln's nomination. "It is going to be difficult to restrain the
boys," said Morgan in a letter to the President, "and there is not
much use in trying to do so."[939] On February 23 the Republican State
Committee also endorsed him, and several Union League clubs spoke
earnestly of his "prudence, sagacity, comprehension, and
perseverance." But the absence of an early State convention, the tardy
selection of delegates to Baltimore, and the failure of the
Legislature to act, did not reveal the enthusiasm evinced in other
Commonwealths. Following the rule adopted elsewhere, resolutions
favourable to the President's renomination were duly presented to the
Assembly, where they remained unacted upon. Suddenly on January 25 a
circular, signed by Simeon Draper and issued by the Conference
Committee of the Union Lincoln Association of New York, proposed that
all citizens of every town and county who favoured Lincoln's
nomination meet in some appropriate place on February 22 and make
public expression to that fact. Among the twenty-five names attached
appeared those of Moses Taylor and Moses H. Grinnell. This was a new
system of tactics. But the legislative resolutions did not advance
because of it.

[Footnote 939: _Ibid._, February 7.]

A month later a letter addressed by several New Yorkers to the
National Republican Executive Committee requested the postponement of
the Baltimore convention.[940] "The country is not now in a position
to enter into a presidential contest," it said. "All parties friendly
to the Government should be united in support of a single candidate.
Such unanimity cannot at present be obtained. Upon the result of
measures adopted to finish the war during the present spring and
summer will depend the wish of the people to continue their present
leaders, or to exchange them for others. Besides, whatever will tend
to lessen the duration of an acrimonious Presidential campaign will be
an advantage to the country."[941] If the sentiment of this letter was
not new, the number and character of its signers produced a profound
sensation. William Cullen Bryant headed the list, and of the
twenty-three names, seventeen were leading State senators, among them
Charles J. Folger and James M. Cook. "This list," said the _Tribune_,
"contains the names of two-thirds of the Unionists chosen to our
present State Senate, the absence of others preventing their signing.
We understand that but two senators declined to affix their
name."[942] Greeley did not sign this letter, but in an earlier
communication to the _Independent_ he had urged a postponement of the
convention.[943] Moreover, he had indicated in the _Tribune_ that
Chase, Fremont, Butler, or Grant would make as good a President as
Lincoln, while the nomination of either would preserve "the salutary
one-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 the
dissatisfaction with Lincoln among New York Republicans. Seward's
influence and Weed's relations seriously weakened him. After the
election of 1862 Radicals openly charged them with Wadsworth's defeat.
For the same reason the feeling against Edwin D. Morgan had become
intensely bitter. Seeing a newspaper paragraph that these men had been
in consultation with the President about his message, Senator Chandler
of Michigan, the prince of Radicals, wrote a vehement letter to
Lincoln, telling him of a "patriotic organisation in all the free and
border States, containing to-day over one million of voters, every man
of 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 are
a millstone about your neck. You drop them and they are politically
ended forever.... Conservatives and traitors are buried together. For
God's sake don't exhume their remains in your message. They will smell
worse 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, demands
for the postponement of the national convention continued to appear,
and men everywhere resented conservative leadership. This was
especially true of Greeley and the _Tribune_, Bryant and the _Evening
Post_, and Beecher and the _Independent_, not to mention other
Radicals and radical papers throughout the State, whose opposition
represented a formidable combination. Except for this discontent the
Cleveland convention would scarcely have been summoned into existence.
Of the three calls issued for its assembling two had their birth in
New York, one headed by George B. Cheever, the eminent divine, who had
recently toured England in behalf of the Union,--the other by Lucius
Robinson, State comptroller, and John Cochrane, attorney-general.
Cheever's call denounced "the imbecile and vacillating policy of the
present Administration in the conduct of the war,"[946] while Robinson
and Cochrane emphasised the need of a President who "can suppress
rebellion 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 clearly
demonstrated at the Republican State convention, held at Syracuse on
May 26, to select delegates to Baltimore. Each faction, led in person
by Greeley and Weed, professed to favour the President's renomination,
but the fierce and bitter contest over the admission of delegates from
New York City widened the breach. The Weed machine, following the
custom of previous years, selected an equal number of delegates from
each ward. The Radicals, who denounced this system as an arbitrary
expression of bossism, chose a delegation representing each ward in
proportion to the number of its Republican voters. The delegation
accepted would control the convention, and although the Radicals
consented to the admission of both on equal terms, the Weed forces,
confident of their strength, refused the compromise. This set the
Radicals to work, and at the morning session, amidst the wildest
confusion and disorder, they elected Lyman Tremaine temporary chairman
by a majority of six over Chauncey M. Depew, the young secretary of
state, whose popularity had given the Conservatives an abnormal
strength.

In his speech the Chairman commented upon the death of James S.
Wadsworth, killed in the battle of the Wilderness on May 6, from whose
obsequies, held at Geneseo on the 21st, many delegates had just
returned. Tremaine believed that the soldier's blood would "lie heavy
on the souls of those pretended supporters of the government in its
hour of trial, whose cowardice and treachery contributed to his defeat
for governor."[948] In such a spirit he eulogised Wadsworth's
character and patriotism, declaring that if justice had been done him
by the Conservatives, he would now, instead of sleeping in his grave,
be governor of New York. Although spoken gently and with emotions of
sadness, these intolerably aggressive sentences, loudly applauded by
the Radicals, stirred the Weed delegates into whispered threats.[949]
But Tremaine did not rely upon words alone. He packed the committee on
contested seats, whose report, admitting both city delegations on
equal terms, was accepted by the enormous majority of 192 to 98,
revealing the fact that the great body of up-State Republicans
distrusted Thurlow Weed, whose proposition for peace did not include
the abolition of slavery. Other reasons, however, accounted for the
large majority. Tremaine, no longer trusting to the leadership of
Greeley,[950] marshalled the Radical forces with a skill learned in
the school of Seymour and Dean Richmond, and when his drilled cohorts
went into action the tumultuous and belligerent character of the
scene resembled the uproar familiar to one who had trained with
Tammany and fought with Mozart Hall. In concluding its work the
convention endorsed the President and selected sixty-six delegates,
headed by Raymond, Dickinson, Tremaine, and Preston King as
delegates-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 the
party in the State and the first convention which he attended (1862)
bowed absolutely to his will. He thought he was a great political
leader, 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 often
deceived, often misled, and often led to change his opinions.... In
less 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 whose
names had advertised and given character to this movement John
Cochrane alone attended. Indeed, the picturesque speech of Cochrane,
as chairman, and the vehement letter of Lucius Robinson, advocating
the nomination of Grant, constituted the only attractive feature of
the proceedings. Cochrane and Robinson wanted a party in which they
could feel at home. To Cochrane the Republican party was "a medley of
trading, scurvy politicians, which never represented War
Democrats,"[951] while Robinson thought the country "had survived,
through three years of war, many bad mistakes of a weak Executive and
Cabinet, simply because the popular mind had been intensely fixed upon
the single purpose of suppressing rebellion."[952] Both resented the
Administration's infringement of individual rights. "Whoever attacks
them," said Cochrane, "wounds the vital parts of the Republic. Not
even the plea of necessity allows any one to trample upon them."[953]
The Cleveland convention, however, did not help these statesmen any
more than the nomination of John C. Fremont and John Cochrane, "the
two Johns from New York" as they were called, injured the
President.[954] When Lincoln heard that instead of the many thousands
expected only three or four hundred attended, he opened his Bible and
read: "And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in
debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto
him; and he became a captain over them; and there were with him about
four hundred."[955]

[Footnote 951: Cochrane's speech at Cleveland. McPherson's _History of
the Rebellion_, p. 411.]

[Footnote 952: _Ibid._, p. 413.]

[Footnote 953: _Ibid._, p. 412.]

[Footnote 954: A singular mistake of the convention was its
nomination, contrary to the requirement of the Constitution, of both
candidates from the same State.]

[Footnote 955: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 40.]

Lucius Robinson's suggestion that Grant be nominated for President
represented the thought of many New Yorkers prominent in political
circles. "All eyes and hopes now centre on Grant," wrote Thurlow Weed
on April 17. "If he wins in Virginia it will brighten the horizon and
make him President."[956] The _Herald_ sounded the praises of the
Lieutenant-General in nearly every issue. The _Tribune_ and _Times_
were equally flattering. Even the _World_ admitted that a skilful
general handled the army.[957] Other papers throughout the State
expressed similar confidence in his victorious leadership, and with
the hope of changing the sentiment from Lincoln to Grant a great mass
meeting, called ostensibly to express the country's gratitude to the
latter, was held in New York City two days before the meeting of the
National Republican convention. Neither at this time, however, nor at
any other did the movement receive the slightest encouragement from
the hero of Vicksburg, or shake the loyalty of the delegates who
assembled 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 compromise
exhibited at Syracuse in 1863, reported the platform. It declared the
maintenance of the Union and the suppression of rebellion by force of
arms to be the highest duty of every citizen; it approved the
determination of the government to enter into no compromise with
rebels; 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 of
war for coloured troops; encouraged immigration and the early
construction of a railroad to the Pacific coast; pledged the national
faith to keep inviolate the redemption of the public debt; and opposed
the establishment, by foreign military forces, of monarchical
governments in the near vicinity of the United States.[958] On the
second 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 York
factions. An impression had early taken root in the country that a War
Democrat should be selected, and the Radicals of New York, under the
leadership of Lyman Tremaine, quickly designated Daniel S. Dickinson
as the man. Dickinson's acceptability in New England and New Jersey
strengthened his candidacy, while its approval by three or four border
and western States seriously weakened Hamlin. Nevertheless, the New
York Conservatives vigorously opposed him. Their antagonism did not at
first concentrate upon any one candidate. Weed talked of Hamlin and
later of Joseph Holt of Kentucky; Raymond thought Andrew Johnson of
Tennessee the stronger; and Preston King, to the great surprise of the
Radicals, agreed with him. This brought from George William Curtis the
sarcastic remark that a Vice-President from the Empire State would
prevent its having a Cabinet officer. Tremaine declared that a change
in the Cabinet would not be a serious calamity to the country, and
Preston King, who attributed his displacement from the United States
Senate to the Seward influence, did not object to the Secretary's
removal. Thus Raymond's influence gave the doughty War Governor 32 of
New York's 66 votes to 28 for Dickinson and 6 for Hamlin. This
materially aided Johnson's nomination on the first ballot.[960]

[Footnote 960: Johnson received 200 votes to 108 for Dickinson. After
recording 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 at
the Baltimore convention. He became chairman of the New York
delegation, chairman of the committee on resolutions, chairman of the
National Executive Committee, and the principal debater upon the
floor, manifesting a tact in the performance of his manifold duties
that surprised as much as it charmed. But the reason for his ardent
support of Johnson will probably never be certainly known. McClure
declared that he acted in accord with the wishes of Lincoln, who
discreetly favoured and earnestly desired Johnson's nomination. This
view was approved by George Jones, the proprietor of the _Times_ and
Raymond's most intimate friend.[961] On the other hand, Nicolay
declared that "it was with minds absolutely untrammelled by even any
knowledge of the President's wishes that the convention went about its
work of selecting his associate on the ticket."[962] In his long and
bitter controversy with Nicolay, however, McClure furnished testimony
indicating that Lincoln whispered his choice and that Raymond
understood 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 Appraiser
at New York, and when John J. Cisco, the assistant United States
treasurer, tendered his resignation to take effect June 30 (1864), the
President desired to appoint one unobjectionable to Senator Morgan;
but Secretary Chase, regardless of the preferences of others, insisted
upon Maunsell B. Field, then an assistant secretary of the treasury.
Morgan vigorously protested, regarding him incompetent to fill such a
place. Besides, the designation of Field, who had no political backing
in New York, would, he said, offend the conservative wing of the
party, which had been entirely ignored in the past. As a compromise
the Senator begged the President to select Richard M. Blatchford,
Dudley S. Gregory, or Thomas Hillhouse, whom he regarded as three of
the most eminent citizens of New York.

Lincoln, in a note to the Secretary, submitted these names. "It will
really oblige me," he wrote, "if you will make choice among these
three, or any other men that Senators Morgan and Harris will be
satisfied with."[964] This brief letter was followed on the same day
by one presenting the annoyance to which patronage subjects a
President. 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 so
well 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 judgment
and forego this were the greater difficulty out of the way. Much as I
personally like Mr. Barney it has been a great burden to me to retain
him in his place when nearly all our friends in New York were directly
or indirectly urging his removal. Then the appointment of Judge
Hogeboom to be general appraiser brought me to the verge of open
revolt. Now the appointment of Mr. Field would precipitate me in it,
unless Senator Morgan and those feeling as he does could be brought to
concur in it. Strained as I already am at this point, I do not think I
can make this appointment in the direction of still greater
strain."[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 to
withdraw his resignation, but after getting the President's second
letter, cleverly intimating that Field's appointment might necessitate
the removal of Barney, the Secretary promptly tendered his
resignation. If the President was surprised, the Secretary, after
reading Lincoln's reply, was not less so. "Your resignation of the
office of secretary of the treasury, sent me yesterday, is accepted,"
said the brief note. "Of all I have said in commendation of your
ability and fidelity I have nothing to unsay, and yet you and I have
reached a point of mutual embarrassment in our official relation which
it seems cannot be overcome or longer sustained consistently with the
public service."[966] Secretary Blaine's hasty resignation in 1892,
and President Harrison's quick acceptance of it, were not more
dramatic, except that Blaine's was tendered on the eve of a national
nominating convention. It is more than doubtful if Chase intended to
resign. He meant it to be as in previous years the beginning of a
correspondence, expecting to receive from the President a soothing
letter with concessions. But Lincoln's stock of patience, if not of
sedatives, was exhausted.

[Footnote 966: Nicolay-Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. 9, p. 95.]

A few weeks later, after William Pitt Fessenden's appointment to
succeed Chase, Simeon Draper became collector of customs. He was one
of Weed's oldest friends and in 1858 had been his first choice for
governor.[967] But just now Abraham Wakeman was his first choice for
collector. Possibly in selecting Draper instead of Wakeman, Lincoln
remembered Weed's failure to secure a legislative endorsement of his
renomination, a work specially assigned to him. At all events the
anti-Weed faction accepted Draper as a decided triumph.

[Footnote 967: "Simeon Draper was impulsive and demonstrative. With
the advantages of a fine person, good conversational powers, and ready
wit, his genial presence and cheerful voice imparted life and spirit
to 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 Emancipation
Proclamation," said the President at the opening of Congress in
December, 1863; "nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free
by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress."
But in submitting a plan for the restoration of the Confederate States
he offered amnesty, with rights of property except as to slaves, to
all persons[968] who agreed to obey the Constitution, the laws, and
the Executive proclamations, and proposed that whenever such persons
numbered one-tenth of the qualified voters of a State they "shall be
recognized as the true government of such State."[969] A week later
the Thirteenth Amendment, forever abolishing slavery, was introduced
into Congress. Thus the purpose of the radical Republicans became
plain.

[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 his
party, made his message to the Legislature a manifesto to the
Democrats of the country. With measured rhetoric he traced the
usurpations of the President and the acknowledged policy that was in
future to guide the Administration. He courageously admitted that a
majority of the people and both branches of Congress sustained the
policy of the President, but such a policy, he declared, subordinating
the laws, the courts, and the people themselves to military power,
destroyed the rights of States and abrogated cherished principles of
government. The past, however, with its enormous debt, its
depreciated currency, its suspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_,
and its abolition of free speech and a free press, did not mean such
irretrievable ruin as the national bankruptcy which now threatened to
overwhelm the nation. "The problem with which we have to grapple is,"
he said, "how can we bring this war to a conclusion before such
disasters overwhelm us." Two antagonistic theories, he continued, are
now before us--one, consecrating the energies of war and the policy of
government to the restoration of the Union as it was and the
Constitution as it is; the other, preventing by the creation of a new
political system the return of the revolted States, though willing to
lay down their arms. This alternative will enable an administration to
perpetuate its power. It is a doctrine of national bankruptcy and
national ruin; it is a measure for continued military despotism over
one-third of our country, which will be the basis for military
despotism over the whole land.

Every measure to convert the war against armed rebellion into one
against private property and personal rights at the South, he
continued, has been accompanied by claims to exercise military power
in the North. The proclamation of emancipation at the South, and the
suspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_ at the North; the
confiscation of private property in the seceding States, and the
arbitrary arrests, imprisonment, and banishment of the citizens of
loyal States; the claim to destroy political organization at the
South, and the armed interference by Government in local elections at
the North, have been contemporaneous events. We now find that as the
strength of rebellion is broken, new claims to arbitrary power are put
forth. More prerogatives are asserted in the hour of triumph than were
claimed in days of disaster. The war is not to be brought to an end by
the submission of States to the Constitution and their return to the
Union, but to be prolonged until the South is subjugated and accepts
such terms as may be dictated. This theory designs a sweeping
revolution and the creation of a new political system. There is but
one course, he concluded, which will now save us from such national
ruin--we must use every influence of wise statesmanship to bring back
the States which now reject their constitutional obligations. The
triumphs won by the soldiers in the field should be followed up by the
peacemaking policy of the statesmen in the Cabinet. In no other way
can 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 proposed
measures of safety. Nevertheless he did his work well. It was his
intention 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 of
their own liberties. Indeed, his message had the twofold purpose of
drawing the line distinctly between Administration and anti-Administration
forces, and of concentrating public attention upon himself as a
suitable candidate for President.[971] Seymour was never without
ambition, for he loved politics and public affairs, and the Presidency
captivated him. With deepest interest he watched the play at
Charleston and at Baltimore in 1860, and had the nomination come to
him, Lincoln's election, depending as it did upon New York, must have
given Republicans increased solicitude. Developments during the war
had stimulated this ambition. The cost of blood and treasure, blended
with arbitrary measures deemed necessary by the Government, pained and
finally exasperated him until he longed to possess the power of an
Executive to make peace. He believed that a compromise, presented in a
spirit of patriotic clemency, with slavery undisturbed, would quickly
terminate hostilities, and although he made the mistake of surrounding
himself with men whose influence sometimes betrayed him into weak and
extreme positions, his ability to present his views in a scholarly and
patriotic manner, backed by a graceful and gracious bearing, kept him
in close touch with a party that resented methods which made peace
dependent upon the abolition of slavery. He never provoked the
criticism 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 prevailed
when happiness and peace characterised the country's condition, and
prophesying the ruin of the Union unless it took his advice. While,
therefore, his eulogy of the flag, the soldiers, the Union, and the
sacrifices of the people won him reputation for patriotic
conservatism, his condemnation of the Government brought him credit
for supporting and promoting all manner of disturbing factions and
revolutionary movements.

[Footnote 971: Horace Greeley, _History of the Rebellion_, Vol. 2, p.
667.]

The Regency understood the Governor's ambition, and the Democratic
State convention, assembling at Albany on February 24 to designate
delegates to Chicago, opened the way for him as widely as possible. It
promulgated no issues; it mentioned no candidate; it refused to accept
Fernando Wood and his brother as delegates because of their pronounced
advocacy of a dishonourable peace; and it placed Seymour at the head
of 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 more
than a year with bitter criticism, suddenly lapsed into silence.
Indeed, the only shadow falling upon his pathway in the Empire State
reflected the temporary anger of Tammany, which seceded from the
convention because the McKeon delegation, an insignificant coterie of
advocates of peace-on-any-conditions, had been admitted on terms of
equality.

As the summer advanced political conditions seemed to favour Seymour.
During the gloomy days of July and August the people prayed for a
cessation of hostilities. "The mercantile classes are longing for
peace," wrote James Russell Lowell,[972] and Horace Greeley, in a
letter of perfervid vehemence, pictured to the President the unhappy
condition. "Our bleeding, bankrupt, almost dying country," he said,
"longs for peace, shudders at the prospect of fresh conscriptions, or
further wholesale devastations, and of new rivers of human
blood."[973] The President, also yearning for peace and willing to
accept almost any proposition if it included the abolition of slavery,
waited for a communication from some agent of the Confederacy
authorised to treat with him; but such an one had not appeared,
although several persons, safely sheltered in Canada, claimed
authority. One of these, calling himself William C. Jewett of
Colorado, finally convinced Horace Greeley that Clement C. Clay of
Alabama and Jacob Thompson of Mississippi, two ambassadors of
Jefferson Davis, were ready at Niagara Falls to meet the President
whenever protection was afforded them. Upon being informed by Greeley
of their presence, Lincoln replied (July 9): "If you can find any
person, anywhere, professing to have any proposition of Jefferson
Davis in writing for peace, embracing the restoration of the Union and
abandonment of slavery, whatever else it embraces, say to him he may
come 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, indulged
in further correspondence with the President, James P. Jaquess, a
Methodist clergyman and colonel of an Illinois regiment, with the
knowledge of Lincoln, but without official authority except to pass
the Union lines, obtained (July 17) an audience with Jefferson Davis,
to whom he made overtures of peace. In the interview Davis declared
that "we are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for
independence, and that or extermination we will have. We will be free.
We will govern ourselves. We will do it if we have to see every
Southern plantation sacked and every Southern city in flames.... Say
to Mr. Lincoln from me that I shall at any time be pleased to receive
proposals for peace on the basis of our independence. It will be
useless to approach me with any other."[975] It is known now that
Jaquess' report was substantially correct, but at the time the peace
advocate defiantly challenged its truth and the conservative was
incredulous.

[Footnote 975: J.R. Gilmore (Kirke), _Down in Tennessee_, pp.
272-280.]

Meantime Greeley (July 16) proceeded to Niagara Falls. Thompson was
not there and Clay had no authority to act. When the famous editor
asked fresh instructions Lincoln sent John Hay, his private secretary,
with the historic paper of July 18, which stopped further
negotiations.[976] In this well-meant effort the President desired to
convince his own party of the hopelessness of any satisfactory peace
until 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 peace
simply on condition of the restoration of the Union, without the
abolition of slavery, resented his course as arbitrary and needlessly
cruel.

[Footnote 976: "To whom it may concern: Any proposition which embraces
the restoration of peace, the integrity of the whole Union, and the
abandonment of slavery, and which comes by and with an authority that
can control the armies now at war against the United States will be
received and considered by the executive government of the United
States and will be met by liberal terms on other substantial and
collateral points, and the bearer or bearers thereof shall have safe
conduct both ways. Abraham Lincoln."--Horace Greeley, _The American
Conflict_, 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. The
dissatisfaction found expression in a secret call for a second
national convention, to be held at Cincinnati on September 28, to
nominate, if necessary, a new candidate for President.[977] This
movement, vigorously promoted in Ohio by Salmon P. Chase, received
cordial support in New York City. George Opdyke directed it, Horace
Greeley heartily endorsed it, Daniel S. Dickinson favoured it, and
Lucius Robinson and David Dudley Field sympathised with it.[978] Parke
Godwin and William Curtis Noyes, if unwilling to go as far as Opdyke
and Greeley, would have welcomed Lincoln's withdrawal.[979] Roscoe
Conkling, being advised of the scheme, promptly rejected it. "I do not
approve of the call or of the movement," he wrote, "and cannot sign
it. For that reason it would not be proper or agreeable that I should
be present at the conference you speak of."[980]

[Footnote 977: "The undersigned, citizens of the State of New York and
unconditional supporters of the national government, convinced that a
union of all loyal citizens of the United States upon the basis of a
common patriotism is essential to the safety and honour of the country
in this crisis of its affairs; that the present distraction and apathy
which depress the friends of the Union threaten to throw the
Government into the hands of its enemies; and that a convention of the
people should be assembled to consider the state of the nation and to
concentrate the union strength on some one candidate, who commands the
confidence of the country, even by a new nomination if necessary; do
therefore invite their fellow citizens ... to send delegates ... to a
convention at Cincinnati on Wednesday, September 28, for friendly
consultation, with the purpose above stated."--New York _Sun_, June
30, 1889.]

[Footnote 978: Under date of Aug. 18, 1864, Greeley wrote Opdyke: "I
must go out of town to-morrow and cannot attend the meeting at your
house. Allow me to say a word. Mr. Lincoln is already beaten. He
cannot be elected. We must have another ticket to save us from utter
overthrow. And such a ticket we ought to have anyhow, with or without
a convention."--_Ibid._

On August 26, Dickinson declared that "the cry for a change, whether
wise or ill founded, should be both heard and heeded."--_Ibid._

On August 29, Lucius Robinson regretted "that it will be impossible
for me to be present at the meeting at Mr. Field's to-morrow
evening.... McClellan will be the next President unless Lincoln is at
once 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 friends
informed him of the critical condition of affairs. "When, ten days
ago, I told Mr. Lincoln that his re-election was an impossibility,"
Weed wrote Seward on August 22, "I told him the information would
also come through other channels. It has doubtless reached him ere
this. At any rate nobody here doubts it, nor do I see anybody from
other States who authorises the slightest hope of success. The people
are wild for peace. They are told the President will only listen to
terms of peace on condition that slavery be abandoned."[981] Weed's
"other channels" meant a report from the Republican National Executive
Committee, which Raymond, then its chairman, submitted to Lincoln on
August 22. "The tide is setting strongly against us," he wrote. "Hon.
E.B. Washburn writes that 'were an election to be held now in Illinois
we should be beaten.' Mr. Cameron says that Pennsylvania is against
us. Governor Morton writes that nothing but the most strenuous efforts
can carry Indiana. This State, according to the best information I can
get, would go 50,000 against us to-morrow. And so of the rest. Two
special causes are assigned for this great reaction in public
sentiment--the want of military successes, and the impression in some
minds, the fear and suspicion in others, that we are not to have peace
in any event under this Administration until slavery is abandoned. In
some way or other the suspicion is widely diffused that we can have
peace with Union if we would. It is idle to reason with this
belief--still more idle to denounce it. It can only be expelled by
some authoritative act at once bold enough to fix attention, and
distinct 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 refused
to yield to a compromise that would extend slavery into free
territory; now, in the presence of failure at the polls, he insisted
upon a peace that would abolish slavery. In 1860 he was flushed with
victory; in 1864 he was depressed by the absence of military
achievement. But he did not weaken. He telegraphed Grant to "hold on
with a bulldog grip, _and chew and choke as much as possible_,"[983]
and then, in the silence of early morning, with Raymond's starless
letter on the table before him, he showed how coolly and magnanimously
a determined patriot could face political overthrow. "This morning, as
for some days past," he wrote, "it seems exceedingly probable that
this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to
so coöperate with the President-elect as to save the Union between the
election and the inauguration, as he will have secured his election on
such 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 a
mass peace convention, called by Fernando Wood and held at Syracuse on
August 18. Its great attraction was Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio,
its platform favoured an armistice and a convention of States, and its
purpose was the selection of a delegation to Chicago, which should
adequately represent the peace faction of the State. The absence of
military achievement and the loud cries for peace, it was claimed, had
changed the conditions since the adjournment of the Democratic State
convention in February, and the necessity for a third party was
conceded should the existing peace sentiment be ignored in the
formulation of a platform and the selection of candidates at Chicago.
Although the assembly indicated no preference for President, its known
partiality for Seymour added to its strength. Through the manipulation
of Richmond and the Regency, Wood failed to secure the appointment of
delegates, but he claimed, with much show of truth, that the meeting
represented the sentiment of a great majority of the party. Wood had
become intolerable to Dean Richmond and the conservative Democracy,
whose withering opposition to his candidacy for the United States
Senate in the preceding February had made him ridiculous; but he could
not be muzzled, and although his influence rarely disturbed the party
in the up-State counties, he was destined to continue in Congress the
rest of his life, which ended in 1881.

The Democratic national convention had been called for July 4, but the
popular depression, promising greater advantage later in the summer,
led to its postponement until August 29. Thus it convened when gloom
and despondency filled the land, making Horatio Seymour's journey to
Chicago an ovation. At every stop, especially at Detroit, crowds,
cheers, speeches, and salvos of firearms greeted him. The convention
city recognised him as its most distinguished visitor, and the
opponents 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 be
a candidate;[985] but now, flattered by attention, and encouraged by
the peace-faction's strategic movement, he declined to indicate his
position. Political conditions had made a profound impression upon
him. Moreover, deep in his heart Seymour did not fancy McClellan. His
public life had been brief, and his accomplishment little either as a
soldier 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 Lincoln
administration.

[Footnote 985: "The announcement in the Albany _Argus_ that Governor
Seymour was not a candidate was written by Seymour himself, and taken
to the _Argus_ by his private secretary. It is now announced that it
was intended as a feeler. The whole force of the opposition to
McClellan 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 be
confused as to the General's strength or the Governor's weakness, and
he attempted at an early hour to silence the appeal for Seymour by
solidifying the New York delegation for McClellan; but in these
efforts he found it difficult to subdue the personal independence and
outspoken ways of the Governor, whose opposition to McClellan was more
than a passing cloud-shadow.[986] This delayed matters. So long as a
ray of hope existed for the favourite son, the New York delegation
declined to be forced into an attitude of opposition. Indeed, the day
before the convention opened, it refused, by a vote of 38 to 23, to
ascertain its choice for President. When, at last, it became
definitely known that McClellan had a majority of each State
delegation, practically assuring his nomination under the two-thirds
rule on the first ballot, Seymour put an end to the talk of his
candidacy. Nevertheless, his vote, dividing the New York delegation,
was cast for Samuel Nelson, the distinguished jurist who had succeeded
Smith Thompson as an associate justice of the United States Supreme
Court. Other anti-McClellan New York delegates preferred Charles
O'Conor and James Guthrie of Kentucky. Subsequently, in explaining his
action, Seymour disclaimed any doubt of the ability or patriotism of
the late commander of the Army of the Potomac.[987]

[Footnote 986: "Dean Richmond remains firm for McClellan, and has cut
loose from the Regency. He is at the present moment closeted with
Seymour, 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 controlling
influence in the convention. Dean Richmond who led it at Charleston
and Baltimore again guided its counsels, while the presence of John
Ganson 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 years
old, was without any special charm of person or grace of manner. He
looked like an invalid. His voice was feeble, his speech neither
fluent nor eloquent, and sometimes he gave the impression of
indecision. But his logic was irresistible, his statements
exhaustive, and his ability as a negotiator marvellous and unequalled.
He was the strong man of the committee, and his presence came very
near making New York the dominant factor in the convention.

Tilden's sympathies leaned toward the South. He resented the formation
of the Republican party,[988] maintained that a State could repel
coercion as a nation might repel invasion,[989] declared at the
Tweddle Hall meeting in January, 1861, that he "would resist the use
of force to coerce the South into the Union,"[990] and declined to
sign the call for the patriotic uprising of the people in Union Square
on April 20.[991] On the other hand, he addressed departing regiments,
gave money, and in 1862 wrote: "Within the Union we will give you [the
South] the Constitution you profess to revere, renewed with fresh
guarantees of equal rights and equal safety. We will give you
everything that local self-government demands; everything that a
common ancestory of glory--everything that national fraternity or
Christian fellowship requires; but to dissolve the federal bond
between these States, to dismember our country, whoever else consents,
we will not. No; never, never never!"[992] Yet in February, 1863, in
opposition to the Loyal Publication Society, he assisted in organising
a local society which published and distributed "Copperhead"
literature.[993] He had not, however, been active in politics since
his defeat for attorney-general in 1855. It was during these years
that he began the accumulation of his large fortune. He acquired
easily. He seemed to know intuitively when to buy and when to sell,
and he profited by the rare opportunities offered during the great
depreciation in government bonds. Later, he dealt in railroads, his
private gains being so enormous that men thought his ambition for
wealth 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, Tilden
had little liking for Vallandigham in 1864, and after a bitter contest
finally defeated him for chairman of the committee on resolutions by a
vote of thirteen to eleven in favour of James Guthrie of Kentucky. He
also defeated a measure introduced by Washington Hunt suggesting an
armistice and a convention of States, and supported a positive
declaration that he thought sufficient to hold the war vote. However,
the dread of a split, such as had occurred at Charleston and Baltimore
in 1860, possessed the committee, and in the confusion of the last
moment, by a slight majority, the pivotal declaration pronouncing the
war a failure was accepted.[994]

[Footnote 994: "Never did men work harder than Messrs. Guthrie of
Kentucky and Tilden of New York. All they asked finally was that the
platform should not be so strong for peace that it would drive the war
vote from them."--New York _Herald_, September 5, 1864.

"Vallandigham wrote the second, the material resolution, of the
Chicago platform, and carried it through the sub-committee and the
general committee, in spite of the most desperate and persistent
opposition on the part of Tilden and his friends, Mr. Cassidy himself
in an adjoining room labouring to defeat it."--New York _News_,
October 22, 1864.

"The platform which declared the war a failure was jointly concocted
by Seymour and Vallandigham."--New York _Tribune_, November 5, 1868.]

Seymour's election as permanent chairman of the convention gave him
abundant opportunity to proclaim his abhorrence of the Administration.
His speech, prepared with unusual care, showed the measured dignity
and restraint of a trained orator, who knew how to please a popular
audience with a glowing denunciation of principles it detested. Every
appeal was vivid and dramatic; every allusion told. Throughout the
whole ran the thread of one distinct proposition,--that the Republican
party had sinned away its day of grace, and that the patriotic work
of the Democratic party must begin at once if the Union was to be
saved. To Seymour it was not a new proposition. He had stated it in
the last campaign and reiterated it in his latest message; but never
before did he impress it by such striking sentences as now fell upon
the ears of a delighted convention. "Even now, when war has desolated
our land," he said, "has laid its heavy burdens upon labor, when
bankruptcy and ruin overhang us, this Administration will not have
Union except upon conditions unknown to our Constitution; it will not
allow the shedding of blood to cease, even for a little time, to see
if Christian charity or the wisdom of statesmanship may not work out a
method to save our country. Nay, more than this, it will not listen to
a proposal for peace which does not offer that which this government
has 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 pathway
which it cannot overcome, and has hampered its own freedom of action
by unconstitutional acts. The bigotry of fanatics and the intrigues of
placemen have made the bloody pages of the history of the past three
years."

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 to
attract the attention of the convention.[995] Added years gave him a
more stately, almost a picturesque bearing, while a strikingly
intelligent face changed its expression with the ease and swiftness of
an actor's. This was never more apparent than now, when he turned,
abruptly, from the alleged sins of Republicans to the alleged virtues
of Democrats. Relaxing its severity, his countenance wore a
triumphant 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. He
thinks a proclamation worth more than peace; we think the blood of our
people more precious than the edicts of the President. There are no
hindrances in our pathway to Union and to peace. We demand no
conditions for the restoration of our Union; we are shackled with no
hates, no prejudices, no passions. We wish for fraternal relationships
with the people of the South. We demand for them what we demand for
ourselves--the full recognition of the rights of States. We mean that
every star on our Nation's banner shall shine with an equal
lustre."[996] As the speaker concluded, the audience, with deafening
applause, testified its approval of these sentiments. Yet one wonders
that he could end without saying a word, at least, in condemnation of
the Secessionists, whose appeal from the ballot to the bullet had
inaugurated "the bloody pages of the history of the past three years."

[Footnote 995: "Governor Seymour was an elegant and accomplished
gentleman with a high-bred manner which never unbent, and he was
always faultlessly dressed. He looked the ideal of an aristocrat, and
yet he was and continued to be until his death the idol of the
Democracy."--_Speeches of Chauncey M. Depew_, November, 1896, to
April, 1902, p. 105.]

[Footnote 996: Horatio Seymour's _Public Record_, pp. 230-232.]

The platform, adopted without debate, reaffirmed devotion to the
Union, expressed sympathy with soldiers and prisoners of war,
denounced interference in military elections, and stigmatised alleged
illegal and arbitrary acts of the government. The second resolution,
prepared by Vallandigham, declared that "this convention does
explicitly resolve as the sense of the American people, that after
four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war,
justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that
immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view
to an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to
the end that the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on
the 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 resolution
was adopted. In the final haste to report the platform, the deep
significance of Vallandigham's words may not have been fully
appreciated by the Committee;[998] but Tilden understood their
meaning, and vigorous opposition might have avoided them.[999] He
seems, however, to have shared the fear of McClellan's friends that
the defeat of the resolution would endanger the integrity of the
convention, and to have indulged the hope that McClellan's letter of
acceptance would prove an antidote to the Ohioan's peace-poison. But
his inaction did little credit either to his discernment or judgment,
for the first ballot for President disclosed the groundlessness of his
timidity,[1000] and the first work of the campaign revealed the
inefficiency of the candidate's statements.[1001] Indeed, so grievous
was Tilden's mistake that his distinguished biographer (Bigelow)
avoided his responsibility for declaring the war a failure by
ignoring his presence at Chicago.

[Footnote 998: "McClellan's supporters are not scared by any paper
pellets of the brain, wise or otherwise, which ever came from the
midnight sessions of a resolution committee in the hurly-burly of a
national 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 in
the committee, Mr. Tilden, far from protesting, stated in the
convention that there was no dissent among the members. His remarks
were confirmed by Mr. Brown of Delaware, who said there was not the
slightest dissension, and by Mr. Weller of California, who said that
all were in favour of peace."--_Harper's Weekly_, September 9, 1876.]

[Footnote 1000: The first ballot resulted as follows: Seymour of New
York, 12; Seymour of Connecticut, 38; McClellan, 181. In the
adjustment, after the conclusion of the roll-call, McClellan had
202-1/2 and Seymour of Connecticut, 28-1/2. Vallandigham moved to make
the nomination unanimous. George H. Pendleton of Ohio was named for
Vice-President.]

[Footnote 1001: "McClellan's name, associated with a noble struggle for
the national cause, has elicited and will elicit the wildest
enthusiasm; but leagued with propositions for national humiliation, it
is not a name the people will honor. McClellan is not large enough to
cover out of sight the bad points in the Chicago platform."--New York
_Herald_, September 6, 1864.]

Meanwhile the cheers for McClellan that greeted the returning
delegates were mingled with those of the country over Sherman's
capture 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 appreciable
effect upon Republicans. It brought strong hope of political success,
and made delegates to the Syracuse convention (September 7) very
plucky. Weed sought to control, but the Radicals, in the words of
Burke's famous sentence, were lords of the ascendant. They proposed to
nominate Reuben E. Fenton, and although the Chautauquan's popularity
and freedom from the prejudices of Albany politics commended him to
the better judgment of all Republicans, the followers of Greeley
refused to consult the Conservatives respecting him or any part of the
ticket. Resenting such treatment Weed indicated an inclination to
secede, and except that his regard for Fenton steadied him the
historic 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 or
statesmanlike qualities, but with a surpassing genius for public life.
He quickly discerned the drift of public sentiment and had seldom made
a glaring mistake. He knew, also, how to enlist other men in his
service and attach them to his fortunes. During his ten years in
Congress he developed a faculty for organisation, being able to
coördinate all his resources and to bring them into their place in the
accomplishment of his purposes. This was conspicuously illustrated in
the Thirty-seventh Congress when he formed a combination that made
Galusha A. Grow speaker of the House. Besides, by careful attention to
the wants of constituents and to the work of the House, backed by the
shrewdness of a typical politician who rarely makes an enemy, he was
recognised as a sagacious counsellor and safe leader. He had
previously been mentioned for governor, and in the preceding winter
Theodore M. Pomeroy, then representing the Auburn district in
Congress, presented him for speaker.[1003] Schuyler Colfax controlled
the caucus, but the compliment expressed the esteem of Fenton's
colleagues.

[Footnote 1003: New York _Tribune_, December 7, 1863.]

He was singularly striking and attractive in person, tall, erect, and
graceful in figure, with regular features and wavy hair slightly
tinged 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 even
duplicity, but his gracious manner, exhibited to the plainest woman
and most trifling man, won the hearts of the people as quickly as his
political favours recruited the large and devoted following that
remained steadfast to the end. Perhaps no one in his party presented a
stronger running record. He belonged to the Barnburners, he presided
at the birth of the Republican party, he stood for a vigorous
prosecution of the war regardless of the fate of slavery, and he had
avoided the Weed-Greeley quarrels. If he was not a statesman, he at
least possessed the needed qualities to head the State ticket.

As usual John A. Dix's name came before the convention. It was well
known that party nomenclature did not represent his views, but his
admirers, profoundly impressed with his sterling integrity and weight
of character, insisted, amidst the loudest cheering of the day, that
his name be presented. Nevertheless, an informal ballot quickly
disclosed that Fenton was the choice, and on motion of Elbridge G.
Lapham the nomination became unanimous.[1004] Other nominations fell
to the Radicals.[1005] Not until Greeley was about to capture first
place as a presidential elector-at-large, however, did the
Conservatives fully realise how badly they were being punished. Then
every expedient known to diplomacy was exhausted. Afternoon shaded
into evening and evening into night. Still the contest continued. It
seems never to have occurred to the Weed faction that Horace Greeley,
whom it had so often defeated, could be given an office, even though
its duties covered but a single day, and in its desperation it
discovered a willingness to compromise on any other name. But
Greeley's friends forced the fight, and to their great joy won a most
decisive 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. Fenton
of Chautauqua; Lieutenant-Governor, Thomas G. Alvord of Onondaga;
Canal Commissioner, Franklin A. Alberger of Erie; Inspector of
Prisons, David P. Forrest of Schenectady."--New York _Tribune_,
September 14, 1864.]

[Footnote 1006: "The following is the vote for presidential
elector-at-large: Horace Greeley, 215; Preston King, 191-1/2; Daniel
S. Dickinson, 143; Richard M. Blatchford, 86; John A. King, 10; Lyman
Tremaine, 13; J.S.T. Stranahan, 27; Thurlow Weed, 1."--_Ibid._,
September 8.]

While the Weed men were nursing their resentment because of the honour
thus suddenly thrust upon the most famous American editor,[1007] a
great surprise convulsed the Democratic State convention.[1008] The
report that Horatio Seymour sought release from official labours
because of ill health and the demands of private business, created the
belief that he would decline a renomination even if tendered by
acclamation. Indeed, the Governor himself, in conversation with Dean
Richmond, reiterated his oft-expressed determination not to accept.
The Regency, believing him sincere, agreed upon William F. Allen of
Oswego, although other candidates, notably William Kelly of Dutchess,
the nominee of the Softs in 1860, and Amasa J. Parker of Albany, were
mentioned. Lucius Robinson, declining to be considered for second
place, urged the nomination of Dix for governor. Of these candidates
Seymour was quoted as favourable to Parker. Still a feeling of unrest
disturbed the hotel lobbies. "There is some talk," said the _Herald_,
"of giving Seymour a complimentary vote, with the understanding that
he will then decline, but this is opposed as a trick to place him in
the field again, although those who pretend to speak for him
positively declare that he will not accept the nomination upon any
contingency."[1009] When told on convention morning that Seymour would
accept if nominated by acclamation, Richmond ridiculed the idea. His
incredulity was strengthened by the statement of two Oneida delegates,
whom the Governor, only a few moments before, had instructed to
withdraw his name if presented. Thus matters stood until the
convention, having enthusiastically applauded an indorsement of
Seymour's administration, quickly and by acclamation carried a motion
for his renomination, the delegates jumping to their feet and giving
cheer after cheer. Immediately a delegate, rising to a question of
privilege, stated that the Governor, in the hearing of gentlemen from
his own county, had positively declined to accept a nomination because
his health and the state of his private affairs forbade it. As this
did not satisfy the delegates, a committee, appointed to notify
Seymour of his selection, reported that the Governor whose temporary
illness prevented his attendance upon the convention, had had much to
say about private affairs, ill health, and excessive labour, but that
since the delegates insisted upon his renomination, he acquiesced in
their choice.[1010]

[Footnote 1007: "The nomination of Horace Greeley for elector-at-large
is a bitter pill. The Weed men make no secret that Fenton's name is
the 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 was
no evidence of insincerity. He wanted the office less in 1864 than he
did in 1862. It had brought labour and anxiety, and no relief from
increasing solicitude was in sight if re-elected. But his friends,
resenting the New York delegation's action in withholding from him its
support for President, determined to be avenged by renominating him
for governor. They knew that Dean Richmond, whose admiration for the
Governor had not been increased by the latter's performance at
Chicago, wanted a candidate of more pronounced views respecting a
vigorous prosecution of the war, and that in his support of Allen he
had the convention well in hand. Wisely distrusting the Regency,
therefore, they worked in secret, talking of the honour and prestige
of a complimentary vote, but always declaring, what Seymour himself
emphasised, that the Governor would not again accept the office. Not a
misstep left its print in the proceedings. Before the chairman put the
motion for his renomination, a delegate from Oneida, rising to
withdraw the name, was quieted by the assurance that it was only
complimentary. An Albany lieutenant of Dean Richmond, obtaining the
floor with the help of a stentorian voice, began to block the
movement, but quickly subsided after hearing the explanation from a
delegate at his side that it was only complimentary. When the motion
had carried, however, and the Oneida gentleman began fulfilling the
Governor's directions, came the cry, "Too late, too late. We have
nominated the candidate!" So perfectly was the _coup d'état_ arranged
that the prime mover of the scheme was appointed chairman of the
committee to wait upon the Governor. Afterwards people recalled, with
a 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, were
largely imaginary. "That crowd saw how beautifully they were done,"
said Depew, then secretary of state at Albany, "while Dean Richmond's
language was never printed."[1012]

[Footnote 1011: "Seymour tried to get the nomination at Chicago by the
same tricky means he has secured it at Albany,--by declaring
beforehand that he would not be a candidate. He failed at Chicago
because of the overwhelming popularity of McClellan; he succeeded at
Albany by his friends seizing a moment to nominate him when the
convention was in a delirium of enthusiasm at his apparent
self-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 of
Oneida; Lieutenant-Governor, David R. Floyd Jones of Queens; Canal
Commissioner, Jarvis Lord of Monroe; Prison Inspector, David B. McNeil
of Clinton; electors-at-large, William E. Kelley of Dutchess and
Washington Hunt of Niagara."--New York _Herald_, September 16, 1864.]

Scarcely had the convention adjourned before the brilliant
achievements in the Shenandoah valley thrilled the North from Maine to
California. On September 19, at the battle of Winchester, General
Sheridan defeated General Early, and on the 22d, at Fisher's Hill, put
him to flight. "Only darkness," Sheridan telegraphed Grant, "has saved
the whole of Early's army from total destruction. I do not think there
ever was an army so badly routed."[1013] These victories, recalling
those of Stonewall Jackson in 1862, appealed to the popular
imagination and quickly reassured the country. Besides, on September
21, the withdrawal of Fremont and Cochrane, the Cleveland candidates,
united Radical and Conservative in a vigorous campaign for Lincoln. A
private letter from Grant, who participated in the glory accorded
Sherman and Sheridan, told the true condition of the Confederacy. "The
rebels," he said, "have now in their ranks their last man. They have
robbed the cradle and the grave equally to get their present force.
Besides what they lose in frequent skirmishes and battles, they are
now losing, from desertions and other causes, at least one regiment
per day. With this drain upon them the end is not far distant, if we
only 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 Democratic
platform into a lie. Instead of being a failure, the war was now
recognised as a grand success, and radical speakers, replying to the
clamour for a cessation of hostilities, maintained that the abolition
of slavery was the only condition that promised a permanent peace.
Brilliant descriptions of Grant's work, aided by his distinguished
lieutenants, were supplemented later in the campaign by the recital of
"Sheridan's Ride," which produced the wildest enthusiasm. Indeed, the
influence of the army's achievements, dissipating the despondency of
the summer months, lifted the campaign into an atmosphere of
patriotism not before experienced since the spring of 1861, and
established the belief that Lincoln's re-election meant the end of
secession and slavery. "There will be peace," said John Cochrane, "but
it 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 his
retirement from public life in 1859, George William Curtis, with the
eloquence that adorned his addresses at that period, thrilled his
audience with an exciting war picture: "Listen to Mr. Stephens in the
summer sunshine six years ago. 'There is not now a spot of the public
territory of the United States over which the national flag floats
where slavery is excluded by the law of Congress, and the highest
tribunal of the land has decided that Congress has no power to make
such a law. At this time there is not a ripple upon the surface. The
country was never in a profounder quiet.' Do you comprehend the
terrible significance of those words? He stops; he sits down. The
summer sun sets over the fields of Georgia. Good-night, Mr.
Stephens--a long good-night. Look out from your window--how calm it
is! Upon Missionary Ridge, upon Lookout Mountain, upon the heights of
Dalton, upon the spires of Atlanta, silence and solitude; the peace of
the Southern policy of slavery and death. But look! Hark! Through the
great 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, the
peace 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, no
longer peddling his griefs in private ears, declared "there was no
doubt of the President's triumphant election;"[1017] the tone of Bryant
and 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 and
another candidate for President; and Horace Greeley, silent as to his
part in the recent conspiracy, joined the army of Union orators.
Catching again the spirit of the great moral impulse and that lofty
enthusiasm which had aroused the people of the North to the decisive
struggle against slavery, these leaders sprang to the work of
advancing 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, written
into the Chicago platform, by eulogising McClellan, but as the glory
of Antietam paled in the presence of Sherman's and Sheridan's
victories, 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 this
portion of country, already conquered, requires more troops to hold it
under military rule than are demanded for our armies to fight the
embattled forces of the Confederacy. You will find that more men will
be needed to keep the South in subjection to the arbitrary projects of
the Administration than are required to drive the armies of rebellion
from the field. The peace you are promised is no peace, but is a
condition which will perpetuate and make enduring all the worst
features 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, and
finally upon Lincoln himself. "Is Mr. Lincoln honest?" asked the
_World_. "That he has succumbed to the opportunities and temptations
of his present place is capable of the easiest proof."[1019] This was
sufficient for the stump orator and less influential journal to base
angry and extravagant charges of wrong-doing, which became frequent
and noisy.[1020] John Van Buren called Lincoln a "twenty-second-rate
man," and declared the country "irretrievably gone" if McClellan was
defeated.[1021] Seymour did not charge Lincoln with personal
dishonesty, but he thought his administration had rendered itself a
partner in fraud and corruption. "I do not mean to say," he declared,
"that the Administration is to be condemned because, under
circumstances 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 Government
deliberately passes laws that protect the doer, and thus make
wrong-doing its own act. Moreover, in an election like this, when the
Government is spending such an enormous amount of money, and the
liability to peculation is so great, the Administration that will say
to contractors, as has been openly said in circulars, 'You have had a
good contract, out of which you have made money, and we expect you to
use a part of that money to assist to replace us in power,' renders
itself 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 a
general fling against the personal habits of the President and other
members 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 no
doubt remained as to the general result. But Republican confidence in
New York was greatly shaken by the disclosure of a conspiracy to use
the soldier vote for fraudulent purposes. Under an amendment to the
Constitution, ratified in March, 1864, soldiers in the field were
allowed to vote, provided properly executed proxies were delivered to
election inspectors in their home districts within sixty days next
previous to the election, and to facilitate the transmission of such
proxies agents for the State were appointed at Baltimore, Washington,
and other points. Several of these agents, charged with forgery, were
arrested by the military authorities, one of whom confessed that
enough forged proxies had been forwarded from Washington "to fill a
dry-goods box." Of these spurious ballots several hundred were seized,
and two of the forgers committed to the penitentiary.[1023] "We are
informed," said the _Tribune_, "that Oswego county is flooded with
spurious McClellan votes of every description. There are forged votes
from living as well as from dead soldiers; fictitious votes from
soldiers whose genuine votes and powers of attorney are in the hands
of their friends. These packages correspond with the work described in
the 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 Washington
and "vindicate the laws of the State" and "expose all attempts to
prevent soldiers from voting, or to detain or alter the votes already
cast." These commissioners, after a hurried investigation, reported
that "although there may have been irregularities, they have found no
evidence that any frauds have been committed by any person connected
with the New York agency."[1025] Nevertheless, the sequel showed that
this plot, if not discovered, would probably have changed the result
in 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 whole
country centred in New York. Next to the election of Lincoln,
Republicans everywhere desired the defeat of Seymour. To them his
speech at Chicago had been a malignant indictment of the Government,
and his one address in the campaign, while it did not impute personal
dishonesty to the President, had branded his administration as a party
to fraud. Lincoln regarded the contest in New York as somewhat
personal to himself, and from day to day sought information with the
anxious persistency that characterised his inquiries during the
canvass in 1860. Fenton fully appreciated the importance of
vindicating the President, and for the admirable thoroughness of the
campaign he received great credit.

After the polls had closed on November 8 it soon became known that
although the President had 179 electoral votes to 21 for McClellan,
New York was in grave doubt. On Wednesday approximated returns put
Republicans 1,400 ahead. Finally it developed that in a total vote of
730,821, Lincoln had 6,749 more than McClellan, and Fenton 8,293 more
than Seymour. Fenton's vote exceeded Lincoln's by 1,544. "We believe
this the only instance," said the _Tribune_, "in which a Republican
candidate for governor polled a heavier vote than that cast for our
candidate for President at the same election."[1026] The Legislature
was largely Republican, and the twenty congressmen, a gain of five,
included Roscoe Conkling and John A. Griswold, an intrepid, energetic
spirit--the very incarnation of keen good sense. Like Erastus Corning,
whom he succeeded in Congress, Griswold was a business man, whose
intelligent interest in public affairs made him mayor of Troy at the
age of twenty-eight. In 1862 he carried his district as a Democrat by
over 2,000 majority, but developing more political independence than
friend or foe had anticipated, he refused to follow his party in war
legislation, and with Moses F. Odell, a Democratic colleague from
Brooklyn, boldly supported the Thirteenth Amendment. This made him a
Republican.

[Footnote 1026: New York _Tribune_, January 18, 1869.]

To this galaxy also belonged Henry J. Raymond. He had come into
possession of great fame. His graceful and vigorous work on the
_Times_, supplemented by his incisive speeches and rare intelligence
in conventions, had won many evidences of his party's esteem, but with
a desire for office not less pronounced than Greeley's[1027] he coveted
a seat in Congress from a district which gave a Tammany majority of
2,000 in 1862. To the surprise of his friends he won by a plurality of
386. It was the greatest victory of the year, and, in the end, led to
the 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 the
distinguished speaker of the House of Representatives, that in
September, 1864, during a call upon Greeley, the latter exhibited a
letter from Lincoln two days old, inviting him to the White House.
Greeley, mindful of his efforts to substitute another candidate for
Lincoln, said he would not reply and should not go, but Hutchins
finally gained consent to represent him. Hutchins reached Washington
very early the next morning, and the President, although clad only in
undershirt and trousers, received him and began enlarging upon the
importance of a re-election, suggesting that in such event Seward
would enjoy being minister to England, and that Greeley would make an
admirable 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 Greeley
recalled Lincoln's statement to Hutchins, who at once left for the
capital. He reached Washington the morning after the President's
assassination.]




CHAPTER X

A COMPLETE CHANGE OF POLICY

1865


For the moment the surrender of Lee and the collapse of the
Confederacy left the Democrats without an issue. The war had not been
a failure, peace had come without the intervention of a convention of
the States, the South was "subjugated," the abolition of slavery
accomplished, arbitrary arrests were forgotten, the professed fear of
national bankruptcy had disappeared, and Seymour's prophetic gift was
in eclipse. Nothing had happened which he predicted--everything had
transpired which he opposed. Meanwhile, under the administration of
Andrew Johnson, the country was gradually recovering from the awful
shock of Abraham Lincoln's assassination.

Substantially following Lincoln's policy, the President had issued, on
May 29, 1865, a proclamation of amnesty pardoning such as had
participated in rebellion,[1028] with restoration of all rights of
property except as to slaves, on condition that each take an oath to
support the Constitution and to obey the laws respecting emancipation.
He also prescribed a mode for the reconstruction of States lately in
rebellion. This included the appointment of provisional governors
authorised to devise the proper machinery for choosing legislatures,
which should determine the qualification of electors and
office-holders. In this preliminary scheme Johnson limited the voters
to white men. Personally he declared himself in favour of a qualified
suffrage for negroes, but he thought this a matter to be determined by
the States themselves.

[Footnote 1028: Except certain specified classes, the most important of
which were civil or diplomatic officers of the Confederacy, military
officers above the rank of colonel, governors of States, former
members of Congress who had left their seats to aid the rebellion, and
all who owned property to exceed $20,000 in value. But these excepted
persons might make special application to the President for pardon and
to them clemency would be "liberally extended."]

A policy that excluded the negro from all participation in public
affairs did not commend itself to the leaders of the Radicals. It was
believed that Mississippi's denial of even a limited suffrage to the
negro, such as obtained in New York, indicated the feeling of the
Southern people, and the Union conventions of Pennsylvania, dominated
by Thaddeus Stevens, and of Massachusetts, controlled by Charles
Sumner, refused to endorse the President's scheme. During the summer
Horace Greeley, in several earnest and able editorials, advocated
negro suffrage as a just and politic measure, but he carefully avoided
any reflection upon the President, and disclaimed the purpose of
making such suffrage an inexorable condition in reconstruction.[1029]
Nevertheless, the Radicals of the State hesitated to leave the civil
status 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 their
State convention, held at Albany on September 9 (1865), they promised
the President their cordial support, commended his reconstruction
policy, pledged the payment of the war debt, thanked the army and
navy, and denounced the denial "of representation to States in order
to compel them to adopt negro equality or negro suffrage as an element
of their Constitutions."[1030] Indeed, with one stroke of the pen the
convention erased all issues of the war, and with one stroke of the
axe rid itself of the men whom it held responsible for defeat. It
avoided Seymour for president of the convention; it nominated for
secretary of state Henry W. Slocum of Onondaga, formerly a Republican
office-holder, whose superb leadership as a corps commander placed
him among New York's most famous soldiers; it preferred John Van
Buren to Samuel J. Tilden for attorney-general; and it refused Manton
Marble's platform, although the able editor of the _World_ enjoyed the
hospitality of the committee room. Further to popularise its action,
it welcomed back to its fold Lucius Robinson, whom it nominated for
comptroller, 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 the
Lincoln administration, expressed in his letter to the Cleveland
convention, influenced him to support McClellan, while the Radicals'
tendency to accept negro suffrage weakened his liking for the
Republican party. However, no unkind words followed his action.
"Robinson is to-day," said the _Tribune_, "what he has always been, a
genuine Democrat, a true Republican, a hearty Unionist, and an
inflexibly honest and faithful guardian of the treasury. He has proved
a most valuable officer, whom every would-be plunderer of the State
regards with unfeigned detestation, and, if his old associates like
him well enough to support his re-election, it is a proof that some of
the false gods they have for years been following have fallen from
their 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; Canal
Commissioner, Cornelius W. Armstrong, Albany; Prison Inspector, Andrew
J. McNutt, Allegany; Judges of Appeals, John W. Brown, Orange; Martin
Grover, Allegany; Clerk of Appeals, Edward O. Perkins, Kings."--New
York _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 hero
of Gettysburg; Francis G. Barlow, the intrepid general of Hancock's
famous corps; Henry W. Barnum, a soldier of decided valour and
energy; Charles H. Van Wyck, who left Congress to lead a regiment to
the field; John H. Martindale, a West Point graduate of conspicuous
service in the Peninsular campaign, and Joseph Howland, whose large
means had benefited the soldiers, were especially mentioned. Of this
galaxy all received recognition save Sickles and Van Wyck, Chauncey M.
Depew being dropped for Barlow, Cochrane for Martindale, Bates for
Barnum, and Schuyler for Howland. In other words, the officials
elected in 1863, entitled by custom to a second term, yielded to the
sentiment that soldiers deserved recognition in preference to
civilians.[1032]

[Footnote 1032: The ticket nominated was as follows: Secretary of
State, Francis G. Barlow of New York; Comptroller, Thomas Hillhouse of
Ontario; Attorney-General, John H. Martindale of Monroe; Treasurer,
Joseph Howland of Dutchess; State Engineer, J. Platt Goodsell of
Oneida; Canal Commissioner, Robert C. Dorn of Schenectady; Inspector
of Prisons, Henry W. Barnum of Onondaga; Judges of Court of Appeals,
Ward Hunt of Oneida; John K. Porter of Albany; Clerk of Appeals, Henry
Jones of Cattaraugus.]

The question of negro suffrage troubled the convention. The Radicals
had a decided majority--"not less than fifty," Greeley said; but Weed
and Raymond, now the acknowledged friends of the President, had the
power. Shortly after Johnson took the oath of office, Preston King
presented Weed to the new Executive and the three breakfasted
together. King's relations with the President bore the stamp of
intimacy. They had served together in Congress, and on March 4, 1865,
that ill-fated inauguration day when Johnson's intoxication humiliated
the Republic, King concealed him in the home of Francis P. Blair at
Silver Springs, near Washington.[1033] After Lincoln's death King
became for a time the President's constant adviser, and through his
influence, it was believed, Johnson foreshadowed in one of his early
speeches a purpose to pursue a more unfriendly policy towards the
South than his predecessor had intended. For a time it was thought
King would displace Seward in the Cabinet if for no other reason than
because of the latter's part in defeating the former's re-election to
the Senate in 1863. However, differences between them were finally
adjusted by King's acceptance of the collectorship of the port of New
York in place of Draper. This, it was understood, meant a complete
reconciliation of all the factions in the State. Within sixty days
thereafter, King, in a moment of mental aberration, took his life by
jumping 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. In
accepting the collectorship he yielded to the solicitation of friends
who urged him to retain it after his health, due to worry and
overwork, was seriously impaired. "He thought it incumbent upon him,"
says Weed, "to sign nothing he did not personally examine, becoming
nervously apprehensive that his bondsmen might suffer."[1034] It was
surmised, also, that the President's change of policy occasioned him
extreme solicitude as well as much embarrassment, since the threatened
breach between President and Radicals made him sensitive as to his
future course. He was a Radical, and, deeply as he regarded the
President, he hesitated to hold an office, which, by associating him
with the Administration, would discredit his sincerity and deprive him
of the right to aid in overthrowing an obnoxious policy. Premeditated
suicide was shown by the purchase, while on his way to the ferry, of a
bag 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 cordial
relations with Johnson, established through Preston King, made him the
undisputed dispenser of patronage. Nevertheless, the failure of
Pennsylvania and Massachusetts to endorse the President's policy,
supplemented by Mississippi's action, made a deep impression upon
radical delegates. Besides, it had already been noised abroad that
Johnson could not be influenced. Senator Wade of Ohio discovered it
early in July, and in August, after two attempts, Stevens gave him up
as inexorable.[1035] "If something is not done," wrote the
Pennsylvanian, "the President will be crowned King before Congress
meets."[1036] Under these circumstances the leading Radicals desired to
vote for a resolution affirming the right of all loyal people of the
South to a voice in reorganising and controlling their respective
State governments, and Greeley believed it would have secured a large
majority on a yea and nay vote.[1037] But Raymond resisted. His
friendship for Johnson exhibited at the Baltimore convention had
suddenly made him an acknowledged power with the new Administration
which he was soon to represent in Congress, and he did not propose
allowing the _Tribune's_ editor to force New York into the list of
States 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 plainly
disconcerted the Republicans. Besides, Raymond disbelieved in the
views of the extreme Radicals, who held that States lately in
rebellion must be treated as conquered provinces and brought back into
the Union as new States, subject to conditions prescribed by their
conquerors. 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 to
men to overbear attachment to principles. As finally adopted the
platform 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 the
hope that when the States lately in rebellion are restored to the
exercise of their constitutional rights, "it will be done in the faith
and on the basis that they will be exercised in the spirit of equal
and impartial justice, and with a view to the elevation and
perpetuation of the full rights of citizenship of all their people,
inasmuch as these are principles which constitute the basis of our
republican institutions."[1038] Greeley pronounced this language "timid
and 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 suffrage
made them his only real opponents. On the other hand, conservative
Republicans, maintaining that the convention did not commit itself to
an enfranchisement of the negro, insisted that it was a unit in its
support of the President's policy, and that the Democrats, acting
insincerely, sought to destroy the Union party and secure exclusive
control of the Executive. "They propose," said the _Times_, "to repeat
upon him precisely the trick which they practised with such brilliant
success upon John Tyler and Millard Fillmore, both of whom were taken
up by the Democracy, their policy endorsed, and their supporters
denounced. Both were flattered with the promise of a Democratic
nomination and both were weak enough to listen and yield to the
temptation. Both were used unscrupulously to betray their principles
and their friends, and when the time came both were remorselessly
thrown, like squeezed oranges, into the gutter. The game they are
playing upon President Johnson is precisely the same. They want the
offices he has in his gift, and when his friends are scattered and
overthrown they will have him at their mercy. Then, the power he gives
them will be used for his destruction."[1040]

[Footnote 1040: New York _Times_, October 17, 1865.]

Horatio Seymour made two speeches. With charming candor he admitted
that "signal victories have been won by generals who have made the
history of our country glorious." But to him the great debt, the
untaxed 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 Falls
his 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, now
forever freed from slavery. "When we were free from debt," he said, "a
man could support himself with six hours of daily toil. To-day he must
work two hours longer to pay his share of the national debt.... This
question of debt means less to give your families.... It reaches every
boy and girl, every wife and mother.... It affects the character of
our people." Prosperity also troubled him. "We see upon every hand its
embarrassing effect. The merchant does not know whether he will be a
loser or gainer. We see men who have been ruined without fault, and
men who have made great fortunes without industry. Inquire of the
person engaged in mechanical operations and he will say that labour
has lost its former certain reward." He disapproved the national
banking act because the new banks "have converted the debt of the
country into currency and inflated prices;" he disputed the
correctness of the Treasury debt statement because "it is the
experience of all wars that long after their close new claims spring
up, which render the expense at least fifty per cent. more than
appeared by the figures;" and he condemned the national system of
taxation because it "disables us to produce as cheaply at home as we
can 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 incident
until John Van Buren, in his extended canvass for attorney-general,
freely expressed his opinion of Horatio Seymour. Van Buren was not an
admirer of that statesman. He had supported him with warmth in 1862,
but after the development of the Governor's "passion for peace" he had
little sympathy with and less respect for his administration. In the
campaign of 1864 he practically ignored him, and the subsequent
announcement of his defeat liberated Van Buren's tongue. "Seymour is a
damned fool," he said. "He spoiled everything at Chicago, and has
been the cause of most of the disasters of the Democratic party."[1042]
At Troy he declared that "the Democracy were suffering now from the
infernal blunder at Chicago last year," and that "if Seymour and
Vallandigham had been kicked out of the national convention it would
have been a good thing for the party."[1043]

[Footnote 1042: From letter of Chauncey M. Depew.--Albany _Evening
Journal_, October 23, 1864.]

[Footnote 1043: New York _Tribune_, November 3, 1865.]

This opinion scarcely expressed the sentiment of a majority of
Democrats, but those who had preferred John A. Dix as the man of
destiny held Seymour and his school of statesmen responsible for the
party's deplorable condition. It had emerged from the war defeated in
every distinctive principle it had promulgated, and in the absence of
an available issue it now sought to atone for the past and to gain the
confidence of the people by nominating candidates who were either
active in the field or recognised as sincerely devoted to a vigorous
prosecution of the war. To aid in this new departure Van Buren threw
his old-time fire into the campaign, speaking daily and to the delight
of his audiences; but he soon discovered that things were looking
serious, and when the Union Republican ticket was elected by
majorities ranging from 28,000 to 31,000, with two-thirds of the
Assembly and all the senators save one, he recognised that the glory
of Lee's surrender and the collapse of the Confederacy did not
strengthen the Democratic party, although one of its candidates had
led an army corps, and another, with eloquence and irresistible
argument, had stirred the hearts of patriotic Americans in the darkest
hours of the rebellion.[1044]

[Footnote 1044: For more than a year Van Buren's health had been
impaired, and in the spring of 1866 he went to Europe. But a change of
climate brought no relief, and he died, on the return voyage, at the
age of fifty-six. That the people deeply mourned his loss is the
evidence of those, still living, to whom there was something dashing
and captivating even in his errors.]




CHAPTER XI

RAYMOND CHAMPIONS THE PRESIDENT

1866


When Congress convened in December, 1865, President Johnson, in a calm
and carefully prepared message, advocated the admission of Southern
congressmen whenever their States ratified the Thirteenth Amendment.
He also recommended that negro suffrage be left to the States. On the
other hand, extreme Radicals, relying upon the report of Carl Schurz,
whom the President had sent South on a tour of observation, demanded
suffrage and civil rights for the negro, and that congressional
representation 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 existing
circumstances, does not appear odious in the South. The people are not
impressed with any sense of its criminality. And there is yet among
the Southern people an utter absence of national feeling.... While
accepting the abolition of slavery, they think that some species of
serfdom, 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 to
readmission."[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 the
South upon the invitation of the President, reported that the mass of
thinking men accepted conditions in good faith; that they regarded
slavery and the right to secede as settled forever, and were anxious
to return to self-government within the Union as soon as possible;
that "while reconstructing they want and require protection from the
government. They are in earnest in wishing to do what is required by
the government, not humiliating to them as citizens, and if such a
course 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 return
of its soldiers to anticipate the next step, but when Thaddeus Stevens
of Pennsylvania, the leader of the Radicals, opened the discussion in
Congress on December 10 (1865), the people quickly saw the drift of
things. Stevens contended that hostilities had severed the original
contract between the Southern States and the Union, and that the
former, in order to return to the Union, must come in as new States
upon terms made by Congress and approved by the President. In like
manner he argued that negroes, if denied suffrage, should be excluded
from the basis of representation, thus giving the South 46
representatives instead of 83. "But why should slaves be excluded?"
demanded Stevens. "This doctrine of a white man's government is as
atrocious as the infamous sentiment that damned the late Chief Justice
to 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, was
answered by Henry J. Raymond, now the selected and acknowledged leader
of the Administration in the House. Raymond had entered Congress with
a prestige rarely if ever equalled by a new member. There had been
greater orators, abler debaters, and more profound statesmen, but no
one had ever preceded him with an environment more influential. He was
the favourite of the President; he had been brought into more or less
intimate association with all the men of his party worth knowing; he
was the close friend of Weed and the recognized ally of Seward; his
good 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 equipped
politician, including able speaking and forceful writing, that he did
not possess, and out of New York as well as within it he had been
regarded the earnest friend and faithful champion of Republican
doctrines. On the surface, too, it is doubtful if a member of
Congress, whether new or old, ever seemed to have a better chance of
winning in a debate. Only three months before the people of the North,
with great unanimity, had endorsed the President and approved his
policy. Besides, the great body of Republicans in Congress preferred
to work with the President. He held the patronage, he had succeeded by
the assassin's work to the leadership of the party, and thus far had
evinced no more dogmatism than Stevens or Sumner. Moreover, the
sentiment of the North at that time was clearly against negro
suffrage. All the States save six[1048] denied the vote to the negro,
and in the recent elections three States had specifically declared
against 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 the
white.]

Thus fortified Raymond did not object to speaking for the
Administration. To him Stevens' idea of subjecting the South to the
discipline and tutelage of Congress was repulsive, and his ringing
voice filled the spacious hall of the House with clear-cut sentences.
He denied that the Southern States had ever been out of the Union. "If
they were," he asked, "how and when did they become so? By what
specific act, at what precise time, did any one of those States take
itself out of the American Union? Was it by the ordinance of
secession? An ordinance of secession is simply a nullity, because it
encounters the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Did
the resolutions of those States, the declaration of their officials,
the speeches of the members of their Legislatures, or the utterances
of their press, accomplish the result desired? Certainly not. All
these were declarations of a purpose to secede. Their secession, if it
ever took place, certainly could not date from the time when their
intention to secede was first announced. They proceeded to sustain
their purpose of secession by arms against the force which the United
States brought to bear against them. Were their arms victorious? If
they were, then their secession was an accomplished fact. If not, it
was nothing more than an abortive attempt--a purpose unfulfilled. They
failed to maintain their ground by force of arms. In other words, they
failed to secede. But if," he concluded, "the Southern States did go
out of the Union, it would make those in the South who resisted the
Confederacy guilty of treason to an independent government. Do you
want 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 their
interest by asking questions, and the congratulations that followed
evidenced the good will of his colleagues. His speech had shown none
of the usual characteristics of a maiden effort. Without advertising
his intention to speak, he obtained the floor late in the afternoon,
referred with spirit to the sentiments of the preceding speaker, and
moved along with the air of an old member, careless of making a
rhetorical impression but intensely in earnest in what he had to
present. As an argument in favor of the adoption of a liberal policy
toward the South, regardless of its strict legal rights, the speech
commended itself to his colleagues as an admirable one, but it
entirely failed to meet Stevens' logic that the States lately in
rebellion could not set up any rights against the conqueror except
such as were granted by the laws of war. In his reply the
Pennsylvanian taunted Raymond with failing to quote a single authority
in support of his contention. "I admit the gravity of the gentleman's
opinion," he said, "and with the slightest corroborating authority
should yield the case. But without some such aid I am not willing that
the sages of the law--Grotius, Vattel, and a long line of
compeers--should be overthrown and demolished by the single arm of the
gentleman from New York. I pray the gentleman to quote authority; not
to put too heavy a load upon his own judgment; he might sink under the
weight. 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 were
losing ground. Aside from the withering blows of Stevens, unseen
occurrences which Raymond, in his eagerness to champion Johnson's
policy, did not appreciate or willingly ignored, had a most disturbing
influence. The Northern people welcomed peace and approved the
generosity of the government, but they wanted the South to exhibit its
appreciation by corresponding generosity to the government's friends.
Its acts did not show this. Enactments in respect to freedmen, passed
by the President's reconstructed legislatures, grudgingly bestowed
civil rights. A different punishment for the same offence was
prescribed for the negroes; apprentice, vagrant, and contract labour
laws tended to a system of peonage; and the prohibition of public
assemblies, the restriction of freedom of movement, and the
deprivation of means of defence illustrated the inequality of their
rights. Such laws, for whatever purpose passed, had a powerful effect
on Northern sentiment already influenced by reported cruelties, while
the Southern people's aversion to Union soldiers settling in their
midst intensified the feeling. Moreover, Southern and Democratic
support of the President made Republicans distrust his policy. If
States can be reconstructed in a summer and congressmen admitted in a
winter, it was said, the South, helped by the Democracy of the North,
might again be in control of the Government within two years. These
considerations were bound to affect the judgment of Republicans, and
when Stevens began to talk and the real conditions in the South came
to be known, it aroused party indignation to a high pitch in the
House.

Raymond, in his brilliant rejoinders, endeavoured to recover lost
ground. He had created no enemies. On the contrary his courtesy and
tact smoothed the way and made him friends. But after weeks of
discussion an effort to adopt a resolution of confidence in the
President met with overwhelming defeat. Stevens asked that the
resolution be referred to the Committee on Reconstruction--Raymond
demanded its adoption at once. On a roll-call the vote stood 32 to 107
in favour of reference, Raymond and William A. Darling of New York
City being the only Republicans to vote against it. It was a heavy
blow to the leader of the Conservatives. It proved the unpopularity of
Johnson's policy and indicated increasing estrangement between the
President and his party. Moreover, it was personally humiliating. On a
test question, with the whole power of the Administration behind him,
Raymond had been able, after weeks of work, to secure the support of
only one man and that a colleague bound to him by the ties of personal
friendship.

The division in the party spread with the rapidity of a rising thunder
cloud. On February 6 Congress passed the Freedman's Bureau Bill,
designed to aid helpless negroes, which the President vetoed. A month
later his treatment of the Civil Rights Bill, which set in motion the
necessary machinery to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment, shattered the
confidence of the party. "Surely," declared Senator Trumbull of
Illinois, "we have authority to enact a law as efficient in the
interest of freedom as we had in the interest of slavery."[1051] But
the President promptly vetoed it, because, he said, it conferred
citizenship on the negro, invaded the rights of the States, had no
warrant in the Constitution, and was contrary to all precedent.

[Footnote 1051: _Congressional Globe_, p. 474.]

The President had developed several undesirable characteristics, being
essentially obstinate and conceited, the possessor of a bad temper,
and of a coarse and vulgar personality. His speech on February 22, in
which he had invoked the wild passions of a mob, modified the opinions
even of conservative men. "It is impossible to conceive of a more
humiliating spectacle," said Sherman.[1052] "During the progress of
events," wrote Weed, "the President was bereft of judgment and reason,
and became the victim of passion and unreason."[1053] But up to this
time the party had hoped to avoid a complete break with the Executive.
Now, however, the question of passing the Civil Rights Bill over his
veto presented itself. Not since the beginning of the government had
Congress carried an important measure over a veto. Besides, it meant a
complete and final separation between the President and his party.
Edwin D. Morgan so understood it, and although he had heretofore
sustained the President, he now stood with the Radicals. Raymond also
knew the gravity of the situation. But Raymond, who often wavered and
sometimes exhibited an astonishing fickleness,[1054] saw only one side
to the question, and on April 9 when the House, by a vote of 122 to
41, overrode the veto, he was one of only seven Unionists to support
the 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 former
appealed to his friends on the floor to furnish him a pair, that he
saw no reason for it, since he had observed that the gentleman from
New 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 commands
us to "go it blind," Hale of New York, with an innocent expression,
asked the meaning of the phrase. Instantly Stevens retorted: "It means
following Raymond." The hit was doubly happy since Hale had followed
Raymond 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 friends
proposed to invoke, through a National Union convention to be held at
Philadelphia on August 14, the support of conservative Republicans
and Democrats. Weed told Raymond of the project and Seward urged it
upon him. Raymond expressed a disinclination to go to the convention
because it seemed likely to fall into the hands of former Confederates
and their Northern associates, and to be used for purposes hostile to
the Union party, of which, he said, he was not only a member, but the
chairman of its national committee. Seward did not concur in this
view. He said it was not a party convention and need not affect the
party standing of those who attended it. He was a Union man, he
declared, and he did not admit the right of anybody to turn him out of
the Union party. Moreover, he wanted Raymond to attend the convention
to prevent its control by the enemies of the Union party.

Raymond, still undecided, called with Seward upon the President, who
favoured neither a new party nor the restoration to power of the
Democratic party, although the movement, he said, ought not to repel
Democrats willing to act with it. He wanted the matter settled within
the Union party, and thought the proposed convention, in which
delegates from all the States could again meet in harmony, would exert
a wholesome influence on local conventions and nominations to
Congress.[1056] Raymond, however, was still apprehensive. He deemed the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments "reasonable, wise, and popular;"
thought the President had "made a great mistake in taking grounds
against them;" and declared that notwithstanding the peppery method of
their passage "the people will not be stopped by trifles." The outcome
of the convention also worried him. "If it should happen to lay down a
platform," he continued, "which shall command the respect of the
country, it would be such a miracle as we have no right to expect in
these days. However," he concluded, "I shall be governed in my course
toward it by developments. I do not see the necessity of denouncing
it 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 of
Raymond_, pp. 173-174.]

Raymond did not attend the preliminary State convention held at
Saratoga on August 9. He left this work to Weed, who, with the help of
Dean 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 from
having all the States, South as well as North, fully represented,
making it the first real "National" convention to assemble, it was
said, since 1860. Besides, it was a picturesque convention, full of
striking contrasts and unique spectacles. In the hotel lobbies Weed
and Richmond, walking together, seemed ubiquitous as they dominated
the management and arranged the details. Raymond and Church sat side
by side in the committee on resolutions, while the delegates from
Massachusetts and South Carolina, for spectacular effect, entered the
great wigwam arm in arm. This picture of apparent reconciliation
evoked the most enthusiastic cheers, and became the boast of the
Johnsonians until the wits likened the wigwam to Noah's Ark, into
which there went, "two and two, of clean beasts, and of beasts that
are not clean, and of fowls, and of everything that creepeth upon the
earth."

John A. Dix became temporary chairman, and the resolutions, reciting
the issue between the President and the Republicans, laid great
emphasis upon the right of every State, without condition, to
representation in Congress as soon as the war had ended. But Raymond,
presumably to please Southern delegates,[1058] pressed the argument far
beyond the scope of the resolutions, maintaining that even if the
condition of the Southern States rendered their admission unsafe
because still disloyal in sentiment and purpose, Congress had no power
to deny them rights conferred by the Constitution. This reckless claim
amazed his friends as much as it aroused his enemies, and he at once
became the object of most cutting reproaches. "Had he been elected as
a Copperhead," said the _Tribune_, "no one could have complained that
he acted as a Copperhead, and had Judas been one of the Pharisees
instead of one of the Disciples, he would not be the worst example
that Presidents and Congressmen can follow."[1059] Ten days later the
Republican National committee removed him from the chairmanship, a
punishment promptly followed by his removal from the committee.[1060]
Raymond, in his talk with Seward, had anticipated trouble of this
character, but the humiliation was now doubly deep because it
separated him from friends whose staunch support had contributed to
his strength. Moreover, in a few weeks he was compelled to abandon the
President for reasons that had long existed. "We have tried hard," he
wrote, "to hold our original faith in his personal honesty, and to
attribute his disastrous action to errors of judgment and infirmities
of temper. The struggle has often been difficult, and we can maintain
it no longer."[1061] But the change came too late. He had followed too
far. It added to the sadness, also, because his popularity was never
to return to any considerable extent during the remaining three years
of 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, added
nothing to his fame. He delivered clever speeches, his wide
intelligence and courteous manner won him popularity, and to some
extent he probably influenced public opinion; but his brief career
left no opportunity to live down his fatal alliance with Johnson.
Indeed, it may well be doubted if longer service or more favourable
conditions 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 and
continuous, until proposed public measures and their treatment worked
out in the drudgery of the committee room, become as familiar as the
variety of questions submitted to lawyers and physicians. The
prolonged and exacting labour as a journalist which had given Raymond
his great reputation, must, in a measure, have been repeated as a
legislator to give him similar leadership in Congress. At forty-five
he was not too old to accomplish it. Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio, who
made his greatest speech in reply to Raymond, began his congressional
life at forty-nine, and Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the House, at
fifty-seven. But the mental weariness, already apparent in Raymond's
face, indicated that the enthusiasm necessary for such preparation had
departed. Besides, he lacked the most important qualification for a
legislative leader--the rare political sagacity to know the thoughts
of people and to catch the tiniest shadow of a coming event.

Seward shared Raymond's unpopularity. Soon after assuming office
President Johnson outlined a severe policy toward the South, violently
denouncing traitors, who, he declared, must be punished and
impoverished. "The time has arrived," he said, "when the American
people should be educated that treason is the highest crime and those
engaged in it should suffer all its penalties."[1062] These sentiments,
reiterated again and again, extorted from Benjamin F. Wade, the chief
of Radicals, an entreaty that he would limit the number to be hung to
a good round dozen and no more.[1063] Suddenly the President changed
his tone to one of amnesty and reconciliation, and in answering the
question, "who has influenced him?" Sumner declared that "Seward is
the marplot. He openly confesses that he counselled the present fatal
policy."[1064] Blaine also expressed the belief that the Secretary of
State changed the President's policy,[1065] a suggestion that Seward
himself corroborated in an after-dinner speech at New York in
September, 1866. "When Mr. Johnson came into the Presidency," said the
Secretary, "he did nothing until I got well, and then he sent for me
and 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 harsh
policy to one of reconciliation. He believed in the soundness of the
President'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 the
Administration and Congress."[1068] The split grew out of the
President'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 remained
in the Cabinet to dispose of diplomatic questions which the war left
unsettled, but after his speech at Auburn on May 22 the men who once
regarded him as a champion of liberty and equality dropped him from
their list of saints. He argued that the country wanted reconciliation
instead of reconstruction, and denied that the President was
unfaithful to the party and its cardinal principles of public policy,
since his disagreements with Congress on the Freedman's Bureau and
Civil Rights Bills "have no real bearing upon the question of
reconciliation." Nor was there any "soundness in our political
system, if the personal or civil rights of white or black, free born
or emancipated, are not more secure under the administration of a
State government than they could be under the administration of the
National government."[1069] This sentiment brought severe criticism.
"Mr. Seward once earned honour by remembering the negro at a time when
others forgot him," said the _Independent_; "he now earns dishonour by
forgetting the negro when the nation demands that the negro should be
remembered."[1070]

[Footnote 1069: This speech does not appear in his _Works_, but was
published 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 country
contributed to destroy his popularity. This Quixotic junketing journey
quickly passed into history as the "swinging-around-the-circle" trip,
which Lowell described as an "advertising tour of a policy in want of
a party."[1071] Seward had many misgivings. The memory of the
President's condition on inauguration day and of his unfortunate
speech on February 22 did not augur well for its success. "But it is a
duty to the President and to the country," he wrote, "and I shall go
on with right good heart."[1072] In the East the party got on very
well, but at Cleveland and other Western cities the President acted
like a man both mad and drunk, while people railed at him as if he
were the clown of a circus. "He sunk the Presidential office to the
level 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 and
commonplace appeals for his Chief contrasted strangely with the
courageous, powerful, and steady fight against the domination of
slavery which characterised his former visits to Cleveland, and the
men who had accepted him as their ardent champion deprecated both his
acts and his words. It called to mind Fillmore's desertion of his
anti-slavery professions, and Van Buren's revengeful action in 1848.
"Distrusted by his old friends," said the _Nation_, "he will never be
taken to the bosom of his old enemies. His trouble is not that the
party to which he once belonged is without a leader, but that he
wanders 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 State
campaign of unusual energy. The contest which began on April 9, when
Johnson disapproved the Civil Rights Bill, was intensified by the
Philadelphia convention and the President's "swing-around-the-circle;"
but the events that made men bitter and deeply in earnest were the
Memphis and New Orleans riots, in which one hundred and eighty negroes
were killed and only eleven of their assailants injured. To the North
this became an object-lesson, illustrating the insincerity of the
South's desire, expressed at Philadelphia, for reconciliation and
peace.

The Republican State convention, meeting at Syracuse on September 5,
echoed this sentiment. In the centre of the stage the Stars and
Stripes, gracefully festooned, formed a halo over the portrait of
Abraham Lincoln, while a Nast caricature of President Johnson betrayed
the contempt of the enthusiastic gathering. Weed and Raymond were
conspicuous by their absence. The Radicals made Charles H. Van Wyck
chairman, Lyman Tremaine president, George William Curtis chairman of
the committee on resolutions, and Horace Greeley the lion of the
convention. At the latter's appearance delegates leaped to their feet
and gave three rounds of vociferous cheers. The day's greatest
demonstration, however, occurred when the chairman, in his opening
speech, stigmatised the New York friends of the President.[1075] Van
Wyck prudently censored his bitterness from the press copy, but the
episode reflected the intense unpopularity of Seward, Weed, and
Raymond.

[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 "that
dry-rot of the mind's noble temper;" but now, in a crowded public
hall, they cheered any sentiment that charged a betrayal of trust and
the loss of principles. Of course Seward had not lost his principles,
nor betrayed his trust. He held the opinions then that he entertained
before the removal of the splints and bandages from the wounds
inflicted by the bowie-knife of the would-be assassin. He had been in
thorough accord with Lincoln's amnesty proclamation, issued in
December, 1863, as well as with his "Louisiana plan" of
reconstruction, and Johnson's proclamation and plan of reconstruction,
written under Seward's influence, did not differ materially. But
Seward's principles which rarely harmonised with those of the
Radicals, now became more conspicuous and sharply defined because of
the tactlessness and uncompromising spirit of Lincoln's successor.
Besides, he was held responsible for the President's follies. To a
convention filled with crutches, scarred faces, armless sleeves, and
representatives of Andersonville and Libby Prisons, such an attitude
seemed like a betrayal of his trust, and the resentment of the
delegates, 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 Republican
predecessors.[1076] Others probably held the same opinion. Fenton's
party, however, renominated him by acclamation, and then showed its
inconsistency by refusing a like honour to Thomas G. Alvord, the
lieutenant-governor. The service of the Onondaga Chief, as his friends
delighted to call him, had been as creditable if not as important as
the Governor's, but the brilliant gifts of Stewart L. Woodford, a
young soldier of patriotic impulses, attracted a large majority of the
convention.[1077] Up to that time, Woodford, then thirty years of age,
was the youngest man nominated for lieutenant-governor. He had made a
conspicuous sacrifice to become a soldier. In 1861 Lincoln appointed
him an assistant United States attorney, but the silenced guns of
Sumter inspired him to raise a company, and he marched away at its
head, leaving the civil office to another. Later he became commandant
of the city that sheltered the guns first trained upon the American
flag, and after his return, disciplined and saddened by scenes of
courage and sacrifice, the clarion notes of the young orator easily
commanded the emotions of his hearers. No one ever wearied when he
spoke. His lightest word, sent thrilling to the rim of a vast
audience, swayed it with the magic of control. He was not then at the
fulness of his power or reputation, but delegates had heard enough to
desire his presence in the important campaign of 1866, and to
stimulate his activity they made him a candidate.

[Footnote 1076: "There stood Fenton, marking the lowest point in the
choice of a State executive ever reached in our Commonwealth by the
Republican party."--_Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 131.]

[Footnote 1077: "The Republican ticket was as follows: Governor, Reuben
E. 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 the
Federal government cannot be impaired by the act of a State or its
people, a State may, by rebellion, so far rupture its relations to the
Union as to suspend its power to exercise the rights which it
possessed under the Constitution; that it belonged to the legislative
power of the government to determine at what time a State may safely
resume the exercise of its rights; and that the doctrine that such
State is itself to judge when it is in proper condition to resume its
place in the Union is false, as well as the other doctrine that the
President was alone sole judge of the period when such suspension
shall be at an end.

If these propositions created no surprise, the refusal squarely to
meet the suffrage issue created much adverse comment. One resolution
expressed a hope that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment would
tend to the equalisation of all political rights among citizens of the
Union, but although Greeley submitted a suffrage plank, as he did in
the preceding year, Curtis carefully avoided an expression favourable
even to the colored troops.

"Extreme opinions usually derive a certain amount of strength from
logical consistency," wrote Raymond. "Between the antecedent
proposition of an argument and its practical conclusion there is
ordinarily a connection which commends itself to the advocates of
principle. But the radicalism which proposes to reconstruct the Union
has not this recommendation. Its principles and its policy are not
more alike than fire and water. What it contends for theoretically it
surrenders practically."[1078] Although this was clearly a just
criticism, the radicalism of Congress showed more leniency in practice
than in theory. The Northern people themselves were not yet ready for
negro suffrage, and had the South promptly accepted the Fourteenth
Amendment and the congressional plan of reconstruction, it is doubtful
if 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 their
work at Philadelphia to appreciate this tendency of Congress. The
evidence of reconciliation had been spectacular, if not sincere, and
they believed public opinion was with them. The country, it was
argued, required peace; the people have made up their minds to have
peace; and to insure peace the Southern States must enjoy their
constitutional right to seats in Congress. "This is the one question
now before the country," said the _Post_; "and all men of every party
who desire the good of the country and can see what is immediately
necessary to produce this good, will unite to send to Congress only
men who will vote for the immediate admission of Southern
representatives."[1079] In the opinion of such journals the situation
presented a rare opportunity to the Democratic party. By becoming the
vehicle to bring real peace and good will to the country, it would not
only efface its questionable war record, but it could "spike the guns"
of the Radicals, control Congress, sustain the President, and carry
the Empire State. This was the hope of Raymond and of Weed, back of
whom, 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 been
placed upon the tour of the President. Raymond reluctantly admitted
that these anticipations were far from realised,[1080] although the
managers thought the tour through New York, where the President had
been fairly discreet, was of value in marshalling the sentiment of
Republicans. Besides, it seemed to them to show, in rural districts
and towns as well as in the commercial centres, a decided preference
for a policy aimed to effect the union of all the States according to
the Constitution.

[Footnote 1080: New York _Times_, September 7.]

To encourage the coöperation of Republicans, the Democrats, led by
Dean Richmond, agreed, temporarily at least, to merge their name and
organisation in that of the National Union party. This arrangement was
not easily accomplished. The _World_ hesitated and the _Leader_
ridiculed, but when the Democracy of the State approved, these
journals acquiesced.[1081] In obedience to this understanding the
Democratic State committee called a National Union State convention,
and invited all to participate who favoured the principles enunciated
by the Philadelphia convention. The obscuration of State policies and
partisan prejudices made this broad and patriotic overture, devoted
exclusively to a more perfect peace, sound as soft and winning as the
spider's invitation to the fly. "If the action of the convention is in
harmony with the spirit of the call," wrote Raymond, "it cannot fail
to command a large degree of popular support."[1082] As county
delegations equally divided between Republicans and Democrats arrived
at Albany on September 11, it was apparent that the invitation had
been accepted at its face value. Although no Republican of prominence
appeared save Thurlow Weed, many Republicans of repute in their
respective localities answered to the roll call. These men favoured
John A. Dix for governor. To them he stood distinctly for the specific
policy announced at Philadelphia. In his opening address at that
convention he had sounded the keynote, declaring a speedy restoration
of the Union by the admission of Southern representatives to Congress
a necessary condition of safe political and party action. Besides, Dix
had been a Democrat all his life, a devoted supporter of the
government during the war, and it was believed his career would
command the largest measure of public confidence in the present
emergency.

[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 27
deprived the convention of his distinguished leadership. This was also
the view of Edwards Pierrepont, then as afterward a powerful factor in
whatever circle he entered. Although a staunch Democrat, Pierrepont
had 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 defence
committee. Later, he served on a commission with Dix to try prisoners
of state, and in 1864 advocated the election of Lincoln. There was no
dough about Pierrepont. He had shown himself an embodied influence,
speaking with force, and usually with success. He possessed the grit
and the breadth of his ancestors, one of whom was a chief founder of
Yale College, and his presence in the State convention, although he
had not been at Philadelphia, encouraged the hope that it would
concentrate the conservative sentiment and strength of New York, and
restore Democracy to popular confidence. Stimulated by his
earnestness, the up-State delegates, when the convention opened, had
practically settled Dix's nomination.

There were other candidates. A few preferred Robert H. Pruyn of
Albany, a Republican of practical energy and large political
experience, and until lately minister to Italy, while others thought
well of Henry C. Murphy of Brooklyn, a Democrat and State senator of
recognised ability. But next to Dix the favourite was John T. Hoffman,
then mayor of New York. It had been many years since the Democrats of
the metropolis had had a State executive. Edwards Pierrepont said that
"no man in the convention was born when the last Democratic governor
was elected from New York or Brooklyn."[1083] This, of course, was
hyperbole, since Pierrepont himself could remember when, at the
opening of the Erie Canal, Governor DeWitt Clinton, amidst the roar of
artillery and the eloquence of many orators, passed through the locks
at Albany, uniting the waters of Lake Erie with those of the Hudson.
Perhaps the thought of Clinton, climbing from the mayoralty to the
more distinguished office of governor, added to the desire of Hoffman,
for although the latter's capacity was limited in comparison with the
astonishing versatility and mental activity of Clinton, he was not
without marked ability.

[Footnote 1083: New York _Times_, September 13, 1866.]

Hoffman's life had been full of sunshine and success. He was a
distinguished student at Union College, an excellent lawyer, an
effective speaker, and a superb gentleman. Slenderly but strongly
built, his square, firm chin and prominent features, relieved by large
brown eyes, quickly attracted attention as he appeared in public. "In
the winter of 1866," wrote Rhodes, "I used frequently to see him at an
early morning hour walking down Broadway on his way to the City Hall.
Tall and erect, under forty and in full mental and physical vigor, he
presented a distinguished appearance and was looked at with interest
as he passed with long elastic strides. He was regarded as one of the
coming men of the nation. He had the air of a very successful man who
is well satisfied with himself and confident that affairs in general
are 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 in
1860, at the age of thirty-two, recorder of the city, the presiding
officer of what was then the principal criminal court. Here he
acquitted himself, especially in the draft riot of 1863, with such
credit that Republicans and Democrats united in re-electing him, and
in 1865, before the expiration of his second term as recorder, Tammany
made him mayor. It was a hard, close contest. Indeed, success could
not have come to Tammany without the aid of Hoffman's increasing
popularity. This office, however, plunged him at once into partisan
politics, and gave to his career an uncertain character, as if a turn
of chance would decide what path of political life he was next to
follow. Now, at the age of thirty-eight, Tammany proposed making him
governor.

But Hoffman represented neither the principles nor the purposes of the
Philadelphia convention. The success of that movement depended largely
upon 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 Democratic
statesman like Dix than in the control of Fenton and the Radicals? Dix
stood for everything honest and conservative. For more than three
decades his prudence had been indissolubly associated with the wise
discretion of William L. Marcy and Silas Wright, while Hoffman, the
exponent of unpurged Democracy, charged with promoting its welfare and
success, was the one man whom conservative Republicans wished to
avoid, and whom, in their forcible presentation of Dix, they were
driving out of the race.

Democratic leaders saw the situation with alarm. They had endorsed the
Philadelphia movement to get into power,--not to give it to Dix and
the Conservatives. The President's reconstruction policy, benefiting
their party in the South and thus strengthening it in national
elections, had been adopted with sincerity, but they did not seriously
propose to merge their organisation in the State with another, giving
it the reins and the whip. "The New York delegation to Philadelphia,"
said the _World_, "was appointed by a gathering of politicians at
Saratoga, who neither represented, had any authority to bind, nor made
any pretence of binding the Democratic organisation of the
State."[1085] Indeed, it was treated as a surprising revelation that
conservative Republicans and Dix Democrats should come to Albany with
such a notion. However, the Dix appeal, developing wonderful strength,
could not be reasoned with, and in their desperation the Democrats
sought an adjournment until the morrow. This the convention refused,
granting only a recess until four o'clock. In the meantime Dix's
chances strengthened. It was plain that his nomination, on lines
approved by Seward, meant a split in Republican ranks, and the
up-State delegates, fearing delay, stood for early action. Then came
the inevitable trick. On reassembling a motion to adjourn was voted
down three to one, but Sanford E. Church, the chairman, declaring it
carried, put on his hat and quickly left the hall. It was an audacious
proceeding. Two-thirds of the convention stood aghast, and Church, the
next morning, found it necessary to make an abject apology.
Nevertheless, his purpose had been accomplished. Adjournment gave
Tammany the time fiercely to assail Dix, who was now charged with
consigning Democrats to Fort Lafayette, suppressing Democratic
legislatures, and opposing Seymour in 1864. John Morrissey, the
pugilist and congressman, declared that Dix could not poll twenty
thousand votes in New York City. Meanwhile Democratic leaders, closing
the door against Weed and the Conservatives, quietly agreed upon
Hoffman. Had Dean Richmond lived a month longer this _coup d'état_
would probably not have occurred. In vigour of intellect, in terseness
of expression, and in grasp of questions presented for consideration,
Richmond was recognised as the first unofficial man in America, and he
had long thought it time for the Democratic party to get into step
with 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 whose
programme had been settled in advance by Democrats, he formally and
apparently with the assent of Dix coolly withdrew the latter's name,
moving that the nomination of John T. Hoffman be made by
acclamation.[1086] This was carried with shouts of wild exultation.
Many Dix supporters, anticipating the outcome, had silently left the
hall, but enough remained to hear, with profound astonishment, the
confession of Pierrepont that he had united with Tammany for the
nomination of Hoffman before the meeting of the Philadelphia
convention. Why, then, it was asked, did he advocate Dix the day
before? and upon whose authority did he withdraw Dix's name? After
such an exposure it could not be said of Pierrepont that he was
without guile. "It was the occasion of especial surprise and regret,"
wrote Weed, "that even before the National Union State convention had
concluded its labours, Judge Pierrepont should have assumed that it
was a Democratic convention, and that its programme had been settled
in advance by Democrats. This was not less a surprise when I
remembered that on the day previous to that announcement, Judge
Pierrepont concurred fully with me in the opinion that the nomination
of 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; Canal
Commissioner, 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 their
property, and honesty in the administration of their government, a
Republican Legislature had placed the affairs of New York City largely
in control of Boards and Commissions. Tammany naturally resented this
invasion of home rule, and after reaffirming the principles of the
Philadelphia movement, the convention declared that "recent
legislation at Albany has usurped a supreme yet fitful control of the
local affairs which counties and municipalities are entitled to
regulate."[1088] To Conservatives nothing could have been more
offensive than such a declaration. "There are thousands of
Republicans," said Raymond, "who long for a restoration of the Union
by the admission to their seats in Congress of loyal men from loyal
States, but who will be quite likely to prefer taking their chances of
securing this result from the action of the Republican party, modified
as it may be by reflection and moderate counsels, rather than seek it
in the way marked out for them by the Albany Democratic
convention."[1089]

[Footnote 1088: New York _Times_, September 13, 1866.]

[Footnote 1089: _Ibid._, September 17.]

Thus the clash began. Conservatives resented the evident intention of
the Democrats to strengthen their party at the expense of the
Philadelphia movement. "We desire to call special attention," said a
Buffalo paper, "to the necessity of carrying out in good faith the
understanding which was entered into at the Philadelphia convention
that all old party antecedents and future action should be merged in
the National Union organisation. It was not contemplated then, or
since, to strengthen the Democratic party by that movement, and any
effort in that direction now cannot fail to be mischievous."[1090]
Before the month of September expired Raymond warned the _World_ that
he was not pledged to the action of the Albany convention. "No
Republican went into it for any such purpose," he said. "No hint of
putting it to any such use was given in the call or in any of its
preliminary proceedings. The convention was called to give effect to
the principles and policy of the Philadelphia convention, and
Republicans who approved those principles concurred in the call. But
how did this give that convention the right to commit them in favour
of measures alien from its ostensible purpose, and at war with their
entire political action? It is utterly preposterous to suppose that
they can coöperate with the Democratic party in the accomplishment of
any 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 Republican
ticket.[1092] It was significant of his sincerity that he declined to
run again for Congress. Thomas E. Stewart, a conservative Republican,
was easily elected in the Sixth District, and Raymond could have had
the same vote, but without "the approval of those who originally gave
me their suffrage," he said, "a seat in Congress ceases to have any
attraction. With the Democratic party, as it has been organised and
directed since the rebellion broke out, I have nothing in
common."[1093] It is impossible not to feel a high respect for the
manner in which Raymond, having come to this determination, at once
acted upon it. He resented no criticism; he allowed no gleam of
feeling to creep into his editorials. Few men could have avoided the
temptation to assume the tone of the wronged one who endures much and
will not complain. Instinctively, however, Raymond felt the bad taste
and unwisdom of such a style, and he joined heartily and
good-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, he
went a step farther in the way of irreconciliation, preferring Hoffman
and Tammany, he said, to "the reckless, red-radicalism which rules the
present Congress.... The men who now lead the radical crusade against
the President," he continued, explanatory of his course, "attempted
during the war to divide the North. That calamity was averted by the
firmness and patriotism of conservative Republicans. In 1864 the same
leaders, 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 inviting
their coöperation in a scheme to defeat Mr. Lincoln's election. The
same leaders went to Washington last December with the deliberate
intention to quarrel with the President, who up to that day and hour
had followed in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor. Their
denunciations have been systematic and fiendish. If, under a keen
sense of injustice, he has since erred in judgment or temper, none
will deny the sufficiency of the provocation. That it would have been
wiser, though less manly, to forbear, I admit. But no nature, merely
human, excepting, perhaps, that of Abraham Lincoln, can patiently
endure wanton public indignities and contumely."[1094]

[Footnote 1094: New York _Times_, October 9, 1866.]

After the October elections it became apparent that the North would
support Congress rather than the President. One cause of distrust was
the latter's replacement of Republican office-holders with men noted
for disloyalty during the war. Weed complained that the appointment of
an obnoxious postmaster in Brooklyn "has cost us thousands of votes in
that city."[1095] During the campaign Johnson removed twelve hundred
and eighty-three postmasters, and relatively as many custom-house
employés and internal revenue officers.[1096] Among the latter was
Philip Dorsheimer of Buffalo. Indeed, the sweep equalled the violent
action of the Council of Appointment in the days when DeWitt Clinton
and Ambrose Spencer, resenting opposition to Morgan Lewis, sent Peter
B. Porter to the political guillotine for supporting Aaron Burr. Such
wholesale removals, however, did not arrest the progress of the
Republican party. After Johnson's "swing around the circle,"
Conservatives were reduced to a few prominent men who could not
consistently retrace their steps, and to hungry office-holders who
were known as "the bread and butter brigade."[1097] The _Post_, a
loyal advocate of the President's policy, thought it a melancholy
reflection "That its most damaging opponent is the President, who
makes a judicious course so hateful to the people that no argument is
listened to, and no appeals to reason, to the Constitution, to common
sense, can gain a hearing."[1098] Henry Ward Beecher voiced a similar
lament. The great divine had suffered severe criticism for casting his
large influence on the side of Johnson, and he now saw success melting
away because of the President's vicious course. "Mr. Johnson just now
and for some time past," he wrote, "has been the greatest obstacle in
the way of his own views. The mere fact that he holds them is their
condemnation with a public utterly exasperated with his rudeness and
violence."[1099] A few weeks later the Brooklyn minister, tired of the
insincerity of the President and of his Philadelphia movement, opened
the campaign with a characteristic speech in support of the Republican
candidates.[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 campaign
resembled a Presidential contest. The issues were largely national. As
one 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 a
thousand devoted Union citizens have been murdered in cold blood since
the surrender of Lee."[1101] The horrors of Andersonville, illuminated
by eye witnesses, and the delay to try Jefferson Davis, added to the
exasperation. On the other hand, Democrats traced Southern conditions
to opposition to the President's policy, charging Congress with a base
betrayal of the Constitution in requiring the late Confederate States
to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition precedent to the
admission of their representatives. The great debate attracted to the
rostrum the ablest and best known speakers. For the Republicans,
Roscoe Conkling, sounding the accepted keynote, now for the first
time made an extended tour of the State, speaking in fourteen towns
and 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, discussing
constitutional and legal principles with the care of an able lawyer.
There was much in Hoffman himself to attract the enthusiasm of popular
assemblages. Kind and sympathetic, with a firm dignity that avoided
undue familiarity, he was irresistibly fascinating to men as he moved
among them. He had an attractive presence, a genial manner, and a good
name. He had, too, a peculiar capacity for understanding and pleasing
people, being liberal and spontaneous in his expressions of sympathy,
and apparently earnest in his attachment to principle. He was not an
orator. He lacked dash, brilliant rhetoric, and attractive figures of
speech. He rarely stirred the emotions. But he pleased people. They
felt themselves in the presence of one whom they could trust as well
as admire. The Democratic party wanted a new hero, and the favourite
young mayor seemed cut out to supply the want.

However, Hoffman did not escape the barbed criticism of the Republican
press. Raymond had spoken of his ability and purity, and of his course
during the war as patriotic.[1102] Weed, also, had said that "during
the rebellion he was loyal to the government and Union."[1103] To
overcome these certificates of character, the _Tribune_ declared that
"Saturn is not more hopelessly bound with rings than he. Rings of
councilmen, rings of aldermen, rings of railroad corporations, hold
him in their charmed circles, and would, if he were elected, use his
influence to plunder the treasury and the people."[1104] It also
charged him with being disloyal. In 1866 and for several years later
the standing of pronounced Copperheads was similar to that of Tories
after the Revolution, and it seriously crippled a candidate for office
to be classed among them. Moreover, it was easy to discredit a
Democrat's loyalty. To most members of the Union party the name itself
clothed a man with suspicion, and the slightest specification, like
the outcropping of a ledge of rocks, indicated that much more was
concealed than had been shown. On this theory, the Republican press,
deeming it desirable, if not absolutely essential, to put Hoffman into
the disloyal class, accepted the memory of men who heard him speak at
Sing Sing, his native town, in 1864. As they remembered, he had
declared that "Democrats only had gone to war;" that "volunteering
stopped when Lincoln declared for an abolition policy;" and that he
"would advise revolution and resistance to the government" if Lincoln
was elected without Tennessee being represented in the electoral
college.[1105] Other men told how "at one of the darkest periods of the
war, Hoffman urged an immediate sale of United States securities, then
under his control and held by the sinking fund of the city."[1106] In
the _Tribune's_ opinion such convenient recollections of unnamed and
unknown 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 will
that had manifested itself in Pennsylvania and other October States,
the heavy and fraudulent registration in New York City encouraged the
belief that Tammany would overcome the up-State vote.[1108] However,
the pronounced antagonism to the President proved too serious a
handicap, and the Radicals, electing Fenton by 13,000 majority,[1109]
carried both branches of the Legislature, and twenty out of thirty-one
congressmen. It was regarded a great victory for Fenton, who was
really opposed by one of the most formidable combinations known to the
politics of the State. Besides the full strength of the Democratic
party, the combined liquor interest antagonised him, while the Weed
forces, backed by the Johnsonised federal officials, were not less
potent. Indeed, Seward publicly predicted Republican defeat by 40,000
majority.[1110]

[Footnote 1108: Gustavus Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 250.]

[Footnote 1109: Fenton, 366,315; Hoffman, 352,526.--_Civil List, State
of New York_, 1887, p. 166.]

[Footnote 1110: New York _Tribune_, January 18, 1869.]

The result also insured the election of a Republican to the United
States Senate to succeed Ira Harris on March 4, 1867. Candidates for
the high honour were numerous. Before the end of November Horace
Greeley, having suffered defeat for Congress in the Fourth District,
served notice of his desire.[1111] George William Curtis had a like
ambition. Lyman Tremaine, too, was willing. Charles J. Folger, the
strong man of the State Senate, belonged in the same class, and Ransom
Balcom of Binghamton, who had achieved an enviable reputation as a
Supreme Court judge, also had his friends. But the three men seriously
talked 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 the
duties of judge and legislator with marked ability, but in Washington,
instead of exercising an adequate influence on the floor of the
Senate, he contented himself with voting, performing committee work,
and attending to the personal wants of soldiers and other
constituents. President Lincoln, referring to the Senator's
persistency in pressing candidates for office, once said: "I never
think of going to sleep now without first looking under my bed to see
if 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 had
had little opportunity to develop statesmanship, his enthusiastic
devotion to the Union had discovered resources of argument and a
fearless independence which were destined to win him great fame in the
trial of William M. Tweed. People liked his nerve, believed in his
honesty, confided in his judgment, and revelled in the retorts that
leaped to his lips. There was no question, either, how he would stand
if called to vote upon the impeachment of the President, a proceeding
already outlined and practically determined upon by the majority in
Congress. This could not be said with confidence of Ira Harris.
Although his radicalism had stiffened as the time for a re-election
approached, he had not always been terribly in earnest. It was not his
nature to jump to the support of a measure that happened to please the
fancy of the moment. Yet his votes followed those of Senator
Fessenden, and his voice, if not strong in debate, expressed the
wisdom 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 his
voice, raised for economy in the public expense, had made him of
special service during the war. He voted to reduce the mileage of
congressmen, he opposed the creation of wide-open commissions, and he
aided in uncovering frauds in the recruiting service. In the darkest
hour of rebellion he approved Vallandigham's arrest and refused to
join a movement to displace Lincoln for another candidate. On his
return to Congress, after his defeat in 1862, he had passed to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and to the Joint Committee on
Reconstruction. Of the Radicals no one surpassed him in diligence and
energy. He voted to confiscate the property of rebels, he stood with
Stevens for disfranchising all persons who voluntarily adhered to the
late insurrection until July 4, 1870, and he would agree to no plan
that operated to disfranchise the coloured population. Indeed, to the
system of constructive legislation which represented the plan of
reconstruction 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 an
admitted star of the first magnitude. Blaine's serious oratorical
castigation, administered after a display of offensive manners, had
disarmed him except in resentment.[1113] The _Times_ spoke of him as
of "secondary rank,"[1114] and the _Tribune_, the great organ of the
party, had declined to put upon him the seal of its approval. Besides,
his vanity and arrogance, although not yet a fruitful subject of the
comic literature of the day, disparaged almost as much as his
brilliant rhetoric exalted him. Careful observers, however, had not
failed to measure Conkling's ability. From Paris, William Cullen
Bryant wrote his friends to make every effort to nominate him, and
Parke Godwin extended the same quality of support.[1115] His recent
campaign, too, had made men proud of him. Although disaffected
Republicans 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, "I
hope he will not be too severe. The contempt of that large-minded
gentleman is so wilting, his haughty disdain, his grandiloquent swell,
his majestic, supereminent, overpowering, turkey-gobbler strut has
been so crushing to myself and all the members of this House, that I
know it was an act of the greatest temerity for me to venture upon a
controversy with him." Referring to a comparison which had been made
of Conkling to Henry Winter Davis, Blaine continued: "The gentleman
took 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 singed
cat to a Bengal tiger, a whining puppy to a roaring lion."--_Congressional
Globe_, April 20, 1866, Vol. 37, Part 3, p. 2298.

"I do not think Conkling was the equal in debate with Blaine."--George
F. Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 2, p. 55. "Conkling was the more
dignified and commanding, but Blaine more aggravating and personal.
When Blaine likened Conkling to a strutting turkey-gobbler, the House
slightly hissed. But on the whole that debate was regarded as a
draw."--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 represented
western 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 United
States senator been taken from territory west of Cayuga Bridge, a
section having over one million people, and giving in the recent
election 27,000 Republican majority. On this and the strength of their
candidate the western counties relied, with the further hope of
inheriting Harris' strength whenever it left him. On the other hand,
Harris sought support as the second choice of the Davis men. Greeley
never really got into the race. Organisation would probably not have
availed him, but after serving notice upon his friends that their
ardent and button-holing support would not be sanctioned by him, the
impression obtained that Greeley was as ridiculous as his letter.[1116]
When Lyman Tremaine withdrew from the contest he threw his influence
to Conkling. This jolted Harris. Then Andrew D. White changed from
Curtis to the Oneidan. Curtis understood the situation too well to
become active. "The only chance," he wrote, "is a bitter deadlock
between the three, or two, chiefs. The friends of Davis proposed to me
to make a combination against Conkling, the terms being the election
of whichever was stronger now,--Davis or me,--and the pledges of the
successful man to support the other two years hence. I declined
absolutely."[1117] As Harris weakened, Reuben E. Fenton, hopeful of
becoming Edwin D. Morgan's successor in 1869, restrained any rush to
Davis.

[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 New
York, proved of great assistance to Conkling. Roberts was of Welsh
origin, a scholar in politics, strong with the pen, and conspicuously
prominent in the discussion of economic issues. When in Congress
(1871-75) he served upon the Ways and Means Committee. In 1867 his
friends sent him to the Assembly especially to promote the election of
Utica's favourite son, and in his sincere, earnest efforts he very
nearly consolidated the Republican press of the State in Conkling's
behalf. During the week's fierce contest at Albany he marshalled his
forces with rare skill, not forgetting that vigilance brings
victory.[1118]

[Footnote 1118: Conkling and Roberts quarrelled in the early
seventies--the former, perhaps, unwilling to have two great men in
Oneida County--and Roberts was defeated for Congress in 1874. After
that the Utica _Herald_ became Conkling's bitterest enemy. See
interviews, New York _Herald_, November 9, 1877, and New York
_Tribune_, November 10, 1877.]

Thus the strife, without bitterness because free from factional
strife, remained for several days at white-heat. "On reaching here
Tuesday night," Conkling wrote his wife, "the crowd took and held
possession of me till about three o'clock the next morning. Hundreds
came and went, and until Thursday night this continued from early
morning to early morning again. The contest is a very curious and
complex one. Great sums of money are among the influences here. I have
resolutely put down my foot that no friend of mine, even without my
knowledge, shall pay a cent, upon any pretext nor in any strait, come
what will. If chosen, it will be by the men of character, and if
beaten 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 the
members are fools to elect me without it."[1119] As evidence of the
want of faith in legislative virtue, the _Times_ gave the answer of a
veteran lobbyist, who was asked respecting the chances of Freeman
Clarke. "Who's Clark?" he inquired. "Formerly the comptroller of the
currency," was the reply. "Oh, yes," said the lobbyist; "and if he
controlled 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 State
Senate, since the days of Seward, New York had been weak in debating
power, and the party's desire to be represented by one who could place
the Empire State in the front rank of influence appealed strongly to
many of the legislators. Andrew D. White, therefore, raised a
whirlwind of applause at the caucus when he declared, in seconding
Conkling's nomination, that what the Empire State wanted was not
judicial talent "but a voice."[1121]

[Footnote 1121: New York _Times_, January 10.]

Nevertheless, so evenly did the members divide that it took five
ballots to make a nomination. Conkling led on the first ballot and
Davis on the second. On the third, Conkling stood one ahead, and three
on the fourth, with Harris clinging to six votes. The disposition of
these six would make a senator, and by gaining them Conkling became
the 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 the
Governor was watchful. At the critical moment on the last ballot, one
vote which had been twice thrown for Davis went back to Folger. The
Chautauquan did not propose to take any chances.

[Footnote 1122: The vote by ballots stood as follows:

               First   Second   Third  Fourth  Fifth
Conkling        33       39      45      53     59
Davis           30       41      44      50     49
Harris          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 of
New York.]




CHAPTER XIII

THE RISE OF TWEEDISM

1867


The election of Roscoe Conkling to the United States Senate made him
the most prominent, if not the most influential politician in New
York. "No new senator," said a Washington paper, "has ever made in so
short a time such rapid strides to a commanding position in that
body."[1123]

[Footnote 1123: Washington _Chronicle_, March 28, 1867.]

Conkling was not yet established, however. His friends who wished to
make him chairman of the Republican State convention which assembled
at Syracuse on September 24, 1867, discovered that he was not beloved
by the Radical leaders. He had a habit of speaking his own mind, and
instead of confining his thoughts to the committee room, or whispering
them in the ears of a few alleged leaders, it was his custom to take
the public into his confidence. Horace Greeley, jealous of his
prerogative, 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 did
not like Greeley and preferred other leadership to Fenton's, thought
well of Conkling. He was not a wild partisan. Although a stiff Radical
he had no reason to feel bitter toward men who happened to differ with
him on governmental policies. His life did not run back into the
quarrels between Greeley and Thurlow Weed, and he had no disposition
to be tangled up with them; but when he discovered that Greeley had
little use for him, he easily formed friendships among men who had
little use for Greeley. It was noticeable that Conkling did not
criticise Raymond's erratic run after Andrew Johnson. He heard
Shellabarger's stinging reply, he listened to the editor's hopeless
appeal for support, and he voted against the resolution of confidence
in the President, but he added nothing to Raymond's humiliation.
Perhaps this accounted for the latter's appreciation of the young
Senator. At all events, the _Times_ complimented while the _Tribune_
remained silent. It was evident the great Republican organ did not
intend advertising the ability of the strenuous, self-asserting
Senator, who was rapidly becoming a leader.

The existence of this jealousy quickly betrayed itself to Conkling's
admirers at the State convention. On the surface men were calm and
responsive. But in forming the committee on permanent organisation
Fenton's supporters, who easily controlled the convention, secretly
arranged to make Lyman Tremaine chairman. When this plan came to the
ears of the Conkling men, one of them, with the shrewdness of a
genuine politician, surprised the schemers by moving to instruct the
committee to report the Senator for permanent president. This made it
necessary to accept or squarely to reject him, and wishing to avoid
open opposition, the Governor's managers allowed the convention to
acquiesce in the motion amid the vociferous cheers of the Senator's
friends.

Conkling's speech on this occasion was one of interest. He outlined a
policy for which, he contended, his party in the Empire State ought to
stand. This was a new departure in New York. Heretofore, its chosen
representatives, keeping silent until a way had been mapped out in
Washington or elsewhere, preferred to follow. Conkling preferred to
lead. There was probably not a Republican in the State capable of
forming an opinion who did not know that from the moment Conkling
became a senator the division of the party into two stout factions was
merely a question of time. That time had not yet come, but even then
it was evident to the eye of a close observer that the action of the
Radicals, led by Fenton, turned in a measure upon their distrust of
Conkling and his supporters.

This was manifest in the cool treatment accorded the New York City
delegates 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 the
suffrage of Conservatives, were disinclined to admit to the convention
men tainted with the sin of party treason, who would naturally
strengthen their adversaries. In the end, after a fierce struggle
which absorbed an entire session, the Conservatives were left out.

Opposition to the State officials who had shown a disposition to
favour the Senator was less open but no less effective. The exposure
of canal frauds in the preceding winter, showing that for a period of
six years trifling causes had been deemed sufficient to displace low
bids for high ones, thus greatly enriching a canal ring at the expense
of the State, involved only the Canal Commissioner. Indeed, every
reason existed why Barlow and his soldier associates whose army
records had strengthened their party in 1865 should receive the usual
endorsement of a renomination; but to avoid what, it was claimed,
might otherwise be regarded an invidious distinction, the Greeley
Radicals cleverly secured a new ticket.[1124] "In their zeal to become
honest," said Horatio Seymour, "the Republicans have pitched overboard
all the officials who have not robbed the treasury."[1125]

[Footnote 1124: The following were nominated: Secretary of State, James
B. McKean, Saratoga; Comptroller, Calvin T. Hulburd, St. Lawrence;
Treasurer, Theodore B. Gates, Ulster; Attorney-General, Joshua M. Van
Cott, Kings; State Engineer, Archibald C. Powell, Onondaga; Canal
Commissioner, John M. Hammond, Allegany; Prison Inspector, Gilbert De
Lamatyr, Wyoming; Court of Appeals, Charles Mason, Madison. Of those
selected, 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 affirmed
impartial suffrage, protested against maladministration and corruption
in 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 stood
united. Those who, in 1865, thought the restoration of the Union on
the President's plan would have been wise, conceded that under the
changed conditions in 1867 it would be impracticable as well as unsafe
and impolitic. Indeed, in his conduct of the _Times_, Raymond was
again in accord with the Republicans, but he did not seek to renew his
former relations with the party. Being complimented for "keeping in
the background,"[1126] he replied that "when, a year ago, he declined a
re-election to Congress, it was for the purpose of devoting himself
wholly to the editorship of the _Times_, a position more to his taste
than any other, and which carries with it as much of influence,
honour, and substantial reward as any office in the gift of Presidents
or political parties."[1127] Had he appreciated the truth of this wise
statement in 1864 his sun might not have set in a cloud. "His
parliamentary failure," says Blaine, "was a keen disappointment to
him, and was not improbably one among many causes which cut short a
brilliant 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 factor
in the State illustrate the curious work often wrought by political
changes. Raymond's efforts in behalf of reconciliation and peace
happened to concur in point of time with the demands of Tammany for
Hoffman and home-rule, and the latter proved the more potent.

Hoffman's appearance in State politics marked the beginning of a new
era. The increased majority in New York City in 1866, so
disproportionate to other years, and the naturalisation of immigrants
at the rate of one thousand a day, regardless of the period of their
residence in the country,[1129] indicated that a new leader of the
first magnitude had appeared, and that methods which differentiated
all moral principles had been introduced. For ten years William Marcy
Tweed had been sachem or grand sachem of Tammany and chairman of its
general committee. In climbing the ladder of power he had had his ups
and downs. He endured several defeats, notably for assistant alderman,
for re-election to Congress after a service of one term, and for
sheriff of New York County. But his popularity suffered no eclipse.
Ever since he led the ropes as a volunteer fireman, carrying a
silver-mounted trumpet, a white fire coat, and a stiff hat, the young
men of his class had made a hero of the tall, graceful, athletic
chief. His smiles were winning and his manners magnetic. From leading
a fire company he quickly led the politics of his district and then of
his ward, utilising his popularity by becoming in 1859 a member of the
Board of Supervisors, and in 1863 deputy street commissioner. As
supervisor he influenced expenditures and the making of contracts,
while the street deputy-ship gave him control of thousands of
labourers and sent aldermen after him for jobs for their ward
supporters. Thus intrenched he dropped chair-making, a business
inherited from his father, put up the sign of lawyer, and became known
to 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. Always
scrupulously neat in his dress and suave in manner, he possessed the
outward characteristics of a gentleman, being neither boastful nor
noisy, and never addicted to the drink or tobacco habit. To his
friends the warmth of his greeting and the heartiness of his
hand-shake evidenced the active sympathies expressed in numberless
deeds of kindness and charity. Yet he could be despotic. If he desired
a motion carried in his favour he neglected to call for negative
votes, warning opponents with significant glances of the danger of
incurring his displeasure. Once, when his ruling as chairman of a
Tammany nominating convention raised a storm of protests, he blocked
the plans of his adversaries by adjourning the meeting and turning off
the gas.

Although Tweed, perhaps, was often at fault in his estimate of men who
frequently deceived him, he selected his immediate lieutenants with
intelligent care. In 1857 he had George G. Barnard elected recorder
and Peter B. Sweeny district attorney. About the same time Richard B.
Connolly became county clerk. When Barnard's term expired in 1860 he
advanced him to the Supreme Court and took up Hoffman for recorder.
Later Hoffman became mayor and Connolly city comptroller. After
Hoffman's second promotion A. Oakey Hall was made mayor. In his way
each of these men contributed strength to the political junta which
was destined to grow in influence and power until it seemed
invincible. Hall had been a versifier, a writer of tales in prose, a
Know-nothing, a friend of Seward, and an anti-Tammany Democrat. As a
clubman, ambitious for social distinction, he was known as "elegant
Oakey." Although "without ballast," as Tweed admitted, he was
indispensable as an interesting speaker of considerable force, who
yielded readily to the demands of a boss. Connolly, suave and courtly,
was at heart so mean and crafty that Tweed himself held him in the
utmost contempt as a "Slippery Dick." But he was a good bookkeeper.
Besides, however many leeches he harboured about him, his intimate
knowledge of Tweed's doings kept him in power. Perhaps Barnard, more
in the public eye than any other, had less legal learning than wit,
yet in spite of his foppish dress he never lacked sufficient dignity
to float the appearance of a learned judge. He was a handsome man,
tall and well proportioned, with peculiarly brilliant eyes, a jet
black moustache, light olive complexion, and a graceful carriage.
Whenever in trouble Tweed could safely turn to him without
disappointment. But the man upon whom the Boss most relied was Sweeny.
He was a great manipulator of men, acquiring the cognomen of Peter
Brains Sweeny in recognition of his admitted ability. He had little
taste for public life. Nevertheless, hidden from sight, without
conscience and without fear, his sly, patient intrigues surpassed
those of his great master. The _Tribune_ called him "the
Mephistopheles of Tammany."[1130]

[Footnote 1130: New York _Tribune_, March 5, 1868.]

The questionable doings of some of these men had already attracted the
attention of the press. It was not then known that a thirty-five per
cent. rake-off on all bills paid by the city was divided between Tweed
and Connolly, or that Sweeny had stolen enough to pay $60,000 for his
confirmation as city chamberlain by the Board of Aldermen;[1131] but
the prompt subscription of $175,000 by a few members of Tammany for
the erection of a new hall on Fourteenth Street, the cornerstone of
which was laid on July 4, 1867, showed that some folks were rapidly
getting rich.[1132] In the year after Hoffman's defeat for governor the
aim of Tweed and his lieutenants was to carry city elections and
control State conventions, with dreams of making Hoffman governor and
then 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 Albany
on October 3, 1867, demanded that Hoffman be made president of the
Democratic State convention. It was a bold claim for a defeated
candidate. After Fenton's election in 1864 Seymour had deemed it
proper to remain in the background, and for two years did not attend a
State 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 pointed
to his achievements and to his distinguished position as the great
apostle of Democracy. On the other hand, Tammany, with its usual
assurance, talked of its 50,000 majority given the Democratic ticket
in 1866, declared that Seymour had had enough, and that Hoffman needed
the endorsement to secure his re-election as mayor in the following
December. Thus the contest raged. Tammany was imperious and the
country delegates stubborn. One year before these men had allowed
their better judgment to be coerced into a condemnation of John A. Dix
because of his alleged ill treatment of Democrats; but now, standing
like a stone wall for Seymour, they followed their convictions as to
the best interests of the party. In the end Hoffman became temporary
chairman and Seymour president. The generous applause that greeted
Hoffman's appearance must have satisfied his most ardent friend until
he witnessed the spontaneous and effusive welcome accorded Seymour. If
it was noisy, it was also hearty. It had the ring of real joy, mingled
with an admiration that is bestowed only upon a leader who captivates
the imagination by recalling glorious victory and exciting high hopes
of future success.[1133]

[Footnote 1133: New York _World_, October 4, 1867.]

The selection of candidates provoked no real contests,[1134] but the
platform presented serious difficulties. The Democratic party
throughout the country found it hard to digest the war debt. Men who
believed it had been multiplied by extravagance and corruption in the
prosecution of an unholy war, thought it should be repudiated
outright, while many others, especially in the Western States, would
pay it in the debased currency of the realm. To people whose
circulating medium before the war was mainly the bills of wild-cat
banks, greenbacks seemed like actual money and the best money they had
ever known. It was attractive and everywhere of uniform value.
Moreover, as the Government was behind it the necessity for gold and
silver no longer appealed to them. The popular policy, therefore,
made the 5-20 bonds payable in greenbacks instead of coin. Of the
whole interest-bearing debt of $2,200,000,000, there were outstanding
about $1,600,000,000 of 5-20's, or securities convertible into them,
and of these $500,000,000 became redeemable in 1867. Their redemption
in gold, worth from 132 to 150, it was argued, would not only be a
discrimination in favour of the rich, but a foolish act of generosity,
since the law authorising the bonds stipulated that the interest
should be paid in "coin" and the principal in "dollars." As greenbacks
were lawful money they were also "dollars" within the meaning of the
legal tender act, and although an inflation of the currency, made
necessary by the redemption of bonds, might increase the price of gold
and thus amount to practical repudiation, it would in nowise modify
the law making the bonds payable in paper "dollars." This was known as
the "Ohio idea." It was a popular scheme with debtors, real estate
owners, shopkeepers, and business men generally, who welcomed
inflation as an antidote for the Secretary of the Treasury's
contraction of the currency. Democratic politicians accepted this
policy the more readily, too, because of the attractive cry--"the same
currency for the bondholder and the ploughboy."

[Footnote 1134: The following persons were nominated: Secretary of
State, 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 suggestion
of its payment in gold. "Bloated bondholders" became a famous
expression with them, to whom it seemed likely that the $700,000,000
of United States notes, if inflated to an amount sufficient to pay the
bonds, would ultimately force absolute repudiation. These views found
ready acceptance among delegates to the State convention, and to put
himself straight upon the record, John T. Hoffman, in his speech as
temporary chairman, boldly declared "the honour of the country pledged
to the payment of every dollar of the national debt, honestly and
fully, 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 his
party to any decided policy. Although he would "keep the public
faith," and "not add repudiation to the list of crimes which destroy
confidence in republican governments," his arguments shed no light on
the meaning of those words. He declared that "waste and corruption had
piled up the national debt," and that it was "criminal folly to exempt
bonds from taxation." Then, entering into a general discussion of
finance, he arraigned the war party for its extravagance, infidelity,
and plundering policy. "Those who hold the power," he said, "have not
only hewed up to the line of repudiation, but they have not tried to
give value to the public credit. It is not the bondholder, it is the
office holder who sucks the blood of the people. If the money
collected by the government was paid to lessen our debt we could
command the specie of the world. We could gain it in exchange for our
securities as the governments of Europe do. Now, they are peddled out
at half price in exchange for dry-goods and groceries. The reports of
the Secretary of the Treasury show that we could swiftly wipe out our
debt if our income was not diverted to partisan purposes. Do not the
columns of the press teem with statements of official plunder and
frauds in every quarter of our land, while public virtue rots under
this wasteful expenditure of the public fund? It is said it is
repudiation to force our legal tenders upon the bondholders. What
makes it so? The low credit of the country. Build that up; make your
paper as good as gold, and this question cannot come up. The
controversy grows out of the fact that men do not believe our legal
tenders ever will be as good as gold. If it is repudiation to pay such
money, it is repudiation to make it, and it is repudiation to keep it
debased by waste and by partisan plans to keep our country in disorder
and danger."[1136]

[Footnote 1136: New York _World_, October 4, 1867.]

Perhaps no American ever possessed a more irritating way of presenting
the frailties of an opposite party. The unwholesome sentiment of his
Tweddle Hall and draft-riot speeches, so shockingly out of key with
the music of the Union, provoked the charge of sinning against clear
light; but ordinarily he had such a faculty for skilfully blending
truth with hyperbole in a daring and spirited argument that Greeley,
who could usually expose the errors of an opponent's argument in a
dozen sentences, found it woven too closely for hasty answer. On this
occasion his speech compelled the committee on resolutions, after an
all day and night session, to refer the matter to Samuel J. Tilden and
two associates, who finally evaded the whole issue by declaring for
"equal taxation." This meant taxation of government bonds without
specification as to their payment. John McKeon of New York City
attacked the words as "equivocal" and "without moral effect," but the
influence of Seymour and Tilden carried it with practical unanimity.

The power of Seymour, however, best exhibited itself in the treatment
accorded Andrew Johnson. The conventions of 1865 and 1866 had
sustained the President with energy and earnestness, endorsing his
policy, commending his integrity, and encouraging him to believe in
the sincerity of their support. In recognition Johnson had displaced
Republicans for Democrats until the men in office resembled the
appointees of Buchanan's administration. The proceedings of the
convention of 1867, however, contained no evidence that the United
States had a Chief Executive. Nothing could have been more
remorseless. The plan, silently matured, was suddenly and without
scruple flashed upon the country that Andrew Johnson, divested of
respect, stripped of support, and plucked of offices, had been coolly
dropped by the Democracy of the Empire State.

The campaign opened badly for the Republicans. Weighted with canal
frauds the party, with all its courage and genius, seemed unequal to
the odds against which it was forced to contend. The odious
disclosures showed that the most trifling technicalities, often only a
misspelled or an interlined word, and in one instance, at least,
simply an ink blot, had been held sufficient to vacate the lowest
bids, the contracts afterward being assigned to other bidders at
largely increased amounts. So insignificant were these informalities
that in many cases the official who declared the bids irregular could
not tell upon the witness stand wherein they were so, although he
admitted that in no instance did the State benefit by the change.
Indeed, without cunning or reason, the plunderers, embracing all who
made or paid canal accounts, declared bids informal that contracts at
increased prices might be given to members of a ring who divided their
ill-gotten gains. These increases ranged from $1,000 to $100,000 each,
aggregating a loss to the State of many hundreds of thousands of
dollars. "The corruption is so enormous," said the _World_, "as to
render 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 testimony
submitted by the Canal Investigation Committee to the Constitutional
Convention of 1867.]

Republicans offered no defence except that their party, having had the
courage to investigate and expose the frauds and the methods of the
peculators, could be trusted to continue the reform. To this the
_World_ replied that "a convention of shoddyites might, with as good a
face, have lamented the rags hanging about the limbs of our shivering
soldiers, or a convention of whisky thieves affect to deplore the
falling off of the internal revenue."[1138] Moreover, Democrats claimed
that the worst offender was still in office as an appointee of
Governor Fenton,[1139] and that the Republican nominee for canal
commissioner had been guilty of similar transactions when
superintendent of one of the waterways.[1140] These charges became the
more glaring because Republicans refused to renominate senators who
had been chiefly instrumental in exposing the frauds. "They take great
credit to themselves for having found out this corruption in the
management of the canals," said Seymour. "But how did they exhibit
their hatred of corruption? Were the men who made these exposures
renominated? Not by the Republicans. One of them is running upon our
ticket."[1141] On another occasion he declared that "not one of the
public officers who are charged and convicted by their own friends of
fraud and robbery have ever been brought to the bar of justice."[1142]
The severity of such statements lost none of its sting by the
declaration of Horace Greeley, made over his own signature, that
Republican candidates were "conspicuous for integrity and for
resistance 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 accomplish
the purpose for which it assembled also embarrassed Republicans. By
the terms of the Constitution of 1846 the Legislature was required, in
each twentieth year thereafter, to submit to the people the question
of convening a convention for its revision, and in 1866, an
affirmative answer being given, such a convention began its work at
Albany on June 4, 1867. Of the one hundred and sixty delegates,
ninety-seven were Republicans. Its membership included many men of the
highest capacity, whose debates, characterised by good temper and
forensic ability, showed an intelligent knowledge of the needs of the
State. Their work included the payment of the canal and other State
debts, extended the term of senators from two to four years, increased
the members of the Assembly, conferred the right of suffrage without
distinction of colour, reorganised the Court of Appeals with a chief
justice and six associate justices, and increased the tenure of
supreme and appellate judges to fourteen years, with an age limit of
seventy.

Very early in the life of the convention, however, the press, largely
influenced by the New York _Tribune_, began to discredit its work.
Horace Greeley, who was a member, talked often and always well, but
the more he talked the more he revealed his incapacity for safe
leadership. He seemed to grow restive as he did in Congress over
immaterial matters. Long speeches annoyed him, and adjournments from
Friday to the following Tuesday sorely vexed him, although this
arrangement convenienced men of large business interests. Besides,
committees not being ready to report, there was little to occupy the
time of delegates. Nevertheless, Greeley, accustomed to work without
limit as to hours or thought of rest, insisted that the convention
ought to keep busy six days in the week and finish the revision for
which it assembled. When his power to influence colleagues had
entirely disappeared, he began using the _Tribune_, whose acrid
arguments, accepted by the lesser newspapers, completely undermined
all achievement. Finally, on September 24, the convention recessed
until November 12.

Democrats charged at once that the adjournment was a skulking
subterfuge not only to avoid an open confession of failure, but to
evade submitting negro suffrage to a vote in November. The truth of
the assertion seemed manifest. At all events, it proved a most serious
handicap to Republicans, who, by an act of Congress, passed on March
2, 1867, had forced negro suffrage upon the Southern States. Their
platform, adopted at Syracuse, also affirmed it. Moreover, their
absolute control of the constitutional convention enabled them, if
they had so desired, to finish and submit their work in the early
autumn. This action subjected their convention resolve for "impartial
suffrage" to ridicule as well as to the charge of cowardice. If you
shrink from giving the ballot to a few thousand negroes at home, it
was asked, why do you insist that it should be conferred on millions
in the South? If, as you pretend, you wish the blacks of this State to
have the ballot, why do you not give it to them? How can you blame the
South for hesitating when you hesitate? "It is manifest," said the
_World_, "that the Republicans do not desire the negroes of this State
to vote. Their refusal to present the question in this election is a
confession that the party is forcing on the South a measure too
odious to be tolerated at home."[1144]

[Footnote 1144: New York _World_, September 27, 1867.]

This charge, perhaps, was the most disturbing influence Republicans
had to meet in the campaign. Responsibility for canal frauds made them
wince, since it appealed strongly and naturally to whatever there was
of discontent among the people, but their apparent readiness to force
upon the South what they withheld in New York seemed so unreasonable
and unjust that it aided materially in swelling the strength of the
Democrats.

James T. Brady, Henry C. Murphy, John T. Hoffman, and Samuel J. Tilden
made the campaign attractive, speaking with unsparing severity to the
great audiences gathered in New York City. Although somewhat
capricious in his sympathies, Brady seemed never to care who knew what
he thought on any subject, while the people, captivated by his
marvellously easy mode of speech, listened with rapture as he
exercised his splendid powers. It remained for Seymour, however, to
give character to the discussion in one of his most forcible
philippics. He endeavoured to show that the ballot, given to a few
negroes in New York, could do little harm compared to the
enfranchisement of millions of them in the Southern States. The
Radicals, he said, not only propose to put the white men of the South
under the blacks, but the white men of the North as well. To allow
three millions of negroes, representing ten Southern States, to send
twenty senators to Washington, while more than half the white
population of the country, living in nine Northern States, have but
eighteen senators, is a home question. "Will you sanction it?" he
asked. "Twenty senators, recollect, who are to act in relation to
interests deeply affecting you. Can you afford to erect such a
government of blacks over the white men of this continent? Will you
give them control in the United States Senate and thus in fact
disfranchise the North? This to you is a local question. It will
search you out just as surely as the tax-gatherer searches you
out."[1145]

[Footnote 1145: New York _World_, October 25, 1867.]

Republicans acknowledged their weakness. An opposition that invited
attention to disclosures as sensational and corrupt as they were
indefensible had deeper roots than ordinary political rivalry, while
the question of manhood suffrage, like a legacy of reciprocal hate,
aroused the smouldering prejudices that had found bitter expression
during the discussion of emancipation. Moreover, the feeling developed
that the narrow and unpatriotic policy which ruled the Syracuse
convention had displaced good men for unsatisfactory candidates. This
led to the substitution of Thomas H. Hillhouse for comptroller, whose
incorruptibility made him a candidate of unusual strength. But the
sacrifice did not change the political situation, aggravated among
other things by hard times. The wave of commercial depression which
spread over Europe after the London financial panic of May, 1866,
extended to this country during the last half of 1867. A reaction from
the inflated war prices took place, quick sales and large profits
ceased, and a return to the old methods of frugality and good
management became necessary. In less than two years the currency had
been contracted $140,000,000, decreasing the price of property and
enhancing the face value of debts, and although Congress, in the
preceding February, had suspended further contraction, business men
charged financial conditions to contraction and the people held the
party in power responsible.

Indeed, the people had become tired of Republican rule, and their
verdict changed a plurality of 13,000, given Fenton in 1866, to a
Democratic majority of nearly 48,000, with twenty-two majority on
joint ballot in the Legislature. New York City gave the Democrats
60,000 majority. Thousands of immigrants had been illegally
naturalised, and a fraudulent registration of 1,500 in one ward
indicated the extent of the enormous frauds that had been practised by
Boss Tweed and his gang;[1146] but the presence of large Democratic
gains in the up-State counties showed that Republican defeat was due
to other causes than fraudulent registration and illegal voting.
"Outside the incapables and their miserable subalterns who managed the
Syracuse convention," said one Republican paper, "a pervading
sentiment existed among us, not only that we should be beaten, but
that we needed chastisement."[1147] Another placed the responsibility
upon "a host of political adventurers, attracted to the party by
selfish aggrandisements."[1148] The _Tribune_ accepted it as a
punishment for cowardice on the negro suffrage question. "To say that
we are for manhood suffrage in the South and not in the North is to
earn the loathing, contempt, and derision alike of friends and
foes."[1149] Thus had Republican power disappeared like Aladdin's
palace, which was ablaze with splendour at night, and could not be
seen 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 Empire
State. Pennsylvania gave a small Democratic majority, Ohio defeated a
negro suffrage amendment by 50,000, besides electing a Democratic
legislature, and New York, leading the Democratic column, surprised
the nation with a majority of nearly 48,000. In every county the
Republican vote had fallen off. It was plain that reconstruction and
negro suffrage had seriously disgruntled the country. The policy of
the Republicans, therefore, which had hitherto been one of delay in
admitting Southern States to representation in Congress, now changed
to one of haste to get them in, the party believing that with negro
enfranchisement and white disfranchisement it could control the South.
This sudden change had alarmed conservatives of all parties, and the
Democratic strength shown at the preceding election encouraged the
belief that the radical work of Congress might be overthrown. "The
danger now is," wrote John Sherman, "that the mistakes of the
Republicans 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, then
secretary of war, did not weaken this prediction. The Senate had
already refused its assent to the Secretary's suspension, and when the
President, exercising what he believed to be his constitutional power,
appointed Adjutant-General Thomas in his place, it brought the contest
to a crisis. Stanton, barricaded in the War Office, refused to leave,
while Thomas, bolder in talk than in deeds, threatened to kick him
out.[1151] In support of Stanton a company of one hundred men, mustered
by John A. Logan, a member of Congress, occupied the basement of the
War Department. Not since the assassination of Lincoln had the country
been in such a state of excitement. Meanwhile former propositions of
impeachment were revived, and although without evidence of guilty
intent, the House, on February 14, resolved that Andrew Johnson be
impeached of high crimes and misdemeanours. This trial, which
continued for nearly three months, kept the country flushed with
passion.

[Footnote 1151: _Impeachment Trial_, Vol. 1, p. 223.]

New York Democrats greatly enjoyed the situation. To them it meant a
division of the Republican party vastly more damaging than the one in
1866. Opposition to Grant's candidacy also threatened to widen the
breach. The Conservatives, led by Thurlow Weed, wishing to break the
intolerant control of the Radicals by securing a candidate free from
factional bias, had pronounced for the Soldier's nomination for
President as early as July, 1867,[1152] and although the current of
Republican journalism as well as the drift of party sentiment tended
to encourage the movement, the Radicals opposed it. Grant's report on
the condition of the South in 1865, and his attendance upon the
President in 1866 during the famous swing-around-the-circle, had
provoked much criticism. Besides, his acceptance of the War Office
after Stanton's suspension indicated marked confidence in the Chief
Executive. Indeed, so displeasing had been his record since the close
of the war that the _Tribune_ ridiculed his pretensions, predicting
that if any man of his type of politics was elected it would be by the
Democrats.[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 popularity
go far; but they are not these times. Does any one imagine that
General Grant, supported by the Republicans, would carry Maryland or
Kentucky, under her present Constitution, against Seymour or
Pendleton?"[1154] Many agreed with Greeley. Indeed, a majority of the
Radicals, 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 suspension
in August, 1867, led to Grant's appointment as secretary of war, but
when the Senate, early in the following January, refused to concur in
Johnson's action, Grant locked the door of the War Office and resumed
his post at army headquarters. The President expressed surprise that
he did not hold the office until the question of Stanton's
constitutional right to resume it could be judicially determined. This
criticism, delivered in Johnson's positive style, provoked a long and
heated controversy, involving the veracity of each and leaving them
enemies for life. The quarrel delighted the Radicals. It put Grant
into sympathy with Congress, and Republicans into sympathy with Grant.
Until then it was not clear to what party he belonged. Before the war
he acted with the Democrats, and very recently the successors of the
old Albany Regency had been quietly preparing for his nomination.[1155]
Now, however, he was in cordial relation with Republicans, whose
convention, held at Syracuse on February 5, 1868, to select delegates
to the National convention, indorsed his candidacy by acclamation. The
Conservatives welcomed this action as their victory. Moreover, it was
the first formal expression of a State convention. Republicans of
other Commonwealths had indicated their readiness to accept Grant as a
candidate, but New York, endorsing him before the termination of his
controversy with the President, anticipated their action and set the
party aflame. Indeed, it looked to Republicans as if this nomination
assured 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 for
Vice-President. Fenton had made an acceptable governor. Under his
administration projects for lengthening the locks on the Erie Canal
and other plans for extending the facilities of transportation were
presented. Another memorable work was the establishment of Cornell
University, 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 the
Governor's "executive control, in the main, has been a success."[1156]
Opposition to his promotion, however, presented well-defined lines. To
Thurlow Weed he represented the mismanagement which defeated the
party,[1157] and to Conkling he appealed only as one on whom to employ
with effect, when occasion offered, his remarkable resources of
sarcasm and rhetoric. The Governor understood this feeling, and to
avoid its influence delegates were instructed to vote for him as a
unit, 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 amidst
throat-bursting cheers and salvos of artillery Ulysses S. Grant was
nominated for President by acclamation. For Vice-President a dozen
candidates were presented, including Henry Wilson of Massachusetts,
Reuben E. Fenton of New York, Benjamin Wade of Ohio, and Schuyler
Colfax of Indiana. Fenton's friends, finding the Northern States
pre-empted by other candidates, turned to the South, hoping to benefit
as Wade's strength receded. Here, however, it was manifest that Wilson
would become the Buckeye's residuary legatee. Fenton also suffered
from the over-zeal of friends. In seconding his nomination an Illinois
delegate encountered John A. Logan, who coolly remarked that Fenton
would get three votes and no more from his State. To recover prestige
after this blow Daniel E. Sickles, in a brief speech, deftly included
him with Morton of Indiana, Curtin of Pennsylvania, Andrew of
Massachusetts, and other great war governors. In this company Fenton,
who had served less than four months at the close of the war, seemed
out of place, and Sickles resumed his seat undisturbed by any
demonstration except by the faithful three hundred.[1158] Fenton's
vote, however, was more pronounced than the applause, although his
strength outside of New York came largely from the South, showing that
his popularity centred in a section whose representatives in National
Republican conventions have too often succumbed to influences other
than arguments.[1159]

[Footnote 1158: _Official Proceedings of the Convention_, p. 96.]

[Footnote 1159: BALLOTS

                   1     2     3     4     5     6
Wade              147   170   178   206   207    38
Colfax            115   145   165   186   226   541
Fenton            126   144   139   144   139    69
Wilson            119   114   101    87    56
Hamlin             28    30    25    25    20
Curtin             51    45    40

Outside of New York Fenton's vote was as follows:

Northern States    23    33    32    32    31     2
Southern States    44    45    42    48    61     1]

The echo of Fenton's defeat seriously disturbed the Syracuse State
convention (July 8). The Conservatives of New York City, many of whom
had now become the followers of Conkling, objected to the Fenton
method of selecting delegates, and after a bitter discussion between
Matthew Hale of Albany and Charles S. Spencer, the Governor's ardent
friend, the convention limited the number of delegates from a city
district to the Republican vote actually cast, and appointed a
committee to investigate the quarrel, with instructions to report at
the next State convention.

The selection of a candidate for governor also unsettled the
Republican 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 into
the field at an early day, but to all appearances Horace Greeley was
the popular man among the delegates. Although Conkling had snuffed out
his senatorial ambition, he had been the directing power of the
February convention, and was still the recognised guide-post of the
party. Besides, the withdrawal of Tremaine, Van Wyck, and Conkling
practically narrowed the rivalry to Greeley and Griswold. Indeed, it
seemed as if the ambition of the editor's life was at last to be
satisfied. Weed was in Europe, Raymond still rested "outside the
breastworks," and the Twenty-third Street organisation, as the
Conservatives were called, sat on back seats without votes and without
influence.

Greeley did not go to Syracuse. But his personal friends appeared in
force, 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. The
people, regarding Griswold's change from McClellan to Lincoln as a
political emancipation, had doubled his majority for Congress in 1864
and again in 1866. The poor loved him, the workmen admired him, and
business men backed him. Though but forty-six years old he had already
made his existence memorable. In their emphasis orators expressed no
fear that the fierce white light which beats upon an aspirant for high
office would disclose in him poor judgment, or any weakness of
character. To these optimistic speeches delegates evinced a
responsiveness that cheered his friends.

But the real noise of the day did not commence until Chauncey M. Depew
began his eulogy of the great editor. The applause then came in drifts
of cheers as appreciative expressions fell from the lips of his
champion. It was admitted that Depew's speech adorned the day's
work.[1160] He referred to Greeley as "the embodiment of the principles
of his party," "the one man towering above all others in intellect,"
who "has contributed more than any other man toward the
enfranchisement of the slaves," and "with his pen and his tongue has
done more for the advancement of the industrial classes." In
conclusion, said the speaker, "he belongs to no county, to no
locality; he belongs to the State and to the whole country, because of
the 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 Griswold
as well as those of Greeley, standing on chairs, swung hats and
umbrellas after the fashion of a modern convention. Surely, Horace
Greeley 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 a
defeat--it was utter rout and confusion. He had been led into an
ambuscade and slaughtered. The _Tribune_, in explaining the affair,
said "it was evident in the morning that Griswold would get the
nomination. His friends had been working so long and there were so
many outstanding pledges." Besides, it continued, "when the fact
developed that he had a majority, it added to his strength
afterward."[1163] Why, then, it was asked, did Greeley's friends put
him into a contest already settled? Did they wish to humiliate him?
"Had Greeley been here in person," said the _Times_, with apparent
sympathy, "the result might have been different."[1164] The _Nation_
thought otherwise. "In public," it said, "few members of conventions
have the courage to deny his fitness for any office, such are the
terrors inspired by his editorial cowskin; but the minute the voting
by ballots begins, the cowardly fellows repudiate him under the veil
of secrecy."[1165] The great disparity between the applause and the
vote for the editor became the subject of much suppressed amusement.
"The highly wrought eulogium pronounced by Depew was applauded to the
echo," wrote a correspondent of the _Times_, "but the enthusiasm
subsided wonderfully when it came to putting him at the head of the
ticket."[1166] Depew himself appreciated the humour of the situation.
"Everybody wondered," said the eulogist, speaking of it in later
years, "how there could be so much smoke and so little fire."[1167] To
those conversant with the situation, however, it was not a mystery.
Among conservative men Greeley suffered discredit because of his
ill-tempered criticisms, while his action in signing Jefferson Davis's
bail-bond was not the least powerful of the many influences that
combined to weaken his authority. It seemed to shatter confidence in
his strength of mind. After that episode the sale of his _American
Conflict_ 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; Canal
Commissioner, Alexander Barkley, Washington; Prison Inspector, Henry
A. Barnum, Onondaga.]

[Footnote 1168: _The Nation_, November 11, 1869.]

The platform approved the nomination of Grant and Colfax, held
inviolate the payment of the public debt in the spirit as well as the
letter of the law, commended the administration of Fenton, and
demanded absolute honesty in the management and improvement of the
canals; but adopting "the simple tactics of the ostrich" it maintained
the 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 National
Democratic convention which had assembled in Tammany's new building on
July 4, accepted a leader under whom victory was impossible. It was an
historic gathering. The West sent able leaders to support its
favourite greenback theory, the South's delegation of Confederate
officers recalled the picturesque scenes at Philadelphia in 1866, and
New England and the Middle States furnished a strong array of their
well-known men. Samuel J. Tilden headed the New York delegation,
Horatio Seymour became permanent president, and in one of the chairs
set apart for vice presidents, William M. Tweed, "fat, oily, and
dripping 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 barely
in his twenties, he had denounced the policy of chartering banks in
the interest of political favourites and monopolists, and the reform,
soon after established, made him bold to attack other obnoxious fiscal
systems. As mayor of Brooklyn he kept the city's expenditures within
its income, and in the constitutional convention of 1846 he stood with
Michael Hoffman in preserving the public credit and the public faith.
To him who understood the spirit of the Legal Tender Act of 1862, it
seemed rank dishonesty to pay bonds in a depreciated currency, and he
said so in language that did not die in the committee room. But
opposed 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 lawful
money," and through them the Ohio heresy became the ruling thought of
the Democratic creed.

Although New York consented to the Pendleton platform, it determined
not to sacrifice everything to the one question of finance by
permitting the nomination of the Ohio statesman. There were other
candidates. Andrew Johnson was deluded into the belief that he had a
chance; Winfield S. Hancock, the hero of the famous Second Army Corps,
who had put himself in training while department commander at New
Orleans, believed in his star; Salmon P. Chase, chief justice of the
United States Supreme Court, having failed to capture the nomination
at Chicago, was willing to lead whenever and by whomsoever called;
while Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana, then a United States senator
and supporter of the "Ohio idea," hoped to succeed if Pendleton
failed. Of these candidates Seymour favoured Chase. If nominated, he
said, the Chief Justice would disintegrate the Republican party, carry
Congress, and by uniting conservative Republicans and Democrats secure
a majority of the Senate. It was known that the sentiments of Chase
harmonised with those of Eastern Democrats except as to negro
suffrage, and although on this issue the Chief Justice declined to
yield, Seymour did not regard it of sufficient importance to quarrel
about. Indeed, it was said that Seymour had approved a platform,
submitted to Chase by Democratic progressionists, which accepted negro
suffrage.[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 a
solution of the difficult problem. To mask his real purpose he pressed
the name of Sanford E. Church until the eighth ballot, when he
adroitly dropped it for Hendricks. It was a bold move. The Hoosier was
not less offensive than the Buckeye, but it served Tilden's purpose to
dissemble, and, as he apprehended, Hendricks immediately took the
votes of his own and other States from the Ohioan. This proved the end
of Pendleton, whose vote thenceforth steadily declined. On the
thirteenth ballot California cast half a vote for Chase, throwing the
convention into wild applause. For the moment it looked as if the
Chief Justice, still in intimate correspondence with influential
delegates, might capture the nomination. Vallandigham, who preferred
Chase to Hendricks, begged Tilden to cast New York's vote for him, but
the man of sheer intellect was not yet ready to show his hand.
Meanwhile Hancock divided with Hendricks the lost strength of
Pendleton. Amidst applause from Tammany, Nebraska, on the seventeenth
and eighteenth ballots, cast three votes for John T. Hoffman. This
closed the fourth day of the convention, the eighteenth ballot
registering 144-1/2 votes for Hancock, 87 for Hendricks, 56-1/2 for
Pendleton, 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 to
support Chase provided Hendricks could not be nominated. Seymour
favoured the Chief Justice in an elaborate speech, which he intended
delivering on the floor of the convention, and for this purpose had
arranged with a delegate from Missouri to occupy the chair. It was
known, too, that Chase's strength had increased in other delegations.
Eleven Ohio delegates favoured him as their second choice, while
Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Georgia, and Wisconsin could be
depended upon. Indeed, it was in the air that the Chief Justice would
be nominated. When the convention opened, however, a letter several
days old was read from Pendleton withdrawing from the contest. This
quickly pushed Hendricks to 107. On the twenty-first ballot he rose to
132 and Hancock fell off to 135-1/2, while four votes for Chase, given
by 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 with
loss of sleep and the intense heat, the situation did not excite hopes
of an early settlement. New York could not name Chase since
Pendleton's withdrawal had strengthened Hendricks, while the
nomination of a conservative Union soldier like Hancock, so soon after
the close of the war, would inevitably exasperate the more radical
element of the party. Thus it looked as if the motion to adjourn to
meet at St. Louis in September presented the only escape. Pending a
roll-call, however, this motion was declared out of order, and the
voting continued until the Ohio delegation, having returned from a
conference, boldly proposed the name of Horatio Seymour. The
delegates, hushed into silence by the dominating desire to verify
rumours of an impending change, now gave vent to long, excited
cheering. "The folks were frantic," said an eye-witness; "the delegates
daft. All other enthusiasms were as babbling brooks to the eternal
thunder of Niagara. The whole mass was given over to acclaims that
cannot 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 as
November, 1867, after the Democratic victories of that month, he had
addressed a letter to the _Union_, a Democratic paper of Oneida,
stating that for personal reasons which he need not give, he was not
and could not be a candidate. Other letters of similar purport had
frequently appeared in the press. To an intimate friend he spoke of
family griefs, domestic troubles, impaired health, and the
impossibility of an election. Besides, if chosen, he said, he would be
as powerless as Johnson, a situation that "would put him in his grave
in less than a year."[1174] In the whole convention there was not a man
who could truthfully say that the Governor, by look, or gesture, or
inflection of voice, had encouraged the hope of a change of mind.
Within forty-eight hours every Democrat of influence had sounded him
and gone away sorrowful. Now, when order was restored, he declined
again. His expressions of gratitude seemed only to make the
declaration stronger. "I do not stand here," he said, "as a man proud
of his opinion or obstinate in his purposes, but upon a question of
duty and of honour I must stand upon my own convictions against the
world. When I said here, at an early day, that honour forbade my
accepting a nomination, I meant it. When I said to my friends I could
not be a candidate, I meant it. And now, after all that has taken
place here, I could not receive the nomination without placing myself
in a false position. Gentlemen, I thank you for your kindness, but
your 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 personal
consideration should yield to the public good, and Francis Kernan,
disclaiming any lot or part in Ohio's motion, declared that others
than the New York delegation must overcome the sensitiveness of the
chairman. Still, he said, Horatio Seymour ought to abide the action of
the convention. These speeches over, the roll-call monotonously
continued, each State voting as before until Wisconsin changed from
Doolittle to Seymour. In an instant the chairman of each State
delegation, jumping to his feet, changed its vote to the New Yorker.
The pandemonium was greater than before, in the midst of which
Seymour, apparently overwhelmed by the outcome, retired to a committee
room, where Church, Joseph Warren of the Buffalo _Courier_, and other
friends urged him to yield to the demands of the Democracy of the
country. He was deeply affected. Tears filled his eyes, and he
piteously sought the sympathy of friends.[1176] Soon after he left the
building. Meanwhile Tilden rose to change the vote of the Empire State
from 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 one
obstacle--Horatio Seymour's earnest, sincere, deep-felt repugnance to
accept this nomination. I did not believe any circumstance would make
it possible except that Ohio, with whom we have been unfortunately
dividing our votes, demanded it. I was anxious that whenever we should
leave this convention there should be no heart-burnings, no jealousy,
no bitter disappointment; and I believe that in this result we have
lifted the convention far above every such consideration. And I
believe further that we have made the nomination most calculated to
give 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 the
convention. The nomination did not arouse even a simulated enthusiasm
upon the streets of the metropolis.[1178] In Washington Democratic
congressmen declared that but one weaker candidate was before the
convention,[1179] while dispatches from Philadelphia and Boston
represented "prominent Democrats disgusted at Seymour and the
artifices of his friends."[1180] Even Tammany, said the _Times_,
"quailed at the prospect of entering upon a canvass with a leader
covered with personal dishonour, as Seymour had said himself he would
be, if he should accept. Men everywhere admit that such a nomination,
conferred under such circumstances, was not only pregnant with
disaster, but if accepted stained the recipient with personal
infamy."[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 had
the tactics practised at New York been equaled. The convention of 1844
must always be ranked as a masterpiece of manipulation, but its
diplomacy was played to defeat Van Buren rather than nominate a
candidate. In 1852 circumstances combined to prevent the nomination of
the convention's first or second choice, and in the end, as a
ball-player at the bat earns first base through the errors of a
pitcher, Franklin Pierce benefited. But in 1868 nothing was gained by
errors. Although there was a chief candidate to defeat, it was not
done with a bludgeon as in 1844. Nor were delegates allowed to
stampede to a "dark horse" as in 1852. On the contrary, while the
leading candidate suffered slow strangulation, the most conspicuous
man in the party was pushed to the front with a sagacity and firmness
that made men obey the dictates of a superior intelligence, and to
people 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 the
vote of the New York delegation did nothing to attract attention. But
the foresight exhibited in changing from Church to Hendricks on the
eighth ballot discovered a mind singularly skilled in controlling the
actions of men. The play appeared the more remarkable after the
revelation of its influence. New York did not want Hendricks. Besides,
up to that time, the Hoosier had received less than forty votes, his
own State refusing to unite in his support. Moreover, since adjoining
States save Michigan warmly advocated Pendleton, all sources of growth
seemed closed to him. Yet Tilden's guiding hand, with infallible
sagacity, placed New York's thirty-three votes on Indiana and
absolutely refused to move them. To dispose of Hendricks, Vallandigham
and other Ohio delegates offered to support Chase, and if the chairman
of the New York delegation had led the way, a formidable coalition
must have carried the convention for the Chief Justice. But the man
whose subtile, mysterious influence was already beginning to be
recognised as a controlling factor in the party desired Seymour, and
to force his nomination he met at Delmonico's, on the evening of the
fourth day, Allen G. Thurman, George E. Pugh, Washington McLean,
George W. McCook, and George W. Morgan, Ohio's most influential
delegates, and there arranged the _coup d'état_ that succeeded so
admirably. This scheme remained a profound secret until the Ohio
delegation retired for consultation after the twenty-first ballot, so
that when Seymour was addressing the New York delegation in behalf of
Chase, Tilden knew of the pending master-stroke. "The artful Tilden,"
said Alexander Long, a well-known politician of the day, "is a
candidate for the United States Senate, and he thinks that with
Seymour the Democrats can carry both branches of the New York
Legislature."[1182]

[Footnote 1182: New York _Times_, September 4, 1868.]

Tilden disclaimed all instrumentality in bringing about the
nomination. "I had no agency," he wrote, "in getting Governor Seymour
into his present scrape."[1183] He likewise professed ignorance as to
what the convention would do. "I did not believe the event possible,"
he said, "unless Ohio demanded it."[1184] This admission, frankly
conceding 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 with
the approval of Pendleton's supporters he quickly retired instead of
further insisting upon his declination. This insinuation allied his
dramatic performance with Tilden's tactics, and he hesitated to expose
himself to such a compromising taunt. In this emergency Tilden
endeavoured very adroitly to ease his mind. "My judgment is," he wrote
a mutual friend, "that acceptance under present circumstances would
not compromise his repute for sincerity or be really misunderstood by
the people; that the case is not analogous to the former instances
which have made criticism possible; that the true nature of the
sacrifice should be appreciated, while on the other hand the opposite
course would be more likely to incite animadversion; that, on the
whole, acceptance is the best thing. I think a decision is necessary,
for it is not possible to go through a canvass with a candidate
declining. I am sincerely willing to accept such action as will be
most for the honour of our friend; at the same time my personal wish
is acceptance. You may express for me so much on the subject as you
find 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 nor
explained. "The nomination," he wrote, "was unsought and unexpected. I
have been caught up by the overwhelming tide which is bearing us on to
a great political change, and I find myself unable to resist its
pressure."[1186] Those who recalled the Governor's alleged tortuous
course at Chicago and again at Albany in 1864 did not credit him with
the candour that excites admiration. "Such men did not believe in the
sincerity 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 by
which Horatio Seymour obtained his nomination," he wrote, "are
characteristic of that political cunning which has marked his career.
The whole affair was an adroit specimen of political hypocrisy, by
which the actual favourite of the majority was not only sold, but was
induced 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 campaign
occurred in Vermont. Although largely Republican the Democrats made an
unusually animated contest, sending their best speakers and furnishing
the needed funds. Nevertheless, the Republicans added 7,000 to their
majority of the preceding year. This decisive victory, celebrated in
Albany on September 2, had a depressing influence upon the Democratic
State convention then in session, ending among other things the
candidacy of Henry C. Murphy for governor. The up-State opponents of
the Tweed ring, joined by the Kings County delegation, hoped to make a
winning combination against John T. Hoffman, and for several days
Murphy stood up against the attacks of Tammany, defying its threats
and refusing to withdraw. But he wilted under the news from Vermont.
If not beaten in convention, he argued, defeat is likely to come in
the election, and so, amidst the noise of booming cannon and parading
Republicans, he allowed Hoffman to be nominated by acclamation.[1189]

[Footnote 1189: "Then we have John T. Hoffman, who is kept by Tammany
Hall as a kind of respectable attaché. His humble work is to wear good
clothes and be always gloved, to be decorous and polite; to be as much
a model of deportment as Mr. Turvydrop; to repeat as often as need be,
in a loud voice, sentences about 'honesty' and 'public welfare,' but
to appoint to rich places such men as Mr. Sweeny. Hoffman is kept for
the edification of the country Democrats, but all he has or ever can
have comes from Tammany Hall."--_Ibid._, March 5, 1868.]

In the selection of a lieutenant-governor Tammany did not fare so
well. Boss Tweed, in return for Western support of Hoffman, had
declared for Albert P. Laning of Buffalo, and until District Attorney
Morris of Brooklyn seconded the nomination of another, Laning's
friends had boasted a large majority. Morris said he had no objection
to Laning personally. He simply opposed him as a conspirator who had
combined with Tammany to carry out the programme of a grasping clique.
He wished the country delegates who had unconsciously aided its
wire-pulling schemes to understand that it sought only its own
aggrandisement. It cared nothing for the Democratic party except as it
contributed to its selfish ends. This corrupt oligarchy, continued the
orator, his face flushed and his eyes flashing with anger, intends
through Hoffman to control the entire patronage of the State, and if
Seymour is elected it will grasp that of the whole country. Suppose
this offensive ring, with its unfinished courthouse and its thousand
other schemes of robbery and plunder, controls the political power of
the State and nation as it now dominates the metropolis, what honest
Democrat can charge corruption to the opposite party? Did men from the
interior of the State understand that Hoffman for governor means a
ring magnate for United Sates senator? That is the game, and if it
cannot be played by fair means, trickery and corruption will
accomplish it. Kings County, which understands the methods of this
clique, has not now and he hoped never would have anything in common
with it, and he warned the country members not to extend its wicked
sway.[1190]

[Footnote 1190: New York _Times_, _World_, and _Tribune_, September 3,
1868.]

Morris' speech anticipated the startling disclosures of 1871, and as
the orator raised his voice to a pitch that could easily be heard
throughout the hall, the up-State delegates became deeply interested
in his words. He did not deal in glittering generalities. He was a
prosecuting officer in a county adjoining Tammany, and when he
referred to the courthouse robbery he touched the spot that reeked
with corruption. The Ring winced, but remained speechless. Tweed and
his associate plunderers, who had spent three millions on the
courthouse and charged on their books an expenditure of eleven, had
no desire to stir up discussion on such a topic and be pilloried by a
cross-examination on the floor of the convention. A majority of the
delegates, however, convinced that Tammany must not control the
lieutenant-governor, nominated Allen C. Beach of Jefferson, giving him
77 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 his
hasty withdrawal from the contest. Morris intended arraigning Tammany
in his speech, nominating the Brooklyn Senator for governor, and the
latter's supporters believed that Hoffman, whom they recognised as the
personal representative of the Tweed ring, must have gone down under
the disclosures of the District Attorney quite as easily as did
Laning. This hasty opinion, however, did not have the support of
truth. Hoffman's campaign in 1866 strengthened him with the people of
the up-counties. To them he had a value of his own. In his speeches he
had denounced wrongs and rebuked corruption, and his record as mayor
displayed no disposition to enrich himself at the expense of his
reputation. 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 came
from men whom it had hurt. Even Greeley's historic philippic, as
famous for its style as for its deadly venom, came in revenge for
Tweed'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, New
York; Lieutenant-Governor, Allen C. Beach, Jefferson; Canal
Commissioner, Oliver Bascom, Washington; Inspector of Prisons, David
B. 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 Republican
opponents in New York. It was admitted that he would adorn the great
office, and that if elected he could act with more authority and
independence than Chief Justice Chase, since the latter must have been
regarded by Congress as a renegade and distrusted by Democrats as a
radical. It was agreed, also, that the purity of Seymour's life, his
character for honesty in financial matters, and the high social
position which he held, made him an especially dangerous adversary in
a State that usually dominated a national election. On the other hand,
his opponents recalled that whenever a candidate for governor he had
not only run behind his ticket, but had suffered defeat three out of
five times. It was suggested, too, that although his whole public life
had 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 this
criticism Seymour's supporters justly replied that as governor, in
1853, he had boldly championed the great loan of ten and one-half
millions for the Erie Canal enlargement.

As usual national issues controlled the campaign in New York. Although
both parties denounced corruption in the repair of the Erie Canal, the
people seemed more concerned in a return of good times and in a better
understanding between the North and South. The financial depression of
the year before had not disappeared, and an issue of greenbacks in
payment of the 5-20 bonds, it was argued, would overcome the policy
of contraction which had enhanced the face value of debts and
decreased the price of property. Pendleton's tour through Maine
emphasised this phase of the financial question, and while Democrats
talked of "The same currency for ploughboy and bondholder,"
Republicans insisted upon "The best currency for both ploughboy and
bondholder."

The campaign in Maine, however, satisfied Republicans that the
Southern question, forced into greater prominence by recent acts of
violence, had become a more important issue than the financial
problem. In Saint Mary's parish, Louisiana, a Republican sheriff and
judge were shot, editors and printers run out of the county, and their
newspaper offices destroyed. But no arrests followed. In Arkansas a
Republican deputy sheriff was tied to a negro and both killed with one
shot. In South Carolina a colored State senator, standing on the
platform of a street car, suffered the death penalty, his executioners
publicly boasting of their act. In Georgia negro members of the
Legislature were expelled. Indeed, from every Southern State came
reports of violence and murder. These stories were accentuated by the
Camilla riot in Georgia, which occurred on September 19. With banners
and music three hundred Republicans, mostly negroes, were marching to
Camilla to hold a mass meeting. Two-thirds of them carried arms.
Before reaching the town the sheriff endeavoured to persuade them to
lay aside their guns and revolvers, and upon their refusal a riot
ensued, in which eight or nine negroes were killed and twenty or
thirty wounded. As usual their assailants escaped arrest and injury.
General Meade, commander of the department, reported that "the authors
of this outrage were civil officers who, under the guise of enforcing
the law and suppressing disorder, had permitted a wanton sacrifice of
life and blood."[1193]

[Footnote 1193: Report of the Secretary of War, 1868, p. 81.]

The mere recital of these incidents aroused Northern feeling. It was
the old story--murder without arrests or investigation. The
knowledge, too, that it was in part the work of the Ku-Klux-Klan, a
secret organisation pledged to disfranchise the negro by intimidation,
intensified the bitterness. It is probably true that many reported
atrocities were merely campaign stories. It is likely, too, that horse
thieves and illicit distillers screened their misdeeds behind the
Ku-Klux. It is well understood, also, that ambitious carpet-bag
agitators, proving bad instructors for negroes just emerging from
slavery, added largely to the list of casualties, making crime appear
general throughout the South. But whether violence was universal or
sporadic Republicans believed it a dangerous experiment to commit the
government to the hands of "rebels and copperheads," and in their
contest to avoid such an alleged calamity they emphasised Southern
outrages and resurrected Seymour's speech to the draft rioters in
July, 1863. To give the latter fresh interest Nast published a cartoon
entitled "Matched,"[1194] which represented Grant demanding the
unconditional surrender of Vicksburg, while Seymour, addressing a mob
of foreigners wet with the blood of their victims, called them "my
friends." Nast presented another cartoon which disturbed the
Democracy. It represented John T. Hoffman standing before a screen
behind which a gang of thieves was busily rifling the city treasury.
The face of Hoffman only was depicted, but the picture's serious note
of warning passed for more than a bit of campaign pleasantry. Frank P.
Blair, the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, also furnished a
text for bitter invective because of his declaration that "there is
but one way to restore the government and the Constitution and that is
for the President-elect to declare the Reconstruction Acts null and
void, compel the army to undo its usurpations at the South, disperse
the carpet-bag State governments, allow the white people to reorganise
their own governments and elect senators and representatives."[1195]
Republicans charged that this represented the Democratic policy. On
the other hand, the closing sentence of Grant's brief letter of
acceptance, "Let us have peace," became the shibboleth of his
followers, who claimed that the courteous and deferential spirit shown
at Appomattox would characterise his administration. Indeed, the issue
finally resolved itself to "Blair and Revolution" or "Grant and
Peace," and after a contest of unusual bitterness Republicans carried
the October States, although with greatly reduced majorities.
Pennsylvania gave only 10,000, Ohio 17,000, and Indiana less than
1,000.

[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 great
energy. Blair went to the rear and Seymour took the stump. With
studied moderation Seymour had written his letter of acceptance to
catch the wavering Republican voter. He made it appear that the South
was saved from anarchy by the military, and that the North, to the
sincere regret of many Republicans and their ablest journals, was no
longer controlled by the sober judgment of the dominant party's safest
leaders. "There is hardly an able man who helped to build up the
Republican organisation," he said, "who has not within the past three
years warned it against its excesses." These men he pictured as forced
to give up their sentiments or to abandon their party, arguing that
the latter's policy must be more violent in future unless checked by a
division of political power. "Such a division," he said, adroitly
seeking to establish confidence in himself, "tends to assure the peace
and good order of society. The election of a Democratic Executive and
a majority of Democratic members to the House of Representatives would
not give to that party organisation the power to make sudden or
violent changes, but it would serve to check those extreme measures
which have been deplored by the best men of both political
organisations."[1196]

[Footnote 1196: Horatio Seymour, _Public Record_, p. 345.]

Preaching this gospel of peace Seymour passed through Western New
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, attempting to
overcome the prestige of Grant's great fame, and to stem the tide of
Northern prejudice against Southern outrages. Meanwhile Roscoe
Conkling, having returned from a pleasure trip to Denver, entered the
campaign with earnestness against his brother-in-law. He desired
especially to carry Oneida County, to which he devoted his energies in
the closing days of the contest, making a schoolhouse canvass that
lifted the issue above local pride in its distinguished citizen who
headed the Democratic ticket. In going the rounds he met "Black
Paddy," a swarthy Irishman and local celebrity, who announced that he
had "turned Democrat."

"How so?" asked the Senator.

"Shure, sir," replied the quick-witted Celt, "O'im payin' ye a
compliment 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 many
years, William H. Seward returned to Auburn to speak to his neighbors
and townsmen. No one then realised that this was to be his last
political meeting, or that before another presidential election
occurred he would have entered upon his long sleep on Fort Hill. But
the hall was as full as if it had been so advertised. He was neither
an old man, being sixty-seven, nor materially changed in appearance.
Perhaps his face was a trifle thinner, his hair lighter, and his jaw
more prominent, but his mental equipment survived as in the olden days
when the splendid diction hit the tone and temper of the anti-slavery
hosts. His speech, however, showed neither the spirit that nerved him
in the earlier time, nor the resources that formerly sustained him in
vigorous and persuasive argument. He spoke rather in a vein of
extenuation and reminiscence, as one whose work, judged by its
beginnings, 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 his
old associates, who bitterly resented his apparent indifference in the
great contest, while men of a younger generation, looking at him with
wonder and interest, found it hard to realise that he had been one of
the most conspicuous and energetic figures in political life. How
complete was the loss of his political influence is naïvely
illustrated by Andrew D. White. "Mr. Cornell and I were arranging a
programme for the approaching annual commencement when I suggested Mr.
Seward for the main address. Mr. Cornell had been one of Mr. Seward's
lifelong supporters, but he received this proposal coldly, pondered it
for a few moments silently, and then said dryly: 'Perhaps you are
right, but if you call him you will show to our students the deadest
man 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 the
Democrats. "Speaking from an experience of more than thirty years in
political observation and political action," he said, "I do not
hesitate to say that in no presidential conflict since the days of
Andrew Jackson have omens of victory to any party or any cause been so
clear, so numerous, and so inspiring as those which now cheer the
party of the national Democracy to battle in the cause of American
liberty."[1200] The victory of 1867, in the opinion of leading
Democrats, had removed the Empire State from the doubtful list, but
while proclaiming their confidence of success many of them knew that a
confidential circular, issued from the rooms of the Democratic State
Committee and bearing the signature of Samuel J. Tilden, instructed
certain persons in each of the up-State counties to telegraph William
M. Tweed, "the minute the polls close and at his expense," the
probable Republican majority.[1201] Its purpose was plain. The
conspirators desired to know how many fraudulent votes would be needed
to overcome the Republican superiority, and their method, then novel
and ingenious, avoided all chance of failure to carry the State.
Tilden denied knowledge of this circular. He also disclaimed its evil
purpose, but preferred to remain silent rather than denounce the
forgers.[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's
Weekly_, September 30, 1876.]

Forewarned by the returns of 1867 Griswold's supporters, fearing fraud
in the metropolis, invoked the aid of the United States Court to
prevent the use of forged naturalisation papers, which resulted in the
indictment of several men and the publication of fraudulent registry
lists. Against such action John T. Hoffman, as mayor, violently
protested. "We are on the eve of an important election," said his
proclamation. "Intense excitement pervades the whole community.
Unscrupulous, designing, and dangerous men, political partisans, are
resorting to extraordinary means to increase it. Gross and unfounded
charges of fraud are made by them against those high in authority.
Threats are made against naturalised citizens, and a federal grand
jury has been induced to find, in great haste and secrecy, bills of
indictment for the purpose, openly avowed, of intimidating them in the
discharge of their public duties.... Let no citizen, however, be
deterred by any threats or fears, but let him assert his rights boldly
and resolutely, and he will find his perfect protection under the laws
and the lawfully constituted authorities of the State. By virtue of
authority invested in me I hereby offer a reward of $100 to be paid on
the arrest and conviction of any person charged ... with intimidating,
obstructing or defrauding any voter in the exercise of his right as an
elector."[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 disappointed
the Democrats. Grant obtained 214 electoral votes in twenty-six
States, while Seymour secured 80 in eight States. In New York,
however, the conspirators did their word well. Although the
Republicans won a majority in both branches of the Legislature and
elected eighteen of the thirty-one congressmen, Seymour carried the
State by 10,000 and Hoffman by 27,946.

After the election the Union League Club charged that in New York City
false naturalisation and fraudulent voting had been practised upon a
gigantic scale. It appeared from its report that one man sold seven
thousand fraudulent naturalisation certificates; that thousands of
fictitious names, with false residences attached, were enrolled, and
that gangs of repeaters marched from poll to poll, voting many times
in succession. The _Tribune_ showed that in twenty election districts
the vote cast for Hoffman largely exceeded the registry lists, already
heavily padded with fictitious names, and that by comparison with
other years the aggregate State vote clearly revealed the work of the
conspirators.[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 the
sinks and dens of the great city have overborne the truthful vote and
voice of the Empire State. The country knows this, and the Democratic
party, flushed with a victory which fraud has won, hardly cares to
deny it."[1206] A few months later Conkling spoke of it as a well known
fact that John T. Hoffman was counted in. "The election was a
barbarous burlesque," he continued. "Many thousand forged
naturalisation papers were issued; some of them were white and some
were coffee-coloured. The same witnesses purported to attest hundreds
and thousands of naturalisation affidavits, and the stupendous fraud
of the whole thing was and is an open secret.... Repeating, ballot-box
stuffing, ruffianism, and false counting decided everything. Tweed
made the election officers, and the election officers were corrupt.
Thirty thousand votes were falsely added to the Democratic majority in
New York and Brooklyn alone. Taxes and elections were the mere spoil
and booty of a corrupt junta in Tammany. Usurpation and fraud
inaugurated a carnival of corrupt disorder; and obscene birds without
number swooped down to the harvest and gorged themselves on every side
in 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 investigate
naturalisation frauds in the city of New York, reported that prior to
1868 the Common Pleas and Superior Courts, controlling matters of
naturalisation, annually averaged, from 1856 to 1867, 9,000 new
voters, but that after the Supreme Court began making citizens on
October 6, 1868, the number rapidly increased to 41,112. Several
revelations added interest to this statement. Judge Daly served in the
Common Pleas, while McCunn, Barnard, Cardozo, and others whom Tweed
controlled, sat in the Supreme and Superior Courts. Daly required from
three to five minutes to examine an applicant, but McCunn boasted that
he could do it in thirty seconds, with the result that the Supreme
Court naturalised from 1,800 to 2,100 per day, whereas the Common
Pleas 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 week
one of our 'upright judges,'" said the _Nation_, "invited a friend to
sit by him while he played a little joke. Then he left off calling
from the list before him and proceeded to call purely imaginary names
invented by himself on the spur of the moment: John Smith, James
Snooks, Thomas Noakes, and the like. For every name a man instantly
answered and took a certificate. Finally, seeing a person scratching
his head, the judge called out, 'George Scratchem!' 'Here,' responded
a voice. 'Take that man outside to scratch,' said his honour to an
usher, 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 committee
submitted valuable evidence contributed by the clerks of these courts.
Instead of printing the usual number of blank certificates based on
the annual average of 9,000, they ordered, between September 16 and
October 23, more than seven times as many, or 69,000, of which 39,000
went to the Supreme Court. As this court had just gone into the
naturalisation business the order seemed suspiciously large. At the
time of the investigation 27,068 of these certificates were
unaccounted for, and the court refused an examination of its records.
However, by showing that the vote cast in 1868, estimated upon the
average rate of the increase of voters, should have been 131,000
instead 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 "the
35,000 voters naturalised in this city alone, 10,000 are perhaps
rightly admitted, 10,000 have passed through the machine without
having been here five years, and the other 15,000 have never been near
the courtroom."[1209] A table also published by the committee showed
the ratio of votes to the population at each of the five preceding
presidential elections to have been 1 to 8, while in 1868 it was 1 to
4.65. "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, after
examining Hoffman and Tweed, who disclaimed any knowledge of the
transactions 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 the
fraudulent vote did not exceed 2,000, divided equally between the two
parties. Moreover, it pronounced the investigation a shameful effort
to convict the Democracy of crimes that were really the result of the
long-continued misgovernment of the Republicans. If that party
controlled the city, declared one critic, it would become as adept in
"repeating" as it was in "gerrymandering" the State, whose Legislature
could not be carried by the Democrats when their popular majority
exceeded 48,000 as in 1867. This sarcastic thrust emphasised the
notorious gerrymander which, in spite of the Tammany frauds, gave the
Republicans 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 Republicans
into a fierce contest over the choice of a successor to Edwin D.
Morgan, whose term in the United States Senate ended on March 4. In
bitterness it resembled the historic battle between Weed and Greeley
in 1861. Morgan had made several mistakes. His support of Johnson
during 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 to
identify him with the Johnsonised federal officials. To overcome this
distrust he presented letters from Sumner and Wade, testifying to his
loyalty to the more radical element of the party.[1211] A revival of
the story of his opposition to Wadsworth in 1862 also embarrassed him.
He had overcome it when first elected to the Senate by the sustaining
hand of Thurlow Weed, whose position in the management of the party
was strengthened by Wadsworth's defeat; but now Weed was absent, and
to aid in meeting the ugly charges which rendered his way devious and
difficult, Morgan had recourse to Edwin M. Stanton, who wrote that
Wadsworth, distinguishing the Senator from his betrayers, repeatedly
spoke 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 concealed
under the coils of Conkling's position. It was manifest that the
latter's admirers were combining to depose Reuben E. Fenton, Morgan's
chief competitor for the senatorial toga. Chester A. Arthur, looking
into 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 would
yield to the greater gifts of Conkling and the purpose, now so
apparent, was to crush Fenton and make Conkling the head of an
organisation which should include both Senators. John A. Griswold
understood 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 the
election of Truman G. Younglove for speaker. They were dominated,
also, by the favourite doctrine of political leaders that organisation
must be maintained and victory won at any cost save by a revolution in
party policy, and they entered the senatorial contest with a courage
as sublime as it was relentless. Their chief, too, possessed the
confidence of the party. His radicalism needed no sponsors. Besides,
his four years' service as governor, strengthened by the veto of
several bills calculated to increase the public burdens, had received
the unmistakable approval of the people.

Nevertheless he was heavily handicapped. Greeley, still smarting under
Fenton's failure to support him for governor in 1868, declared for
Marshall O. Roberts, while Noah Davis, surprised at his insincerity,
aided Morgan. If Greeley's grievance had merit, Davis' resentment was
certainly justified. The latter claimed that after Conkling's election
in 1867, Fenton promised to support him in 1869, and that upon the
Governor's advice, to avoid the prejudice against a judge who engaged
in politics, he had resigned from the Supreme Court and made a winning
race for Congress.[1213]

[Footnote 1213: New York _World_, January 6, 1869.]

But the _Commercial Advertiser_, a journal then conducted by
Conservatives, placed the most serious obstacle in Fenton's pathway,
charging that an intimate friend of the Governor had received $10,000
on two occasions after the latter had approved bills for the New York
Dry Dock and the Erie Railroad Companies.[1214] Although the _Sun_
promptly pronounced it "a remarkable piece of vituperation,"[1215] and
the _Tribune_, declaring "its source of no account," called it "a most
scurrilous diatribe,"[1216] the leading Democratic journal of the State
accepted it as "true."[1217] The story was not new. In the preceding
summer, during an investigation into the alleged bribery of members of
the Legislature of 1868, Henry Thompson, an Erie director, was asked
if his company paid Governor Fenton any money for approving the bill
legalising the acts of its directors in the famous "Erie war."
Thompson refused to answer as the question fell without the scope of
the committee's jurisdiction. Thereupon Thomas Murphy testified that
Thompson told him that he saw two checks of $10,000 each paid to
Hamilton Harris, the Governor's legal adviser, under an agreement that
Fenton should sign the bill. Murphy added that afterwards, as chairman
of a Republican political committee, he asked Jay Gould, president of
the Erie company, for a campaign contribution, and was refused for the
reason that he had already given $20,000 for Fenton. Harris and Gould
knew 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 not
include this testimony in his report, and the startling and improbable
publication in the _Commercial Advertiser_ must have withered as the
sensation of a day, had not the belief obtained that the use of money
in senatorial contests played a prominent and important part. This
scandalous practice was modern. Until 1863 nothing had been heard of
the use of money in such contests. But what was then whispered, and
openly talked about in 1867 as Conkling testified, now became a common
topic 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 legislator
is always for sale, but Speaker Younglove, an assemblyman of long
experience, knowing that good committee appointments were more potent
than other influences, tactfully withheld the announcement of his
committees. Such a proceeding had never before occurred in the history
of the State, and twelve years later, when George H. Sharpe resorted
to the same tactics, William B. Woodin declared that it made Younglove
"a political corpse."[1220] Nevertheless, Morgan soon understood that
chairmanships and assignments on great committees were vastly more
attractive than anything he had to offer, and on January 16 (1869) the
first ballot of the caucus gave Fenton 52 votes to 40 for Morgan. A
month later, Richard M. Blatchford, then a justice of the United
States Supreme Court, wrote Thurlow Weed: "Morgan loses his election
because, 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 he
held seventeen city offices.[1222] But one more place did not embarrass
him, and in entering upon his new career he promptly invoked the
tactics that strengthened him in the metropolis. Through the influence
of a Republican colleague on the Board of Supervisors he secured
appointments upon the important committees of Finance and Internal
Affairs, the first passing upon all appropriations, and the second
controlling most of the subordinate legislation in the State including
Excise measures. This opportunity for reviewing general legislation
gave him the advantage of a hawk circling in the sky of missing no
chance for plunder. By means of generous hospitality and a natural
affability he quickly won the esteem of his fellow senators, many of
whom responded to his gentle suggestion of city clerkships for
constituents. In his pretended zeal to serve Republicans he had
offered, during the recent contest for United States senator, to
marshal the Democrats to the support of Charles J. Folger, the leader
of the Senate, provided two Republican senators and twelve assemblymen
would vote for him.[1223] Persons familiar with Tweed's true character
understood that a senator of Folger's integrity and ability would be
less in the way at Washington than in Albany, but his apparent desire
to 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 in
the session, began debauching the tax levies for the city and county
of 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. The
tax levies contained items of expense based upon estimates by the
different departments of the municipal and county governments. They
were prepared by the comptroller, examined by the city council and
county supervisors respectively, and submitted to the Legislature for
its approval. In the process they might be swelled by the comptroller
and the two boards, but the Legislature, acting as an outside and
disinterested party, usually trimmed them. Tweed, however, proposed to
swell them again. Accordingly projects for public improvements,
asylums, hospitals, and dispensaries that never existed except on
paper, appeared as beneficiaries of county and city. The comptroller
concealed these thefts by the issue of stocks and bonds and the
creation of a floating debt, which formed no part of his
statements.[1224] When the committee on appropriations reported these
additions, "the increase," it was claimed in the progress of the
discussion, "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 of
Republicans, gave rise to numerous charges of bribery and corruption.
"It was fully believed here," said the _Tribune_, "that tax levies
supplied the means for fabricating naturalisation papers and hiring
repeaters whereby Republicans were swindled out of the vote of this
State."[1225] Other corrupt practices in connection with important
railroad legislation, having special reference to the passage of the
so-called "Erie Bill," likewise attracted public attention. But
Matthew Hale's investigating committee, after a long and fruitless
session in the summer of 1868, expressed the opinion that the crime of
bribery could not be proven under the law as it then existed, since
both parties to the transaction were liable to punishment. This led
to a new statute exempting from prosecution the giver of a bribe which
was accepted.

[Footnote 1225: New York _Tribune_, July 24, 1869.]

However, the Legislature elected in November, 1868, proved no less
plastic in the hands of the Boss, who again corrupted the tax levies.
After allowing every just item the committee coolly added six
millions,[1226] an amount subsequently reduced to three.[1227] This
iniquity was immediately denounced and exposed through pamphlets,
journals, and debates. Men frankly admitted that no reason or economic
principle justified the existence of such monstrous levies. Indeed,
every honest influence, legal, social, and political, opposed it. The
press condemned it, good men mourned over it, and wise men unmasked
it. But with the help of twenty Republicans, backed by the approval of
John T. Hoffman, the bill became a law. This time, however,
indignation did not die with the Legislature. The _Tribune_, charging
that the twenty Republican assemblymen whose names it published were
"bought and paid with cash stolen by means of tax levies," insisted
that "the rascals" should not be renominated. "We firmly believe," it
added, "that no Republican voted for these levies except for pay ...
and we say distinctly that we do not want victory this fall if it is
to 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, packed
conventions, renominated the black-listed legislators, and spread such
demoralisation that George William Curtis, Thomas Hillhouse, and John
C. Robinson withdrew from the State ticket. As a punishment for his
course the State Committee, having little faith in the election of its
candidates, substituted Horace Greeley for comptroller in place of
Hillhouse.[1229] In accepting the nomination Greeley expressed the
hope 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 on
September 30, 1869, nominated the following ticket: Secretary of
state, 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; Prison
Inspector, 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 were
subsequently substituted for Curtis, Hillhouse, and Robinson.]

[Footnote 1230: New York _Tribune_, October 11, 1869.]

If corruption had demoralised Republicans, fear of a repetition of the
Tweed frauds paralysed them. The plan of having counties telegraph the
votes needed to overcome an up-State majority could be worked again as
successfully as before, since the machinery existed and the men were
more dexterous. Besides, danger of legal punishment had disappeared.
The Union League Club had established nothing, the congressional
investigation had resulted in no one's arrest, and Matthew Hale's
committee had found existing law insufficient. Moreover, Hale had
reported that newspaper charges were based simply upon rumours
unsupported by proof.[1231]

[Footnote 1231: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1869, p. 486.]

Tweed understood all this, and his confidence whetted an ambition to
control the State as absolutely as he did the city. At the Syracuse
convention which assembled in September (1869) Tilden represented the
only influence that could be vitalised into organised opposition.
Tilden undoubtedly despised Tweed. Yet he gave him countenance and
saved the State chairmanship.[1232]

[Footnote 1232: The Democratic ticket was as follows: Secretary of
state, Homer A. Nelson, Dutchess; Comptroller, William F. Allen,
Oswego; Treasurer, Wheeler H. Bristol, Tioga; Attorney-General,
Marshall B. Champlain, Allegany; State Engineer, Van Rensselaer
Richmond, Wayne; Canal Commissioner, William W. Wright; Prison
Inspector, Fordyce Laflin, Ulster; Court of Appeals, John A. Lott,
Kings; Robert Earl, Herkimer.]

The campaign pivoted on the acceptance or rejection of the new State
constitution, framed by the convention of 1867 and submitted by the
Legislature of 1869. From the first the constitutional convention had
become a political body. Republicans controlled it, and their
insistence upon unrestricted negro suffrage gave colour to the whole
document, until the Democrats, demanding its defeat, focused upon it
their united opposition. As a candidate for comptroller Horace Greeley
likewise 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 and
abuse, however, Greeley paid no attention. "They shall be most welcome
to vote against me if they will evince unabated devotion to the cause
of 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; Allen
for comptroller over Greeley, 26,533; Greeley over Sigel in New York
City, 1,774; Sigel over Greeley in the State, 4,938; against the
constitution, 19,759; majority for the judiciary article, 6,006.--New
York _Tribune_, November 23, 1869.]

Although this result was not unexpected, no one dreamed that the
Democracy would win every department of the State government,
executive, legislative, and judicial. For seventeen years the
Democrats had twice elected the governor and once secured the
Assembly, while the Republicans, holding the Senate continuously and
the governorship and Assembly most of the time, had come to regard
themselves the people's lawmakers and the representatives of executive
authority. But Tweed's quiet canvass in the southern tier of counties
traversed by the Erie Railroad exhibited rare cunning in the capture
of the State Senate. Until this fortress of Republican opposition
surrendered, Hoffman's appointments, like those of Seward in 1839,
could not be confirmed.

After this election William M. Tweed's supremacy was acknowledged. In
1867 he had captured the Assembly and elected most of the State
officials; 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, he
had carried the Senate by four majority, secured the Assembly by
sixteen, and for the third time elected the State officials. This made
him leader of the State Democracy. Seymour so understood it, and
Tilden knew that he existed only as a figurehead.

Tweed's power became more apparent after the Legislature opened in
January, 1870. He again controlled the Assembly committees through
William Hitchman, his speaker; he arranged them to his liking in the
Senate through Allen C. Beach, the lieutenant-governor; and he
sweetened a majority of the members in both houses with substantial
hopes of large rewards. This defeated an organisation, called the
Young Democracy, which hoped to break his power by the passage of a
measure known as the Huckleberry Charter, transferring the duties of
State commissions to the Board of Aldermen. Then Tweed appeared with a
charter. Sweeny was its author and home-rule its alleged object. It
substituted for metropolitan commissions, devised and fostered by
Republicans, municipal departments charged with equivalent duties,
whose heads were appointed by the mayor. It also created a department
of docks, and merged the election of city and state officials. Its
crowning audacity, however, was the substitution of a superintendent
of public works for street commissioner, to be appointed by the mayor
for a term of four years, and to be removable only after an
impeachment trial, in which the entire six judges of the Common Pleas
Court must participate. It was apparent that this charter perpetuated
whatever was most feared in the system of commissions, and obliterated
all trace of the corrective. It was obvious, also, that by placing
officials beyond the reach of everybody interested in their good
behaviour except the Courts, whose aid could be invoked only by the
mayor, and by him only for the extreme offense of malfeasance, it gave
a firmer hold to a Ring actuated by the resolute determination to
enrich 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 its
dangerous features, the _Times_ called it an "abominable
charter,"[1235] and Manton Marble bitterly denounced it. But Tweed
raised no flag of truce, and after the distribution of a million of
dollars the Sweeny charter had an easy passage through both houses,
the Senate recording but two votes against it and the Assembly only
five.[1236] It was said that five Republican senators received $40,000
each, and six others $10,000 each. Six hundred thousand went to a
lobbyist to buy assemblymen.[1237] Within three days after its passage
(April 5) the Governor had approved it, the Mayor had appointed Tweed
to the position of most power, and Sweeny had taken the place of most
lucre. Thereafter, as commissioner of public works, the Boss was to be
"the bold burglar," and his silent partner "the dark plotter." A week
later the departments of police and health, the office of comptroller,
the park commission, and the great law bureau had passed into the
control of their pals, with Connolly as "sneak-thief" and Hall "the
dashing bandit of the gang."[1238] Indeed, a month had scarcely elapsed
before the _ad interim_ Board of Audit, authorised by the Legislature
as an additional scheme for theft, and composed of Tweed, Hall, and
Connolly, 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 of
Tammany Hall_, p. 272; James F. Rhodes, _History of the United
States_, 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 months
of his gubernatorial career his veto of several bills granting aid to
railroads gave promise of independence, but after Tweed and Sweeny
became directors of the Erie he approved the measure enabling corrupt
operators to retain possession of the road for an indefinite period in
defiance of the stockholders. It is probable that the real character
and fatal tendency of his associates had not been revealed to him.
Nevertheless, ambition seems to have blunted a strong, alert mind. The
appointment of Ingraham, Cardozo, and Barnard to the General Term of
the Supreme Court within the city of New York, if further evidence
were needed, revealed the Governor's subserviency. To avoid the Tweed
judges as well as interruption to the business of the Courts, the Bar
Association asked the Executive to designate outside judges. Tweed
understood the real object, and before the lawyers' committee,
consisting of Charles O'Conor, Joseph H. Choate, Henry Nicoll, William
H. Peckham, and William E. Curtis, could reach Albany, the Governor,
under telegraphic instructions from the Boss, appointed the notorious
trio. Such revelations of weakness plunged the _Evening Post_ and
other admirers into tribulation. "The moral of Hoffman's fall," said
the _Nation_, "is that respectable citizens must give up the notion
that good can be accomplished by patting anybody on the back who,
having got by accident or intrigue into high official position, treats
them to a few spasms of virtue and independence.... Had Hoffman held
out against the Erie Ring he would have had no chance of renomination,
all hope of the Presidency would be gone, and he would find himself
ostracised by his Democratic associates."[1240]

[Footnote 1240: The _Nation_, May 27, 1869.]

Hoffman knew this as well as the _Nation_, and his obedience made him
the favourite of the Democratic State convention which assembled at
Rochester on September 21, 1870. It was a Tweed body. When he nodded
the delegates became unanimous. Tilden called it to order and had his
pocket picked by a gentleman in attendance.[1241] "We hope he has a
realising sense of the company he keeps," said the _Nation_, "when he
opens conventions for Mr. Tweed, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Sweeny."[1242] A
week later it expressed the opinion that "Tilden's appearance ought to
be the last exhibition the country is to witness of the alliance of
decent men for any purpose with these wretched thieves and
swindlers."[1243] The plundering Boss denied so much as a hearing to
the Young Democracy whom Tilden encouraged, while their delegates,
without vote or voice or seat, witnessed the renomination of Hoffman
by acclamation, and saw the programme, drafted by Tweed, executed with
unanimity. Mighty was Tammany, and, mightier still, its Tweed! The
Rochester authorities urged the departure of the delegates before
dark, and upon their arrival at Jersey City the next morning the local
police made indiscriminate arrests and locked up large batches of
them, 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, John
T. 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 on
September 7 was not so harmonious as the Tammany body. For several
years Senator Morgan and Governor Fenton had represented the two
sections of the party, the latter, soon after his inauguration on
January 1, 1865, having commenced building his political machine. As
an organiser he had few equals. One writer declares him "the ablest
after Van Buren."[1245] At all events he soon became the head of the
party, controlling its conventions and distributing its patronage.
After entering the Senate he paid assiduous attention to the
President. The repeal of the Tenure-of-Office Act and an effort to
secure the confirmation of Alexander T. Stewart for secretary of the
treasury opened the way to Grant's heart, and for these and other
favours he received the lion's share of appointments. In the meantime
his opponents insisted that under cover of loud radical professions he
had relied wholly upon trickery for success, banning able men and
demoralising 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 a
listening ear. Conkling had not thrust himself upon Grant, but the
more the President tired of Fenton's importunities, the more he liked
Conkling's wit and sarcasm and forceful speech. As patronage gradually
disappeared Fenton redoubled his efforts to retain it, until in his
desperation he addressed a letter to the Chief Executive, referring to
his own presidential aspirations, and offering to withdraw and give
him New York if the question of offices could be satisfactorily
arranged.[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 new
officials, besides holding confidential relations with Tammany, had
been friendly to the Philadelphia movement in 1866 and to Hoffman in
1868. Bitter criticism especially followed the nomination of Thomas
Murphy for collector of New York in place of Moses H. Grinnell. "The
President appointed Murphy without consulting either Senator," says
Stewart, for thirty years a senator from Nevada. "Grant met him at
Long Branch, and being thoroughly acquainted with the country and
quite a horseman he made himself such a serviceable friend that the
Chief Executive thought him a fit person for collector."[1248] The New
York _Times_ said, "the President has taken a step which all his
enemies will exult over and his friends deplore."[1249] The _Tribune_
was more severe. "The objection is not that he belongs to a particular
wing of the Republican party," it said, "but that he does not honestly
belong to any; that his political record is one of treachery well
rewarded; his business record such that the merchants of New York have
no confidence in him; and the record of his relations to the
government such that, until cleared up, he ought to hold no place of
trust under it."[1250] Yet Murphy bore endorsements from men of the
highest respectability. "Of those who in writing recommended his
appointment 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 my
possession."[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 his
friend Stewart to secure Murphy's confirmation "to avoid the possible
appointment of a less deserving man," he hesitated to act. "I told him
that the struggle to confirm Murphy would enlighten the President as
to the political situation in New York, and that he would undoubtedly
accord him the influence to which he was entitled. Then, to force the
fight, 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 his
disloyalty to the party while a member of the State Senate, submitted
proof of his unscrupulous business relations with the leaders of
Tammany, and denounced his political treachery in the gubernatorial
contest of 1866. In this fierce three hours' arraignment the Senator
spared no one. He charged that Charles J. Folger and Chester A. Arthur
had appeared in Washington in Murphy's behalf, because to the latter's
potent and corrupt influence with Tammany, Folger owed his election to
the Court of Appeals in the preceding May,[1253] while Arthur, through
Murphy's unclean bargaining with Tweed, was fattening as counsel for
the New York City Tax Commission.[1254]

[Footnote 1253: Under the provisions of the new judiciary article of
the Constitution a chief justice and six associate justices of the
Court of Appeals were elected on May 17, 1870, each party being
allowed to put up only four candidates for associate justices. To
complete their ticket the Democrats selected Folger and Andrews, two
of the four Republican candidates. The election resulted in the choice
of 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 their
feet, so great was the effect upon them. Toward the conclusion of his
speech Conkling walked down the aisle to a point opposite the seat of
Fenton. 'It is true,' he said, 'that Thomas Murphy is a mechanic, a
hatter by trade; that he worked at his trade in Albany supporting an
aged father and mother and crippled brother, and that while thus
engaged another visited Albany and played a very different rôle.' At
this point he drew from his pocket a court record, and extending it
toward Fenton, he continued,--'the particulars of which I will not
relate except at the special request of my colleague.' Fenton's head
dropped upon his desk as if struck down with a club. The scene in the
Senate 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 much
testimony was taken. Whether accused justly or unjustly (most persons
thought unjustly) it blurred his career. Conkling had a copy of the
proceedings before the criminal court."--_Ibid._ See also _The
Nation_, July 14, 1870.]

It was a desperate battle. For several weeks heated politicians, with
pockets full of affidavits, had hurried to Washington from all parts
of New York, and while it was admitted that the appointee was not a
shining credit to his backers, the belief obtained that the control of
the party in the State depended upon the result. The two Senators so
understood it, and their preparation for the contest omitted all
amenities. Fenton, regardless of whom he hit, relied upon carefully
drawn charges sustained by affidavits; Conkling trusted to a fire of
scathing sarcasm, supported by personal influence with his Democratic
colleagues and the President's power in his own party. The result
showed the senior Senator's shrewdness, for when he ceased talking the
Senate, 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 herculean
effort to show that although Conkling had the ear of the President, he
could control the convention, and his plan included the election of
Charles H. Van Wyck for temporary chairman and himself for permanent
president. No doubt existed that at this moment he possessed great
power. Delegates crowded his headquarters, and a score of lieutenants
reported him far in the lead. From Fenton's accession to the
governorship a majority of the State Committee had supported him,
while chairmen, secretaries, and inspectors of the Republican district
organisations in New York City, many of whom held municipal
appointments under Tweed, had been welded together in the interest of
the Chautauquan's ascendency. To try to break such a combine was
almost attempting the impossible. Indeed, until the President, in a
letter dated August 22, expressed the wish that Conkling might go as a
delegate, the Senator had hesitated to attend the convention.[1256]
Even on the eve of its meeting he counselled with friends on the
policy of not taking his seat, while his backers talked of harmony and
proposed George William Curtis for chairman. The confident Fenton,
having retired for the night, would listen to no compromise. Meanwhile
the senior Senator, accompanied by Thomas Murphy, visited the rooms of
the up-State delegates, telling them that a vote for Fenton was a blow
at the Administration.[1257] This was the argument of desperation. It
meant to one man the loss of a federal office and to another the hope
that one might be gained. Such a significant statement, addressed by
the favourite of the President to internal revenue and post-office
officials, naturally demoralised the Fenton ranks, and when the
convention acted Curtis had 220 votes to 150 for Van Wyck.[1258]
Promptly upon this announcement Conkling, with great cunning, as if
acting the part of a peacemaker, moved that the committee on
organisation report Van Wyck for permanent president. The acceptance
of this suggestion without dissent settled Fenton, who an hour later
heard Conkling named at the head and himself at the foot of the
committee on resolutions.

[Footnote 1256: A.R. Conkling, _Life of Roscoe Conkling_, p. 328. New
York _World_, September 8, 1870.]

[Footnote 1257: The _Nation_, September 15, 1870.]

[Footnote 1258: "During the vote the delegates commenced a system of
cheering, first for Conkling, then for Fenton. Senator Conkling was
very conspicuous throughout the balloting. His friends gathered around
him, while the other side surrounded Fenton, and whenever either moved
their friends cheered.... Had there been a secret ballot Fenton would
have 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 first
time he had a strong majority behind him. He could do as he liked. He
possessed the confidence of the President, the devotion of his
followers, and the admiration of his opponents, who watched his
tactics in the selection of a candidate for governor with deepest
interest. It was a harrowing situation. For several weeks Horace
Greeley had been the principal candidate talked of, and although the
editor himself did not "counsel or advise" his nomination, he admitted
that "he would feel gratified if the convention should deliberately
adjudge him the strongest candidate."[1259] Several circumstances added
to his strength. Conkling had encouraged his candidacy to checkmate
Fenton's support of Marshall O. Roberts. For this reason the President
also favoured him. Besides, Stewart L. Woodford, who really expected
little, offered to withdraw if Greeley desired it,[1260] while DeWitt
C. Littlejohn, always a Titan in the political arena, likewise
side-stepped. These influences, as Conkling intended, silenced Fenton
and 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. No
one really liked him,[1261] while party managers, the shadow of whose
ill-will never ceased to obscure his chances, shook their heads.
Reasons given in 1868 were repeated with greater emphasis, and to
prevent his nomination which now seemed imminent, influences that had
suddenly made him strong were as quickly withdrawn. It was intimated
that the President preferred Woodford, and to defeat Fenton's possible
rally to Roberts use was again made of Curtis. The latter did not ask
such preferment, but Conkling, who had made him chairman, promised him
the governorship and Curtis being human acquiesced. In the fierce
encounter, 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 his
leadership. But Conkling did not then possess the nerve openly to make
war upon Greeley. On the contrary, after secretly informing his
lieutenants of his preference for Curtis, he dodged the vote on the
first ballot and supported Greeley on the second, thus throwing his
friends into confusion. To extricate them from disorder he sought an
adjournment, while Fenton, very adroitly preventing such an excursion
to the repair-shop, forced the convention to support Woodford or
accept Greeley. The feeling obtained that Conkling had lost the
prestige of his early victory, but in securing control of the State
Committee he began the dictatorship that was destined to continue for
eleven 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      258
Greeley     143          139          105-1/2
Curtis      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, Abiah
W. 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, insisting
that "the fault is not to be laid at the door of Senator
Conkling."[1263] Conkling also explained that "Greeley was
pertinaciously supported by all those connected with the custom-house.
He failed from a want of confidence in him, so general among the
delegates that electioneering and persuasion could not prevail against
it, and even those who voted for him declared, in many instances, that
they did so as a harmless compliment, knowing that he could not be
nominated."[1264] Greeley himself avoided the controversy, but his
acknowledgment of Fenton's loyal support and his sharp censure of
Curtis indicated full knowledge of Conkling's strategy, to whom,
however, he imputed no "bad faith," since "his aid had not been
solicited and none promised."[1265] Nevertheless, the great editor did
not forget!

[Footnote 1263: September 10 and 14, 1870.]

[Footnote 1264: From speech of July 23, 1872, New York _Times_, July
24, 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 combined
the spectacular and the dramatic. The platform of each party was
catchy. Both congratulated Germany for its victories and France for
its 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 vexatious
taxes, declared the system of protection a robbery, and resolved that
a license law was more favourable to temperance than prohibition. On
the other hand, Republicans praised the President, arraigned the
Governor, applauded payments on the national debt and the reduction of
taxation, denounced election frauds and subventions to sectarian
schools, and resolved that so long as towns and cities have the right
to license the sale of liquor, they should also have the right to
prohibit its sale. The live issue, however, was Tammany and the Tweed
frauds. Congress had authorised Circuit Courts of the United States to
appoint in every election district one person from each party to watch
the registration and the casting and the count of votes. It had also
empowered United States marshals to appoint deputies to keep order at
the polls and to arrest for offences committed in their presence.
Against these acts the Democrats vigorously protested, declaring them
unconstitutional, revolutionary, and another step toward
centralisation, while Republicans pointed out their necessity in the
interest 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 him
in carrying out his policy of reorganising the party in the
metropolis. For many years, under an arrangement with Tammany,
Republicans had held important municipal positions. This custom had
grown out of the appointment of mixed commissions, created by
Republican legislatures, which divided the patronage between the two
parties. But since 1865, under Fenton's skilful manipulation, these
Tammany-Republicans, as they were called, had become the ardent
promoters of the Fenton machine, holding places on the general and
district committees, carrying primaries with the aid of Democratic
votes, and resorting to methods which fair-minded men did not approve.
Among other things it was charged that Fenton himself had a secret
understanding with Democratic leaders.[1266] These rumours had aroused
the suspicions of many Republicans, who thought it time to dissolve
the Tammany partnership, and having obtained control of the State
Committee in the late convention, Conkling proposed to reorganise the
New York general committee. Fenton was not unmindful of Conkling's
purpose. It had been disclosed in the convention, and to defeat it the
Chautauquan was indifferent to ways and means. During much of the
campaign he absented himself from the State, while threats of avenging
the appointment of Murphy and the removal of Grinnell created the
apprehension 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 lukewarm
throughout the campaign, the Governor absenting himself from the State
much of the time. Late in October he returned from the Western States,
and on the 31st, five days before election, he made a speech." From
Conkling'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 he
had it in tight control. Although he encountered unfriendly
demonstrations, especially in New York, the pettiness of ruffled
vanity did not appear. Nothing could be more easy and graceful than
his manner on these occasions. His expository statements, lucid,
smooth, and equally free from monotony and abruptness, were models of
their kind. In dealing with election frauds in New York his
utterances, without growing more vehement or higher keyed, found
expression in the fire of his eye and the resistless strength of his
words. The proud, bold nature of the man seemed to flash out,
startling and thrilling the hearer by the power of his towering
personality.

Revelations of fraud had been strengthened by the publication of the
Eighth Census. In many election districts it appeared that the count
was three, four, five, and even six times as large as an honest vote
could be. Proofs existed, including in some instances a confession,
that in 1868 the same men registered more than one hundred times under
different names--one man one hundred and twenty-seven times. Instances
were known and admitted in which the same man on the same day voted
more than twenty times for John T. Hoffman. "To perpetuate this
infamy," declared Conkling, "Mayor Hall has invented since the
publication of the census new escapes for repeaters by changing the
numbers and the boundaries of most of the election districts, in some
cases bisecting blocks and buildings, so that rooms on the same
premises are in different districts, thus enabling colonised repeaters
to register and vote often, and to find doors of escape left open by
officials who have sworn to keep them closed." The registration for
1870, although twenty thousand less than in 1868, he declared,
contained seventeen thousand known fraudulent entries.[1268] The
newspapers strengthened his arguments. In one of Nast's cartoons Tweed
as "Falstaff" reviews his army of repeaters, with Hoffman as
sword-bearer, and Comptroller Sweeny, Mayor Hall, James Fisk, Jr., and
Jay Gould as spectators.[1269] Another pre-election cartoon, entitled
"The Power behind the Throne," presented Governor Hoffman crowned and
robed as king, with Tweed grasping the sword of power and Sweeny the
axe 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 or
ignorant of Tweed's misdeeds, rested undisturbed. The Citizens'
Association of New York had memorialised the Legislature to pass the
Tweed charter, men of wealth and character petitioned for its
adoption, and the press in the main approved it.[1271] Even the
_World_, after its bitter attacks in the preceding winter upon the
Ring officials, championed their cause.[1272] "There is not another
municipal government in the world," said Manton Marble, "which
combines so much character, capacity, experience, and energy as are to
be found in the city government of New York under the new
charter."[1273] The final Democratic rally of the campaign also
contributed to Tammany's glory. Horatio Seymour was the guest of honor
and August Belmont chairman. Conspicuous in the list of
vice-presidents were Samuel J. Tilden, George Tichnor Curtis, Augustus
Schell, and Charles O'Conor, while Tweed, with Hoffman and McClellan,
reviewed thirty thousand marchers in the presence of one hundred
thousand people who thronged Union Square, attracted by an
entertainment as lavish as the fêtes of Napoleon III. To many this
prodigal expenditure of money suggested as complete and sudden a
collapse to Tweed as had befallen the French Emperor, then about to
become the prisoner of Germany. In the midst of the noise Seymour,
refraining from committing himself to Tammany's methods, read a
carefully written essay on the canals.[1274] It was noted, too, that
Tilden 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 each
branch of the Legislature. Hall was also re-elected mayor.[1275]
Republicans extracted a bit of comfort out of the reduced majority in
New York City, but to all appearances Tammany had tightened its grip.
Indeed, on New Year's Day, 1871, when Hoffman and Hall, with almost
unlimited patronage to divide, were installed for a second time, the
Boss had reason to feel that he could do as he liked. From a modest
house on Henry Street he moved to Fifth Avenue. At his summer home in
Greenwich he erected a stable with stalls of finest mahogany. His
daughter's wedding became a prodigal exhibition of great wealth, and
admittance to the Americus Club, his favourite retreat, required an
initiation fee of one thousand dollars. To the poor he gave lavishly.
In the winter of 1870-71 he donated one thousand dollars to each
alderman to buy coal and food for the needy. His own ward received
fifty thousand. Finally, in return for his gifts scattered broadcast
to the press and to an army of protégés, it was proposed to erect a
statue "in commemoration of his services to the Commonwealth of New
York." His followers thought him invulnerable, and those who despised
him feared his power. In New York he had come to occupy something of
the position formerly accorded to Napoleon III by the public opinion
of Europe.

[Footnote 1275: Hoffman over Woodford, 33,096. James S. Graham, Labor
Reform candidate, received 1,907 votes, and Myron H. Clark, Temperance
candidate, 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 in
1868. Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1870, p. 547.]

Tweed's legislative achievements, increasing in boldness, climaxed in
the session of 1871 by the passage of the Acts to widen Broadway and
construct the Viaduct Railroad. The latter company had power to grade
streets, to sell five millions of its stock to the municipality, and
to have its property exempted from taxation,[1276] while the Broadway
swindle, estimated to cost the city between fifty and sixty
millions,[1277] enabled members of the Ring to enrich themselves in the
purchase of real estate. To pass these measures Tweed required the
entire Democratic vote, so that when one member resigned to avoid
expulsion for having assaulted a colleague,[1278] he found it necessary
to purchase a Republican to break the deadlock. The character of
Republican assemblymen had materially changed for the better, and the
belief obtained that "none would be brazen enough to take the risk of
selling out;"[1279] but an offer of seventy-five thousand dollars
secured the needed vote.[1280] Thus did the power of evil seem more
strongly 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 assaulted
Smith M. Weed of Clinton.]

[Footnote 1279: New York _Tribune_, April 14, 1871.]

[Footnote 1280: "Winans was unfortunate in his bargain, for after
rendering the service agreed upon Tweed gave him only one-tenth of the
sum promised." Myers' _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 277. It might be
added that Winans' wife left him, and that the contempt of his
neighbours drove him from home. A rumour that he subsequently
committed suicide remains unverified.]

Meanwhile the constant and unsparing denunciation of the New York
_Times_, coupled with Nast's cartoons in _Harper's Weekly_, excited
increasing attention to the Ring. As early as 1869 Nast began
satirising the partnership of Tweed, Sweeny, Connolly, and Hall, and
in 1870 the _Times_ opened its battery with an energy and sureness of
aim that greatly disturbed the conspirators. To silence its suggestive
and relentless attacks Tweed sought to bribe its editor, making an
offer of one million dollars.[1281] A little later he sent word to Nast
that he could have half a million.[1282] Failing in these attempts the
Ring, in November, 1870, secured an indorsement from Marshall O.
Roberts, Moses Taylor, John Jacob Astor, and three others of like
position, that the financial affairs of the city, as shown by the
comptroller's books, were administered correctly. It subsequently
transpired that some of these men were associated with Tweed in the
notorious Viaduct job,[1283] but for the time their certificate
re-established the Ring's credit more firmly than ever. "There is
absolutely nothing in the city," said the _Times_, "which is beyond
the reach of the insatiable gang who have obtained possession of
it."[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 of
Connolly's books, William Copeland, a clerk in the office, was making
a transcript of the Ring's fraudulent disbursements. Copeland was a
protégé of ex-sheriff James O'Brien, who had quarrelled with Connolly
because the latter refused to allow his exorbitant bills, and with the
Copeland transcript he tried to extort the money from Tweed. Failing
in this he offered the evidence to the _Times_. A little later the
same journal obtained a transcript of fraudulent armoury accounts
through Matthew J. O'Rourke, a county bookkeeper. When knowledge of
the _Times'_ possessions reached the Ring, Connolly offered George
Jones, the proprietor, five million dollars to keep silent. "I cannot
consider your proposition," said Jones.[1285]

[Footnote 1285: _Harper's Weekly_, February 22, 1890; Paine, _Life of
Nast_, p. 170.]

The _Times'_ publication of the armoury expenses furnished by O'Rourke
created a sensation, but the excitement over the Copeland evidence
grew into a fierce tempest. These figures, carefully tabulated and
printed in large type, showed that the new courthouse, incomplete and
miserably furnished, involved a steal of $8,000,000. One plasterer
received $38,187 for two days' work. Another, during a part of two
months, drew nearly $1,000,000. A carpenter received $350,000 for a
month's labour. A single item of stationery aggregated $186,495, while
forty chairs and three tables cost $179,729. In supplying aldermen
with carriages, mostly for funerals, two liverymen earned $50,000 in a
few days. Advertising in city newspapers amounted to $2,703,308.
Carpets purchased at five dollars per yard would cover City Hall Park
three times over. As these disclosures appeared in successive issues
the people realised that a gang of very common thieves had been at
work. It was a favourite method to refuse payment for want of money
until a claimant, weary of waiting, accepted the suggestion of
Connolly's agent to increase the amount of his bill. This turned an
honest man into a conspirator and gave the Ring the benefit of the
raise.[1286]

[Footnote 1286: New York _Times_, July 21, 1871.]

On September 4, 1871, a mass meeting of indignant citizens, held in
Cooper Union, created the Committee of Seventy, and charged it with
the conduct of investigations and prosecutions. Before it could act
vouchers and cancelled warrants, covering the courthouse work for 1869
and 1870, had been stolen from the comptroller's office.[1287] This
increased the excitement. At last Connolly, to escape becoming a
scape-goat, appointed Andrew H. Green deputy comptroller, and the
Governor designated Charles O'Conor to act in behalf of the
Attorney-General. Thus the Committee of Seventy passed into complete
control of the situation, and under the pressure of suits and arrests
the Ring rapidly lost its power and finally its existence. On October
26, 1871, Tweed was arrested and held to bail in the sum of
$1,000,000, Jay Gould becoming his chief bondsman. Soon after Sweeny
retired from the Board of Park Commissioners, Connolly resigned as
comptroller, and Tweed gave up the offices of grand sachem of Tammany,
director of the Erie Railway, and commissioner of public works. Of all
his associates Mayor Hall alone continued in office, serving until the
end of 1872, the close of his term.[1288]

[Footnote 1287: Subsequently the charred remains of these accounts were
discovered in an ash-heap in the City Hall attic. Myers, _History of
Tammany 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 a
little more, and say what became of other members of this historic
Ring. When the public prosecutor began his work Sweeny and Connolly
fled to Europe.[1289] After one mistrial, Tweed, found guilty on
fifty-one counts, was sent to prison for twelve years on Blackwell's
Island, but at the end of a year the Court of Appeals reversed the
sentence, holding it cumulative. Being immediately rearrested Tweed,
in default of bail fixed at $3,000,000, remained in jail until his
escape in December, 1875. Disguised by cutting his beard and wearing a
wig and gold spectacles, he concealed his whereabouts for nearly a
year, going to Florida in a schooner, thence to Cuba in a fishing
smack, and finally to Spain, where he was recognised and returned to
New York on a United States man-of-war. He re-entered confinement on
November 23, 1876, and died friendless and moneyless in Ludlow Street
jail on April 12, 1878.

[Footnote 1289: Sweeny afterwards compromised for $400,000 and returned
to New York. Connolly, who was reported to have taken away $6,000,000,
died abroad.]

Meantime the Legislature of 1871 had ordered the impeachment of
Barnard and Cardozo of the Supreme Court, and McCunn of the Superior
Court. Their offences extended beyond the sphere of Tweed's
operations, indicating the greed of a Sweeny and the disregard of all
honorable obligations. Cardozo, the most infamous of the trio, called
the Machiavelli of the Bench, weakened under investigation and
resigned to avoid dismissal. Barnard and McCunn, being summarily
removed, were forever disqualified from holding any office of trust in
the State. McCunn died three days after sentence, while Barnard,
although living for seven years, went to his grave at the early age of
fifty.

The aggregate of the Ring's gigantic swindles is known only
approximately. Henry F. Taintor, the auditor employed by Andrew H.
Green, estimated it between forty-five and fifty millions; an
Aldermanic 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 fraudulent
bonds, the swindling by franchises and favours granted, and
peculation by blackmail and extortion, the grand total would aggregate
two hundred millions. Of the entire sum stolen only $876,000 were
recovered.[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 in
November, 1870, "to trace the genealogy of the feud which has divided
Republicans into what are of late designated Fenton and Conkling men.
Suffice it that the fatal distraction exists and works inevitable
disaster. More effort was made in our last State convention to triumph
over Senator Fenton than to defeat Governor Hoffman, and in selecting
candidates for our State ticket the question of Fenton and anti-Fenton
was more regarded by many than the nomination of strong and popular
candidates. Since then every Fenton man who holds a federal office has
felt of his neck each morning to be sure that his head was still
attached to his shoulders."[1291]

[Footnote 1291: New York _Tribune_, November 10, 1870.]

Conkling's effort to obtain control of the State Committee provoked
this threnody. Subsequently, without the slightest warning, Fenton's
naval officer, general appraiser, and pension agent were removed.[1292]
But as the year grew older it became apparent that designs more fatal
in their consequences than removals from office threatened the Fenton
organisation. It was not a secret that the Governor had kept his
control largely through the management of politicians, entitled
"Tammany Republicans," of whom "Hank" Smith, as he was familiarly
called, represented an active type. Smith was a member of the
Republican State committee and of the Republican general city
committee. He was also a county supervisor and a Tweed police
commissioner. Moreover, he was the very model of a resourceful
leader, acute and energetic, strong and unyielding, and utterly
without timidity in politics. In supporting Fenton he appointed
Republicans to city offices, took care of those discharged from the
custom-house, and used the police and other instruments of power as
freely as Thomas Murphy created vacancies and made appointments.[1293]
In his despotic sway he had shown little regard for opposition leaders
and none whatever for minorities, until at last a faction of the
general city committee, of which Horace Greeley was then chairman,
petitioned the State committee for a reorganisation. So long as Fenton
controlled State conventions and State committees, Smith's iron rule
easily suppressed such seceders; but when the State committee revealed
a majority of Conkling men, with Cornell as chairman, these
malcontents found ready listeners and active sympathisers.

[Footnote 1292: _Ibid._, April 4, 1871.]

[Footnote 1293: "Mr. Murphy's 'weeding out' process is exactly the one
which the devil would use if he were appointed collector of this port,
and that he would perform it on exactly the same principles and with
the same objects and results as Mr. Murphy performs it, we challenge
any one to deny who is familiar with the devil's character and habits
and Mr. Murphy's late doings."--_The Nation_, January 19, 1871.

"No collector was ever more destitute of fit qualifications for the
office." He made "three hundred and thirty-eight removals every five
days 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 entered
upon his famous career. From the time he began life as a boy of
fifteen in an Erie Railroad telegraph office, he had achieved
phenomenal success in business. His talents as an organiser easily
opened the way. He became manager of the Western Union telegraph
lines, the promoter of a steamboat company for Lake Cayuga, and the
director of a national bank at Ithaca. Indeed, he forged ahead so
rapidly that soon after leaving the employ of the Western Union, Jay
Gould charged him with manipulating a "blind pool" in telegraph
stocks.[1294] His education and experience also made him an expert in
political manipulation, until, in 1868, he shone as the Republican
candidate for lieutenant-governor. After his defeat and Grant's
election, he became surveyor of the port of New York, a supporter of
Conkling, and the champion of a second term for the President. His
silence, deepened by cold, dull eyes, justified the title of "Sphinx,"
while his massive head, with bulging brows, indicated intellectual and
executive power. He was not an educated man. Passing at an early age
from his studies at Ithaca Academy into business no time was left him,
if the disposition had been his, to specialise any branch of political
economic science. He could talk of politics and the rapid growth of
American industries, but the better government of great cities and the
need of reform in the national life found little if any place among
his activities. In fact, his close identification with the
organisation had robbed him of the character that belongs to men of
political independence, until the public came to regard him only an
office-holder who owed his position to the favour of a chief whom he
loyally served.

[Footnote 1294: Stephen Fiske, _Off-Hand Portraits_, p. 58.]

Very naturally the scheme of the malcontents attracted Cornell, who
advised Horace Greeley that after careful and patient consideration
the State Committee,[1295] by a vote of 20 to 8, had decided upon an
entire reorganisation of his committee. Cornell further declared that
if their action was without precedent so was the existing state of
political affairs in the city, since never before in the history of
the party had the general committee divided into two factions of
nearly equal numbers, one ordering primaries for the election of a new
committee, and the other calling upon the State committee to direct an
entire reorganisation. However, he continued, abundant precedent
existed for the arbitrary reorganisation of assembly, district, and
ward committees by county committees. Since the State committee bore
the same official relation to county committees that those committees
sustained to local organisations within their jurisdiction, it had
sufficient authority to act in the present crisis.[1296]

[Footnote 1295: "Mr. Conkling had already had much to do with the
appointment of this committee, but it is worthy of note that several
changes in the federal offices were made almost simultaneously with
the vote of the committee for Mr. Murphy's reorganisation, and that
the men who voted for it got the best places. Addison H. Laflin was
made naval officer, Lockwood L. Doty was made pension agent, Richard
Crowley was made United States attorney for the Northern District. It
will be seen that the committee were not disinterested in trying to
please 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 replied
that the State committee was the creature of State conventions,
delegated with certain powers confined to the interval of time between
such conventions. It executed its annual functions and expired. When
contesting delegations from rival general committees had presented
themselves in 1868, the State convention, rather than intrust the
reorganisation to the State committee, appointed a special committee
for the purpose, and when, in 1869, that committee made its report,
the State convention resolved that the general committee of 1870
should thereafter be the regular and the only organisation. Nor was
that all. When a resolution was introduced in the State convention of
1870 to give the State committee power to interfere with the general
committee, the convention frowned and peremptorily dismissed it.
Neither did the State committee, Greeley continued, take anything by
analogy. County committees had never assumed to dissolve or reorganise
assembly or district committees, nor had the power ever been conceded
them, since assembly and district committees were paramount to county
committees. But aside from this the general committee had other and
greater powers than those of county committees, for the State
convention in 1863, in 1866, and again in 1869 ordered that Republican
electors in each city and assembly district should be enrolled into
associations, delegates from each of which composed the general
committee. 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 to
interfere, the State committee, exposing the real reason for its
action, based its right to proceed on the existence of improper
practices, claiming that certain officers and members of the Greeley
and district committees held positions in city departments under the
control of Tammany, and that when members of Republican associations
were discharged from federal offices by reason of Democratic
affiliations, they were promptly appointed to places under Democratic
officials.[1298] To this the Greeley committee replied that Republicans
holding municipal offices did so under a custom growing out of mixed
commissions of Republicans and Democrats, which divided certain places
between the two parties--a custom as old as the party itself, and one
that had received the sanction of its best men. Indeed, it continued,
George Opdyke, a member of the State committee, had himself, when
mayor, appointed well-known Democrats on condition that Republicans
should share the minor offices,[1299] and a Republican governor and
Senate, in placing a Tammany official at the head of the
street-cleaning department, invoked the same principle of
division.[1300] Several members of the State committee had themselves,
until recently, held profitable places by reason of such an
understanding without thought of their party fealty being questioned.
It was a recognition of the rights of the minority. As to the wisdom
of such a policy the committee did not express an opinion, but it
suggested that if members of the general committee or of district
associations, holding such city places, should be charged with party
infidelity, prompt expulsion would follow proof of guilt. It declared
itself as anxious to maintain party purity and fidelity as the State
committee, and for the purpose of investigating all charges it
appointed 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, no
purging of the rolls, no compromise would avail. The charge had gone
forth that "Tammany Republicans" controlled the Greeley committee, and
in reply to the demand for specifications the State committee accused
Henry Smith and others with using Tammany's police, taking orders from
Sweeny, and participating in Ring enterprises to the detriment of the
Republican party.[1302] "These men," said the _Times_, "are receiving
the devil's pay, and consequently, it is to be presumed, are doing the
devil's work. Republicans under Tammany cannot serve two masters. A
Republican has a right to serve Tweed if he chooses. But he ought not
at the same time to be taken into the confidence of Republicans who
wage war against Tammany for debasing the bench, the bar, and every
channel 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 Republicanism
of Cornell and Smith did not differ. They had graced the same ticket;
they had gone harmonious members of the same delegation to the last
State convention; and they were fellow members of the State committee,
created by that convention, Smith being aided thither by Cornell's
vote.[1304] In the presence of such evidence the Fenton faction
declared 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, although
thoroughly honest himself, Greeley had long been associated with the
most selfish politicians in the State outside of Murphy and the
Tammany Ring.[1305] Thus the accusation against "Tammany Republicans"
became a taking cry, since the feeling generally obtained that it was
quite impossible for a man to perform service for Tweed and be a
faithful Republican. Formerly the question had assumed less
importance, but Tammany, identified with fraudulent government, a
corrupt judiciary, and a dishonest application of money, could no
longer be treated as a political organisation. Its leaders were
thieves, it was argued, and a Republican entering their service must
also be corrupt. In his letter to John A. Griswold, Conkling openly
charged the Greeley committee with being corrupted and controlled by
Tammany 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, the
Greeley organisation, by a vote of 99 to 1, declined to be
reorganised. "The determination of the State committee to dissolve the
regular Republican organisation of the city of New York and to create
another, without cause and without power," it said, "is an act
unprecedented in its nature, without justification, incompatible with
the principles and life of the Republican party, and altogether an act
of 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 injustice
and a wrong, agreed to obey it; but an adverse majority of 91 to 9
showed 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 general
city committee to quarrel. For many years Republican contentions in
the metropolis had occupied the attention of the party throughout the
State. In fact a State convention had scarcely met without being
wearied with them. But everything now conspired to make the spirit of
faction unrelenting and to draw the line sharply between friend and
foe. The removal of Grinnell, the declaration of Greeley against
Grant's renomination,[1309] the intense bitterness between Conkling and
Fenton, and the boast of the State committee that it would control
the State convention and substitute its own creature for the Greeley
committee, 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 and
Conkling had ceased. "Mr. Conkling's frenzy," said the _Tribune_,
"generally comes on during executive session, when, if we may be
allowed the metaphor, he gets upon stilts and supports his dignity....
We can see the pose of that majestic figure, the sweep of that
bolt-hurling arm, the cold and awful gleam of that senatorial eye, as
he towers above the listening legislators." It spoke of him as the
"Pet of the Petticoats," the "Apollo of the Senate," the "darling of
the ladies' gallery," who "could look hyacinthine in just thirty
seconds after the appearance of a woman." Then it took a shot at the
Senator's self-appreciation. "No one can approach him, if anybody can
approach him, without being conscious that there is something great
about Conkling. Conkling himself is conscious of it. He walks in a
nimbus of it. If Moses' name had been Conkling when he descended from
the Mount, and the Jews had asked him what he saw there, he would
promptly have replied, 'Conkling!' It is a little difficult to see why
Mr. Conkling did not gain a reputation during the war. Many men took
advantage of it for the display of heroic qualities. But this was not
Conkling's opportunity. Is he a man to make a reputation while his
country is in danger? He was not. Probably he knew best when to hitch
his dogcart to a star. Such a man could afford to wait. Wrapped in the
mantle of his own great opinion of himself, he could afford to let his
great genius prey upon itself until the fulness of time."[1310] Of
course, after this there could be no relations between the editor and
the senator. These editorials recalled the Blaine episode, and
although not so steeped in bitterness, as a character-study they did
not 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 met
at Syracuse on September 27. Except Greeley every prominent leader in
the State attended. The question whether the rival general committee
created by the State organisation should be recognised involved the
whole party, and the audience assembled surpassed any previous
attendance. The presence of a multitude of federal officials as
delegates and leaders indicated that the Administration at Washington
also took a deep interest. There was much doubt and solicitude as to
the result, for no opportunity had been given the factions to measure
strength since the convention of 1870. The nomination of a minority
candidate for speaker of the Assembly in the preceding January had
been claimed as a Fenton victory, but the selection of James W.
Husted, then at the threshold of a long and conspicuous career, did
not turn on such a hinge. Husted had strength of his own. Although
never to become an orator of great power and genuine inspiration, his
quickness of perception, coupled with the manners of an accomplished
gentleman, brilliant in conversation and formidable in debate, made
him a popular favourite whose strength extended beyond faction. Now,
however, the issue was sharply drawn, and when Alonzo B. Cornell
called the convention to order, the opposing forces, marshalled for a
fight to the finish, announced Andrew D. White and Chauncey M. Depew
as their respective candidates for temporary chairman. White's recent
appointment as a commissioner to San Domingo had been a distinct gain
to the President's scheme of annexation, and he now appeared at the
convention in obedience to Cornell's solicitation.[1311] To gain a bit
of advantage Depew, in the interest of harmony, he said, withdrew in
favour of G. Hilton Scribner of Westchester, who had headed a young
men's association formed to allay strife between the rival senators.
The suggestion being accepted, Depew then moved to make Scribner and
White temporary and permanent chairmen. Upon the temporary chairman
depended the character of the committees, and Cornell, with a frown
upon his large, sallow, cleanly shaven face, promptly ruled the motion
out of order. When a Fenton delegate appealed from the Chair's
ruling, 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 and
the shouts of a hundred men stifled the work of the gavel. Police
interference increased the noise. In the midst of the confusion the
stentorian voice of John Cochrane, a Fenton delegate, declared "the
roll entirely wrong."[1312] This aggravated the situation. Finally,
when delegates and chairman had physically exhausted themselves, Waldo
M. Hutchins was allowed to suggest that in all cases of contested
seats the names of delegates be passed. To this Cornell reluctantly
agreed amidst loud applause from the Fenton faction, which desired its
action interpreted as an unselfish concession in the interest of
harmony; but the tremendous surprise subsequently displayed upon the
announcement of White's election by 188 to 159 revealed its
insincerity. It had confidently counted on twenty-one additional
votes, or a majority of thirteen.[1313] Thus, in a moment, were
brightest hopes and fairest prospects blasted.

[Footnote 1312: New York _Tribune_, September 28, 1871.]

[Footnote 1313: "In particular they [the Fenton men] felt sure of one
vote not received from Allegany County, two from Broome, three from
Columbia, two from Cortlandt, three from Dutchess, three from
Jefferson, one from Ontario, three from Washington, and three from
Wayne."--_Ibid._

"Mr. Murphy's office-holders were numerous and active, and turned the
whole 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 was
remarked that while they worked hard, they took no thought of the
reform movement. Their sole object was to control the convention. The
confidence which the delegates placed in them was astonishing, but
more astonishing still was the manner in which Andrew D. White lent
himself 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 declare
it the triumph of patronage; to assert that delegates from Republican
strongholds supported Fenton and that others from counties with
overwhelming Democratic majorities sustained Conkling; to stigmatise
the conduct of Cornell as an unprecedented exhibition of tyranny, and
to charge White with seeking the votes of Fenton members on the plea
that his action would promote harmony,[1314] probably did not economise
the truth. Explanations, however, could not relieve the anguish of
defeat or nerve the weak to greater effort. Many delegates, filled
with apprehension and anxious to be on the winning side, thought
annihilation 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. Of
course the famous president of Cornell University did not select this
committee. He simply followed custom and fathered the list of names
Cornell handed him.[1315] "But in blindly consenting to be thus used by
the State committee," wrote Greeley, "he became the instrument of such
an outrage as no respectable presiding officer of any prominent
deliberative body has ever committed."[1316]

[Footnote 1314: "Mr. White personally sought the votes of Fenton
members for the temporary chairmanship on the pledge that he would so
act as to promote harmony."--New York _Tribune_, October 21, 1871.]

[Footnote 1315: "I received the list of the convention committees from
the State committee with express assurance that the list represented
fairly the two wings of the party. I had no reason then, and have no
reason now, to believe that the State committee abused my
confidence."--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 man
seemed justified after his jug-handle committee had made its
jug-handle report. It favoured seating all contesting delegates
outside of the City, admitted the Greeley delegates and their
opponents with the right to cast half of one vote, and recognised the
organisation established by the State committee as the regular and the
only one. By this time the dullest delegate understood the trend of
affairs. Indeed, dismissals and appointments in the civil service had
preceded the assembling of the convention until politicians understood
that the way to preferment opened only to those obedient to the new
dictator. Accordingly, on the next roll-call, the weak-kneed took
flight, the vote standing 202 to 116. Upon hearing the astounding
result a Fenton delegate exclaimed, "Blessed are they that expect
nothing, for they shall not be disappointed."[1317]

[Footnote 1317: New York _Tribune_, September 28, 1871.]

In discussing the resolution to abolish the Greeley committee the
question narrowed itself to members holding office under Tammany, the
Greeley organisation maintaining that it had simply inherited the
custom, not created it, while Cornell and his associates, having
"Hank" Smith in mind, declared it impossible to avoid the custom
without destroying the committee. To some of the Conkling leaders this
seemed unnecessarily severe. Having showed their teeth they hesitated
to lacerate the party, especially after the mad rush to the winning
side had given them an overwhelming majority. At last, it fell to
Hamilton Ward, a friend of the Senator, for six years a member of
Congress, a forcible speaker, and still a young man of nerve, who was
to become attorney-general and a judge of the Supreme Court, to
propose as a substitute that the State committee be directed to
consolidate and perfect the two city organisations. The Fenton people
promptly acquiesced, and their opponents, after eliminating Smith by
disallowing a member of the organisation to hold office under Tammany,
cheerfully accepted it.

This compromise, thus harmoniously perfected in the presence and
hearing of the convention, was loudly applauded, and the chairman had
risen to put the motion when Conkling interrupted, "Not yet the
question, Mr. President!" Until then the Senator had been a silent
spectator. Indeed, not until the previous roll-call did he become a
member of the convention. But he was now to become its master. His
slow, measured utterances and deep chest-tones commanded instant
attention. If for a moment, as he calmly declared opposition to the
substitute, he seemed to stand alone, his declaration that a horde of
Tammany ballot-box stuffers, pirates, and robbers had controlled and
debauched the Republican organisation in the city of New York called
forth the loudest applause of the evening. His next statement, that
the time had come when such encroachments must cease, renewed the
cheering. Having thus paid his respects to the Greeley committee,
Conkling argued that a new State committee could not do in the four
weeks preceding election what it had taken the old committee months to
accomplish. 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 the
convention to take the editor at his word, shake hands, bury
animosities and disappointments, make up a ticket equally of both
factions, and accept the reorganisation of the city committee, so that
double delegations might not appear at the next national convention to
parade their dissensions. He disclaimed any unkind feeling, and in
favouring the admission of both city delegations, he said, he supposed
he had worked in the interest of harmony.

This appeal has been called one of Conkling's "most remarkable
speeches."[1318] Unlike the Senator's usual efforts laboured
preparation did not precede it. The striking passage and the
impressive phrase are entirely wanting. Epigrammatic utterances are
the supreme test of a great orator or poet, but Conkling's speech of
September 27 added nothing to that vocabulary. It may be said to lack
every element of a well-ordered oration. As preserved in the
newspapers of the day[1319] it is hard, if not impossible, to find
sufficient rhetorical merit to entitle it to a place in any volume of
ordinary addresses. It wanted the persuasive power that allures by an
exquisite choice of words, or charms by noble and sympathetic
elocution. Even the style of his appeal for harmony was too
self-assured and his faith in his own superiority too evident.
Nevertheless, of the living who heard his explosive exclamation, "Not
yet the question, Mr. President," and the flaming sentences arraigning
the Greeley Republicans as partners of Tammany, it lingers in the
memory as a forceful philippic, full of pose and gesture and dramatic
action. Its influence, however, is not so clear. The power of
patronage had already twice carried the convention, and that this
incentive would have done so again had Conkling simply whispered to
his lieutenants, must be evident to all who read the story. Ward's
motion was lost by 154 to 194, the Conkling vote being eight less than
on 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 similar
assemblage. Many of Senator Conkling's friends insist that this was
one of his most remarkable speeches."--Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of
Roscoe Conkling_, p. 341.]

[Footnote 1319: Syracuse _Standard_, New York _Times_, September 28,
1871.]

[Footnote 1320: "Just as the whole convention had agreed upon the
compromise, Conkling arose and ordered his office-holders to reject
it."--New York _Evening Post_, September 29.]

Conkling desired a solid delegation at the next Republican National
Convention, and the recognition of the organisation established by the
State committee assured it, whereas the Ward amendment, by including
the Greeley constituency, inspired the fear of a divided one.[1321]
Perhaps the failure of his friends to appreciate this fear justified
Conkling's interference, but a single word of dissent was sufficient
to alarm them, while a less arrogant and dominating spirit might
easily have avoided making the bitter assault which provoked a storm
of hostile criticism. Greeley's stinging retort illuminated the
Senator's insincerity. "Conkling declared it right," said the editor,
"to abolish the regular organisation because corrupted and controlled
by Tammany money, and then invited its delegates to an equal share in
making the platform and selecting a ticket. If he believed what he
said, he was guilty of party treason in the offer; if he did not, he
added the folly of insult to the crime of foul slander."[1322] This was
the view of the Greeley delegates, and refusing to accept the offered
terms, 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 no
divisions, no debates, and no questions of importance. Nominations
aroused little enthusiasm,[1323] and the platform which Greeley called
"the miracle of clumsiness,"[1324] indorsed the administration of
President Grant, denounced the crimes of the Tweed ring, and
recommended local option. Meanwhile the seceders, assembled in Wild's
Opera House, gave vent to bitter criticism and the whispered scandal
of hotel lobbies.[1325] When this proceeding finally ended they
separated with the consciousness that their last performance, at
least, 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 fear
Tilden. In 1869 he accused the Ring of being "opposed to all good
government."[1326] Afterward, in 1870, the defeat of the Young
Democracy's charter added to his bitterness. On the evening of the day
on which that vote occurred, Tweed jeered Tilden as the latter passed
through the hotel corridor, while Tilden, trembling with suppressed
emotion, expressed the belief that the Boss would close his career in
jail or in exile.[1327] One wonders that Tilden, being a natural
detective, should have delayed strenuous action until the _Times'_
exposure, but when, at last, a knowledge of the colossal frauds
suddenly opened the way to successful battle, he seized the advantage
with the skill and persistency of a master.

[Footnote 1326: Paine, _Life of Nast_, p. 194.]

[Footnote 1327: This remark was addressed to Henry Richmond, whose
father, 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 no
liking. He was not only an intense partisan, but he had a positive
genius for saying bitter things in the bitterest way. To him the
quarter of a century covered by Van Buren, Marcy, and Wright, shone as
an era of honour and truth, while the twenty-four years spanned by the
Republicans and the party from whence they sprung brought shame and
disgrace upon the State. "The Republicans made the morals of the
legislative bodies what they have recently become. When Seward and
Weed took the place of Wright, Marcy, and Flagg, public and official
morality fell in the twinkling of an eye. Even our city government,
until 1870, was exactly what a Republican legislature made it. The
league between corrupt Republicans and corrupt Democrats, which was
formed during Republican ascendency, proved too strong for honest men.
The charter of 1870 which I denounced in a public speech, had the
votes of nearly all the Republicans and Democrats."[1328] Still, he
admitted that Tammany was synonymous with Democracy, and that its
corruption, especially since its blighting influence had become so
notorious and oppressive, impeded and dishonoured the party. Under its
rule primaries had been absurdities and elections a farce. Without
being 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. Two
classes of Democrats faced him--the more clamorous reformers and the
enemies of all reform. To the latter reorganisation seemed a reckless
step. It argued that the loss of the Tammany vote meant the
dissolution of the party, and that a great organisation ought not to
be destroyed for the wrong of a few individuals, since the party was
not responsible for them. Besides, the executive power of the State,
with its vast official patronage scattered throughout all the
counties, would oppose such a policy. On the other hand, the first
class, possessing little faith in the party's ability to purge itself,
threatened to turn reform into political revolution. It desired a new
party. Nevertheless, Tilden did not hesitate. He issued letters to
thousands of Democrats, declaring that "wherever the gangrene of
corruption has reached the Democratic party we must take a knife and
cut it out by the roots;"[1330] he counselled with Horatio Seymour and
Charles O'Conor; he originated the movement that ultimately sent a
reform delegation to the State convention; he consented to stand for
the Assembly; and finally, to secure the fruit of three months' work,
he raised one-half the funds expended by the Democratic reform
organisation.

[Footnote 1330: Tilden's letter, _Ibid._, Sept. 22.]

The Ring had not been an indifferent observer of these efforts. While
it cared little for the control of a State convention without a
governor to nominate, its continued existence absolutely depended upon
a majority in the Senate. Tweed planned to carry the five senatorial
districts in the city, and to re-elect if possible the eight
Republican senators whom he had used the year before.[1331] This would
insure him control. To achieve his purpose word was sent to Tilden
early in August that he could name the delegates to the State
convention and the candidates upon the State ticket if he would not
interfere with Tammany's legislative nominations. If Tilden had not
before distrusted Tweed, such a proposition must have aroused his
suspicion. But Tilden, conscious of the need of an anti-Tweed
legislature, had surmised the Ring's plan as early as Tweed devised
it, and he replied with firmness that everything beside the
legislative ticket was of minor importance to him. Similar
propositions, presented by powerful men from all parts of the State
with the plea that a compromise would "save the party," received the
same answer.[1332] Meanwhile, he laboured to shorten the life of the
Ring. To him Richard Connolly appealed for protection against Tweed's
treachery, and at Tilden's suggestion the comptroller turned over his
office to Andrew H. Green, thus assuring the protection of the records
which subsequently formed the basis of all civil and criminal actions.
Tilden's sagacity in procuring the opinion of Charles O'Conor also
secured the Mayor's acquiescence in Green's possession of the office,
while his patient investigation of the Broadway Bank accounts
discovered 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 of
the interior, notably the Buffalo _Courier_ and Albany _Argus_, came
boldly out demanding the dismissal of the shameless robbers who were
disgracing the name and destroying the future of their party.
Moreover, Tilden, like an avenging angel, with all the skill and
knowledge of his kind, had united into one great reform party the four
Democratic organisations of the city, pledged to oppose Tammany.[1333]
This formidable combination, having complied with every requirement of
the State committee, selected delegates to the State convention. The
hearts of Tweed and his associates may well have sunk within them as
they studied this list. There were able lawyers like William E.
Curtis; powerful merchants like Havermeyer; influential editors like
Ottendorfer; solid business men like Schell; and determined members of
the Committee of Seventy like Roswell D. Hatch, who had been
conspicuous in tracking the thieves. But the name that must have shone
most formidably in the eyes of Tweed was that of Charles O'Conor. It
stood 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 great
legal fame, affirming the validity of Andrew H. Green's possession of
the comptroller's office, had intimidated O'Gorman, Tweed's
corporation counsel, and shattered the plot to forcibly eject Tilden's
faithful friend under colour of judicial process. Thus the reform
party seemed to be in the ascendant. With confidence Tilden expressed
the belief that the State convention would repudiate Tammany.[1334]

[Footnote 1333: The German Democratic General Committee, with 30,000
votes; the Democratic Union, with 27,000; the Ledwith party, with
10,000; and the Young Democracy, led by ex-Sheriff O'Brien. For five
years Mozart Hall, under Fernando Wood, had not placed a ticket in the
field.]

[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 State
convention which assembled at Rochester on October 4 (1871) seemed as
firm as on that day in 1870 when he renominated John T. Hoffman. It
was still the fashion to praise all he said and all he did. Before his
arrival the Reformers claimed a majority, but as the up-State
delegates crowded his rooms to bend the obsequious knee he reduced
these claims to a count, finding only forty-two disobedient members.
He was too tactful, however, to appear in the convention hall. His
duty was to give orders, and like a soldier he pitched his
headquarters near the scene of action, boasting that his friends were
everywhere ready for battle.

In his opening speech Tilden touched the Ring frauds with the delicacy
of a surgeon examining an abscess, and the faint response that greeted
his condemnation of corruption satisfied him that the convention did
not appreciate the danger of party blood-poisoning. The truth of this
diagnosis more fully appeared when Tammany, "in the interest of
harmony," waived its right to participate in the proceedings. The
whirlwind of applause which greeted this "unselfish act" had scarcely
subsided when a delegate from Kings county, acting for Tweed, moved
the previous question on a resolution reciting that hereafter, on the
call of the roll, the city of New York be omitted since it presented
no delegation bearing the prestige of regularity. This threw the
Reformers into an animated counsel. They knew of the proposed
withdrawal of Tammany, which seemed to them to smooth the way for the
acceptance of their credentials, but the resolution came with
startling suddenness. It narrowed the question of their admission to a
mere technicality and cut off debate. Tilden, appreciating the
ambuscade into which he had fallen, exhausted every expedient to
modify the parliamentary situation, knowing it to be in the power of
the convention to accept another delegation regardless of its
regularity, as the Republicans had done at Syracuse in the previous
week. But the delegates derisively laughed at his awkward predicament
as they adopted the resolution by a vote of 90 to 4.

By this act the convention clearly indicated its purpose to treat the
fraud issue as a local matter and to keep it out of the State
campaign. It intended to denounce the crime and the criminals, and to
allow no one to become a delegate who had aided or in anywise profited
by the conspiracy, but it would not recognise a delegation which
desired to reorganise the party in the metropolis by humiliating a
great association whose regularity had been accepted for many years,
and which had finally turned the State over to the Democracy. This
view had the support of every office-holder and of every appointee of
the Executive, whose great desire to "save the party" had its
inspiration in a greater desire to save themselves. On the other hand,
the minority argued that allowing Tammany voluntarily to withdraw from
the convention was equivalent to its endorsement, thus giving its
nominations regularity. This would compel the Democratic masses, in
order to participate in the primaries, to vote its ticket. Tilden
sought to avoid this regularity just as Conkling had destroyed the
Greeley committee, and if office-holders had supported him as they did
the Senator he must have won as easily.

The convention's treatment of Horatio Seymour also exhibited its
dislike of the reformer. Seymour came to the convention to be its
president, and upon his entrance to the hall had been hailed, amidst
tumultuous cheers, as "Our future president in 1872." While waiting
the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings he observed Francis
Kernan sitting outside the rail with the rejected Reformers.
Hesitatingly, and in the hope, he said, of arousing no unpleasant
discussion, he moved the admission of the veteran Democrat, whom he
described as grown gray in the party harness, and whose very presence
was a sufficient credential to his title to a seat. Kernan, being in
sympathy with Tilden, was _non persona grata_ to Tammany, and Seymour
had scarcely resumed his seat when the ubiquitous delegate from Kings,
with a flourish of rhetoric, promptly substituted another, who, he
alleged, was the regularly elected delegate as well as "the friend of
that great Democrat, John T. Hoffman." The convention, frantic with
delight at the mention of the Governor's name, saw the Oneidan grow
lividly pale with chagrin at this exhibition of Tammany's manners.
Seymour had lived long in years, in fame, and in the esteem of his
party. He could hardly have had any personal enemies. He possessed no
capricious dislikes, and his kindly heart, in spite of a stateliness
of bearing, won all the people who came near him. To be thus opposed
and bantered in a Democratic assembly was a deep humiliation, and
after expressing the hope that the Tammany man would fight for the
Democratic party as gallantly in future as he had fought against it in
the past, the illustrious statesman withdrew his motion. When, later,
his name was announced as presiding officer of the permanent
organisation, 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 could
not be president of the convention unless he would forego his
philippic against the Tammany thieves. This he declined to do."--New
York _Times_ (editorial), October 9, 1871.]

At the end of the day's work it was plain that Tweed had controlled
the convention. The Reformers had been excluded, the committee on
contested seats had refused them a hearing, Seymour was driven home,
and a eulogy of Tammany's political services had been applauded to the
echo. The platform did, indeed, express indignation at the "corruption
and extravagance recently brought to light in the municipal affairs of
the city of New York," and condemned "as unworthy of countenance or
toleration all who are responsible," but the contrast between the acts
of the convention and the words of its platform made its professions
of indignation seem incongruous if not absolutely empty. When one
speaker, with rhetorical effect, pronounced the frauds in New York
"the mere dreams of Republican imagination" delegates sprang to their
feet amidst ringing cheers. In the joy of victory, Tweed, with
good-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 bitter
dissatisfaction. Oswald Ottendorfer, editor of the most powerful
German Democratic organ then in the State, threatened to issue an
address denouncing their betrayal, and William E. Curtis, referring to
the refusal of the credentials' committee, declared that a voice from
the Democratic masses of New York, seeking relief from a gang of
thieves, was stronger, higher, and more sublime than mere questions of
technicality. Under the spur of this threatened revolt, the
convention, when it reconvened the next day, listened to the
Reformers. Their recital was not a panegyric. Ottendorfer said that
the operation of the previous question exposed the party to the
suspicion that Tammany's seats would be open for their return after
the storm of indignation had subsided. O'Conor, in a letter, declared
that absolute freedom from all complicity in the great official crime
and an utter intolerance of all persons suspected of sympathy with it
must be maintained, otherwise its action would inflict a fatal wound
upon the party. Curtis characterised the question as one of life or
death to a great community weighed down by oppression and crime, and
maintained that the convention, if it sought to avoid its duty by the
subterfuge already enacted, would show both sympathy and complicity
with the oligarchy of terror and infamy. These statements did not
please the Ring men, who, with much noise, passed contemptuously out
of the hall.

Riotous interruption, however, did not begin until Tilden announced
that the real point of the controversy was to estop Tammany, after
nominating five senators and twenty-one assemblymen, from declaring
the Democratic masses out of the party because they refused to vote
for its candidates. The whip of party regularity was Tweed's last
reliance, and when Tilden proclaimed absolution to those who
disregarded it, the friends of Tammany drowned his words with loud
calls to order. The excitement threatened to become a riot, but
Tilden, caring as little for disapprobation as the son of Tisander in
the story told by Herodotus, calmly awaited silence. "I was stating,"
he continued, without the slightest tremor of a singularly unmusical
voice, "what I considered the objection to Tammany Hall, aside from
the cloud that now covers that concern, and I am free to avow before
this convention that I shall not vote for any one of Mr. Tweed's
members of the Legislature. And if that is to be regarded the regular
ticket, I will resign my place as chairman of the State committee and
help my people stem the tide of corruption. When I come to do my duty
as an elector, I shall cast my vote for honest men."[1337] Then, to
show his independence if not his contempt of the Tweed-bound body,
Tilden suddenly waived aside the question of the Reformers' admission
and 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 old
Tweed ticket was renominated as follows: Secretary of State, Diedrich
Willers, Seneca; Comptroller, Asher P. Nichols, Erie; Treasurer,
Wheeler H. Bristol, Tioga; Attorney-General, Marshall B. Champlain,
Allegany; Engineer, Van R. Richmond, Wayne; Canal Commissioner, George
W. Chapman; Prison Inspector, David B. McNeil, Cayuga.]

The convention was stunned. It became dizzy when he denied Tammany's
right to be regarded as the regular organisation, but his
proclamation, defiantly and clearly made, that hereafter he should
bolt its nominations even if the convention refused to impeach its
regularity, struck a trenchant blow that silenced rather than excited.
Such courage, displayed at such a critical moment, was sublime. An
organised revolt against an association which had for years been
accepted as regular by State conventions meant the sacrifice of a
majority and an invitation to certain defeat, yet he hurled the words
of defiance into the face of the convention with the energy of the Old
Guard when called upon to surrender at Waterloo. The course taken by
Tilden on this memorable occasion made his own career, and also a new
career for his party. From that hour he became the real leader of the
Democracy. Although more than a twelvemonth must pass before his voice
gave the word of command, his genius as a born master was recognised.

The attitude of the Reformers strengthened the Republicans, whose
distractions must otherwise have compassed their defeat. Murphyism and
Tweedism resembled each other so much that a contest against either
presented a well-defined issue of political morality. The greater
importance of the Tammany frauds, however, obscured all other issues.
To preserve their organisation in the up-State counties the Democrats
made creditable local nominations and professed support of the State
ticket, but in the city the entire voting population, irrespective of
former party alignments, divided into Tammany and anti-Tammany
factions. As the crusade progressed the details of the great crime,
becoming better understood, made Tammany's position intolerable. Every
respectable journal opposed it and every organisation crucified it. In
a double-page cartoon, startling in its conception and splendidly
picturesque, Nast represented the Tammany tiger, with glaring eyes and
distended jaws, tearing the vitals from the crushed and robbed city,
while Tweed and his associates sat enthroned.[1339] "Let's stop those
damned pictures," proposed Tweed when he saw it. "I don't care so much
what the papers write about me--my constituents can't read; but they
can 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 was
dissipated. Until then belief in Tweed's direct profit in the Ring's
overcharges was based upon presumption. No intelligent man having an
accurate knowledge of the facts could doubt his guilt, since every
circumstance plainly pointed to it, but judicial proof did not exist
until furnished by the investigation of the Broadway Bank, which
Tilden personally conducted. His analysis of this information
disclosed the fact that two-thirds of the money paid under the
sanction of the Board of Audit had passed into the possession of
public officials and their accomplices, some of it being actually
traced into Tweed's pocket, and upon this evidence, verified by
Tilden's affidavit, the Attorney-General based an action on which a
warrant issued for Tweed's arrest. This announcement flashed over the
State eleven days before the election. It was a powerful campaign
document. People had not realised what an avenging hand pursued
Tammany, but they now understood that Tweed was a common thief, and
that 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 assistant
aldermen, fourteen of its twenty-one assemblymen, and four of its five
senators were defeated, while Tweed's majority fell from 22,000 in
1869 to 10,000. As expected the Republicans reaped the benefit of the
anti-Tammany vote, carrying the State by 18,000 majority and the
Legislature by 79 on joint ballot.[1341] To obliterate Tweedism, Tilden
had overthrown his party, but he had not fallen, Samson-like, under the
ruin.

[Footnote 1341: Scribner, 387,107; Willers, 368,204. Legislature:
Senate, 24 Republicans, 8 Democrats. Assembly, 97 Republicans, 31
Democrats.--New York _Tribune_, November 27, 1871.

Compared with the returns for 1870, the Democratic vote, outside of
New York and the six counties in its immediate vicinity, fell off
24,167, while the Republican vote fell off 9,235. In New York and
adjoining counties the Republican vote increased 30,338.--_Ibid._

In New York City the majority for the Democratic candidate for
secretary of state was 29,189, while the majority for the Republican
or Union Reform candidate for register was 28,117.--_Ibid._]




CHAPTER XXII

GREELEY NOMINATED FOR PRESIDENT

1872


Although the Tammany exposure had absorbed public attention, the
Republican party did not escape serious criticism. Reconstruction had
disappointed many of its friends. By controlling the negro vote
Republican administrations in several Southern States had wrought
incalculable harm to the cause of free-government and equal suffrage.
The State debt of Alabama had increased from six millions in 1860 to
forty millions, that of Florida from two hundred thousand to fifteen
millions, and that of Georgia from three millions to forty-four
millions. "I say to-day, in the face of heaven and before all
mankind," declared Tilden, "that the carpet-bag governments are
infinitely worse than Tweed's government of the city of New
York."[1342]

[Footnote 1342: New York _Tribune_, September 5, 1872.]

Following such gross misgovernment the reactionary outbreaks
influenced Congress to pass the so-called Ku-Klux Act of April 20,
1871, designed to suppress these outrages. This measure, although not
dissimilar to others which protected the negro in his right of
suffrage, met with stout Republican opposition, the spirited debate
suddenly heralding a serious party division. Trumbull held it
unconstitutional, while Schurz, reviewing the wretched State
governments 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 universal
amnesty. To this more than to all other causes did the critics of the
Republican party ascribe the continuance of the animosities of the
war, since it deprived the South of the assistance of its former
leading men, and turned it over to inexperienced, and, in some
instances, to corrupt men who used political disabilities as so much
capital upon which to trade. The shocking brazenness of these methods
had been disclosed in Georgia under the administration of Governor
Bullock, who secured from Congress amnesty for his legislative friends
while others were excluded. Schurz declared "When universal suffrage
was granted to secure the equal rights of all, universal amnesty ought
to have been granted to make all the resources of political
intelligence and experience available for the promotion of the welfare
of all."[1343]

[Footnote 1343: _Congressional Globe_, January 30, 1872, p. 699.]

The South had expected the President to develop a liberal policy. The
spirit displayed at Appomattox, his "Let us have peace" letter of
acceptance, and his intervention in Virginia and Mississippi soon
after his inauguration, encouraged the belief that he would conciliate
rather than harass it. His approval of the Ku-Klux law, therefore,
intensified a feeling already strained to bitterness, and although he
administered the law with prudence, a physical contest occurred in the
South and a political rupture in the North. The hostility of the
American people to the use of troops at elections had once before
proved a source of angry contention, and the criticism which now
rained upon the Republican party afforded new evidence of the public's
animosity.

These strictures would have awakened no unusual solicitude in the
minds of Republicans had their inspiration been confined to political
opponents, but suddenly there came to the aid of the Democrats a
formidable array of Republicans. Although the entering wedge was a
difference of policy growing out of conditions in the Southern States,
other reasons contributed to the rupture. The removal of Motley as
minister to England, coming so soon after Sumner's successful
resistance to the San Domingo scheme, was treated as an attempt to
punish a senator for the just exercise of his right and the honest
performance of his duty. Nine months later Sumner was discontinued as
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. If doubt existed as to
the ground of Motley's removal, not a shadow clouded the reason for
Sumner's deposition. The cause assigned was that he no longer
maintained personal and social relations with the President and
Secretary of State, but when Schurz stigmatised it as "a flimsy
pretext" he voiced the opinion of a part of the press which accepted
it as a display of pure vindictiveness. "The indignation over your
removal," telegraphed John W. Forney, "extends to men of all parties.
I have not heard one Republican approve it."[1344] Among Sumner's
correspondents Ira Harris noted the popular disapproval and
indignation in New York. "Another term of such arrogant assumption of
power and wanton acquiescence," said Schurz, "may furnish the flunkies
with a store of precedents until people cease to look for ordinary
means 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 the
Administration's disposition to permit the control of its patronage by
a coterie of senators, who preferred to strengthen faction regardless
of its influence. Under this policy something had occurred in nearly
every Northern State to make leading men and newspapers bitter, and as
the years of the Administration multiplied censure became more
drastic. Perhaps the influence of Conkling presented a normal phase of
this practice. The Senator stood for much that had brought criticism
upon the party. He approved the Southern policy and the acquisition of
San Domingo. He indulged in a personal attack on Sumner, advised his
deposition from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, commended the
removal of Motley, and voted against the confirmation of E. Rockwood
Hoar for associate justice of the Supreme Court.[1346] He also opposed
civil 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 abundant
patronage was not likely to change a contest for personal advantage
into a choice of public policies. Such an one appointed men because of
their 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 others
driven out of the convention.... I saw numbers, under threats of
losing federal office, dragooned into doing the bidding of one
man."[1347] The removal of officials whose names stood high in the roll
of those who had greatly honoured their State deeply wounded many
ardent Republicans, but not until the appointment and retention of
Thomas Murphy did criticism scorn the veil of hint and innuendo. This
act created a corps of journalistic critics whose unflagging satire
and unswerving severity entertained the President's opponents and
amazed his friends. They spoke for the popular side at the moment of a
great crisis. Almost daily during the eighteen months of Murphy's
administration the press of the whole country, under the lead of the
_Tribune_, pictured the collector as a crafty army contractor and the
partner of Tweed. "I think the warmest friends of Grant," wrote
Curtis, "feel that he has failed terribly as President, not from want
of honesty but from want of tact and great ignorance. It is a
political position and he knew nothing of politics."[1348] The
sacrifice of the best men among his cabinet advisers added greatly to
this unrest. In one of his letters, Lowell, unintentionally
overlooking Hamilton Fish, declared that E. Rockwood Hoar and Jacob D.
Cox were "the only really strong men in the Cabinet."[1349] After the
latter's forced resignation and the former's sudden exit to make room
for a Southern Republican in order to placate carpet-bag senators for
the removal of Sumner, the great critics of the Administration again
cut loose. "How long," asked Bowles, "does the President suppose the
people will patiently endure this dealing with high office as if it
were a presidential perquisite, to be given away upon his mere whim,
without regard to the claims of the office? It was bad enough when he
only dealt so with consulates and small post-offices; but now that he
has come to foreign ministers and cabinet officers it is
intolerable."[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 the
country in the time of President Grant. Selfish men and ambitious men
got the ear of that simple man and confiding President. They studied
Grant, some of them, as the shoemaker measures the foot of his
customer."--Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 197.]

[Footnote 1350: Springfield (Mass.) _Republican_, November 12, 1870.]

Under these conditions Republicans had been losing strength. In the
election of 1870 their numbers, for the first time since 1864, had
fallen below a two-thirds majority in the national House, while the
Democrats gained four United States senators. In the same year Carl
Schurz, with the assistance of the Democrats, had carried Missouri on
the issue of universal amnesty. As the disaffection with the
Administration became more pronounced, this faction, assuming the name
of Liberal Republicans, met in convention at Jefferson City on January
24, 1872, and invited all Republicans who favoured reform to meet in
national mass convention at Cincinnati on May 1. This call acted like
a lighted match in a pile of shavings, prominent Republicans in every
State, including many leading newspapers, giving it instant and hearty
response. 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 into
line.

Horace Greeley's principles were in substantial accord with those of
his party. He had little liking for civil service reform; the
integrity of the national debt invoked his unflagging support; and the
suppression of the Ku-Klux, although favouring a liberal Southern
policy, had received his encouragement.[1351] Nor had he said anything
in speech or writing disrespectful of the President. He did not favour
his renomination, but he had faith in the essential honesty and
soundness of Republican voters. Moreover, the demand for "a genuine
reform of the tariff" made it impossible to reconcile his policy with
that 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 become
intolerable. Conkling controlled the city and State machines, Fenton
belonged in a hopeless minority, and Grant resented the _Tribune's_
opposition to his succession. Besides, the editor's friends had been
deeply humiliated. The appointment of Murphy was accepted as "a plain
declaration of war."[1352] The treatment of the Greeley committee,
overthrown by the power of patronage, also festered in his heart. "For
more than a year," he said, "to be an avowed friend of Governor Fenton
was to be marked for proscription at the White House."[1353] Thus, with
the past unforgiven and the future without hope, the great journalist
declared 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 be
successful, needed the support of the _Tribune_. Although its
influence had materially suffered during and since the war, it still
controlled a great constituency throughout the North, and the longer
its chief hesitated to join the new party the more earnest and
eloquent did the appeals of the Liberals become. At last, relying upon
a compromise of their economic differences, Greeley accepted the
invitation to meet the Missouri reformers in convention.[1355] His
action was the occasion for much rejoicing, and on April 13 the
Liberals of New York City began their campaign amidst the cheers of an
enthusiastic multitude assembled at Cooper Institute.[1356] The Fenton
leaders, conspicuously posted on the platform, indicated neither a
real love of reform nor an absence of office-seekers, but the presence
among the vice-presidents of E.L. Godkin of the _Nation_ and Parke
Godwin of the _Post_ removed all doubt as to the sincere desire of
some of those present to replace Grant with a President who would
discourage the use of patronage by enforcing civil service reform, and
encourage good government in the South by enacting universal amnesty.
To Schurz's charge that the national Republican convention would be
made up of office-holders, Oliver P. Morton declared, three days later
in the same hall, that there would be more office-seekers at
Cincinnati 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 Charles
Francis Adams for President. Adams' public life encouraged the belief
that he would practise his professed principles, and although isolated
from all political associations it was thought his brilliant
championship of the North during the temporising of the English
government would make his nomination welcome. David Davis and Lyman
Trumbull of Illinois were likewise acceptable, and Salmon P. Chase had
his admirers. Greeley's availability was also talked of. His signature
to the bail-bond of Jefferson Davis, releasing the ex-president of the
Confederacy from prison, attracted attention to his presidential
ambition, while his loud declaration for universal amnesty opened the
way for a tour of the South. At a brilliant reception in Union Square,
given after his return, he described the carpet-bagger as "a worthless
adventurer whom the Southern States hate and ought to hate," likening
him to the New York legislator "who goes to Albany nominally to
legislate, but really to plunder and steal."[1358] His excessive zeal
for Democratic support led to the intimation that he had economised
his epithets in criticising the Tweed ring.[1359] As early as February,
Nast, with his usual foresight, pictured "H.G., the editor" offering
the nomination to "H.G., the farmer," who, rejoicing in the name of
Cincinnatus, had turned from the plough toward the dome of the Capitol
in the distance.[1360] To the charge that he was a candidate for
President, Greeley frankly admitted that while he was not an aspirant
for office, he should never decline any duty which his political
friends 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 for
the Liberal movement did not encourage Greeley's ambition. Especially
were his great newspaper associates dumb. A week before the convention
Bowles of the Springfield _Republican_ mentioned him with Sumner and
Trumbull as a proper person for the nomination, but Godkin of the
_Nation_, Halstead of the Cincinnati _Commercial_, and Horace White of
the Chicago _Tribune_ remained silent. The _Evening Post_ spoke of him
as "the simple-minded philanthropist, with his various scraps of
so-called principles."[1362] Jacob D. Cox, Stanley Matthews, and George
Hoadley, the conspicuous Liberal triumvirate of Ohio, repudiated his
candidacy, and Schurz, in his opening speech as president of the
convention, without mentioning names, plainly designated Adams as the
most 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, and
other seceders from the Syracuse convention of 1871. These political
veterans, with the cunning practised at ward caucuses, quickly
organised the New York delegation in the interest of Greeley. On
motion of Cochrane, Hutchins became chairman of a committee to name
sixty-eight delegates, the people present being allowed to report two
delegates from their respective congressional districts. These tactics
became more offensive when the committee, instead of accepting the
delegates reported, arbitrarily assumed the right to substitute
several well-known friends of Greeley. Not content with this
advantage, 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 this
performance as "a most infamous outrage," and upon hearing a protest
of the minority, presented by Theodore Bacon of Rochester, Schurz
denounced the proceeding "as extraordinary" and "as indicating that
the reform movement, so far as it concerned New York, was virtually in
the hands of a set of political tricksters, who came here not for
reform, but for plunder."[1365]

[Footnote 1364: New York _Evening Post_, May 2, 1872.]

[Footnote 1365: _Ibid._]

Next to the "tricksters" the platform-makers embarrassed the
convention. It was easy to recognise the equality of all men before
the law, to pledge fidelity to the Union, to oppose the re-election of
the President, to denounce repudiation, to demand local
self-government for the Southern States, to ask "the immediate and
absolute removal of all disabilities imposed on account of the
rebellion," and to favour "a thorough reform of the civil service;"
but for a tariff reform assemblage to frame a resolution which the
apostle of protection could accept required great patience and
persistence. The vexatious delay became so intolerable that delegates
insisted upon making a ticket before adopting a platform. Cochrane
bitterly opposed such a resolution since Greeley's candidacy, if not
his support of the movement, depended upon the convention's attitude
on the tariff. Indeed, not until the committee on resolutions had
accepted what the editor himself dictated was the knotty point finally
settled. "Recognising," said the platform, "that there are in our
midst honest but irreconcilable differences of opinion with regard to
the respective systems of protection and free-trade, we remit the
discussion of the subject to the people in their congressional
districts and to the decision of Congress thereon, wholly free from
executive interference or dictation."

Although the resolution was out of keeping with the spirit of the
movement, it seemed proper to pay this extortionate price for
Greeley's support, since his conspicuous championship of protection
made it impossible for him to acquiesce in any impairment of that
doctrine; but the advantage that such a concession gave his candidacy
appears not to have occurred to the leaders who embodied whatever of
principle and conviction the convention possessed. Indeed, no scheme
of the managers contemplated his nomination. To many persons Greeley's
aspiration took the form of "a joke."[1366] Nor was his name seriously
discussed until the delegates assembled at Cincinnati. Even then the
belief obtained that after a complimentary vote to him and other
favourite sons, Adams would become their beneficiary. But the work of
Fenton quickly betrayed itself. In obedience to a bargain, Gratz Brown
of Missouri, at the end of the first ballot, withdrew in favour of
Greeley, and although Adams held the lead on the next four ballots,
the strength of Davis and Trumbull shrivelled while Greeley's kept
increasing. Yet the managers did not suspect a stampede. Eighty per
cent. of the New Yorker's votes came from the Middle and Southern
States.[1367] Moreover, the Trumbull men held the balance of power.
After several notable changes Adams still led by half a hundred. On
the sixth ballot, however, to the surprise and chagrin of the Adams
managers, Trumbull's delegates began breaking to Greeley, and in the
confusion which quickly developed into a storm of blended cheers and
hisses, Illinois and the Middle West carried the _Tribune's_ chief
beyond the required number of votes.[1368] Gratz Brown was then
nominated 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    714
Necessary to a choice    358

          First      Second     Third     Fourth     Fifth     Sixth
Adams      203         243        264       279       309       187
Greeley    147         245        258       251       258       482
Trumbull   110         148        156       141        91        10
Davis       92-1/2      75         44        51        30         6
Brown       95           2          2         2
Curtin      62
Chase        2-1/2       1                              2        29]

Greeley's nomination astounded the general public as much as it
disappointed the Liberal leaders. Bowles called the result "a fate
above logic and superior to reason,"[1369] but the _Evening Post_
thought it due to "commonplace chicanery, intrigue, bargaining, and
compromise."[1370] Stanley Matthews, who was temporary chairman of the
convention, declared himself greatly chagrined at the whole matter. "I
have 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, Oswald
Ottendorfer of the _Staats-Zeitung_, and other anti-protectionists of
New York, made a fruitless effort to put another candidate before the
country.[1372] In the end the _Nation_ and the _Evening Post_ supported
President 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 the
revolt, 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 continuously
vilified them. From his introduction to political life in 1840 he had
waged a constant and personal warfare, often using his strong,
idiomatic English with the ferocity of a Wilkes. A caricature by
Greeley was as much feared as a cartoon by Nast. He spared no one. He
had assailed Seymour with a violence that might well seem to have made
any form of political reconciliation impossible. With equal skill he
had aimed his epithets at every Democratic statesman and politician
from Van Buren to Fernando Wood, the sting of his relentless and
merciless criticism goading each one into frenzy. For them now to
assume to overlook such treatment and accept its author as a political
associate 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 the
assembling of the State convention which met at Rochester on May 15.
Seymour did not attend this meeting, and although Tilden carefully
avoided an expression of opinion, the delegates, after approving the
Cincinnati platform, insisted upon referring the choice of candidates
to the national convention, sending John T. Hoffman as a
delegate-at-large to represent them.

One month later the Democratic national convention met at
Baltimore.[1373] Although the delegates, especially those from the
South, indicated a growing sentiment in favour of Greeley, the absence
of veteran leaders from the North created much comment. Hendricks of
Indiana sent his regrets; Seymour also remained at home; and Tilden,
Kernan, and Sanford E. Church found it convenient to be otherwise
engaged. But August Belmont appeared, and for the last time, after
twelve years of service and defeat as chairman of the national
committee, called the convention to order. John T. Hoffman also
appeared. He was the best known if not the wisest delegate in the
convention, and as he actively joined the Southern leaders in
encouraging the new order of things, it was easy to understand how his
star might still have been in the ascendant had his political
associates been content with power without plunder. Samuel S. Cox,
recently characterised by Greeley as "our carpet-bag representative
in Congress" who had "cast in his lot with thieves,"[1374] also
smoothed the way for his critic's nomination. He could forgive if he
did not forget.

[Footnote 1373: July 9, 1872.]

[Footnote 1374: New York _Tribune_, November 1, 1871. Cox's election to
Congress from New York occurred in 1870, three years after he became a
resident of the State.]

Next to Cox sat John Kelly, the new boss of Tammany. The combativeness
indicated by the form of the head was accentuated by the conspicuous
jaw, the firm, thin-lipped mouth, and the closely cropped hair and
beard, already fading into white; but there was nothing rough or
rowdyish in his manner or appearance. He dressed neatly, listened
respectfully, and spoke in low, gentle tones, an Irish sense of humour
frequently illuminating a square, kindly face. It was noticeable, too,
that although he began life as a mason and had handled his fists like
a professional, his hands were small and shapely. Kelly had served two
years as alderman, four years in Congress, and six years as sheriff.
He had also represented his county in the national conventions of 1864
and 1868. His character for honesty had not been above suspicion. Men
charged that he was "counted in" as congressman, and that while
sheriff 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 less
powerful or widely known than the great criminal whom he
succeeded.[1377] With the aid of Tilden, O'Conor, and other men
conspicuous in the reform movement, he had reorganised Tammany in the
preceding April, increasing a new general committee to five hundred
members, and with great shrewdness causing the appointment of
committees to coöperate with the Bar Association, with the Committee
of Seventy, and with the Municipal Taxpayers' Association. These
represented regenerated Tammany. Kelly affected extreme modesty, but
as he moved about the hall of the national convention, urging the
nomination of Greeley, the delegates recognised a master in the art of
controlling 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 make
chairs, Kelly was being taught grate-setting. While Tweed was amusing
himself as a runner with a fire engine, Kelly was captain of the
Carroll Target Guard. Tweed led fire laddies and Kelly dragged about
target-shooters upon the eve of elections. Both entered the Board of
Aldermen about the same time. About the same time, too, they went to
Congress. Within a few years of each other's candidacy they ran for
sheriff. Tweed was defeated. Kelly was elected. While Kelly was making
bills as sheriff, Tweed was auditing them in the Board of Supervisors.
Tweed became the Tammany boss, and Kelly succeeded him. Tweed fell a
victim to his greed, Kelly escaped by the Statute of Limitations."--New
York _Times_, October 30, 1875.]

If any doubt had existed as to Greeley's treatment at Baltimore, it
quickly disappeared on the assembling of the convention, for the
question of nomination or indorsement alone disturbed it. If it
adopted him as its own candidate fear was entertained that Republicans
would forsake him. On the other hand, it was claimed that many
Democrats who could only be held by party claims would not respect a
mere indorsement. Southern delegates argued that if Democrats hoped to
defeat their opponents they must encourage the revolt by giving it
prestige and power rather than smother it by compelling Liberals to
choose between Grant and a Democrat. The wisdom of this view could not
be avoided, and after adopting the Cincinnati platform without change,
the convention, by a vote of 686 to 46, stamped the Cincinnati ticket
with the highest Democratic authority.[1378] Little heartiness,
however, characterised the proceedings. Hoffman, in casting New York's
vote, aroused much enthusiasm, but the response to the announcement
of Greeley's nomination was disappointing. The _Tribune_ attributed it
to the intense heat and the exhaustion of the delegates,[1379] but the
_Nation_ probably came nearer the truth in ascribing it to "boiled
crow."[1380] This gave rise to the expression "to eat crow," meaning
"to do what one vehemently dislikes and has before defiantly declared
he would not do."[1381]

[Footnote 1378: Of the 46 opposition votes, James A. Bayard received 6
from Delaware and 9 from New Jersey; Jeremiah S. Black 21 from
Pennsylvania; 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 Democratic
national convention. There was a time in its preliminary stages when
the Liberal movement, blending principle and resentment, had assumed
alarming proportions. Discontent with the Administration, stimulated
by 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 the
consequent falling off in the Republican vote, added to the
solicitude. Moreover, the readiness of the Democrats to approve the
principles of the Missouri reformers suggested a coalition far more
formidable than the Philadelphia schism of 1866. That movement was to
resist untried Reconstruction, while the Missouri division was an
organised protest against practices in the North as well as in the
South which had become intolerable to men in all parties. Gradually,
however, the Republican revolt in New York disclosed limitations which
the slim attendance at Cincinnati accentuated. Several congressional
districts had been wholly unrepresented, and few prominent men had
appeared at Cincinnati other than free-traders and Fenton leaders.
Such an exhibition of weakness had an exhilarating effect upon
Republicans, who received the nomination of Greeley with derision.

In this frame of mind the friends of the Administration, meeting in
State convention at Elmira on May 15, sent a delegation to
Philadelphia, headed by the venerable Gerrit Smith, which boasted that
it was without an office-holder. Three weeks later the Republican
national convention, amidst great enthusiasm, unanimously renominated
Grant for President. A single ballot sufficed also for the selection
of Henry Wilson of Massachusetts for Vice-President.[1382] The
platform, to offset the Liberals' arraignment, favoured civil service
reform, the abolition of the franking privilege, the prohibition of
further land grants to corporations, an increase in pensions, and "the
suppression of violent and treasonable organisations" in the South.

[Footnote 1382: Wilson received 364-1/2 votes to 321-1/2 for Colfax of
Indiana, 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, Republicans
felt no fear of factional feuds since the aggressive Fenton leaders
had passed into the Liberal camp. But reasons for alarm existed. The
election in 1871, carried by the inspiration of a great popular
uprising in the interest of reform, had given them control of the
Legislature, and when it assembled honest men rejoiced, rogues
trembled, and Tweed failed to take his seat. The people expected the
shameless Erie ring and its legislation to be wiped out, corrupt
judges to be impeached, a new charter for New York City created, the
purity of the ballot-box better protected, canal management reformed,
and a variety of changes in criminal practice. But it proved timid and
dilatory. At the end of the session the Tweed charter still governed,
the machinery of the courts remained unchanged, and reforms in canal
management, in elections, and in the city government had been
sparingly granted. In cases of proven dishonesty its action was no
less disappointing. It allowed a faithless clerk of the Senate to
resign without punishment;[1383] it permitted the leaders of the
Tammany ring to continue in office; it decided that a man did not
disqualify himself for a seat in the Senate by taking bribes;[1384] and
it failed to attack the Erie ring until the reign of Jay Gould was
destroyed by the bold action of Daniel E. Sickles.[1385] Never did a
party more shamelessly fail in its duty. Even credit for the
impeachment of the Tweed judges belonged to Samuel J. Tilden. "That
was all Tilden's work, and no one's else," said Charles O'Conor. "He
went to the Legislature and forced the impeachment against every
imaginable 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 its
representatives looked for a head to its State ticket who could
overcome its shortcomings. Of the names canvassed a majority seemed
inclined to William H. Robertson of Westchester. He had been an
assemblyman, a representative in Congress, a judge of his county for
twelve years, and a State senator of distinguished service. Although
prudent in utterance and somewhat cautious in entering upon a course
of action, his indefatigable pursuit of an object, coupled with
conspicuous ability and long experience, marked him as one of the
strong men of New York, destined for many years to direct the politics
of his locality.

Nevertheless, a feeling existed that his course in the Senate had
lacked force. The New York _Times_ severely criticised it, regarding
him too much of a tenderfoot in pushing the reform movement, and on
the eve of the convention it opposed his candidacy.[1387] The _Times_,
then the only paper in New York City upon which the party relied with
confidence to fight its battles, exerted an influence which could
scarcely be overrated. However, it is doubtful if its opposition could
have avoided Robertson's nomination had not the name of John A. Dix
been sprung upon the convention. It came with great suddenness. No
open canvass preceded it. Thurlow Weed, who had proposed it to nearly
every convention since 1861, was in Utica, but to Henry Clews, the
well-known banker, belonged the credit of presenting it "on behalf of
the business men of New York." The captivating suggestion quickly
caught the delegates, who felt the alarming need of such a candidate,
and the audience, rising to its feet, broke into cheers, while county
after county seconded the nomination. One excited delegate, with
stentorian voice, moved that it be made by acclamation, and although
the Chair ruled the motion out of order, the withdrawal of Robertson's
name 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 of
boldness."--_Ibid._, May 8, 1880.]

This incident produced a crop of trouble. Because Clews happened to be
the guest of Conkling, Robertson, grievously disappointed, assumed
that the Senator had inspired the _coup d'état_, and from that moment
began the dislike which subsequently ripened into open enmity. "As a
matter of fact," wrote Clews, "Conkling knew nothing of my intention,
but he was either too proud or too indifferent to public sentiment to
explain."[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 Van
Burens in 1848, becoming the Barnburners' candidate for governor, and
immediately preceding the reduction of Fort Sumter advocated the
restoration of the Missouri compromise, perpetuating slavery in all
territory south of 36° 30´. After the war he joined President Johnson,
presided at the famous Philadelphia convention in 1866, and in return
received 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 party
and then of the other, but the Republicans declined to accept him in
1862 and 1864, and the Democrats refused to take him in 1866. After
President Grant had relieved him of the French mission by the
appointment of Elihu B. Washburne, he inclined like Weed himself to
the Liberal movement until the nomination of Greeley, whom they both
despised.

Seymour charged Dix with being "a mercenary man," who "rented out his
influence gained from political positions to companies of doubtful
character for large pay."[1389] At a later day he sketched his
readiness "to change his politics" for "a large consideration and pay
down." It was a drastic arraignment. "Starting out with a view of
being an Anti-Mason," wrote Seymour, "he shifted to the Democratic
party for the office of adjutant-general. He hesitated between Cass
and Van Buren until he was nominated for governor by the Free-Soilers.
He went back to the Democratic party for the New York post-office
under Pierce. He went over to Buchanan for a place in the cabinet; and
from his Free-Soil views he became so violent for the South that he
would not vote for Douglas, but supported Breckinridge. After
presiding at an anti-war meeting he went over to Lincoln, when he was
made a major-general. To get a nomination for the French mission he
took part with President Johnson. To get confirmed he left him for
Grant. In 1868 he intrigued for a presidential nomination from the
Democratic party; as in 1866 he had tried to be nominated by the same
party for the office of governor. I think this history shows that he
valued his political principles at a high rate, and never sold them
unless 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 during
and after the war resembled his own. But he had faith that Dix's war
record would more than offset his political vagaries. "When there was
danger that Washington would fall into the hands of the rebels," he
said, "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 weeks
afterward, when in command of Fort McHenry, by a prompt movement
against a treasonable design of members of the Legislature, he
prevented Maryland from joining the Secessionists."[1391] Moreover,
Weed insisted that conservative Democrats and business men, having
confidence 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 mention
the record of the Legislature. Praise for members of Congress
accentuated this omission. To enlarge the canal for steam navigation
it favoured an appropriation by the general government.[1392]

[Footnote 1392: The ticket was as follows: Governor, John A. Dix of New
York; Lieutenant-Governor, John C. Robinson of Broome; Canal
Commissioner, Reuben W. Stroud of Onondaga; Prison Inspector, Ezra
Graves of Herkimer; Congressman-at-large, Lyman Tremaine of Albany;
Thurlow Weed declined to head the electoral ticket, but suggested the
name 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 at
Syracuse on September 4. In numbers and enthusiasm the Liberals made a
creditable showing. Many Republicans who had assisted at the birth of
their party and aided in achieving its victories, adorned the platform
and filled the seats of delegates. John Cochrane called the convention
to order, Truman G. Younglove, speaker of the Assembly in 1869, acted
as temporary chairman, Chauncey M. Depew became its president, and
Reuben E. Fenton, with Waldo M. Hutchins, Archibald M. Bliss, Edwin A.
Merritt, D.D.S. Brown, and Frank Hiscock, served upon the committee of
conference. Among others present were Sinclair Tousey, William
Dorsheimer, George P. Bradford, and Horatio N. Twombly. In his speech
on taking the chair, Depew, who had attended every Republican State
convention since 1858, declared that he saw before him the men whom he
had learned to recognise as the trusted exponents of party policy in
their 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 for
governor. The withdrawal of Hoffman, who "usually made his
appointments to office," said John Kelly, "on the recommendation of
the Tammany ring and at the solicitation of the Canal ring," was
inevitable,[1394] and long before he declined several aspirants had
betrayed their ambition.[1395] But a decided majority of the delegates,
"fully four-fifths" declared the New York _Times_,[1396] preferred
Sanford E. Church, then chief judge of the Court of Appeals, who
became known as the "ring candidate."[1397] On the other hand, Kernan
had the support of Tilden, against whom the same combination arrayed
itself that controlled at Rochester in 1871. Although the Tweed ring
had practically ceased to exist, its friendships, rooted in the rural
press and in the active young men whom it had assisted to positions in
Albany and New York, blocked the way. Besides, Kernan himself had
invited open hostility by vigorously supporting Tilden in his crusade
against 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, Francis
Kernan of Oneida, Allen C. Beach of Jefferson, then lieutenant-governor,
Homer A. Nelson of Dutchess, formerly secretary of state, and Lucius
Robinson 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, Kings
County presented Church, and Robinson and Beach held their friends
firmly in hand. With the skill of an astute leader, however, Tilden
weakened the support of Church by publishing his letters declining to
be a candidate, and by invoking the influences which emphasised the
division between Beach and Schell, gained Robinson for Kernan. The
audacity of such tactics staggered the opposition, and when Beach
surrendered, Tammany and Kings hastened into line. This led to
Kernan's nomination by acclamation.[1398] As further evidence of
harmony Kelly moved the appointment of Tilden as a State
committeeman-at-large, and subsequently, on the organisation of the
committee, 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 of
Chenango, 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 the
Legislature for its failure to expel dishonest members, and charged
the National Administration with corruption and favoritism. As a
farewell to the Governor, the Democrats resolved that "the general
administration of John T. Hoffman meets the approbation of this
convention."[1399]

[Footnote 1399: New York _Tribune_, September 6, 1872.]

Hoffman's political career closed under circumstances that a more
heroic soul might have avoided. In his last message he had repudiated
the Ring. He had also made some atonement by authorising such suits
against it as Charles O'Conor might advise,[1400] and by vetoing the
Code Amendment Bill, devised by Cardozo and designed to confer
authority upon the judges to punish the press for attacking the Ring;
but the facts inspiring Nast's cartoon, which pictured him as the
Tammany wooden Indian on wheels, pushed and pulled by the Erie and
Tweed combination, had fixed the Governor in the popular mind as the
blind tool of rings. "I saw him in 1885," says Rhodes, "at the
Schweizerhof in Lucerne. Accompanied by his wife he was driving
through Switzerland; and in this hotel, full of his own countrymen, he
sat neglected, probably shunned by many. The light was gone from his
eyes, the vigour from his body, the confidence from his manner;
consciousness of failure brooded in their stead. He had not become
dissipated. Great opportunities missed; this was the memory that
racked 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 his
purpose to authorise O'Conor to bring such suits before the Committee
of Seventy had had its interview with the Governor.--Tilden's _Public
Writings 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, a
lawyer of ability and integrity, whom the Liberals endorsed. The
anti-Tammany forces, not yet willing to surrender to the new Boss,
divided their strength, the Apollo Hall Democracy nominating James
O'Brien, its founder, while the associations centring about the
Committee of Seventy supported William F. Havermeyer, whom the
Republicans endorsed. Havermeyer had twice been mayor.[1402] He
belonged among the enemies of jobbery, and although sixty-seven years
of age his mental and physical powers remained unimpaired. The
contest, thus narrowed to Lawrence and Havermeyer, assured a good
mayor.

[Footnote 1402: Elected in 1844 and 1847. Declined a renomination in
1849.]

The campaign opened encouragingly for Democrats and Liberals. "The
antagonisms which civil war has created between the kindred
populations of our country," declared Tilden, in his speech at the
Syracuse convention, "must be closed up now and forever."[1403] This
was the keynote of his party, and, apart from the personal question
of candidates, was the only serious issue of the campaign. In his
letter of acceptance Greeley added a new phrase to the vocabulary of
the common people: "I accept your nomination," he said, "in the
confident trust that the masses of our countrymen North and South are
eager 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 across
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, the general demonstration of interest
created considerable uneasiness at Republican headquarters. "His name
had been honoured for so many years in every Republican household,"
says Blaine, "that the desire to see and hear him was universal, and
secured to him the majesty of numbers at every meeting."[1405]
Greeley's friends interpreted these vast audiences as indications of a
great tidal wave which would sweep Grant and his party from power. In
the latter part of September they confidently counted upon carrying
the October States. The South's endorsement of the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, its declaration that the public
credit must be sacredly maintained, and its denunciation of
repudiation in every form and guise, created the belief that the North
and 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 by
their candidate, pushing Kernan boldly to the front wherever Greeley
seemed weak, the inequality of the fight was apparent. Tammany and
old-time Democrats could not forget that the _Tribune's_ editor had
classed them with blacklegs, thieves, burglars, gamblers, and keepers
of dens of prostitution.[1406] Moreover, only three Republican
newspapers had declared for Greeley,[1407] while many leaders like
Lyman Tremaine and James W. Husted, whose criticism of the President
had encouraged the belief that they would favour the Cincinnati
nominee, preferred Grant.[1408] Besides, the business men of the
country thought the Republican party without Greeley safer than the
Democratic party with Greeley.

[Footnote 1406: "We asked our contemporary [_World_] to state frankly
whether the pugilists, blacklegs, thieves, burglars, keepers of dens
of prostitution, etc., etc., who make up so large a share of our
city's inhabitants, were not almost unanimously Democrats."--_Tribune_,
January 4, 1868.

"So every one who chooses to live by pugilism, or gambling, or
harlotry, with nearly every keeper of a tippling house, is politically
a Democrat.... A purely selfish interest attaches the lewd, ruffianly,
criminal and dangerous class to the Democratic party by the instinct
of self-preservation."--_Ibid._, January 7. Conkling quoted these
extracts 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 General
Amnesty Act, approved May 22, and in the interest of "a free breakfast
table" placed tea and coffee on the free list. The reduction of the
public debt at the rate of one hundred millions a year, as well as
large annual reductions in the rate of taxation, also inspired
confidence, while to the President and his Secretary of State belonged
great credit for the Geneva arbitration. This amicable and dignified
adjustment of differences between England and the United States,
leading to new rules for the future government of Anglo-American
relations, and making impossible other than a friendly rivalry between
the two nations, sent a thrill of satisfaction through the American
people. Until then the settlement of such irritating questions had not
come by the peaceful process of law.

As the campaign progressed both sides indulged in bitter
personalities. In his Cooper Institute speech, an address of great
power, Conkling's invective and sarcasm cut as deeply as Nast's
cartoons.[1409] Greeley's face, dress, and manners readily lent
themselves to caricature. "I have been assailed so bitterly," wrote
Greeley, "that I hardly knew whether I was running for President or
the Penitentiary."[1410] The _Tribune_ told of a negro woman who was
heard 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 the
subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equalled in political
history."[1412]

[Footnote 1409: New York _Times_, July 24. "The longest and greatest
campaign 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 charges
published against him: "In Washington he was a briber. In Albany he
was the head of the lobby. In New York he was a partner in the Ring
frauds. He defended the rascalities of Tweed. He sold the influence of
his paper to Tammany Hall. He intrigued to restore the thieves to
power. He was involved in schemes for robbing the national treasury.
He was plotting the payment of the Confederate debt. He had promised
pensions to Rebel soldiers. He was an original Secessionist. He was
once a slave-trader in Memphis. He was the friend of the Ku-Klux and
ballot-box stuffers.... Dix blamed him for expressing ten or twelve
years 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, then
a doubtful State, gave a Republican majority in August.[1413] Vermont
and Maine followed in September, and Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana
practically settled the question in October. Finally, the election on
November 5 gave Greeley, by small majorities, Georgia, Kentucky,
Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas, or sixty-six electoral votes
to two hundred and seventy-two for Grant, whose popular majority
exceeded three-quarters of a million. Dix carried New York by 55,451
majority.[1414] Of thirty-two congressmen the Republicans elected
twenty-three, with a legislative majority of seventy on joint ballot.
To the surprise of Tammany, Havermeyer was elected mayor by over 8,000
plurality, although Greeley carried the city by 23,000 majority.[1415]
A comparison of the vote with that cast for Seymour in 1868 showed
that a marked percentage of Democrats refused to support Greeley, and
that a larger percentage did not vote at all.[1416] Other slights
added to his disappointment. "I was an Abolitionist for years," he
said, "when to be one was as much as one's life was worth even here in
New York, and the negroes have all voted against me. Whatever of
talents and energy I have possessed, I have freely contributed all my
life long to Protection; to the cause of our manufactures. And the
manufacturers have expended millions to defeat me. I even made myself
ridiculous in the opinion of many whose good wishes I desired, by
showing fair play and giving a fair field in the _Tribune_ to Woman's
Rights; and the women have all gone against me."[1417]

[Footnote 1413: After the North Carolina election would-be Liberals
rejoined 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 gone
to his rest.[1418] The campaign had overtaxed his strength, and upon
his return from the western speaking tour he watched at the bedside of
his wife until her decease on October 30. After the election he
resumed editorial charge of the _Tribune_, which he formally
relinquished on the 15th of the preceding May, but it was plain that
the robust animal spirits which characterised his former days were
gone.[1419] The loss of his wife, the mortification of defeat, the
financial embarrassment of his paper, and the exhaustion of his
physical powers had broken him. The announcement of his death,
however, although the public got an early intimation of the cruel work
which his troubles were making upon a frame that once seemed to be of
iron, came with the shock of sudden calamity. The whole country
recognised that in the field of his real conquests the most remarkable
man in American history had fallen, and it buried him with the
appreciation 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, none
too soon for she had suffered too deeply and too long. I laid her in
the ground with hard dry eyes. Well, I am used up. I cannot see before
me. 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 of
New 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 Roscoe
Conkling to the United States Senate. There was no delay and no
opposition. Cornell was in the watch-tower as speaker of the Assembly
and other lieutenants kept guard in the lobbies.[1421] The Republican
caucus nominated on the 8th and the election occurred on the
21st.[1422] A few months later (November 8) the President, in
complimentary and generous terms, offered Conkling the place made
vacant by the death of Chief Justice Chase (May 7). His industry and
legal training admirably fitted him for the position, but for reasons
not specified he declined the distinguished preferment just as he had
refused in December, 1870, the offer of a law partnership with an
annual compensation of fifty thousand dollars. Probably the suggestion
that 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 was
elected 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 have
reached the height of his power, if not of his fame. His opponents
were under his feet. Greeley was dead, Fenton's long and successful
career had closed in the gloom of defeat and the permanent eclipse of
his influence in public affairs, and others were weakened if not
destroyed by their party desertion. Moreover, the re-election of a
President whom he had supported and defended with an opulent
vocabulary that made his studied addresses models of speech, continued
his political control. About half a dozen able lieutenants, holding
fat offices in the great patronage centres, revolved with the fidelity
of planets, while in every custom-house and federal office in the
State trained politicians performed the function of satellites. To
harness the party more securely hundreds of young men, selected from
the various counties because of their partisan zeal, filled the great
departments at Washington. "In obedience to this system," said George
William Curtis, "the whole machinery of the government is pulled to
pieces every four years. Political caucuses, primary meetings, and
conventions are controlled by the promise and expectation of
patronage. Political candidates for the lowest or highest positions
are directly or indirectly pledged. The pledge is the price of the
nomination, and when the election is determined, the pledges must be
redeemed. The business of the nation, the legislation of Congress, the
duties of the departments, are all subordinated to the distribution of
what 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 sought
an appointment from him.[1425] This statement is probably true, but not
on the theory of the Latin maxim, _Qui facit per alium, facit per
se_.[1426] No occasion existed for him to make requests since his
agents, well known to the President, cabinet, and collectors, could
obtain the necessary appointments without the Senator's participation
or even knowledge. Nevertheless, he relied upon public patronage as an
instrument of party and factional success, and uniformly employed it
throughout his career. The principal objection of the independent
press to his appointment as chief justice implied his devotion to
practical politics and an absence of the quality of true
statesmanship.[1427] Indeed, in spite of his transcendent gifts, his
hold upon party and people was never stronger than the machine's,
since the influence of his control tended to transform political
action into such subserviency that men of spirit, though loving their
party, 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 it
himself."]

[Footnote 1427: The _Nation_, December 4, 1873.]

But Conkling used only the methods inherited with his leadership, and
to all appearances the grasp of the Republican party in New York in
January, 1873, was as firm as the most ardent partisan could desire.
This feeling controlled the State convention at Utica on September 24
to such a degree that its action resembled the partisan narrowness of
a ward caucus. Conkling did not attend, but his lieutenants, evidently
considering the party vote as a force which only needed exhortation or
intimidation to bring out, dropped Barlow, the attorney-general,
without the slightest regard to public sentiment, and visited the
penalty of party treason upon Thomas Raines, the State treasurer, for
his support of Greeley. From a party viewpoint perhaps Raines deserved
such treatment, but Francis C. Barlow's conduct of his office had been
characterised by the superb daring with which he met the dangers and
difficulties of many battlefields, making him the connecting link
between his party and the Reform movement. He had prosecuted the Erie
spoilers, and was then engaged in securing the punishment of the
Tammany ring. O'Conor spoke of his "austere integrity" in refusing to
accept millions as a compromise.[1428] Moreover it was conceded that
Barlow, with the possible exception of Tilden and O'Conor, knew more
of the canal frauds than any one in the State. The list of suits
brought by him showed the rottenness of the whole system of canal
management, while a recent letter, denouncing a leader of the Ring,
did not veil his hostility to its individual members.[1429] This
attack, boldly directed against a prominent Republican, aroused the
fierce opposition of the contract manipulators, whose influence
sufficed not only to defeat him, but to nominate the very man he had
accused.

[Footnote 1428: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 245.]

[Footnote 1429: This letter, dated September 14, 1874, is published in
nearly all the State papers of September 18. It is given in full in
the New York _Herald_ and _Times_.

Sanford E. Church, in a published interview, charged that the story of
his 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 with
Apollo Hall, an organisation gotten up by James O'Brien, the
ex-sheriff, for the purpose of selling to the highest bidder. In 1871
by skilful manoeuvres the party freed itself from any suspicion of
an alliance with this faction, and had thus to a very great extent
obtained the direction of the Reform movement; but now, by dropping
Barlow, ignoring his disclosures, and accepting O'Brien's offer,
already rejected by Tammany with contempt, it sacrificed its hold upon
the solid part of the community which had been taught that a vote for
the Republican ticket was the only way to obtain the fruits of
reform.[1430]

[Footnote 1430: The ticket presented was as follows: Secretary of
State, 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; State
Engineer, William B. Taylor, Oneida; Prison Inspector, Moss K. Platt,
Essex.]

At the Democratic convention which met in Utica on October 1, Thomas
Raines, whose adhesion to Greeley had made him a martyr, was nominated
by acclamation. Here, however, the enthusiasm ended. The overwhelming
defeat of the previous year had sapped the party of confidence, and
candidates whom the convention desired refused to accept, while those
it nominated brought neither prominence nor strength.[1431] The
platform denounced the "salary grab," passed in the closing hours of
the last Congress, and condemned the Crédit Mobilier disclosures which
had recently startled the country and disgraced Congress.[1432] Through
its executive committee the Liberal party indorsed the Democratic
nominees except for comptroller and prison inspector. For these
offices 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 congressman
implicated. The committee, finding him guilty of corruption as a
member of the House and as a government director of the Union Pacific
Railroad, recommended his expulsion, but on February 27, 1873, the
House, by a vote of 174 to 32 (34 not voting) changed the sentence to
one of censure. Brooks died on April 30 following.]

Meanwhile the financial crash which began on September 18 by the
failure of Jay Cooke & Co., spread an intense gloom over the State as
well as the country, and although by the middle of October the panic,
properly defined, had ended, a commercial crisis continued. By
November 1 several railroads had defaulted in the payment of interest
on their bonds, cotton and iron mills had closed, and many labourers
were thrown out of employment. Criticism of the Administration's
financial policy naturally followed, and men whose purchasing power
had ceased turned against the Republicans, giving the State to the
Democrats by 10,000 majority. With the aid of the Liberals, Hopkins
and Platt received about 4,000 majority. On the question of electing
or appointing judges, the people by an overwhelming vote pronounced in
favour of election.

As in other "off years" the result of this contest indicated a general
drift of political opinion. Ever since the Republican party came into
power ebbs and flows had occurred at alternating biennial periods. A
Democratic revival in 1862 followed Lincoln's election in 1860; his
re-election in 1864 saw a similar revival in 1865; and Grant's
decisive vote in 1868 brought a conservative reaction in 1870. It was
perhaps natural to expect that after the President's re-election in
1872 something of the kind would happen in 1873. Nevertheless, Samuel
J. Tilden saw in the result something more than the usual reaction. He
believed the failure of the Republicans to associate themselves
intimately with reformers and to manifest a loathing for all corrupt
alliances, had added greatly to their burden, and early in the summer
of 1874 he determined to run for governor.

On his return from Europe in the early fall of 1873 Tilden had found
thoughtful men of both parties talking of him as a successor to Dix.
To them the trials of Tweed and his confederates made it plain that
substantial reform must begin at Albany, and they wanted a man whose
experience and success in dealing with one Ring rendered it certain
that he would assault and carry the works of the other. But Tilden was
cunning. He betrayed no evidence of his desire until others confessed
their unwillingness to take the nomination. To the average
office-seeker running against Dix and his plurality of 55,000 was not
an attractive race. Meanwhile John Kelly, realising the value of
appearing 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 he
was capable, notwithstanding his infirmity, of making a forceful
speech, full of fire, logic and facts, his quick, retentive memory
enabling him to enter easily into political controversy. As a powerful
reasoner it was admitted that he had few equals at the bar. Indeed,
the press, crediting him with courage, perseverance, and indomitable
industry, had pictured him as a successful leader and an ideal
reformer. Tilden himself believed in his destiny, and when, at last,
the time seemed ripe to avow his candidacy he carried on a canvass
which for skill, knowledge of human nature, and of the ins and outs of
politics, had rarely been approached by any preceding master. The
press of the State soon reflected the growing sentiment in his favour.
"In selecting him," said George William Curtis, "the party will
designate 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, administrative
ability, 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 Canal
ring the trend of public sentiment toward a man of his record and
independence was especially ominous. Suddenly, such violent opposition
appeared that the New York _Herald_, studying the Democratic papers in
the State, declared that outside of New York City only the Utica
_Observer_, which was influenced by Kernan, favoured his
nomination.[1436] It was openly charged that selfish ambition prompted
his prosecution of the Tweed frauds, and that he was a cunning
schemer, cold, reticent, and severe. Then men began to dissuade him.
Friends counselled him not to take the risk of a nominating
convention. Even Seymour, moved perhaps by ambitions of his own,
discouraged him. If nominated, he wrote, you must expect the martyr's
crown. "There has been a widespread plan to carry the convention
against you. It was started last winter, and it shaped laws and
appointments. The State officers are against you.... You will find the
same combination at Syracuse that controlled at Rochester in 1871....
Our people want men in office who will not steal, but who will not
interfere with those who do."[1437] Coupled with this opposition was
the suggestion that Sanford E. Church, being in no wise identified
with 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 declined
to become a candidate, but afterward, as in 1872, he grew anxious for
the honour, and finally gave Joseph Warren of the Buffalo _Courier_ a
written consent to accept if nominated with the concurrence of other
candidates.[1438] Armed with this statement and with letters of
withdrawal from others associated with the gubernatorial nomination,
Warren sought Tilden with confidence. By prearrangement their meeting
occurred on September 8 at the Delavan House in Albany. Several were
present--Jarvis Lord, a senator from Rochester and an extensive canal
contractor, DeWolf of Oswego, and other canal men. In the room
adjoining 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 the
event of his withdrawal, Fenton intended that the Liberals should
nominate Church at their convention which assembled in Albany two days
later.[1439] But Tilden, long familiar with the Ring's methods, refused
to withdraw. On no theory could they make it appear to be his duty,
and the longer they talked the more determined he became. Then John
Kelly, in a published interview, gave Church's aspiration its death
blow. "DeWolf of Oswego, Warren of Erie, and Senator Lord of Monroe,"
he said, "belong to what is called the Canal ring.... It has been
their policy to control a majority of the canal board to enable them
to control the canal contracts.... They have always been very friendly
to Judge Church and of great assistance to him personally.... There
was friendship existing between the old Tammany ring and this Canal
ring."[1440] John Bigelow, the friend of Tilden, subsequently used
stronger phrases. "Tilden knew the Canal ring had no more servile
instrument in the State than the candidate they were urging. Church
was poor; he was ambitious; he was not content with his place on the
bench, and was only too ready at all times to combine with anybody on
any terms to secure wealth and power."[1441] To Kelly's charges the
Buffalo _Courier_ retorted that "Tammany Hall under honest John Kelly
is 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_ of
September 4.]

When the Democratic State convention met a week later war existed
between Kelly and the Canal ring.[1443] Warren intensified it by giving
the Syracuse _Standard_ a despatch declaring that Kelly's robberies
while sheriff were as criminal as those of Garvey's and Ingersoll's of
the Tweed ring.[1444] In the furious assault upon Tilden no reasons
appeared other than the fear of the Canal ring that his administration
would lead to its discomfiture. Indeed, the flankers of the reform
movement found it difficult to agree upon a candidate, and when Amasa
J. Parker finally consented to stand he did so to gratify Church's
friends in the middle and western portions of the State, who resented
the Kelly interview. That the bad blood between the Warren and Kelly
factions did not break out in the convention was probably due to
Seymour's conciliatory, tactful remarks. A single ballot, however,
banished the thought of setting Tilden aside for some man less
obnoxious 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 William
Dorsheimer of Buffalo for lieutenant-governor. Many delegates,
desiring a Democrat who would inspire enthusiasm among the younger
men, preferred Smith M. Weed of Clinton, resourceful and brilliant, if
unembarrassed by methods; but he succumbed to the earnest appeals of
DeWitt C. Littlejohn in behalf of Liberal recognition.[1446] Dorsheimer
possessed almost all the qualities that go to make up success in
politics. He had courage and tact, fascination and audacity, rare
skill on the platform, creditable associations, and marked literary
attainments. Moreover, he had given up a United States attorneyship to
follow Greeley.[1447] Not less helpful was the platform, drafted by
Seymour, which abounded in short, clear, compact statements, without
buncombe or the least equivocation. It demanded the payment of the
public debt in coin, the resumption of specie payment, taxation for
revenue only, local self-government, and State supervision of
corporations. It also denounced sumptuary laws and the third term.

[Footnote 1446: William Dorsheimer, 193; Weed, 155; Stephen T. Hoyt of
Allegany (Liberal), 34; Edward F. Jones of Broome (Liberal), 15.]

[Footnote 1447: He was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of New York on March 28, 1867. His successor's commission was
dated March 23, 1871.--_State Department Records._

The ticket nominated was as follows: Governor, Samuel J. Tilden, New
York; 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 for
anti-ring candidates did not extend to the metropolis. William F.
Havermeyer's sudden death in November made necessary the election of a
mayor, and Kelly, to keep up appearances, selected William H. Wickham,
his neighbour, an easy-going diamond merchant, whose membership on the
Committee of Seventy constituted his only claim to such
preferment.[1448] But here all semblance of reform disappeared. James
Hayes, charged with making half a million dollars during the Tweed
régime, became the candidate for register, and of fifteen persons
selected for aldermen nine belonged to the old Ring, two of whom were
under indictment for fraud.[1449] Evidently Warren did not betray
ignorance when he pronounced the new Tammany no better than the old.
The Republicans presented Salem H. Wales for mayor, while the
Germans, declining to act with Kelly, selected Oswald Ottendorfer, the
editor, a most able and upright citizen who had proven his fidelity to
the reform movement.

[Footnote 1448: "Wickham has no conception beyond making a pleasant
thing 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 officials
elected in 1872,[1450] and had the Custom-house sincerely desired the
Governor's re-election, the expediency of a coalition with
Ottendorfer's supporters must have appealed to it as highly important.
Dix had made an admirable executive. His decisions of questions
regardless of men and of the next election excited popular confidence,
and the power of public opinion had forced his renomination by
acclamation. But his independence could not be forgiven. Moreover, the
platform 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, it
followed the beaten track of its predecessors, spending itself over
Southern outrages. Although several delegates had prepared resolutions
in opposition to a third term, no one dared present them after
Conkling had finished his eulogy of the President.

[Footnote 1450: The convention met at Utica on September 23. The ticket
was 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; Prison
Inspector, Ezra Graves, Herkimer.]

The Liberals who assembled at Albany on September 10 had about
finished their course as a separate party. Their creed, so far as it
represented practical, well-meditated reform, was a respectable,
healthy faith, but the magnet which attracted the coterie of
Republicans whose leadership gave it whatever influence it exerted in
the Empire State was Horace Greeley. When he died their activity
ceased. Besides, the renomination of Dix, who had little liking for
the organisation and no sympathy with a third term, now afforded them
good opportunity to return to the fold. The Albany convention,
therefore, represented only a small fraction of the original
dissenters, and these adjourned without action until the 29th. On
reconvening a long, acrimonious discussion indicated a strong
disposition to run to cover. Some favoured Tilden, others Dix, but
finally, under the lead of George W. Palmer, the convention, deciding
to endorse no one, resolved to support men of approved honesty, who
represented the principles of the Cincinnati convention and opposed a
third term.[1451]

[Footnote 1451: On June 23 the friends of total abstinence, resenting
Dix's veto of a local option measure passed by the Legislature of
1873, assembled at Auburn, approved the organisation of a Prohibition
party, 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 the
State, introduced the clever device of mailing a fac-simile of one of
his communications, thus flattering the receiver with the belief that
he possessed an autograph letter. His genius for detail kept a corps
of assistants busy, and the effort to inspire his desponding partisans
with hope of success made each correspondent the centre of an earnest
band of endeavourers. Meanwhile the Democratic press kept up a galling
fire of criticism. Dix had escaped in 1872, but now the newspapers
charged him with nepotism and extravagance. "Governor Morgan had two
aides in time of war," wrote Seymour, "while Dix has six in time of
peace. Morgan had one messenger, Dix has two. Morgan had a secretary
at $2,000; Dix had the pay put up to $3,500--and then appointed his
son.... The people think the Governor gets $4,000; in fact, under
different pretexts it is made $14,000."[1452] An attempt was also made
to connect him with the Crédit Mobilier scandal because of his
presidency of the Union Pacific road at the time of the consideration
of the Oakes Ames contract.[1453] That the Governor had no interest in
or connection with the construction company availed him little. Other
men of approved honesty had become involved in the back-salary grab,
the Sanborn claims, and the Crédit Mobilier, and the people, quickly
distrusting 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 apathetic
party managers. "They deliberately refused to support him," said his
son, "preferring defeat to the re-election of one whom they desired to
be rid of."[1454] Conkling, in his speech at Brooklyn,[1455] rebuked the
spirit of calumny that assails the character of public men, but he
neglected to extol the record of a patriotic Governor, or to speak the
word against a third term which would have materially lightened the
party 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 of
Cæsarism,"[1456] few men believed such an idea sincerely entertained.
Nevertheless, as the election approached it aroused popular
solicitude. Congressmen who hurried to Washington in the hope of being
authorised to contradict the accusation, returned without an utterance
to disarm their opponents, while the Democrats not only maintained
that Grant himself was not averse to using his official position to
secure the nomination, but that eighty thousand office-holders were
plotting for this end.[1457] As the idea had its inception largely in
the 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] It
could not be denied that next to the commercial depression and the
insolence of the Canal ring, the deep-seated dissatisfaction with
Grant's administration influenced public sentiment. Excluding the
inflation veto the record of his second term had not improved upon the
first, while to many his refusal to disclaim the third-term accusation
became 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, having
improved the public school system, kept clean streets, and paid much
attention to sanitary conditions. Moreover, he distributed the revenue
with care, and by the practice of economy in the public works reduced
expenses nearly eight millions. The winter of 1873-4 proved a severe
one for the unemployed, however, and to catch their votes Kelly, with
great adroitness, favoured giving them public employment. This was a
powerful appeal. Fifteen thousand idle mechanics in the city wanted
work more than public economy, while thousands in the poorer
districts, seeking and receiving food from Tammany, cheered the
turbulent orator as he pictured the suffering due to Havermeyer's
policy 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 appointment
of Richard Croker as marshal,[1459] the Mayor publicly charged "Honest
John" with obtaining while sheriff $84,482 by other than legal
methods.[1460] "I think," said Havermeyer, "you were worse than Tweed
who made no pretensions to purity, while you avow your honesty and
wrap yourself in the mantle of purity."[1461] Kelly's prompt denial,
followed by a suit for criminal libel, showed a willingness to try the
issue, but Havermeyer's sudden death from apoplexy on the morning of
the trial (November 30), leaving his proofs unpublished, strengthened
Kelly's claim that "Tammany is the only reform party in existence here
to-day."[1462]

[Footnote 1459: Until then Croker had been an attaché of Connolly's
office.]

[Footnote 1460: "No law authorised Kelly to include convictions in the
Police Courts, yet he did include them, thereby robbing the city of
over thirty thousand dollars. He charged, at one time, double the
rates for conveying prisoners to and from the Island; at another, 133
per cent. more. He charged for 11,000 vagrants committed to the
work-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 the
general excellence of Dix's administration, but early in the campaign
the people showed greater liking for reform at home than abhorrence of
outrages 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 and
eighteen of the thirty-three congressional districts. With the
exception of James Hayes, who was defeated for register by over 10,000
majority, 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 were
obtained in Ohio and Indiana as well as in Pennsylvania and
Massachusetts, and for the first time since 1861 the House of
Representatives passed into the control of that party. The financial
depression plainly operated to the great advantage of the Democrats,
but in allowing Tilden to pre-empt the reform issue when men were
intent upon smashing rings, the Republicans opened the door for their
destruction. "They [the Republican leaders] have apparently believed
the people would submit to anything and everything," said the _Times_,
"and that the party was indestructible. If a newspaper warned them in
a friendly but firm spirit against the policy of blundering, it was
treated with a mixture of the insolence and arrogance which they
exhibited 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 in
an election district; abolished property qualification, thus removing
all distinction between white and coloured voters; fixed the pay of
legislators at $1500 per year, without limiting the length of a
session; changed the terms of governor and lieutenant-governor from
two to three years, with salaries of $10,000 and $5,000, respectively;
required two-thirds of all the members elected to each house to
override the governor's veto; authorised the veto of individual items
in an appropriation act; and prohibited extra compensation being paid
to 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 furnished
it. It had been nearly thirty years since the Democrats of New York
were represented in the Senate, and Tilden sent his staunchest
supporter to take the place of Fenton.[1466] This fidelity disturbed
the members of the Canal ring, who now anxiously awaited the
development of the Governor's policy. The overthrow of the Tammany
ring and the memory of Tweed's fate hung about them like the shadow of
a 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 Tweed
disclosures, he secretly studied the methods of the Ring, examined
more than one hundred contracts, and employed a civil engineer to
verify work paid for with that actually done. So severe was the strain
of this labour that in February he suffered a cerebral attack nearly
akin to paralysis.[1467] Of the character or purpose of his work no one
had any intimation, and guilty men who obsequiously complimented him
thought him weak and without the nerve to harm them. But on the 18th
of March (1875) he thrilled the State and chilled the Ring with a
special message to the Legislature, showing that for the five years
ending September 30, 1874, millions had been wasted because of
unnecessary repairs and corrupt contracts. Upon ten of these
fraudulent contracts the State, it appeared, had paid more than a
million and a half, while the proposals at contract prices called for
less than half a million. This result, he said in substance, was
brought about by a unique contrivance. The engineer designated the
quantity and kinds of work to be done, and when these estimates were
published by the commissioners, the favoured contractor, learning
through collusion what materials would actually be required, bid
absurdly low prices for some and unreasonably high rates for others.
After the contract was let, changes made in accordance with the
previous secret understanding required only the higher priced
materials. Thus the contractor secured the work without competition or
real public letting.[1468]

[Footnote 1467: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 1, p. 285.]

[Footnote 1468: The Governor plainly illustrated this device. The
engineer having estimated the amount of work and materials, the
bidders added their prices.

A bid as follows:

100 cubic yards of vertical wall, at $3      $     300.00
3,855 cubic yards of slope wall, at $1.50        5,782.50
2,400 feet B.M. white oak, at $50                  120.00
60,000 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      $     600.00
3,855 cubic yards of slope wall, at 30 cents     1,156.50
2,400 feet B.M. white oak, at $70                  168.00
60,000 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 work
was changed as follows:

3,955 cubic yards of vertical wall, at $6    $  23,730.00
62,400 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 the
State 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 new
letting after any change in the proposals for bids. He also suggested
an investigation of the frauds already perpetrated, and for this
purpose the Senate confirmed a non-partisan commission,[1469] who
quickly reported that the work of one contractor showed fraudulent
estimates, false measurements, and a charge of $150,337.02 for
excavations and embankments that were never made. Neither surveys nor
estimates preceded the letting of the contract, while in every
instance he appeared as the lowest bidder. Eleven additional reports
made during the year showed that similar frauds were repeatedly
practised by him and other contractors. In each case arrests,
indictments, and suits for restitution promptly followed.[1470] It also
appeared that the auditor of the canal department, a former Republican
candidate for secretary of state, had made use of his office to
speculate in canal drafts and certificates.

[Footnote 1469: This commission was composed of John Bigelow, Daniel
Magone of Ogdensburg, Alexander E. Orr of Brooklyn, and John D. Van
Buren of New York.]

[Footnote 1470: Indictments were found against the son of a State
senator, a member of the board of canal appraisers, an ex-canal
commissioner, two ex-superintendents of canals and one division
engineer, besides numerous subordinates and contractors.--See
Bigelow's _Life of Tilden_, pp. 262-263; for names of the parties, see
Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1875, p. 558.]

The excitement over these revelations recalled the indignation
following the Tweed disclosures. Every voter in every corner of the
State knew of them. Furthermore, the arrests of contractors and
officials along the line of the canal multiplied evidence of the
Governor's courage. He spared no one. Of the principal officials and
ex-officials indicted all save two were Democrats,[1471] but his
administration knew no party and expressed no concern. Such creditable
public service made a profound impression, and during a visit to the
western part of the State in August, the people accorded him the
attention given to a conqueror. From Albany to Buffalo crowds
everywhere saluted him with bands of music and salvos of artillery,
while his addresses, characterised by plainness of speech, deprecated
a reactionary policy.

[Footnote 1471: Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 263.]

These demonstrations alarmed Republican leaders. They appreciated that
his adroitness and energy in accumulating proof of Tweed's guilt had
fixed the attention of the country upon him as a presidential
candidate, and that the assault on the canal spoilers made his
pretensions more formidable. Moreover, they realised that their own
failure to lead in canal reform in 1873, evidenced by ignoring Barlow
and his incriminating disclosures, yielded Tilden a decided advantage
of which he must be dispossessed. To accomplish this two ways opened
to them. Regarding the canal scandal as not a party question they
could heartily join him in the crusade, thus dividing whatever
political capital might be made out of it; or they could disparage his
effort and belittle his character as a reformer. The latter being the
easier because the more tolerable, many Republican papers began
charging him with insincerity, with trickery, and with being wholly
influenced by political aspirations. His methods, too, were criticised
as undiplomatic, hasty, and often harsh. Of this policy _Harper's
Weekly_ said: "Those who say that the Governor's action is a mere
political trick, and that he means nothing, evidently forget that they
are speaking of the man who, when he once took hold of the Tweed
prosecution, 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 the
Republican State convention.[1473] It also became the policy of the
managers whom defeat had chastened. They discerned the signs of the
times, and instead of repressing hostility to a third term and
dissatisfaction with certain tendencies of the National
administration, as had been done in 1874, they deemed it wiser to swim
with the current, meeting new influences and conditions by discarding
old policies that had brought their party into peril. The delegates,
therefore, by a great majority, favoured "a just, generous, and
forbearing national policy in the South," and "a firm refusal to use
military power, except for purposes clearly defined in the
Constitution." They also commended "honest efforts for the correction
of public abuses," pledged coöperation "in every honourable way to
secure pure government and to bring offenders to justice," and
declared "unalterable opposition to the election of any President for
a third term."[1474] Furthermore, the convention sought candidates of
prominence and approved integrity. In the presence of threatened
defeat such men were shy. William H. Robertson of Westchester thrice
declined the comptrollership, and insistence upon his acceptance did
not cease until James W. Husted, springing to his feet, declared that
such 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 proffered
honour. Finally, the choice fell upon Francis E. Spinner, formerly
United States treasurer, and although he sent two unconsenting
telegrams, the convention refused to revoke its action. Despite such
embarrassments, however, it secured an array of strong, clean
men.[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 retired
an anti-Tammany delegation led by John Morrissey,[1476] reaffirmed the
platforms of 1872 and 1874, and nominated John Bigelow for secretary
of 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 of
two Republicans on a non-partisan board; but for reasons best known to
himself Bigelow changed his party in the twinkling of an eye.
Associated with him were John D. Van Buren, also upon the canal
commission; Lucius Robinson, who won, when comptroller in 1862, great
honour in the teeth of much obloquy by paying the State interest in
coin; and Charles S. Fairchild, then a young lawyer earning
substantial credit, like Bigelow and Van Buren, in the prosecution of
the Canal ring.[1477] In naming this ticket Tilden had exhibited his
characteristic shrewdness. He exaggerated the partisan aspect of
administrative reform, and strengthened his candidacy for President by
appropriating the glory.

[Footnote 1476: After James Hayes' defeat for register in 1874, Kelly
deprived Morrissey of his district leadership because he stirred up
disaffection among the working men and sowed seeds of disloyalty. In
their contest the Morrissey and Kelly factions were known as
"Swallow-tails" and "Short-hairs," Morrissey, to rebuke Wickham's
custom of requiring cards of callers in advance of admission to his
office, having called upon the Mayor during business hours in evening
dress, with white kids and patent-leather pumps.]

[Footnote 1477: The ticket was as follows: Secretary of State, John
Bigelow, Ulster; Comptroller, Lucius Robinson, Chemung;
Attorney-General, Charles S. Fairchild, New York; Treasurer, Charles
N. Ross, Cayuga; Engineer, John D. Van Buren, New York; Canal
Commissioner, Christopher A. Walruth, Oneida; Prison Inspector, Rodney
R. Crowley, Cattaraugus.

On September 22 the Liberals met at Albany. They eulogised Tilden by
name, favored the Greeley doctrine of a single term for President,
arraigned the Federal administration, and recommended the support of
candidates who would coöperate with the Executive in his work of
reform.

For governor the Prohibitionists nominated George H. Dusenberre.]

The Republican press, quickly interpreting his purpose, now changed
from praise to censure, scrutinising and criticising every act in his
long public career. It reviewed his war record, disclosed his part in
the convention of 1864, and hinted at uncanny financial transactions.
His service as the figurehead of Tweed's conventions, and his
passiveness after possessing knowledge of the infamous circular of
1868 to which his name had been forged, also became the subject of
severe censure. Though he neither shared Tweed's corrupt counsels nor
sanctioned his audacious schemes, Tilden's abhorrence of wrong, it was
argued, seemed insufficient to break his silence. But the accusation
that cut the deepest, because without palliation, illuminated his
declination to attend the great indignation meeting that appointed the
Committee of Seventy. This fact, established by abundant proof as well
as by his conspicuous absence, created the belief that had the
_Times'_ exposure failed fatally to wound the Ring, he would have
shrunk 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, who
had cultivated some queer political associates and had countenanced
some very shady transactions. Nevertheless, Tilden would not be
diverted from the singleness of his purpose. To make the issue a
personal one he took the stump and traversed the State from one end to
the other, always addressing immense crowds. At Utica the contemporary
press estimated the throng at twenty-five thousand persons. With
directness and business brevity he sought to arouse the people to the
importance and gravity of the issues at stake. "To-day about one-half
of the tax contributed by the farmer," he said, "goes to the State to
carry on public affairs.... It is in the power of the Legislature and
the Executive at Albany to reduce this State tax one-half if you send
the right men.... We began this work last winter. It made great
conflict and turmoil, the attempt to remove the fungus-growths which
had sprung up all over our State institutions, and which were
smothering their vitality.... It is not alone the saving of dollars
and cents, for you cannot preserve your present system of government
unless 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 the
moral force of public sentiment had undoubtedly kept him in error. He
failed entirely to appreciate the close connection between rebellion
and slavery, and in finally yielding to the war-failure resolution at
Chicago in 1864 he did not realise how completely abolition and a
restoration of the Union were associated in the hearts of the people.
But with the advent of the business period, although his bodily
presence was weak and the external elements of popularity were
wanting, his subtle, strong mind and great administrative capacity
brought him irresistibly to the front, and his shrewd, homely appeals,
without mixed metaphors or partisan allusions, reduced the issue of
the campaign to the attractive one of saving dollars and cents by
protecting the treasury against the raid of canal spoilers.

Conkling did not attend the Saratoga convention.[1479] But he did not
remain silent during the campaign. The Democratic and independent
press, illuminating the story of Louisiana under carpet-bag-negro rule
which culminated in the ejection of members of the Legislature by a
file of soldiers under command of General Sheridan, had greatly
increased the disfavour of the Administration's policy toward the
South.[1480] So intense had been the excitement following the
publication of Sheridan's despatches that a great indignation meeting
called out William Cullen Bryant, then past eighty, who addressed it
"with the vehemence and fire of a man of thirty."[1481] Moreover, the
exposure of the Whiskey ring which began under Bristow, then secretary
of the treasury, added to the advantage of the Democrats. The chief
conspirator figured as Grant's most generous gift-giver, who claimed
collusion with the President's private secretary. The Executive's
evident displeasure with Bristow also increased the unrest. Indeed, it
seemed a period of exposure. Public opinion had become aroused and
inflamed. "Great as are the frauds of Tammany," said Charles A. Dana,
"they sink into insignificance not only beside those of the carpet-bag
governments of the South, but still more beside those committed by the
Republican Administration at Washington."[1482]

[Footnote 1479: In the summer of 1875 he made a brief visit to
Europe.--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 held
January 11.]

[Footnote 1482: New York _Sun_, February 17.]

These revelations, however, did not call more loudly for Conkling's
defence of his party than did the popular applause which everywhere
greeted the reform Governor. The work and rising fame of Tilden
alarmed the Senator if it did not irritate him. He saw the tremendous
throng at Utica; he had read the plain, brief, unadorned statement
about dividing the State-tax by two; and he recognised a rival who had
leaped into the political arena full-armed and eager. Moreover,
Conkling was himself a candidate for President. Grant's letter of May
29,[1483] interpreted as a declination to be a candidate for a third
term, set him free to enter the lists, and the argument of his
availability, based upon his power to carry the pivotal State, made a
Republican victory in 1875 of the highest importance. For him to take
part in the campaign, therefore, was imperative, and he selected
Albany as the place and October 13 as the day to begin. Other
engagements 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 to
the Republican State convention of March 22, 1876.--New York
_Tribune_, March 23, 1876.]

Attracted by the critical situation and an intense curiosity great
audiences greeted him, and hundreds of friends cheered an address,
which, as usual, contained from his point of view the whole Republican
case. He recited the Democratic party's history during the war;
described reformers as selfish, hypocritical, and pure, placing
Republicans in the last category; claimed that the canal frauds
originated under Democratic rule and were connived at by Democratic
State officials; and proved that Republicans had administered the
canals and the State's finances more economically than the Democrats.
He also admitted reform to be the principal issue, thanked Tilden for
the little he had accomplished, severely castigated Bigelow for
accepting place on the canal commission as a Republican and on the
State ticket as a Democrat, and drew attention to Kelly as a bad man
and 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 its
keen satiric edge flashed defiantly before the eyes of the applauding
audience,"[1485] and every period exhibited his profound sense of the
duty of maintaining the ascendency of a party which to him promised
best for the public.

[Footnote 1485: The _Nation_, October 28.]

With wisdom and sound argument Conkling had opposed inflation, and
after the passage of the bill on April 14, 1874, he had encouraged the
President's veto. He had likewise advocated with no less fervour and
sagacity the resumption of specie payment, which became a law on
January 14, 1875. This service justly entitled him to the highest
praise. Nevertheless, in his speech at Albany he failed to show that
Republican success in 1875 would not mean a continuation of those
things which helped a Republican defeat in 1874. Hostility to a third
term and sympathy with a generous Southern policy were the conspicuous
features of the Saratoga platform, and upon these issues he maintained
a notable silence. His address was rather an appeal to the past--not
an inspiring assurance for the future, seeking pure administration. Of
his personal honesty no one entertained a doubt, but for party ends he
had 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 those
whose great love for their party made them long to have it stand for
civic 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 the
Irving Hall Democracy. In this organisation all anti-Tammany elements
found a home, and to test its strength Morrissey declared himself a
candidate for the Senate in the fourth or old Tweed district, which
usually recorded eleven thousand majority for Tammany. The Republicans
promptly endorsed the nomination. This challenge had turned the whole
city into turmoil. Morrissey's audacity in selecting the invincible
stronghold of Tammany for his field of battle, throwing the glamour of
a gloveless ring-contest over the struggle, brought into life all the
concomitants 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, their
overthrow encouraging the belief that the State had been carried by
the Republicans. Subsequently, when Bigelow's plurality of nearly
fifteen thousand was established, it made defeat doubly
disheartening.[1486] It put Tilden on a pinnacle. It left Conkling on
the 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 the
defeat of his party in 1875. The Union League Club, a body of earnest
Republicans and generous campaign givers, declared for pure government
and a reforming Executive. Several county conventions voiced a protest
against pledged delegations, and _Harper's Weekly_, in order to divide
Republicans more sharply into Conkling and anti-Conkling advocates,
suggested, in a series of aggressive editorials, that a reform
Democrat might be preferable to a Republican who represented the low
tone of political honour and morality which exposed itself in official
life. On the assembling of the State convention (March 22) to select
delegates to Cincinnati, Curtis opened the way wider for a determined
struggle. "The unceasing disposition of the officers and agents of the
Administration to prostitute the party organisations relentlessly and
at all costs to personal ends," he said, "has everywhere aroused the
apprehension of the friends of free government, and has startled and
alarmed the honest masses of the Republican party."[1487] This shot
fired across the bow of the organisation brought its head into the
wind.

[Footnote 1487: New York _Tribune_, March 23, 1876.]

The Conkling managers had secured a majority of the delegates, whose
desire to advertise an undivided sentiment for the Senator in New York
manifested itself by a willingness to yield in the interest of
harmony. Finally, their resolution to instruct the delegation to vote
as a unit took the more modest form of simply presenting "Roscoe
Conkling as our choice for the nomination of President." Curtis,
refusing his assent, moved a substitute that left the selection of a
candidate to the patriotic wisdom of the National convention "in full
confidence that it will present the name of some tried and true
Republican whose character and career are the pledge of a pure,
economical, and vigorous administration of the government." This was
an issue--not a compromise. It practically put Conkling out of the
race, and after its presentation nothing remained to be done except to
call the roll. At its completion the startling discovery was made that
of the 432 delegates present only 363 had answered, and that of these
113 had boldly stood with Curtis. Equally impressive, too, was the
silence of the 69 who refrained from voting. Thus it appeared that,
after the whole office-holding power had worked for weeks to secure
delegates, only 33 more than a majority favoured even the presentation
of Conkling's name. It was recalled by way of contrast that in 1860,
Seward, without an office at his command, had led the united
Republican enthusiasm of the State.

Following the example of Seward's supporters at Chicago, the friends
of Conkling at Cincinnati occupied an entire hotel, distributed with
lavishness the handsome State badge of blue, entertained their
visitors with a great orchestra, paraded in light silk hats, and swung
across the street an immense banner predicting that "Roscoe Conkling's
nomination assures the thirty-five electoral votes of New York." These
headquarters were in marked contrast to the modest rooms of other
States having favourite sons. No Blaine flag appeared, and only an oil
portrait of Hayes adorned the Ohio parlours. A Philadelphia delegate,
after surveying the Grand Hotel and the marchers, ironically remarked
that "it was a mystery to him where the Custom-house got bail for all
those 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 stirring
national 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 as
an orator. In seconding the nomination of Bristow, George William
Curtis, speaking "for that vast body of Republicans in New York who
have seen that reform is possible within the Republican party," won
his way to the convention's heart as quickly as he did in 1860,
although each person present avowed, after Robert G. Ingersoll had
spoken, that for the first time he understood the possible compass of
human eloquence.[1489]

[Footnote 1489: _Official Proceedings of National Republican
Conventions_, p. 292.]

Until the deciding ballot New York's part in the convention proved
perfunctory. Beyond the sound of its music and the tread of its
marchers neither applause nor good will encouraged its candidate.
Reformers regarded Conkling as the antithesis of Bristow, supporters
of Morton jealously scowled at his rivalry, and the friends of Blaine
resented his attitude toward their favourite. Only Hayes's little band
of expectant backers, hoping eventually to capture the New York
delegation, gracefully accorded him generous recognition.[1490]
Conkling's support, beginning with ninety-nine votes, gradually fell
off to eighty-one, when the delegation, without formally withdrawing
his name, dropped him with not a word and divided between Blaine and
Hayes, giving the former nine votes and the latter sixty-one.[1491] In
fact, Morton and Conkling, the two political legatees of Grant, fared
about alike, their strength in the North outside their respective
States aggregating only six votes. The President, believing a "dark
horse" 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 for
Conkling.

Seven ballots were taken, as follows:

Blaine     285     296     293     286     308     351
Bristow    113     114     121     126     111      21
Morton     124     120     113     108      85
Conkling    99      93      90      84      81
Hayes       61      64      67      68     113     384
Hartranft   58      63      68      71      50
Jewell      11
Wheeler      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; Jacob
Worth, 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 General
Grant_, 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's
name his oratorical power had won admiration, while delegates from
Ohio, Indiana, and other Western States, where his voice had been
heard in opposition to Greenbackism, did not forget his unselfish
devotion, nor the brilliant rhetoric that clothed his unanswerable
arguments. But the Blaine States manifested genuine enthusiasm for
William A. Wheeler, a man of pure life, simple habits, ripe culture,
and sincere and practical principles, who had won the esteem of all
his associates in Congress. To add to his charm he had a good presence
and warm family affections. He possessed, too, a well-earned
reputation for ability, having served with credit in the Legislature,
in Congress, and as president of the constitutional convention of
1866-7. Conkling thought him "not very well known."[1493] Nevertheless,
he had been mentioned for President, and throughout the long and
exciting contest two delegates from Massachusetts kept his name before
the convention. George F. Hoar, afterward the distinguished
Massachusetts senator, became especially active in his behalf, and
James Russell Lowell called him "a very sensible man."[1494] Outside
delegations, therefore, without waiting for New York to act, quickly
exhibited their partiality by putting him in nomination.[1495] Later,
when the Empire State named Stewart L. Woodford, the situation became
embarrassing. Finally, as the Wheeler vote rapidly approached a
majority, the Empire delegation, to escape being run over again,
reluctantly withdrew its candidate.[1496] The roll call, thus abruptly
discontinued, showed Wheeler far ahead of the aggregate vote of all
competitors, 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 of
Vermont, and seconded by S.H. Russell of Texas, and Henry R. James of
New York (Ogdensburg). Thomas C. Platt presented Woodford.

"Wheeler very much disliked Roscoe Conkling and all his ways. Conkling
once said to him: 'If you will join us and act with us, there is
nothing in the gift of the State of New York to which you may not
reasonably aspire.' To which Wheeler replied: 'Mr. Conkling, there is
nothing in the gift of the State which will compensate me for the
forfeiture of my own self-respect.'"--Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1,
p. 243.]

[Footnote 1496: "It was not to the credit of the New York delegation
that Wheeler was obliged to look to other States for his presentation
and support."--Utica _Herald_, June 17.]

[Footnote 1497: With fifteen States and Territories to be called, the
vote stood as follows: Wheeler, 366; all others, 245.]

The rank and file of the party, exhibiting no discouragement because
of the outcome at Cincinnati, sought a strong candidate to head their
State ticket.[1498] To those possessing the reform spirit William M.
Evarts appealed as a representative leader. He had indicated no desire
to hold public office. Indeed, it may be said that he always seemed
disinterested in political conditions so far as they affected him
personally. Although his friends thought the old supporters of Seward,
if not Seward himself, had failed to sustain him for the United States
Senate in 1861 as faithfully as he would have supported the Secretary
of State under like conditions, there is no evidence that he ever
found fault. When in Hayes' Cabinet and afterwards in the Senate
(1885-91), he did not take or attempt to take, either in the counsels
of his party or of his colleagues, the leadership for which he was
admirably fitted. It is doubtful, in fact, if he ever realised the
strong hold he had upon the respect and admiration of the country. But
the people knew that his high personal character, his delightful
oratory, his unfailing wit and good-nature, and his great prestige as
a famous lawyer of almost unexampled success commended him as an ideal
candidate. Conspicuously among those urging his candidacy for governor
in 1876 appeared a body of influential leaders from the Union League
and 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 on
August 23.]

[Footnote 1499: Although many prominent Republicans who voted for
Greeley in 1872 had previously renewed their allegiance, the Liberals
as an organisation did not formally coalesce with the Republican party
until August 23, 1876. On that day about 200 delegates, headed by John
Cochrane and Benjamin F. Manierre, met in convention at Saratoga, and
after accepting Hayes and Wheeler as the exponents of their reform
principles, were invited amidst loud applause to seats in the
Republican State convention.]

If the candidate could not be Evarts, the same elements evidenced a
disposition to support Edwin D. Morgan, who had shown of late a
disturbing independence of the machine. Of the other aspirants William
H. Robertson presented his usual strength in the Hudson River
counties.

Alonzo B. Cornell was the candidate of the organisation. Evarts had
illustrated his independence in accepting office under President
Johnson, in criticising the Grant administration, and in protesting
against the Louisiana incident. Robertson, in voting for Blaine, had
likewise gone to the outer edge of disloyalty. Nor did Morgan's
attitude at Cincinnati commend him. His ambition, which centred in the
vice-presidency, left the impression that he had cared more for
himself than for Conkling. Under these circumstances the Senator
naturally turned to Cornell, an efficient lieutenant, who, having
encountered heavy seas and a head wind, hoisted the signal of distress
and waited for Conkling's coming. The Senator, however, did not
appear. His rooms were engaged, his name was added to the hotel
register, and Cornell's expectant friends declared that he would again
capture the convention with his oratory; but Conkling, knowing that in
political conventions the power of oratory depended largely upon
pledged delegations, prudently stayed away. Besides, he was not a
delegate, his partisans in Oneida having been put to rout. This forced
the withdrawal of Cornell, whose delegates, drifting to Morgan as the
lesser of two evils, nominated him on the first ballot.[1500] Evarts
was 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 few
rash friends, Cornell also allowed his name to be presented, "since he
had been grievously wronged," said his eulogist, "in the dishonest
count of 1868."[1501] Cornell had adroitly extricated himself from
humiliating defeat in the morning by a timely withdrawal, but not
until George William Curtis declared his nomination "the most
dangerous that could be made," and William B. Woodin of Cayuga had
stigmatised him, did he fully appreciate his unpopularity as the
representative of machine methods. Woodin's attack upon Cornell
undoubtedly weakened Pomeroy. It possessed the delectable acidity, so
reckless in spirit, but so delightful in form, that always made the
distinguished State senator's remarks attractive and diverting.
Although whatever weakened Pomeroy naturally strengthened Rogers, it
added greatly to the latter's influence that he represented the home
of William Dorsheimer, whom the Democrats would renominate, and in the
end 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, George
F. Danforth, Monroe; Canal Commissioner, Daniel C. Spencer,
Livingston; Prison Inspector, Charles W. Trowbridge, Kings.]

The day's work, however, left bitter thoughts. Conkling's absence
exaggerated Arthur's poor generalship and George H. Sharpe's failure
to support Cornell. Sharpe was one of the organisation's cleverest
leaders, and his indifference to Cornell's interests left a jagged
wound that was not soon to heal. Moreover, it could not be concealed
that Morgan's nomination was a Pyrrhic victory. In fact, the
conventions at Cincinnati and Saratoga had thrown the Conkling machine
out of gear, and while the repair shop kept it running several years
longer, it was destined never again to make the speed it had formerly
attained.




CHAPTER XXVII

TILDEN ONE VOTE SHORT

1876


After the election in 1875 the eyes of the national Democracy turned
toward Tilden as its inevitable candidate for President. He had not
only beaten a Canal ring, strengthened by remnants of the old Tweed
ring, but he had carried the State against the energies of a fairly
united Republican party. Moreover, he had become, in the opinion of
his friends, the embodiment of administrative reform, although he
suffered the embarrassment of a statesman who is suspected, rightly or
wrongly, of a willingness to purchase reform at any price.[1503] To
prove his right to be transferred from Albany to Washington he now
made his message to the Legislature a treatise upon national affairs.

[Footnote 1503: Tilden's policy of pardoning members of the Tweed ring
had become intolerable. "On an average about nine out of ten men who
were confessedly guilty of stealing were accepted as witnesses against
the other one man, until the time came when there was but one man
against whom any testimony could be used, and it was not considered
wise 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 pointing
to a remedy he advocated the prompt resumption of specie payment,
criticised the dread of imaginary evils, encouraged economy in
legislation, and analysed the federal system of taxation and
expenditure. Furthermore, he sought to cut loose from the discredited
past of his party, and in paying high tribute to the patriotism of the
South, he expressed the hope that its acceptance of the results of the
war might end forever the retribution visited upon it by the standing
menace 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 Tilden
at St. Louis, since Wheeler's popularity would materially assist in
replacing New York among reliable Republican States. Nevertheless, the
predatory class who had felt the weight of Tilden's heavy hand
fomented a most formidable opposition at the State convention.[1505]
John Kelly deeply sympathised with the movement. He resented the
rivalry and independence of the Sage of Gramercy Park, and he did not
disguise his hostility. But Kelly's immediate need centred in the
exclusion of the Morrissey delegation, and when the Tilden lieutenants
proscribed it, the way was smoothed for the Governor's unanimous
endorsement 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 mouths
of Tilden's opponents.[1506]. Organs of the Canal ring continued to
urge Seymour or Church for President, maintaining that the
convention's action did not bind the delegation. Church supported this
interpretation of the declaration.[1507] But it remained for the
_Express_, the authorised organ of Tammany, to stigmatise Tilden. With
cruel particularity it referred to his many-sided conduct as counsel
and director in connection with the foreclosure and reorganisation of
certain railroads in Illinois, reciting details of the affair in a
manner highly prejudicial to his integrity as a lawyer and his
reputation as a man of wealth. "Of the weak points in Mr. Tilden's
railroad record," the editor suggestively added, "we know more than we
care to publish."[1508] It doubled the severity of the blow because
suit had been instituted to compel Tilden to account for the proceeds
of large amounts of bonds and stock, and instead of meeting the
allegations promptly he had sought and obtained delay. This seemed to
give colour to the indictment.

[Footnote 1506: "It is natural enough that the canal ring and its
followers, Tammany and its adherents, and that sort of Democrats who
are commonly called Bourbons, should labour to defeat the nomination
for high office of the man who represents everything that they oppose,
and opposes everything that they represent; but it will be a most
discouraging thing to every person who hopes for good at the hands of
the Democratic party if such opposition is permitted to prevail in its
councils. He has put his principles in practice in the most fearless
and resolute manner, and has made himself especially obnoxious to his
opponents as their hostility to him clearly shows."--New York _Evening
Post_ (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, Augustus
Schell, and Erastus Corning, soon wore these insinuations
threadbare.[1509] To their further declaration that in order to succeed
in November the Democracy must have one October State and that Tilden
could not carry Indiana, Dorsheimer and Bigelow, the Governor's
spokesmen, replied that New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut could
elect Tilden without Indiana. The colossal assurance of this answer
characterised the convention's confidence in Tilden's strength. It
possessed the South, the East, and the West. Hancock might be the
favourite in Pennsylvania, Parker in New Jersey, Bayard in Delaware,
Allen in Ohio, and Hendricks in Indiana, but as delegates entered the
convention city the dense Tilden sentiment smothered them. Even
scandal did not appreciably weaken it.

[Footnote 1509: The National Democratic convention assembled on June 27
and 28.]

There was nothing mysterious about this strength. Tilden represented
success. Without him disaster threatened--with him victory seemed
certain. His achievement in administrative reform exaggerated
Republican failure; his grasp upon New York, the most vital State of
the North, magnified Democratic strength; his leadership, based upon
ideas and organisation, dwarfed political rivals; his acute legal
mind, leading to the largest rewards in the realm of law, captivated
business men; and his wealth, amassed in the field of railroad
organisation and litigation, could fill Democracy's exchequer. Thus
Tilden, standing less on the Democratic platform than on his own
record, held the commanding position in his party, and the talk of his
unpopularity or how he obtained wealth seemed to make as little
impression as his professed devotion to the Wilmot Proviso in 1847, or
his departure for a season from a lifelong pro-slavery record to bear
a prominent part in the Barnburners' revolt of 1848. Indeed, so
certain was Tilden of success that he did not ask for advices until
after the nomination. James C. Carter of the New York bar, who
happened at the time to be with him respecting legal matters, wondered
at his unconcern. On their return from an evening drive Carter
ventured to suggest that he would find telegrams announcing his
nomination. "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 managers
shiver.[1511] Alabama divided its vote, Colorado caused a murmur of
disappointment, and the slump of Georgia and Illinois, with Missouri's
division, threatened them with heart-failure. The South wabbled, and
promised votes in the North found their way elsewhere. At the close of
the first roll-call Missouri asked if its vote could be changed, and
on receiving an affirmative answer, the Tilden men, pale with worried
excitement, awaited the result. A change to Hancock at that moment
would have been a serious calamity, for nearly one hundred votes
separated Tilden from the necessary two-thirds. When Missouri declared
for the New Yorker, however, the opportunity to turn the tide against
him was lost forever. The second ballot undoubtedly represented his
real strength.[1512] For second place Thomas A. Hendricks had no
opposition.

[Footnote 1511: Francis Kernan presented Tilden's name very
effectively.]

[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, the
accomplished editor of the _World_, advocated reform as its keynote
and made historic its vituperative arraignment of the party in power.
On the vital question of the currency it demanded the repeal of the
resumption clause of the Act of 1875, denouncing it as an hindrance to
the resumption of specie payment. The Republicans, wishing to avoid
too sharp a conflict with the soft money sentiment of the West, had
pledged the fulfilment of the Public Credit Act,[1513] approved March
18, 1869, "by a continuous and steady progress to specie payments."
Both declarations savoured of indefiniteness, but Hayes, in his letter
of acceptance (July 8), added greatly to his reputation for firmness
and decision of character in supplying the needed directness by
demanding 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 a
repeal of the resumption clause he urged, in a long, indefinite
communication, the importance of preparation for resumption, ignoring
the fact that the Act of 1875 anticipated such precaution. Although
less prolix in his treatment of civil service reform, he was no less
indefinite. After describing recognised evils he failed to indicate
any practical remedy beyond the "conviction that no reform will be
complete and permanent until the Chief Executive is constitutionally
disqualified for re-election."[1515] Speaking of the character of the
men holding office his use of the word "usufruct" led to the derisive
appellation of "Old Usufruct Tilden."[1516] On civil service reform
Hayes was more specific. He declared against the use of official
patronage in elections and pledged himself not to be a candidate for a
second term.[1517]

[Footnote 1513: This act terminates as follows: "And the United States
also solemnly pledges its faith to make provision at the earliest
practicable period for the redemption of the United States notes in
coin."]

[Footnote 1514: "Tilden's letter was a disappointment to those who had
studied his words and acts as Governor."--Rhodes, _History of the
United States_, Vol. 7, p. 216.]

[Footnote 1515: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1876, p. 790.]

[Footnote 1516: "The public interest in an honest, skilful performance
of official trust must not be sacrificed to the usufruct of the
incumbents."--Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1876, p. 790.]

[Footnote 1517: _Ibid._, p. 783.]

If Conkling had been balked in his desire to nominate Cornell, Tilden
was not less baffled a week later in his effort to promote William
Dorsheimer, his special friend. His genius for organisation had
smoothed the way for harmony at Saratoga.[1518] Kelly and Morrissey
settled their differences in advance, the platform created no
discussion, and the appointment of electors-at-large provoked little
criticism; but when Tilden's lieutenants proposed Dorsheimer for
governor the convention revolted. It noisily demanded a Democrat, and
in the stampede that followed Clarkson N. Potter, backed by Tammany
and the Canal ring, rapidly accumulated strength despite Tilden's
personal opposition. To all of Tilden's friends vital objections
seemed to be raised. Dorsheimer could not command a solid Democratic
vote; Robinson favoured high canal tolls and cultivated Republican
affiliations; Manton Marble remained unpopular because the _World_
changed front in 1868; and Starbuck of Jefferson did not attract
Independents. For once Tilden had plainly been deceived as to his
strength. Furthermore, the convention, divided in its attention
between speeches for Potter and demands for Seymour, was beyond his
control. Nevertheless, as the delegates in their stentorian insistence
upon a "Democrat" became more and more furious for Seymour, the Tilden
managers, to head off the alarming sentiment for Potter, adroitly
increased the volume of the demand for the Oneidan. It was known that
Seymour had refused the use of his name. Telegrams to Kernan and
letters 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 under
similar circumstances, closed its ears to his entreaties, and amidst
the most vociferous cheering nominated him by acclamation. The next
morning, with equal unanimity, it renominated Dorsheimer for
lieutenant-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 the
duties of the office, put himself out of the race.[1520] This gave
Tilden opportunity to re-form his lines, and upon the convention's
reassembling (September 13) Robinson easily won.[1521]

[Footnote 1520: For Seymour's letter, see New York papers of September
5.]

[Footnote 1521: The ballot stood: Potter, 106-1/2; Robinson, 192-1/2;
scattering, 59. Necessary to a choice, 191. Before its announcement
changes 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 York
City, Kelly and Morrissey uniting upon Smith Ely for mayor. The
Republicans nominated John A. Dix. Thus was the municipal struggle in
the metropolis, for the first time in many years, confined within
strict party lines.[1522]

[Footnote 1522: On March 15, several disaffected Democrats met at
Syracuse and organised a Greenback party, which opposed the resumption
of specie payment and favoured legal tender notes as the standard of
value. A second convention, held in New York City on June 1, selected
four delegates-at-large to the Democratic national convention, and a
third, meeting at Albany on September 26, nominated Richard M. Griffin
for 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's
rhetorical arraignment of the Republican party, and the Democratic
press iterated and reiterated its symmetrical, burning sentences.
Marble's platform, besides being the most vitriolic, had the
distinction of being the longest in the history of national
conventions. Copies of it printed in half a dozen languages seemed to
spring up as plentifully as weeds in a wheatfield. Every cross-roads
in the State became a centre for its distribution. It pilloried
Grant's administration, giving in chronological order a list of his
unwise acts, the names and sins of his unfaithful appointees, and a
series of reasons why Tilden, the Reformer, could alone restore the
Republic to its pristine purity. It was a dangerous document because
history substantially affirmed its statement of facts, while the
rhythm of its periods and the attractiveness of its typography invited
the reader.[1523]

[Footnote 1523: Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1876, pp. 785, 786.]

Conkling, because of ill-health, limited his activity in the canvass
to one address.[1524] It was calmer than usual, but it shone with
sparkles of sarcasm and bristled with covert allusions readily
understood. It was noticeable, too, that he made no reference to Hayes
or to Wheeler. Nevertheless, party associates from whom he had
radically differed pronounced it a model of partisan oratory and the
most conclusive review of the political situation. He admitted the
corruption indicated by Marble, attributing it chiefly to the war
which incited speculative passion in all the activities of life, its
ill consequences not being confined exclusively to public affairs. In
contrasting the management of the two parties, he disclosed under
Buchanan a loss on each thousand dollars collected and disbursed of
six dollars and ninety-eight cents against forty cents during Grant's
first term and twenty-six cents during the three years of his second,
while current expenses under Buchanan amounted to one dollar and
ninety 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, sharp
issue on the resumption of specie payment, however, showing that the
demand for a repeal of the Act's most important feature was a bid for
the votes of soft-money advocates. The Southern question assumed even
greater importance. Tilden depended for success upon the Southern
States plus New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. This was
Dorsheimer'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 about
New York City, could elect a President. The charge that Tilden
intended indemnifying the South and assuming the Confederate debt
increased the anxiety. Conkling's reference to the repayment of direct
taxes, the refund of the cotton tax, and the liquidation of Southern
claims mounted so high into the hundreds of millions that Tilden
deemed it prudent to issue a letter pledging an enforcement of the
Constitutional Amendments and resistance to such monetary demands.

Personal criticism of Tilden exploited his war record, his reputation
as a railroad wrecker, and his evasion of the income tax.[1525] The
accusation of "railroad wrecking" was scarcely sustained, but his
income tax was destined to bring him trouble. Nast kept his pencil
busy. One cartoon, displaying Tilden emptying a large barrel of
greenbacks into the ballot box, summed up the issues as follows: "The
shot-gun policy South, the barrel policy North;" "The solid South and
the solid Tammany;" "Tilden's war record--defeating the tax
collector." George William Curtis asserted that the Democrats of South
Carolina meant to carry the State for Tilden by means of "the shot
gun," declaring that "Jefferson Davis and the secessionists merely
endeavoured 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 covered
the work of several years. Moreover, that his income-producing
property was largely in railroad stocks, bonds, and other securities
on which the tax was deducted by the companies before the interest and
dividends were paid.--Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, p. 232; see
also, _Nation_, September 22, 1876.]

[Footnote 1526: _Harper's Weekly_, 1876, pp. 828, 885, 906, 907.]

Tilden displayed a stoical indifference to these personal attacks. He
made no speeches, he rarely exhibited himself to the public, and he
kept his own counsels. His adroit, mysterious movements recalled the
methods but not the conceit of Aaron Burr. Although Abram S. Hewitt,
chairman of the Democratic National Committee, managed the campaign
with skill, Tilden relied largely upon his own shrewdness, displacing
old leaders for new ones, and making it clear to the country that he
ranked with Martin Van Buren as a great political manager. As he swept
onward like a conquering Marlborough, inspiring his party with
confidence 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 a
change which was expressed in the word "reform." A combination of
propitious circumstances within the State, in nowise indebted to his
sagacity or assistance, also increased his strength. The collapse of
the Tweed and Canal rings justly gave him great prestige, but no
reason existed why the extinguishment of the State war debt and the
limitations of canal expenditures to canal revenues should add to his
laurels, for the canal amendment to the Constitution was passed and
the payment of the war debt practically accomplished before he took
office. Nevertheless, the resulting decrease of the State budget by
nearly one-half, being coincident with his term of office, added
prodigiously to his fame.[1527] Indeed, he seemed to be the darling of
Fortune, and on November 7, exactly according to his calculation, he
carried New York,[1528] New Jersey, Connecticut, and Indiana. But
Republicans 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 in
1874." 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, 57
Democrats. Ely's majority for mayor of New York City, 53,517. Tilden's
majority in New York City, 53,682.

Republican losses occurred chiefly in the Hudson River and western
counties. Elbridge G. Spaulding of Buffalo, and Levi P. Morton of New
York, 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 of
mob violence. To prevent fraud prominent citizens in the North,
appointed to represent each political party, watched the canvassing
boards in the three disputed States, and although it subsequently
developed that distinguished New Yorkers resorted to bribery,[1529] the
legal canvassing boards finally certified the electoral votes to Hayes
and Wheeler. On December 6 the official count in all the States gave
Hayes 185 votes and Tilden 184. The Democrats, deeply disturbed by the
action of the Returning Boards, now displayed a temper that resembled
the spirit preceding the civil war. Threats were openly made that
Hayes should never be inaugurated. The Louisville _Courier Journal_
announced that "if they (our people) will rise in their might, and
will send 100,000 petitioners to Washington to present their memorial
in person, there will be no usurpation and no civil war."[1530] A
prominent ex-Confederate in Congress talked of 145,000 well
disciplined Southern troops who were ready to fight.[1531] Because the
President prudently strengthened the military forces about Washington
he was charged with the design of installing Hayes with the aid of the
army.

[Footnote 1529: Manton Marble visited Florida. On November 22, under
the _sobriquet_ "Moses," he telegraphed in cipher to William T.
Pelton, Tilden's nephew, then domiciled in Tilden's home at 15
Gramercy Park: "Have just received proposition to hand over a Tilden
decision of Board and certificate of Governor for $200,000." Pelton
thought it too much, and Marble again telegraphed that one Elector
could be secured for $50,000. Pelton replied that he "could not draw
until the vote of the Elector was received." On December 5, Marble
wired: "Proposition failed.... Tell Tilden to saddle Blackstone."

Smith M. Weed visited South Carolina. On November 16, without the use
of cipher or _sobriquet_, he telegraphed Henry Havermeyer: "Board
demand $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 next
day he wired: "Press everywhere. No certainty here. Simply a hope." On
November 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 be
in $1000 or $500 bills. Have cash ready to reach Baltimore Sunday
night." Pelton met Weed at Baltimore without the money and both went
to New York to secure it. Meantime, the canvassing board reported in
favour of Hayes.

Pelton also corresponded with one J.N.H. Patrick, who telegraphed from
Oregon: "Must purchase Republican elector to recognise and act with
the Democrat, and secure vote to prevent trouble. Deposit $10,000 to
my credit." Pelton replied: "If you will make obligation contingent on
result in March it will be done." Patrick said fee could not be made
contingent, whereupon $8,000 was deposited on January 1, 1877, to his
credit, but too late to complete the transaction.

When these telegrams, translated by the New York _Tribune_, were
investigated 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 full
responsibility, intending, he said, to get the money of Edward Cooper;
Cooper testified that the telegram requesting $80,000 sent to
Baltimore was his first knowledge of Pelton's activity; that he
immediately informed Tilden, who recalled his nephew and put a stop to
negotiations. Tilden swore that "no offer, no negotiation in behalf of
any member of any Returning Board was ever entertained by me, or by my
authority, or with my sanction.... There never was a moment in which I
ever entertained any idea of seeking to obtain those certificates by
any venal inducement, any promise of money or office, to the men who
had them to grant or dispose of. My purpose on that subject was
perfectly distinct, invariable, and it was generally assumed by all my
friends without discussion. It may have sometimes been expressed and
whenever the slightest occasion arose for it to be discussed, it was
expressed. It was never deviated from in word or act."--Testimony in
relation 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 the
presidency. Although nothing was then known of Marble's and Weed's
efforts to tamper with the canvassing boards of South Carolina and
Florida, the disposition to "steal" a vote in Oregon, which clearly
belonged 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 that
Mr. 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 the
concurrent votes of the two Houses." This would elect Tilden. On the
other hand, the Republicans, holding that the joint rule expired with
the Congress adopting it, insisted that, inasmuch as the canvass by
Congress at all previous elections had been confined exclusively to
opening the certificates of each State, sent to Washington under the
official seal of the respective governors, the Vice-President should
open and count the electoral votes and declare the result, the members
of the two Houses acting simply as witnesses. This would elect Hayes.
To many and especially to President Grant this controversy seemed full
of danger, to avert which if possible Congress adopted a resolution
providing for a committee of fourteen, equally divided between the
Senate and House, "to report without delay such a measure as may in
their judgment be best calculated to accomplish the desired
end."[1533] On January 18 (1877) this committee reported a bill
providing that where two or more returns had been received from a
State such returns should be referred to an Electoral Commission
composed of five senators, five members of the House, and five
justices of the Supreme Court, who should decide any question
submitted to it touching the return from any State, and that such
decision should stand unless rejected by the concurrent votes of the
two Houses. By tacit agreement the Senate was to name three
Republicans and two Democrats, and the House three Democrats and two
Republicans, while the Bill itself appointed Justices Clifford,
Miller, Field, and Strong, a majority of whom were authorised to
select a fifth justice.[1534]

[Footnote 1533: Upon this committee Conkling was substituted in place
of Logan, detained at home. Abram S. Hewitt was one of the House
appointees.]

[Footnote 1534: Clifford and Field were accounted Democrats, and Miller
and Strong, Republicans.]

When doubt as to the three Southern States precipitated itself into
the result of the election, Tilden exhibited characteristic diligence
and secrecy. He avoided public statements, but he scrutinised the
returns with the acumen exhibited in securing the Tweed evidence, and
left no flaw unchallenged in the title of his opponent. After the
action of the canvassing boards he contended that the joint rule of
1865 must govern, and in the study of the subject he devoted more than
a month to the preparation of a complete history of electoral counts,
showing it to have been the unbroken usage for Congress and not the
President of the Senate to count the vote.[1535] Moreover, early in the
session of Congress he prepared two resolutions which raised the
issue, and urged his friends in the leadership of the House to take no
further step until the great constitutional battle had been fought
along that line, assuring them of his readiness to accept all the
responsibility of the outcome. To appraise the country of the
strength of this position he also prepared an extended brief which
Governor Robinson incorporated as a part of his inaugural message on
January 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 on
January 14. Abram S. Hewitt brought the information, saying that
Bayard 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 essentially
undemocratic, declined to give it his approval.[1538] In his later
telegrams to Hewitt he expressed the belief that "We should stand on
the 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 getting
accessions in the Senate is by the House standing firm;" that "we are
over-pressed by exaggerated fears;" and that "no information is here
which could justify an abandonment of the Constitution and practice of
the government, and of the rights of the two Houses and of the
people." 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 met
his scorn. "It is a panic of pacificators," he said. "Why surrender
before the battle for fear of having to surrender after the
battle?"[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 the
preparation of the Electoral Commission Bill, one wonders that Tilden
made no appeal directly to the people, demanding that his party stand
firm to "the settled practice" and allow Republicans peaceably to
inaugurate Hayes "by usurpation" rather than "relieve them by some
agreement." His telegrams to congressmen could not be published, and
few if any one knew him as the author of the discussion in Robinson's
inaugural. The _Times_ thought "the old Governor's hand is to be seen
in the new Governor's message,"[1540] but the _Nation_ expressed doubt
about it.[1541] A ringing proclamation over his own signature, however,
would have been known before sunset to every Democratic voter in the
land. Blaine told Bigelow a year or two later that if the Democrats
had been firm, the Republicans would have backed down.[1542] Tilden's
silence certainly dampened his party's enthusiasm. It recalled, too,
his failure to assail the Tweed ring until the _Times'_ disclosure
made 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 the
plan of an Electoral Commission Thurman and Bayard were influenced by
presidential ambition, and that prominent congressmen could not regard
with satisfaction the triumph of a candidate who had been in nowise
indebted to them for his nomination or success at the polls.[1543] On
the other hand, Blaine says the Democrats favoured the Commission
because Davis, who affiliated with the Democratic party and had
preferred Tilden to Hayes, was to be chosen for the fifth justice. The
Maine statesman adds, without giving his authority, that Hewitt
advanced this as one of the arguments to induce Tilden to approve the
bill.[1544] In his history of the Hewitt-Tilden interview Marble makes
no mention of Davis' selection, nor does Bigelow refer to Tilden's
knowledge of it. Nevertheless, the strength disclosed for the bill
sustains Blaine's suggestion, since every Democrat of national
reputation in both Houses supported it. The measure passed the Senate
on January 24 and the House on the 26th,[1545] but an unlooked-for
event quickly destroyed Democratic calculations and expectations, for
on January 25, too late for the party to recede with dignity or with
honour, the Democrats of the Illinois Legislature elected Davis by two
majority to the United States Senate in place of John A. Logan.
Probably a greater surprise never occurred in American political
history. It gave Davis an opportunity, on the ground of obvious
impropriety, to avoid what he neither sought nor desired, and narrowed
the choice of a fifth justice to out-and-out Republicans, thus
settling the election of Hayes. "The drop in the countenance of Abram
S. Hewitt," said a writer who informed Tilden's representative of
Davis' transfer from the Supreme Court to the Senate, "made it plain
that he appreciated its full significance."[1546] Bigelow could not
understand 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 the
agreement of Davis' appointment with full knowledge that he would not
serve."[1547] This cynical comment betrayed Tilden's knowledge of
"things hoped for," and accounts for his final acquiescence in the
Commission, since Davis and a certainty were far better than a fight
and 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 favored
Tilden or Hayes. He didn't vote at all."--_Century Magazine_, October,
1901, p. 928.]

[Footnote 1545: Senate: For, 26 Democrats, 21 Republicans; against, 16
Republicans, 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 was
Conkling's exclusion from the Electoral Commission. Of all the members
of the famous committee the Senator had borne the most useful part in
framing the measure, and his appointment to the Commission was
naturally expected to follow.[1548] His biographer states that he
declined to serve.[1549] "If this be correct," says Rhodes, "he shirked
a grave duty."[1550] Bigelow charges the omission to the Senator's
belief "that the vote of Louisiana rightfully belonged to Mr. Tilden,"
and volunteers the information "that Conkling had agreed to address
the Commission in opposition to its counting Louisiana for
Hayes."[1551] Conkling's absence from the Senate when the Louisiana
vote was taken corroborates Bigelow,[1552] and supports the general
opinion which obtained at the time, that the Republicans, suspecting
Conkling of believing Tilden entitled to the presidency, intentionally
ignored him in the make-up of the Commission.[1553] The reason for
Conkling's failure subsequently to address the Commission in
opposition to counting Louisiana for Hayes nowhere explicitly appears.
"Various explanations are in circulation," writes Bigelow, "but I have
not been able to determine which of them all had the demerit of
securing his silence."[1554]

[Footnote 1548: "General Grant sent for Senator Conkling, and said with
deep earnestness: 'This matter is a serious one, and the people feel
it very deeply. I think this Electoral Commission ought to be
appointed.' Conkling answered: 'Mr. President, Senator Morton' (who
was then the acknowledged leader of the Senate), 'is opposed to it and
opposed to your efforts; but if you wish the Commission carried, I can
help 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 important
vote which he [Conkling] has been or can be called upon to give--that
upon the Louisiana electoral question--he evaded."--_Harper's Weekly_,
February 8, 1879.]

[Footnote 1553: "He [Conkling] was at the time most suspected by the
Republicans, who feared that his admitted dislike to Hayes would cause
him to favour a bill which would secure the return of Tilden."--Thomas
V. 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 be
inaugurated."--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 of
his inauguration. The canvassing boards which returned the Hayes
electors also declared the election of Packard as governor, and it
would impeach his own title, it was said, if the President refused
recognition to Packard, who had received the larger popular majority.

It was not unknown that the President contemplated adopting a new
Southern policy. His letter of acceptance presupposed it, and before
the completion of the Electoral Commission's work political and
personal friends had given assurance in a published letter that Hayes
would not continue military intervention in the South.[1555] Moreover,
the President's inaugural address plainly indicated such a purpose. To
inform himself of the extent to which the troops intervened,
therefore, and to harmonise if possible the opposing governments, he
sent a commission to New Orleans,[1556] who reported (April 21) a
returning board quorum in both branches of the Nicholls Legislature
and recommended the withdrawal of the army from the immediate vicinity
of the State House. This was done on April 24 and thenceforward the
Nicholls government controlled in State affairs.[1557]

[Footnote 1555: Letter of Stanley Matthews and Charles Foster, dated
February 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 Wayne
McVeigh.--_Ibid._, p. 465.]

[Footnote 1557: _Ibid._, pp. 456-465. Packard became consul to
Liverpool.]

The President's policy quickly created discontent within the ranks of
the Republican party. Many violently resented his action, declaring
his refusal to sustain a governor whose election rested substantially
upon the same foundation as his own as a cowardly surrender to the
South in fulfillment of a bargain between his friends and some
Southern leaders.[1558] Others disclaimed the President's obligation to
continue the military, declaring that it fostered hate, drew the
colour line more deeply, promoted monstrous local misgovernment, and
protected venal adventurers whose system practically amounted to
highway robbery. Furthermore, it did not keep the States under
Republican control, while it identified the Republican name with
vindictive as well as venal power, as illustrated by the Louisiana
Durrell affair in 1872,[1559] in the elections of 1874, and at the
organisation of the Louisiana Legislature early in 1875.[1560]
Notwithstanding these potent reasons for the President's action the
judgment of a majority of his party deemed it an unwise and
unwarranted act, although Grant spoke approvingly of it.[1561]

[Footnote 1558: The commission reported the Packard government's
insistence that the Legislature of 1870 had the power to create a
Returning Board with all the authority with which the Act clothed it,
and that the Supreme Court of the State had affirmed its
constitutionality. On the other hand, the Nichols government admitted
the Legislature's right to confide to a Returning Board the
appointment of electors for President and Vice-President, but denied
its power to modify the constitutional provision for counting the vote
for governor without first amending the State Constitution,
declaring the Supreme Court's decision to the contrary not to be
authoritative.--Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1877, pp. 403-404.]

[Footnote 1559: Durrell, a United States Circuit judge, sustained
Kellogg in his contest with McEnery.]

[Footnote 1560: "The President directs me to say that he does not
believe public opinion will longer support the maintenance of the
State government in Louisiana by the use of the military, and he must
concur in this manifest feeling." Grant's telegram to Packard, dated
Mar. 1, 1877.]

[Footnote 1561: New York _Tribune_, July 10, 1877.]

Similar judgment was pronounced upon the President's attempt to
reform the civil service by directing competitive examinations for
certain positions and by forbidding office-holders actively to
participate in political campaigns.[1562] "No officer should be
required or permitted to take part in the management of political
organisations, caucuses, conventions, or election campaigns," he wrote
to the Secretary of the Treasury. "Their right to vote and to express
their views on public questions, either orally or through the press,
is not denied, provided it does not interfere with the discharge of
their official duties. No assessments for political purposes should be
allowed." In a public order dated June 22 he made this rule applicable
to all departments of the civil service. "It should be understood by
every officer of the government that he is expected to conform his
conduct to its requirements."[1563] To show his sincerity the
President also appointed a new Civil Service Commission, with Dorman
B. Eaton at its head, who adopted the rules formulated under Curtis
during the Grant administration, and which were applied with a measure
of thoroughness, especially in the Interior Department under Carl
Schurz, 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 of
appointments and removals was a bill introduced in Congress on
December 20, 1865, by Thomas A. Jenckes of Rhode Island "to regulate
the civil service of the United States." A few months later Senator B.
Gratz Brown of Missouri submitted a resolution for "such change in the
civil service as shall secure appointments to the same after previous
examinations by proper Boards, and as shall provide for promotions on
the score of merit or seniority." On March 3, 1871, Congress appended
a section to an appropriation bill, authorising the President to
"prescribe such regulations for the admission of persons into the
civil service as may best promote efficiency therein and ascertain the
fitness of each candidate in respect to age, health, character,
knowledge and ability for the branch of service in which he seeks to
enter; and for this purpose he may employ suitable persons to conduct
such inquiries, prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for
the conduct of persons who may receive appointments." Under this
authority President Grant organised a commission composed of George
William Curtis, Joseph Medill, Alexander C. Cattell, Davidson A.
Walker, E.B. Ellicott, Joseph H. Blackfan, and David C. Cox. This
commission soon found that Congress was indisposed to clothe them with
the requisite power, and although in the three years from 1872 to
1875, they had established the entire soundness of the reform, an
appropriation to continue the work was refused and the labours of the
commission came to an end.]

[Footnote 1563: New York _Tribune_, June 25, 1877.]

This firm and aggressive stand against the so-called spoils system
very naturally aroused the fears of many veteran Republicans of
sincere and unselfish motives, who had used offices to build up and
maintain party organisation, while the order restricting freedom of
political action provoked bitter antagonism, especially among members
of the New York Republican State Committee, several of whom held
important Federal positions. To add to the resentment an official
investigation of the New York custom-house was ordered, which
disclosed "irregularities," said the report, "that indicate the peril
to which government and merchants are exposed by a system of
appointments in which political influence dispenses with fitness for
the work."[1564] The President concurred. "Party leaders should have no
more influence in appointments than other equally respectable
citizens," he said. "It is my wish that the collection of the revenue
should be organised on a strictly business basis, with the same
guarantees for efficiency and fidelity in the selection of the chief
and subordinate officers that would be required by a prudent
merchant."[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 under
attacks upon the Southern policy, they generally assumed an attitude
of armed neutrality and observation.[1566] No doubt the President was
much to blame for this discontent. He tolerated the abuses disclosed
by the investigation in New York, continued a disreputable régime in
Boston, and installed a faction in Baltimore no better than the one
turned out. Besides, the appointment to lucrative offices of the
Republican politicians who took active part in the Louisiana Returning
Board had closely associated him with the spoils system.[1567]
Moreover, his failure to remove offending officials discredited his
own rule and created an unfavourable sentiment, because after
provoking the animosity of office-holders and arousing the public he
left the order to execute itself. Yet the people plainly believed in
the President's policy of conciliation, sympathised with his desire to
reform abuses in the civil service, and honoured him for his
frankness, his patriotism, and his integrity. During the months of
August and September several Republican State conventions, notably
those in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and New Jersey
commended him, while Maine, under the leadership of Blaine, although
refusing to indorse unqualifiedly the policy and acts of the
Administration, refrained from giving any expression of
disapproval.[1568]

[Footnote 1566: In his speech at Woodstock, Conn., on July 4, Blaine
disapproved the President's action; a gathering of Republicans in New
Jersey, 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 Hampshire
Legislature tabled a resolution approving the President's course; and
an early Republican State convention in Iowa indirectly condemned it.]

[Footnote 1567: In H.R. 45th Cong., 3d Sess., No. 140, p. 48 (Potter
report) 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 York
papers on the day following each.]

New York's Republican convention assembled at Rochester on September
26. The notable absence of Federal office-holders who had resigned
committeeships and declined political preferment attracted attention,
otherwise the membership of the assembly, composed largely of the
usual array of politicians, provoked no comment. Conkling and Cornell
arrived early and took possession. In 1874 and in 1875 the Senator's
friends fought vigorously for control, but in 1877 the divided
sentiment as to the President's policies and the usual indifference
that follows a Presidential struggle inured to their benefit, giving
them a sufficient majority to do as they pleased.

Thus far Conkling had not betrayed his attitude toward the
Administration. At the time of his departure for Europe in search of
health, when surrounded by the chief Federal officials of the city, he
significantly omitted words of approbation or criticism, and with
equal dexterity avoided the expression of an opinion in the many
welcoming and serenade speeches amidst which his vacation ended in
August. No doubt existed, however, as to his personal feeling. The
selection of Evarts for secretary of state in place of Thomas C. Platt
for postmaster general did not make him happy.[1569] George William
Curtis's ardent support of the President likewise aided in separating
him from the White House. Nevertheless, Conkling's attitude remained a
profound secret until Thomas C. Platt, as temporary chairman, began
the 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 at
Yale, and as a man of affairs had already laid the foundation for the
success and deserved prominence that crowned his subsequent business
career. Ambition also took him early into the activities of public
political life, his party having elected him county clerk at the age
of twenty-six and a member of Congress while yet in his thirties. His
friends, attracted by his promise-keeping and truth-telling, included
most of the people of the vicinage. He was not an orator, but he
possessed the resources of tact, simplicity, and bonhomie, which are
serviceable in the management of men.[1570] Moreover, as an organiser
he developed in politics the same capacity for control that he
exhibited in business. He had quickness of decision and flexibility of
mind. There was no vacillation of will, no suspension of judgment, no
procrastination that led to harassing controversy over minor details.
He seemed also as systematic in his political purposes as he was
orderly in his business methods. These characteristic traits, well
marked in 1877, were destined to be magnified in the next two decades
when local leaders recognised that his judgment, his capacity, and his
skill largely contributed to extricate the party from the chaotic
conditions into which continued defeat had plunged it.

[Footnote 1570: "Platt and I imbibed politics with our earliest
nutriment. I was on the stump the year I became a voter, and so was
he. I was doing the part of a campaign orator and he was chief of the
campaign glee club. The speech amounted to little in those days unless
it was assisted by the glee club. In fact the glee club largely drew
the audience and held it. The favorite song of that day was 'John
Brown's Body,' and the very heights of ecstatic applause were reached
when Brother Platt's fine tenor voice rang through the arches of the
building or the trees of the woodland, carrying the refrain, 'We'll
hang Jeff Davis on a sour apple tree, while John Brown's soul goes
marching on.'"--Chauncey M. Depew, _Speeches_, 1896 to 1902, p. 237.]

Conkling early recognised Platt's executive ability, and their
friendship, cemented by likeness of views and an absence of rivalry,
kept them sympathetically together in clearly defined fields of
activity. In a way each supplemented the other. Platt was neither
self-opinionated nor overbearing. He dealt with matters political with
the light touch of a man of affairs, and although without sentiment or
ideals, he worked incessantly, listened attentively, and was anxious
to be useful, without taking the centre of the stage, or repelling
support by affectations of manner. But like Conkling he relied upon
the use of patronage and the iron rule of organisation, and too little
upon the betterment of existing political conditions.

This became apparent when, as temporary chairman, he began to address
the convention. He startled the delegates by calling the distinguished
Secretary of State a "demagogue," and other Republicans who differed
with him "Pecksniffs and tricksters." As he proceeded dissent blended
with applause, and at the conclusion of his speech prudent friends
regretted its questionable taste. In declining to become permanent
president Conkling moved that "the gentleman who has occupied the
chair thus far with the acceptance of us all" be continued. This
aroused the Administration's backers, of whom a roll-call disclosed
110 present.[1571]

[Footnote 1571: The vote stood 311 to 110 in favour of the motion.]

The platform neither approved nor criticised the President's Southern
policy, but expressed the hope that the exercise of his constitutional
discretion to protect a State government against domestic violence
would result in peace, tranquillity, and justice. Civil service reform
was more artfully presented. It favoured fit men, fixed tenure, fair
compensation, faithful performance of duty, frugality in the number of
employés, freedom of political action, and no political assessments.
Moreover, it commended Hayes's declaration in his letter of acceptance
that "the officer should be secure in his tenure so long as his
personal character remained untarnished and the performance of his
duty satisfactory," and recommended "as worthy of consideration,
legislation making officers secure in a limited fixed tenure and
subject to removal only as officers under State laws are removed in
this State on charges to be openly preferred and adjudged."[1572] This
paralleled the President's reform except as to freedom of political
action, and in support of that provision it arrayed a profoundly
impressive statement, showing by statistics that Hayes's order, if
applied to all State, county, and town officials in New York, would
exclude from political action one voter out of every eight and
one-half. If this practical illustration exhibited the weakness of the
President's order it also anticipated what the country afterwards
recognised, that true reform must rest upon competitive examination
for which the Act of March 3, 1871 opened the way, and which President
Hayes 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 of
the President, quickly offered a resolution declaring Hayes's title to
the presidency as clear and perfect as that of George Washington, and
commending his efforts in the permanent pacification of the South and
for the correction of abuses in the civil service.[1573] Curtis had
never sought political advantage for personal purposes. The day he
drifted away from a clerkship in a business firm and landed among the
philosophers of Brook Farm he became an idealist, whom a German
university and years of leisure travel easily strengthened. So fixed
was his belief of moral responsibility that he preferred, after his
unfortunate connection with _Putnam's Magazine_, to lose his whole
fortune and drudge patiently for sixteen years to pay a debt of
$60,000 rather than invoke the law and escape legal liability. He was
an Abolitionist when abolitionism meant martyrdom; he became a
Republican when others continued Whigs; and he stood for Lincoln and
emancipation in the months of dreadful discouragement preceding
Sheridan's victories in the Shenandoah. He was likewise a civil
service reformer long in advance of a public belief, or any belief at
all, that the custom of changing non-political officers on merely
political grounds impaired the efficiency of the public service,
lowered the standard of political contests, and brought reproach upon
the government and the people. It is not surprising, therefore, that
he stood for a President who sought to re-establish a reform that had
broken down under Grant, and although the effort rested upon an
Executive order, without the permanency of law, he believed that any
attempt to inaugurate a new system should have the undivided support
of the party which had demanded it in convention and had elected a
President pledged to establish it. Moreover, the President had offered
Curtis his choice of the chief missions, expecting him to choose the
English. Remembering Irving in Spain, Bancroft in Germany, Motley in
England, and Marsh in Italy, it was a great temptation. But Curtis,
appreciating his "civic duty," remained at home, and now took this
occasion to voice his support of the Executive who had honoured
him.[1574]

[Footnote 1573: New York _Tribune_, September 27.]

[Footnote 1574: Curtis declined chiefly from the motive ascribed in
Lowell'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 patriotic
utterances and eloquent periods, with an occasional keen allusion to
Conkling. He skilfully contrasted the majority's demand for harmony
with Platt's reference to Evarts as a "demagogue" and to civil service
reform as a "nauseating shibboleth." He declared it would shake the
confidence of the country in the party if, after announcing its
principles, it failed to commend the agent who was carrying them out.
Approval of details was unnecessary. Republicans did not endorse
Lincoln's methods, but they upheld him until the great work of the
martyr was done. In the same spirit they ought to support President
Hayes, who, in obedience to many State and two or three National
conventions, had taken up the war against abuses of the civil service.
If the convention did not concur in all his acts, it should show the
Democratic party that Republicans know what they want and the man by
whom to secure such results.

In speaking of abuses in the civil service he told the story of
Lincoln looking under the bed before retiring to see if a
distinguished senator was waiting to get an office,[1575] referred to
the efforts of Federal officials to defeat his own election to the
convention, and declared that the President, by his order, intended
that a delegate like himself, having only one vote, should not meet
another with one hundred votes in his pocket obtained by means of
political patronage. Instead of the order invading one's rights it was
intended to restore them to the great body of the Republicans of New
York, who now "refuse to enter a convention to be met--not by brains,
not always by mere intelligence, not always by convictions, or by
representative men, but by the forms of power which federal patriots
assume." He did "not believe any eminent Republican, however high his
ambition, however sore his discontent, hoped to carry the Republican
party of the United States against Rutherford B. Hayes. Aye, sir, no
such Republican, unless intoxicated with the flattery of parasites, or
blinded by his own ambition." He spoke of Conkling's interest in
public affairs as beginning contemporaneously with his own, of their
work side by side in 1867, and of their sustaining a Republican
President without agreement in the details of his policy, and he
closed with the prayer that they might yet see the Republican party
fulfilling the hope of true men everywhere, who look to it for
honesty, 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 for
the Spanish at Santiago. Curtis had adorned the centre of opposition
until 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 for
President, and advertised to the country the desire at least of a
large minority of the party in New York to be rid of him. With
consummate skill he unfolded Conkling's record, and emphasised his
defence of the questionable acts that led to a deep distrust of
Republican tendencies. To him the question was not whether a National
convention 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 Republican
success." Furthermore, Curtis had a habit of asking questions. "With
what great measure of statesmanship is his name conspicuously
identified?"[1577] and, as if this admitted of no reply, he followed it
with more specific inquiries demanding to know "why the Senator had
led a successful opposition to Judge Hoar for the Supreme Bench," and
become "the ardent supporter of Caleb Cushing for chief justice, and
of Alexander Shepherd for commissioner of the District of Columbia?"
These interrogatories seemed to separate him from statesmen of high
degree and to place him among associates for whom upright citizens
should have little respect.

[Footnote 1577: "He [Conkling] never linked his name with any important
principle or policy."--_Political Recollections_, George W. Julian, p.
359.

"Strictly speaking Senator Conkling was not an originator of
legislative measures. He introduced few bills which became laws. He
was not an originator, but a moulder of legislation.... It may be said
that during his last seven years in the Senate, no other member of
that body has, since the time of Webster and Clay, exercised so much
influence 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 the
especial representative of methods which the best sentiment of the
party repudiated, and asserted that his nomination would chill
enthusiasm, convince men of the hopelessness of reform within the
party, and lose the vote indispensable for the election of the
Republican candidate. If his words were parliamentary, they were not
less offensive. Once only did he strike below the belt. In the event
of the Senator's nomination he said "a searching light would be turned
upon Mr. Conkling's professional relations to causes in which he was
opposed to attorneys virtually named by himself, before judges whose
selection was due to his favour."[1578]

[Footnote 1578: _Harper's Weekly_, March 11, 1876. For other editorials
referred 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, a
characteristic in which Conkling took great pride. Perhaps the hostile
insinuation attracted more attention because it prompted the public,
already familiar with the occult influences that persuaded Tweed's
judges, to ask why men who become United States judges upon the
request of a political boss should not be tempted into favourable
decisions for the benefactor who practises in their courts? Curtis
implied that something of the kind had happened in Conkling's
professional career. Disappointment at Cincinnati may have made the
presidential candidate sore, but this innuendo rankled, and when he
rose to oppose Curtis's resolution his powerful frame seemed in a
thrill of delight as he began the speech which had been laboriously
wrought 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 exquisitely
cultured, with a soft, musical voice, was capable of the noblest
tenderness. Conkling, tall, erect, muscular, was the very embodiment
of physical vigour, while his large, well-poised head, his strong
nose, handsome eyes, well-cut mouth, and prominent chin, were
expressive of the utmost resolution. The two men also differed as much
in mind as in appearance. Curtis stood for all the force and feeling
that make for liberal progressive principles; Conkling, the product of
a war age, of masterly audacity and inflexible determination,
represented the conservative impulse, with a cynical indifference to
criticism and opposition.

The preface to his attack was brief. This was a State convention to
nominate candidates, he said in substance, and the National
Administration was not a candidate or in question. He repelled the
idea that it suggested or sanctioned such a proceeding, and although
broad hints had been heard that retribution would follow silence, any
one volunteering for such a purpose lacked discretion if not
sincerity. "Who are these men who, in newspapers or elsewhere, are
cracking their whips over me and playing schoolmaster to the party?
They are of various sorts and conditions. Some of them are the
man-milliners, the dilettante and carpet knights of politics, whose
efforts have been expended in denouncing and ridiculing and accusing
honest men.... Some of them are men who, when they could work
themselves into conventions, have attempted to belittle and befoul
Republican administrations and to parade their own thin veneering of
superior purity. Some of them are men who, by insisting that it is
corrupt and bad for men in office to take part in politics, are
striving now to prove that the Republican party has been unclean and
vicious all its life.... Some of these worthies masquerade as
reformers. Their vocation and ministry is to lament the sins of other
people. Their stock in trade is rancid, canting self-righteousness.
They are wolves in sheep's clothing. Their real object is office and
plunder. When Dr. Johnson defined patriotism as the last refuge of a
scoundrel, he was unconscious of the then undeveloped capabilities and
uses of the word reform.... Some of these new-found party overseers
who are at this moment laying down new and strange tenets for
Republicans, have deemed it their duty heretofore, upon no
provocation, to make conventions and all else the vehicle of
disparaging Republican administrations. Some of them sat but yesterday
in Democratic conventions, some have sought nominations at the hands
of Democrats in recent years, and some, with the zeal of neophytes and
bitterness of apostates, have done more than self-respecting Democrats
would do to vilify and slander their government and their
countrymen.... They forget that parties are not built up by
deportment, or by ladies' magazines, or gush.... The grasshoppers in
the corner of a fence, even without a newspaper to be heard in,
sometimes make more noise than the flocks and herds that graze upon a
thousand hills.... For extreme license in criticism of administrations
and of everybody connected with them, broad arguments can no doubt be
found in the files of the journal made famous by the pencil of Nast.
But a convention may not deem itself a chartered libertine of
oracular and pedantic conceits."

Conkling could not comprehend why Republicans of New York should be
thought predisposed to find fault with Hayes. Without their votes he
could not have become the candidate. "Even the member from Richmond
was, I believe, in the end prevailed upon, after much difficulty, to
confer his unique and delicate vote also." New York congressmen, with
few exceptions, heartily supported the measure without which Hayes
would never have been effectually inaugurated. No opposition had come
from New York. What, then, is the meaning and purpose of constantly
accusing Republicans of this State of unfriendly bias? Wanton assaults
had been made upon Republicans, supposed to be inspired by the
champions and advisers of the President. For not doing more in the
campaign of 1876, he, an office-holder, had been denounced by the same
men who now insist that an office-holder may not sign even a notice
for a convention. No utterance hostile to men or measures had
proceeded from him. Not a straw had been laid in the way of any man.
Still he had been persistently assaulted and misrepresented by those
claiming to speak specially for the Administration. A word of greeting
to his neighbours had drawn down bitter and scornful denunciations
because it did not endorse the Administration.

"These anxious and super-serviceable charioteers seem determined to
know nothing but the President and his policy and them crucified....
The meaning of all this is not obscured by the fact that the new
President has been surrounded and courted by men who have long purred
about every new Administration.... Some of these disinterested
patriots and reformers have been since the days of Pierce the friends
and suitors of all Administrations and betrayers of all. The assaults
they incite are somewhat annoying. It would have been a luxury to
unfrock some of them, but it has seemed to me the duty of every
sincere Republican to endure a great deal rather than say anything to
introduce division or controversy into party ranks.... I am for
peace.... I am for everything tending to that end.... I am for one
thing more--the success of the Administration in everything that is
just and wise and real."

The Senator thought Hayes deserved the same support other Republican
administrations had received. Whenever he is right he should be
sustained; whenever misled by unwise or sinister advice, dissent
should be expressed. This right of judgment is the right of every
citizen. He exercised it in Congress under Lincoln and Grant, who
never deemed an honest difference of opinion cause for war or quarrel,
"nor were they afflicted by having men long around them engaged in
setting on newspapers to hound every man who was not officious or
abject in fulsomely bepraising them. The matters suggested by the
pending amendment," he continued, "are not pertinent to this day's
duties, and obviously they are matters of difference. They may promote
personal and selfish aims, but they are hostile to concord and good
understanding between Republicans at a time when they should all be
united everywhere, in purpose and action. Let us agree to put
contentions aside and complete our task. Let us declare the purposes
and methods which should guide the government of our great State."

After this plea for harmony, the Senator commented briefly upon the
remarks of other delegates, complimented Platt, and then turned again
upon Curtis. Being assured that the latter did not refer to him as the
Senator for whom Lincoln looked under the bed, he concluded: "Then I
withhold a statement I intended to make, and I substitute for it a
remark which I hope will not transgress the proprieties or liberties
of this occasion. It is this: If a doubt arose in my mind whether the
member from Richmond intended a covert shot at me, that doubt sprang
from the fact that that member has published, in a newspaper, touching
me, not matters political--political assaults fairly conducted no man
ever heard me complain of--but imputations upon my personal integrity
so injurious and groundless, that as I think of them now, nothing but
the proprieties of the occasion restrain me from denouncing them and
their author as I feel at liberty to do in the walks of private life.
Mr. President, according to that Christian code which I have been
taught, there is no atonement in the thin lacquer of public courtesy,
or of private ceremonial observance, for the offence one man does
another when he violates that provision of the Decalogue, which,
speaking to him, says, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour,' and which means thou shalt not do it, whatever thy
personal or political pique or animosity may be. The member from
Richmond did me honour overmuch in an individual if not personal
exhortation wherein he was pleased to run some parallel between
himself and me.... Let me supplement the parallel by recalling a
remark of a great Crusader when Richard of England and Leopold of
Austria had held dispute over the preliminaries of battle: 'Let the
future decide between you, and let it declare for him who carries
furthest 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 oratorical
exhibition the testimony of friends and of foes is alike offered in
its unqualified praise. He spoke distinctly and with characteristic
deliberation, his stateliness of manner and captivating audacity
investing each sentence with an importance that only attaches to the
utterances of a great orator. The withering sneer and the look of
contempt gave character to the sarcasms and bitter invectives which he
scattered with the prodigality of a seed-sower. When he declared
Curtis a "man-milliner," his long, flexible index finger and eyes
ablaze with resentment pointed out the editor as distinctly as if he
had transfixed him with an arrow, while the slowly pronounced
syllables, voiced in a sliding, descending key, gave the title a
cartoon effect. Referring to the parallel in Curtis's peroration, he
laid his hand on his heart, bowed toward his antagonist with mock
reverence, and distorted his face with an expression of ludicrous
scorn. In repelling the innuendo as to his "personal integrity," the
suppressed anger and slowly spoken words seemed to preface a challenge
to mortal combat, and men held their breath until his purpose cleared.
The striking delivery of several keen thrusts fixed them in the
memory. Given in his deep, sonorous tones, one of these ran much as
follows: "When Doc-tor-r-r Ja-a-awnson said that patr-r-riotism-m was
the l-a-w-s-t r-r-refuge of a scoundr-r-rel he ignor-r-red the
enor-r-rmous possibilities of the word r-refa-awr-rm."[1581] Other
sentences, now historic, pleased opponents not less than friends. That
parties are not upheld by "deportment, ladies' magazines, or gush"
instantly caught the audience, as did "the journal made famous by the
pencil of Nast," and the comparison suggested by Edmund Burke of the
noise of "grasshoppers in the corner of a fence even without a
newspaper to be heard in."[1582]

[Footnote 1580: After the death of Thomas B. Reed of Maine, this speech
was found in his scrap-book among the masterpieces of sarcasm and
invective.]

[Footnote 1581: White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 171.]

[Footnote 1582: "Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make
the field ring with their importunate chink, while thousands of great
cattle beneath the shadow of the British oak chew the cud and are
silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only
inhabitants of the field, that of course they are many in number, or
that, after all, they are other than the little, shrivelled, meagre,
hopping, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour."--Edmund
Burke. George H. Jennings, _Anecdotal History of the British
Parliament_, p. 159.]

Nevertheless, these moments of accord between speaker and hearers
deepened by contrast the depth of bitterness existing between him and
the friends of the President. His denunciation of Curtis had included
Evarts if not other members of the Administration, and during the
recital of the rhythmical sentences of arraignment dissent mingled
with applause. "He was hissed," said a reporter of long experience,
"as I have never heard any speaker hissed at a convention
before."[1583] A friend to whom Conkling read the speech on the
preceding Sunday pronounced it "too severe," and the nephew excluded
the epithet "man-milliner" from the address as published in his
uncle's biography.[1584] The contemporary press, reflecting the injury
which Conkling's exuberance of denunciation did his cause, told how
its effect withered as soon as oratory and acting had ceased. Within
an hour after its delivery Charles E. Fitch of the Rochester
_Democrat-Chronicle_, voicing the sentiment of the Senator's best
friends, deprecated the attack. Reading the article at the breakfast
table on the following morning, Conkling exclaimed, "the man who wrote
it is a traitor!" It was "the man" not less than the criticism that
staggered him. Fitch was a sincere friend and a writer with a purpose.
His clear, incisive English, often forcible and at times eloquent, had
won him a distinct place in New York journalism, not more by his
editorials than by his work in various fields of literature, and his
thought usually reflected the opinion of the better element of the
party. To Conkling it conveyed the first intimation that many
Republican papers were to pronounce his address unfortunate, since it
exhorted 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 foolish
blackguardism. I was all pity. I had not thought him great, but I had
not suspected how small he was. His friends, the best, were
confounded. One of them said to me the next day, 'It was not amazement
that I felt, but consternation.' I spoke offhand and the report is
horrible. Conkling's speech was carefully written out, and therefore
you do not get all the venom, and no one can imagine the
Mephistophelean 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. Those
remaining occupied less than an hour in the nomination of
candidates.[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, Grenville
Tremaine, Albany; Engineer, Howard Soule, Onondaga.]




CHAPTER XXIX

THE TILDEN RÉGIME ROUTED

1877


The result at Rochester, so unsatisfactory to a large body of
influential men to whom the President represented the most patriotic
Republicanism, was followed at Albany by a movement no less
disappointing to a large element of the Democratic party.[1588] In
their zeal to punish crime Secretary of State Bigelow and
Attorney-General Fairchild had made themselves excessively obnoxious
to the predatory statesmen of the canal ring, who now proposed to
destroy the Tilden régime. Back of them stood John Kelly, eager to
become the master, and determined to accomplish what he had failed to
do at St. Louis.

[Footnote 1588: The Democratic State convention met at Albany on
October 3, 1877.]

As if indifferent to the contest Bigelow had remained in Europe with
Tilden, and Fairchild, weary of the nervous strain of office-holding,
refused to make an open canvass for the extension of his official
life. Nevertheless, the friends of reform understood the importance of
renominating the old ticket. It had stood for the interest of the
people. Whatever doubt might have clouded the public mind as to
Tilden's sincerity as an ardent, unselfish reformer, Republicans as
well as Democrats knew that Bigelow and Fairchild represented an
uncompromising hostility to public plunderers, and that their work, if
then discontinued, must be shorn of much of its utility. Their friends
understood, also, the importance of controlling the temporary
organisation 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, vacillating
character, and the boldest leaders of his party felt that in the final
test as a candidate he lost because he hesitated. Besides, the
immediate prospect of power had disappeared. Although Democrats talked
of "the great Presidential crime," and seemed to have their eyes and
minds fastened on offices and other evidences of victory, they
realised 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 the
State. They deeply resented his course in calling about him, to the
exclusion of recognised and experienced party advisers, men whom he
could influence, who owed their distinction to his favour, and who
were consequently devoted to his fortunes. Upon some of these he
relied to secure Republican sympathy, while he depended upon
Democratic discipline to gain the full support of his party. If events
favoured his designs and the exigencies of an exciting Presidential
election concealed hostility, these conditions did not placate his
opponents, who began plotting his downfall the moment the great
historic contest ended. This opposition could be approximately
measured by the fact that the entire party press of the State, with
three 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, an
executive of remarkable force, sensitively obedient to principles of
honest government and bold in his utterances, remained at the head of
a devoted band which had hitherto found its career marked by triumph
after triumph, and whose influence was still powerful enough to rally
to its standard new men of strength as well as old leaders flushed
with recent victories. Robinson's courageous words especially engaged
the attention of thoughtful Democrats. He did not need to give reasons
for the opposition to John Bigelow, or the grievance against Charles
S. Fairchild, whose court docket sufficiently exposed the antagonism
between canal contractors and the faithful prosecutor. But in his
fascinating manner he told the story of the Attorney-General's heroic
firmness in refusing to release Tweed.[1590] In Robinson's opinion the
vicious classes, whose purposes discovered themselves in the
depredations of rings and weakness for plunder, were arrayed against
the better element of the party which had temporarily deprived the
wrong-doers of power, and he appealed to his friends to rescue
administrative reform from threatened defeat.

[Footnote 1590: "The man who has been the most effective organiser of
corruption strikes boldly for release. He is arrayed as an element in
the combination which attacks the Governor and Democratic State
officers, and which seeks to reverse their policy."--Albany _Argus_,
October 4, 1877.]

The Governor was not unmindful of his weakness. Besides Tilden's loss
of prestige, the renomination of the old ticket encountered the
objection of a third term, aroused the personal antagonism of hundreds
of men who had suffered because of its zeal, and arrayed against it
all other influences that had become hostile to Tilden through envy or
otherwise during his active management of the party. Moreover, he
understood the cunning of John Kelly and the intrigue of his
lieutenants. Knowing that contesting delegations excluded precincts
from taking part in the temporary organisation, these men had sought
to weaken Tilden by creating fictitious contests in counties loyal to
him, thus offsetting John Morrissey's contest against Tammany. It was
a desperate struggle, and the only gleam of light that opened a way to
Tilden's continued success came from the action of the State
Committee, which gave David B. Hill of Chemung 19 votes for temporary
chairman 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 become
a household word, he was by no means unknown throughout the State. He
had come into public life as city attorney in 1864 at the age of
twenty-one, and had shown political instincts for the most part
admirable. Of those to go to the Assembly in 1871 to aid in the work
of judicial purification, Hill was suggested by O'Conor and Tilden as
one of the trustworthy lawyers, and in February, 1872, when the
legislative committee began its investigation into the charges
presented by the Bar Association against Judges Barnard, Cardozo,
Ingraham, and McCunn with a view to their impeachment, Hill sat by the
side of Tilden. It was recognised that he belonged to the coterie of
able men who stood at the front of the reform movement.

His personal habits, too, commended him. He seems to have been
absolved from the love of wine, and if the love of a good woman did
not win him, he created a substantial home among his books, and worked
while others feasted. He talked easily, he learned readily, and with
the earnestness of one who inherited an ambition for public life he
carefully equipped himself for a political as well as a professional
career. He had a robust, straightforward nature. Men liked his
courage, his earnestness, his effectiveness as a debater, and his
declared purposes which were thoroughly in unison with the spirit of
his party. But it was his boldness, tempered with firmness, which
justified Robinson in singling him out for chairman. Still, the
courage exhibited as a presiding officer in one of the stormiest
conventions that ever assembled in the Empire State did not win him
distinction.

The Kelly opposition raised no question of principle. The platform
denounced the defeat of Tilden as due to fraud, applauded Hayes for
his Southern policy, declared for reapportionment of the State, and
bitterly assailed railroad subsidies. But it had no words of
unkindness for Tilden and Robinson. Indeed, with a most sublime
display of hypocrisy, Kelly pointed with pride to the fruits of their
administrations, made illustrious by canal reforms, economy, and the
relentless 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 desiring
other directing spirits. His only issue involved candidates. Should it
be 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 several
delegates extended their hostility only to Bigelow; others included
the attorney-general. Only a few demanded an entire change. But
Tammany and the Canal ring tactfully combined these various elements
with a skill never before excelled in a State convention. Their
programme, sugar-coated with an alleged affection for Tilden, was
arranged to satisfy the whim of each delegate, while Robinson's
policy, heavily freighted with well doing, encountered the odium of a
third-term ticket.

Nevertheless, the Governor's control of the chairmanship assured him
victory unless Hill yielded too much. But Kelly was cunning and quick.
After accepting Hill without dissent, he introduced a resolution
providing that the convention select the committee on contested seats.
To appoint this committee was the prerogative of the chairman, and
Hill, following Cornell's bold ruling in 1871, could have refused to
put the motion. When he hesitated delegates sprang to their feet and
enthroned pandemonium.[1591] During the cyclone of epithets and
invective John Morrissey for the last time opposed John Kelly in a
State convention. His shattered health, which had already changed
every lineament of a face that successfully resisted the blows of
Yankee Sullivan and John C. Heenan, poorly equipped him for the
prolonged strain of such an encounter, but he threw his envenomed
adjectives with the skill of a quoit-pitcher.

[Footnote 1591: "How the Kelly faction got control of the Democratic
convention and used it for the supposed benefit of Kelly is hardly
worth trying to tell. A description of the intrigues of a parcel of
vulgar 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 had
a special aptitude for knockdown personalities which the metropolitan
side of a Democratic convention never failed to understand. Their loud
voices, elementary arguments, and simple quotations neither strained
the ears nor puzzled the heads of the audience, while their jibes and
jokes, unmistakable in meaning, sounded familiar and friendly.
Townsend, a lawyer of some prominence and counsel for Kelly, was an
effective and somewhat overbearing speaker, who had the advantage of
being sure of everything, and as he poured out his eloquence in
language of unmeasured condemnation of Morrissey, he held attention if
he did not enlighten with distracting novelty.

Morrissey admitted he was wild in his youth, adding in a tone of
sincere penitence that if he could live his life over he would change
many things for which he was very sorry. "But no one, not even Tweed
who hates me," he exclaimed, pointing his finger across the aisle in
the direction of Kelly, "ever accused me of being a thief."
Morrissey's grammar was a failure. He clipped his words, repeated his
phrases, and lacked the poise of a public speaker, but his opponents
did not fail to understand what he meant. His eloquence was like that
of an Indian, its power being in its sententiousness, which probably
came from a limited vocabulary.

At the opening of the convention Robinson's forces had a clear
majority,[1592] but in the presence of superior generalship, which
forced a roll-call before the settlement of contests, Tammany and the
Canal ring, by a vote of 169 to 114, passed into control. To Tilden's
friends it came as the death knell of hope, while their opponents,
wild with delight, turned the convention into a jubilee. "This is the
first Democratic triumph in the Democratic party since 1873," said
Jarvis 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 the
reactionists who think that the golden era of the State was in the
days before thieves were chastised and driven out of the Capital and
State 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 party
machine. Pursuing their victory the conquerors likewise nominated a
new ticket.[1594] Quarter was neither asked nor offered. Robinson had
squarely raised the issue that refusal to continue the old officials
would be repudiation of reform, and his friends, as firmly united in
defeat as in victory, voted with a calm indifference to the threats of
the allied power of canal ring and municipal corruptionists. Indeed,
their boast of going down with colours flying supplemented the
vigorous remark of the Governor that there could be no compromise with
Tweed 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, nominated
a State ticket with John J. Junio for Secretary of State. The
Prohibition and Greenback parties also nominated State officers, Henry
Hagner and Francis E. Spinner being their candidates for secretary of
state. The Social Democrats likewise presented a ticket with James
McIntosh at its head.]

[Footnote 1595: New York _Tribune_, October 4.]

This apparently disastrous result encouraged the hope that
Republicans, in spite of Conkling's indiscretion at Rochester, might
profit by it as they did in 1871. Upon the surface Republican
differences did not indicate bitterness. Except in the newspapers no
organised opposition to the Senator had appeared, and the only mass
meeting called to protest against the action of the Rochester
convention appealed for harmony and endorsed the Republican
candidates.[1596] Even Curtis, the principal speaker, although
indulging in some trenchant criticism, limited his remarks to a
defence of the Administration. Nevertheless, the presence of William
J. Bacon, congressman from the Oneida district, who voiced an intense
admiration for the President and his policies, emphasised the fact
that 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 the
guidance of Lewis Lawrence, an intimate friend. It lived less than two
years, but while it survived it reflected the thoughts and feelings of
its 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. It
calls George William Curtis 'the Apostle of Swash.'"--New York
_Tribune_, October 27.]

The campaign presented several confusing peculiarities. Governor
Robinson in his letter to a Tammany meeting refused to mention the
Democratic candidates, and Tilden, after returning from Europe,
expressed the belief in his serenade speech that "any nominations that
did not promise coöperation in the reform policy which I had the
honour to inaugurate and which Governor Robinson is consummating will
be disowned by the Democratic masses."[1598] This was a body-blow to
the Ring. Its well-directed aim also struck the ticket with telling
effect, for its election involved the discontinuance of Fairchild's
spirited canal prosecutions. On the other hand, the adoption of the
recent amendment, substituting for the canal commission a
superintendent of public works to be appointed by the Governor, made
the election of Olcott and Seymour especially desirable, since it
would give Robinson and his reforms stronger support than Tilden had
in the State board. Yet it could not be denied that the success of the
Albany 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 the
President's policies, hesitated to vote for candidates whose victory
would 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, Tilden
retired to Gramercy Park, the German-Independent organisation limited
its canvass to the metropolis, and the candidates of neither ticket
got a patient hearing. Other causes contributed to the Republican
dulness. Old leaders became inactive and government officials refused
to give money because of their interpretation of the President's civil
service order, while rawness and indifference made newer leaders
inefficient. After the October collapse in Ohio conditions became
hopelessly discouraging.[1599] The tide set more heavily in favour of
the Democracy, and each discordant Republican element, increasing its
distrust, practically ceased work lest the other profit by it.

[Footnote 1599: Democrats elected a governor by 22,520 plurality and
carried the Legislature by forty on joint ballot.--Appleton's
_Cyclopædia_, 1877, p. 621.]

Nevertheless, the hunt for State senators, involving the election of a
United States Senator in 1879, provoked animated contests which
centred about the candidacy of John Morrissey, whom Republicans and
the combined anti-Tammany factions backed with spirit. Morrissey had
carried the Tweed district for senator in 1874, and the taunt that no
other neighbourhood would elect a notorious gambler and graduate of
the prize-ring goaded him into opposing Augustus Schell in one of the
fashionable districts of the metropolis. Schell had the advantage of
wealth, influence, long residence in the precinct, and the
enthusiastic support of Kelly, who turned the contest into a battle
for the prestige of victory. For the moment the fierceness of the
fight excited the hopes of Republicans that the State might be
carried, and to spread the influence of the warring Democratic
factions into all sections of the commonwealth, Republican journals
made a combined attack upon Allen C. Beach.

Like Sanford E. Church, Beach was a courteous, good-natured
politician, who tried to keep company with a canal ring and keep his
reputation above reproach. But his character did not refine under the
tests imposed upon it. His policy of seeming to know nothing had
resulted in doubling the cost of canal repairs during his four years
in office. A careful analysis of his record showed that only once did
he vote against the most extravagant demands of the predatory
contractors. This did not prove him guilty of corruption, "but when as
the steady servant of the canal ring," it was asked, "he voted
thousands and thousands of dollars, sometimes at the rate of a hundred
thousand 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 not
lending himself to corruption?"[1600] This charge his opponents
circulated through many daily and scores of weekly papers, making the
weakness of his character appear more objectionable.

[Footnote 1600: New York _Tribune_, November 3, 1877.]

To these attacks Beach affected an indifference which he did not
really feel, for the pride of a candidate who desires the respect of
his neighbours is not flattered by their distrust of his integrity.
Church had felt the iron enter his soul, and had Tilden and the
reformers rearoused the moral awakening that refused to tolerate the
Chief Justice in 1874, Beach must have fallen the victim of his
partiality to a coterie of political associates willing to benefit at
the expense of his ruin. As it was he received a plurality of 11,000,
while Seymour and Olcott, his associates upon the ticket, obtained
35,000 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 an
interest 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 the
thirty-two districts he saved fighting ground for himself in the
succeeding year.[1603] Indeed, he was able to point to the popular vote
and declare that he was as strong in New York as the President was in
Ohio. It was known, too, that if Morrissey survived, the Senator would
profit by the prize-fighter's remarkable majority of nearly 4,000 over
Augustus Schell, a victory which ranked as the crowning achievement of
the senatorial campaign.[1604] But Morrissey, prostrated by his
exertions, did not live to reciprocate. He spent the winter in Florida
and the early spring in Saratoga. Finally, after the loss of speech,
his right arm, which had so severely punished Yankee Sullivan, became
paralysed, and on May 1 (1878) Lieutenant-governor Dorsheimer
announced his death to the Senate. "It is doubtful," added a colleague
in eulogy, "if such boldness and daring in political annals were ever
shown 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 represent
Senator Conkling, although personally popular and most deserving, was
beaten by 1,133.... It is fair to say that the unpopularity of the
federal office-holders, who are Mr. Conkling's most zealous
supporters, is in part the cause of this remarkable result." Interview
of Ellis H. Roberts.--New York _Tribune_, November 10, 1877.

"The energies of all the opposition to me were concentrated upon that
district. I believe Tammany and the lofty coterie of Republican
gentlemen in this city (New York) threw money into my district to
carry it against me.... Had we been sufficiently aroused and sagacious
we could have defeated this manoeuvre, but we found out too late. We
sent the tickets to the polls, in the ward in which I live, at
daylight, as did the Democrats. Not one of our tickets was found at
the polls. They were all thrown into the canal." Interview with
Conkling.--New York _Herald_, November 9, 1877.]

[Footnote 1603: The Legislature of 1878 had in the Senate: 18
Republicans, 13 Democrats, 1 Independent; in the Assembly: 66
Republicans, 61 Democrats, 1 Independent.]

[Footnote 1604: Tammany elected its entire county ticket. Its majority
for 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 new
combination, the elements of which had attracted little or no
attention, was destined to cause serious disturbance. Greenbackism had
not invaded New York in 1874-5, when it flourished so luxuriantly in
Ohio, Indiana, and other Western States. Even after the party had
nominated Peter Cooper for President in 1876, it polled in the Empire
State less than 1,500 votes for its candidate for governor, and in
1877, having put Francis E. Spinner, the well-known treasurer of the
United States, at the head of its ticket, its vote fell off to less
than 1,000.

Meantime the labour organisations, discontented because of long
industrial inaction, had formed a Labour Reform party. This
organisation gradually increased its strength, until, in 1877, it
polled over 20,000 votes. Encouraged by success its leaders held a
convention at Toledo, Ohio, on February 22 (1878), and resolved to
continue the Cooper movement. It resented the resumption of specie
payment, favoured absolute paper money, and demanded payment of the
public debt in greenbacks. On May 10 the executive council, calling
themselves Nationalists, coalesced with the Greenbackers, and issued a
call for a National Greenback Labour Reform convention to assemble at
Syracuse on July 25. This sudden extension of the movement attracted
widespread attention, and although the convention was marked by great
turbulence and guided by inconspicuous leaders, it seemed as if by
magic to take possession of a popular issue which gathered about its
standard thousands of earnest men. Gideon J. Tucker, a former
Democratic secretary of state, who had led the Americans in 1859, was
nominated for judge of the Court of Appeals. To its platform it added
declarations favouring a protective tariff and excluding the Chinese.

The treatment of the Greenback question earlier in the year by the
older parties had materially strengthened the Nationalists. Democratic
conventions distinctly favoured their chief issue, and Republicans
employed loose and vague expressions. So accomplished and experienced
a politician as Thurlow Weed complimented the bold declarations of
Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts, who had left the Republicans to
become the independent leader of a vast mass of voters that accepted
his Greenback theories and joined in his sneers at honest money.
Republican congressmen, returning from Washington, told how their
party held Greenback views and why Greenbackers ought to support it.
The Secretary of the Republican Congressional Committee practically
announced himself a Greenback Republican, and Blaine's position seemed
equivocal. During the entire financial debate in Congress, Conkling
said nothing to mould public opinion upon the question of sound money,
while the Utica _Republican_, his organ, thought it a "mistake to
array the Republican party, which originated the Greenback, as an
exclusively hard-money party.... It is not safe or wise to make the
finances a party question."[1606] As late as July 30, the evening
preceding the Maine convention, Blaine objected to the phrase "gold or
its equivalent," preferring the word "coin," which subsequently
appeared in the platform.

[Footnote 1606: The Utica _Republican_, July 1, 1878.]

The election in Maine, hailed with joy by every organ of the Greenback
movement, showed how profound was the political disturbance. The
result made it plain that the chief political issue was one of common
honesty, and that an alliance of Democratic and Greenback interests
threatened Republican ascendency. In the presence of such danger
Republican leaders, recognising that harmony could alone secure
victory, called a State convention to meet at Saratoga on September
26. As the time for this important event approached the impression
deepened that real harmony must rest upon an acceptance of the
President's plea for honest money and the honest payment of the
nation's bonds. The word "coin" seemed insufficient, since both coin
and currency should be kept at par with gold, and although this would
make Republicans "an exclusively hard-money party," which Conkling's
organ characterised as a "mistake," the common danger proved a
sufficient magnet to unite the two factions on a platform declaring
that national pledges should be redeemed in letter and spirit, that
there should be no postponement of resumption, and that permanent
prosperity could rest alone on the fixed monetary standard of the
commercial world.

To further exclude just cause of offence Conkling, in accepting the
chairmanship of the convention, broke his long silence upon the
currency question, and without sarcasm or innuendo honoured the
President by closely following the latter's clear, compact, and
convincing speeches on hard money. George William Curtis led in the
frequent applause. Speaking of convention harmony the _Times_ declared
that during the address "there seemed to be something in the air which
made children of strong men. Many of the delegates were affected to
tears."[1607] Curtis also stirred genuine enthusiasm. He had not been
captious as to the form of the platform. To him it sufficed if the
convention keyed its resolutions to the President's note for sound
money, which had become the Administration's chief work, and although
the spectacle of Curtis applauding and supplementing Conkling's speech
seemed as marvellous as it was unexpected, it did not appear out of
place. Indeed, the environment at Saratoga differed so radically from
conditions at Rochester that it required a vivid fancy to picture
these 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 place
to gray daylight, a sullen sky, and a morning assemblage tempered into
harmony by threatened danger. The absence of the picturesque greatly
disappointed the audience. The labour of reading a speech from printed
proofs marred Conkling's oratory, and Curtis' effort to compliment the
President without arousing resentment spoiled the rhetorical finish
that usually made his speeches enjoyable. But the prudence of the
speakers and the cordial reception of the platform proved thoroughly
acceptable to the delegates, who nominated George F. Danforth for the
Court of Appeals and then separated with the feeling that the State
might 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 at
Albany on April 24, had nominated Van Cott.]

Meanwhile the Democratic State convention which assembled at Syracuse
on September 25 became more violent and boisterous than its
predecessor. Confident of defeat unless Tammany participated in the
preliminary organisation, John Kelly, through his control of the State
Committee, secured Albert P. Laning of Erie for temporary chairman.
Laning ruled that the roll of delegates as made up by the State
committee should be called except those from New York and Kings, and
as to these he reserved his decision. In obedience thereto the vote of
uncontested delegations stood 132 to 154 in favour of Tilden and
Robinson, whereas the admission of Tammany and Kings would make it 181
to 195 in favour of Kelly. Would the chair include these contested
delegations in the roll-call? To admit one side and exclude the other
before the settlement of a contest was a monstrous proposition. The
history of conventions did not furnish a supporting precedent.
Nevertheless, Laning, wishing to succeed Dorsheimer as lieutenant-governor
in 1879 and relying upon Tammany to nominate and elect him, had
evidenced a disposition to rule in the Boss's favour, and when, at
last, he did so, the angry convention sprang to its feet. For three
hours it acted like wild men.[1609] Under a demand for the previous
question Laning refused to recognise the Tilden delegates, and the
latter's tumult drowned the voice of the chair. Finally, physical
exhaustion having restored quiet, Kings County declined to vote and
Tammany was added without being called. This left the result 154 to
195 in favour of John Kelly. An hour later Laning, hissed and
lampooned, left the convention unthanked and unhonoured.

[Footnote 1609: "The Democratic convention at Syracuse was perhaps the
noisiest, most rowdy, ill-natured, and riotous body of men which ever
represented the ruling party of a great Commonwealth."--The _Nation_,
October 3.]

But having gotten into the convention Tammany found it had not gotten
into power. The Tilden forces endorsed Robinson's administration,
refused to dicker with Greenbackers, whom Kelly was suspected of
favouring, and assuaged their passion by nominating George B. Bradley
of Steuben for the Court of Appeals. While Tammany was looking for
votes to get in on, it bargained with St. Lawrence to support William
H. 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, which
was destined, in the hour of great need, to be of little service.

Throughout the State the several parties put local candidates in the
field. The Greenbackers, exhibiting the activity of a young and
confident organisation, uniformly made congressional and legislative
nominations. In one congressional district they openly combined with
the Democrats, and in several localities their candidates announced an
intention of coöperating with the Democratic party. In the metropolis
the various anti-Tammany factions supported independent candidates for
Congress and combined with Republicans in nominating a city ticket
with Edward Cooper for mayor.[1610] Kelly, acting for Tammany,
selected Augustus Schell. This alignment made the leaders of the
combined opposition sanguine of victory. It added also to the
confidence of Republicans that the Greenbackers were certain to draw
more largely from the ranks of the Democrats.

[Footnote 1610: Cooper had resigned from Tammany in 1877.]

The difference between the Syracuse and Saratoga platforms was
significant. Democrats declared "gold and silver, and paper
convertible into coin at the will of the holder, the only currency of
the country."[1611] Convertible into what kind of coin? it was asked.
Coin of depreciated value, or the fixed monetary standard of the
commercial world? The _Nation_ thought "this platform not noticeable
for strength or directness of statement."[1612] The Republican plank
was clearer. "We insist that the greenback shall be made as good as
honest coin ... that our currency shall be made the best currency, by
making all parts of it, whether paper or coin, equivalent,
convertible, secure, and steady."[1613] As the campaign advanced a
resistless tendency to force the older parties into the open made it
plain that if the Democrats did not say just what they meant, the
Republicans meant more than they said, for their speakers and the
press uniformly declared that the greenback, which had carried the
country triumphantly through the war, must be made as good as gold.
Meantime the Democratic leaders realised that "fiat" money had a
strange 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 the
canvass, began its publication of the cipher despatches which had
passed between Tilden's personal friends and trusted associates during
the closing and exciting months of 1876.[1614] The shameful story,
revealed by the _Tribune's_ discovered key to the cipher, made a
profound impression. As shown elsewhere the important telegrams passed
between Manton Marble and Smith M. Weed on one side, and Henry
Havermeyer 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 translated
telegrams corroborated McLin. Moreover, notwithstanding Tilden's
comprehensive and explicit denial, it sorely taxed the people's faith
to believe him disconnected with the correspondence, since the corrupt
bargaining by which he was to profit was carried on in his own house
by a nephew, who, it was said, would scarcely have ventured on a
transaction so seriously affecting his uncle's reputation without the
latter'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 prophecy
contained, the revelation of the cipher despatches greatly
strengthened the Republican party and brought to a tragic end Clarkson
N. 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 secured
the appointment of a committee of eleven to investigate alleged frauds
in the Florida and Louisiana Returning Boards, with authority to send
for persons and papers. He refused to widen the scope of the
investigation to include all the States, presumably to avoid the
damaging evidence already known relating to Pelton's effort to secure
a presidential elector in Oregon. The _Tribune's_ timely exposure of
the 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 sweep
the country as with a tornado, had been stayed if not finally
arrested, and thenceforth greater activity characterised the canvass.
Conkling spoke often; Woodford, who had done yeoman service in the
West, repeated his happily illustrated arguments; and Evarts crowded
Cooper Union. In the same hall Edwards Pierrepont, fresh from the
Court of St. James, made a strenuous though belated appeal. Speaking
for the Democrats, Kernan advocated the gold standard, declaring it
essential to commercial and the workingmen's prosperity. Erastus
Brooks shared the same view, and Dorsheimer, with his exquisite choice
of words, endeavoured to explain it to a Tammany mass meeting. John
Kelly, cold, unyielding, precise, likewise talked. There was little
elasticity about him. He dominated Tammany like a martinet, naming its
tickets, selecting its appointees, and outlining its policies. Indeed,
his rule had developed so distinctly into a one-man power that four
anti-Tammany organisations had at last combined with the Republicans
in one supreme effort to crush him, and with closed ranks and firm
purpose this coalition exhibited an unwavering earnestness seldom
presented in a local campaign.[1618] It was intimated that Kelly having
in mind his reappointment as city comptroller in 1880, sought
surreptitiously to aid Cooper.[1619] Kelly saw his danger. He
recognised the power of his opponents, the weakness of Schell whom he
had himself named for mayor, and the strength of Cooper, a son of the
distinguished philanthropist, whose independence of character had
brought an honourable career; but the assertion that the Boss, bowing
to the general public sentiment, gave Cooper support must be dismissed
with the apocryphal story that Conkling was in close alliance with
Tammany. Doubtless Kelly's disturbed mind saw clearly that he must
eventually divide his foes to recover lost prestige. Nevertheless, it
was after November 5, the day of Tammany's blighting overthrow, that
he shaped his next political move.

[Footnote 1618: In reference to Kelly's despotic rule see speeches of
Anti-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 increased
Greenback-Labour vote, aggregating 75,000, had correspondingly
weakened the Democratic party, especially in the metropolis, thus
electing Danforth to the Court of Appeals, Cooper as mayor, the entire
anti-Tammany-Republican ticket, a large majority of Republican
assemblymen, and twenty-six Republican congressmen, being a net gain
of eight.[1620] Indeed, the divisive Greenback vote had produced a
phenomenal crop of Republican assemblymen. After the crushing defeat
of the Liberal movement in 1872 the Republicans obtained the
unprecedented number of ninety-one. Now they had ninety-eight, with
nineteen hold-over senators, giving them a safe working majority in
each body and seventy-six on joint ballot. This insured the
re-election of Senator Conkling, which occurred without Republican
opposition 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 for
effective 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 United
States senator, protested against granting Conkling a certificate of
election because no alteration of senate or assembly districts had
occurred since the enumeration of 1875, as required by the
constitution, making the existing legislature, it was claimed, a
legislature _de facto_ and not _de jure_. This was a new way of
presenting an old grievance. For years unjust inequality of
representation had fomented strife, but more recently the rapid growth
of New York and Brooklyn had made the disparity more conspicuous,
while continued Republican control of the Senate had created intense
bitterness. In fact, a tabulated statement of the inequality between
senatorial districts enraged a Democrat as quickly as a red flag
infuriated the proverbial bull.[1621] Although the caucus refused to
adopt the protest, it issued an address showing that New York and
Kings were entitled to ten senators instead of seven and forty-one
assemblymen instead of thirty-one. These additional members, all
belonging to Democratic districts, said the address, are now awarded
to twelve counties represented by Republicans. The deep indignation
excited throughout the State by such manifest injustice resulted in a
new apportionment which transferred one assemblyman from each of six
Republican counties to New York and Kings. This did not correct the
greater injustice in the senatorial districts, however, and in
permitting the measure to become a law without his signature Governor
Robinson declared that the "deprivation of 150,000 inhabitants in New
York and Kings of their proper representation admits of no apology or
excuse."[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 nominated
Theodore Roosevelt for collector of customs, L. Bradford Prince for
naval officer, and Edwin A. Merritt for surveyor, in place of Chester
A. Arthur, Alonzo B. Cornell, and George H. Sharpe.[1623] The terms of
Arthur and Cornell had not expired, and although their removal had
been canvassed and expected for several months, its coming shocked the
party and increased the disgust of the organisation. George William
Curtis, with the approval of Evarts, urged the promotion of James L.
Benedict for collector, a suggestion which the Secretary of the
Treasury stoutly opposed. If Arthur, the latter argued, was to be
removed because of his identification with a system of administration
which the President desired to abolish, no reason existed for
promoting one who had made no effort to reform that system. No one
questioned Roosevelt's ability, high character, and fitness for the
place, but to those who resented the removal of Arthur his nomination
was an offence.

[Footnote 1623: Sharpe's term having expired he had withdrawn his
application for reappointment.]

Chester A. Arthur had succeeded Thomas Murphy as collector of the port
in November, 1871. He was then forty-seven years old, a lawyer of fair
standing and a citizen of good repute. He had studied under the
tuition of his clergyman father, graduated at Union College, taught
school in his native Vermont, cast a first vote for Winfield Scott,
and joined the Republican party at its organisation. At the outbreak
of the rebellion Governor Morgan appointed him quartermaster-general,
his important duties, limited to the preparation and forwarding of
troops to the seat of war, being performed with great credit. When
Seymour succeeded Morgan in 1863 Arthur resumed his law practice,
securing some years later profitable employment as counsel for the
department of city assessments and taxes.

From the first Arthur showed a liking for public life. He was the
gentleman in politics. The skill of an artist tailor exhibited his
tall, graceful figure at its best, and his shapely hands were
immaculately gloved. His hat advertised the latest fashion just as his
exquisite necktie indicated the proper colour.[1624] He was equally
particular about his conduct. Whatever his environment he observed the
details of court etiquette. His stately elegance of manner easily
unbent without loss of dignity, and although his volatile spirits and
manner of living gave him the appearance of a _bon vivant_, lively and
jocose, with less devotion to work than to society, it was noticeable
that he attracted men of severer mould as easily as those vivacious
and light-hearted associates who called him "Chet." While Fenton,
after Greeley's failure as a leader, was gathering the broken threads
of party management into a compact and aggressive organisation, Arthur
enjoyed the respect and confidence of every local leader, who
appreciated his wise reticence and perennial courtesy, blended with an
ability to control restless and suspicious politicians by timely hints
and judicious suggestions. Indeed, people generally, irrespective of
party, esteemed him highly because of his kindness of heart, his
conciliatory disposition, his lively sense of humour, and his
sympathetic attention to the interests of those about him. He was
neither 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 a
flexibility of mind that enabled him to adapt himself easily to
changing conditions.

[Footnote 1624: "You remember, don't you, what Orville Baker told us
about Arthur's two passions, as he heard them discussed at Sam Ward's
dinner in New York? New coats being one, he then having ordered
twenty-five from his tailor since the New Year came in."--Mrs. James
G. Blaine, _Letters_ (January 28, 1882), Vol. 1, p. 294.]

When Conkling finally wrested the Federal patronage from Fenton and
secured to himself the favour and confidence of the Grant
administration, Arthur bivouacked with the senior Senator so quietly
and discreetly that Greeley accepted his appointment as collector
without criticism. "He is a young man of fair abilities," said the
editor, "and of unimpeached private character. He has filled no such
rôle in public affairs as should entitle him to so important and
responsible a part, but as things go, his is an appointment of fully
average fitness and acceptability. With the man we have no difference;
with the system that made him collector we have a deadly quarrel. He
was Mr. Murphy's personal choice, and he was chosen because it is
believed he can run the machine of party politics better than any of
our 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 in
avoiding the repellent methods of Murphy. He did not wait for
emergencies to arise, but considering them in advance as possible
contingencies, he exercised an unobtrusive but masterful authority
when the necessity for action came. He played an honest game of
diplomacy. What others did with Machiavellian intrigue or a cynical
indifference to ways and means, he accomplished with the cards on the
table in plain view, and with motives and objects frankly disclosed.
No one ever thought his straightforward methods clumsy, or
unbusinesslike, or deficient in cleverness. In like manner he studied
the business needs of the customs service, indicating to the Secretary
of the Treasury the flagrant use of backstair wiles, and pointing out
to him ways of reform.[1626] He sought in good faith to secure
efficiency and honesty, and if he had not been pinioned as with ball
and chain to a system as old as the custom-house itself, and upon
which every political boss from DeWitt Clinton to Roscoe Conkling had
relied for advantage, he would doubtless have reformed existing
peculation and irregularities among inspectors, weighers, gaugers,
examiners, samplers, and appraisers.[1627] Until this army of placemen
could be taken out of politics Secretary Sherman refused to believe it
possible to make the custom-house "the best managed business agency of
the government," and as Arthur seemed an inherent part of the system
itself, the President wished to try Theodore Roosevelt.[1628] It is
safe to conclude, judging the father's work by the later achievements
of his illustrious son, that the Chief Executive's choice would have
accomplished the result had Conkling allowed him to undertake it.

[Footnote 1626: See his letters to the Secretary of the Treasury, New
York _Tribune_, January 28, 1879.]

[Footnote 1627: In his testimony before the Jay Commission, Arthur
spoke of "10,000 applicants," backed and pressed upon him with
unabated energy by the most prominent men "all over the country."--New
York _Tribune_, July 28, 1877.]

[Footnote 1628: Arthur was offered an appointment as consul-general to
Paris.--See Theodore E. Burton, _Life of John Sherman_, p. 294.]

When Conkling felt himself at ease, in congenial society, he displayed
his mastery of irony and banter, neither hesitating to air his opinion
of persons nor shrinking from admissions which were candid to the
verge of cynicism. At such times he had not veiled his intense dislike
of the Administration. After Hayes's election his conversation
discovered as aggressive a spirit as he had exhibited at Rochester,
speaking of the Secretary of State as "little Evarts," and charging
the President with appointing "a Democratic cabinet," whose principal
labour had been "to withdraw Republican support from me." Apropos of
Schurz, he told a story of the man who disbelieved the Bible because
he didn't write it. He criticised the Republican press for praising
Tilden as governor and "lampooning" him as a candidate for the
presidency, pronounced Packard's title as good as Hayes's, and
declared the President's "objectionable and dishonourable" record
consisted not in the withdrawal of the troops but in bargaining with
Southerners. "Every man knows," he said, "that on the face of the
returns Packard was more elected than Hayes. You cannot present those
returns in any form that will not give more legality to Packard as
Governor than to Hayes as President. People say this man assumes all
the virtues of reform in an office which he has gained by the simple
repudiation of the ladder that lifted him. It is the general record of
usurpers that though sustained they do their favours to the other
side.... I have no faith in a President whose only distinct act is
ingratitude to the men who voted for him and to the party which gave
him its fealty. In the domain and forum of honour that sense of Mr.
Hayes's infidelity stands forward and challenges him. It is felt by
honest men all over the country. He smiles and showers on the
opposition 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, made
in the interests of envious and presuming little men. Sherman
(secretary of the treasury) goes out to Ohio and makes speeches in
defiance of it; McCrary (secretary of war) goes to Iowa and manages a
convention in spite of it; and Devens (attorney-general) says the
order meant itself to be disobeyed, and that the way to obey it was to
violate it."[1629]

[Footnote 1629: New York _Herald_, November 9, 1877. Respecting this
interview Conkling made a personal explanation in the Senate, in which
he said: "Though some of the remarks in question may at some time have
been made in private casual conversations, others of them never
proceeded from me at any time."--New York _Tribune_, November 13. It
is assumed that the portions quoted above, taken from a three-column
interview, are substantially correct, since they are corroborated by
several 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 who
differed from him as enemies of the human race."--White,
_Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 188.

"Conkling spoke with great severity of President Hayes, and said he
hoped it would be the last time that any man would attempt to steal
the presidency."--Hoar, _Autobiography_, Vol. 2, p. 44.]

Conkling's criticism of the fitful execution of the civil service
order was not too severe. Instead of justifying the expectations he
had aroused by vigorously enforcing the principles of his letter of
acceptance and inaugural address, the President, as if inthralled by
some mysterious spell, had discredited his professions by his
performances. The establishment of a real change in the system of
appointments and of office-holding control invited a severe contest,
and success depended upon the courage and conviction of the
Administration itself. For firmness, however, Hayes substituted
hesitation, compromise, and in some instances surrender. Numerous
cases were cited in proof of this criticism, notably the reappointment
of Chauncey I. Filley, postmaster at St. Louis, whom George William
Curtis pronounced the most conspicuous office-holder in the country
for 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 no
less irrational. In failing to charge them with inefficiency he
subjected himself to the graver charge of inconsistency, since his
letter of acceptance and inaugural address declared in substance that
efficient officers would be retained. The President meant, his friends
assumed, that political activity nullified efficiency, to which
opponents replied that the President, after inviting Arthur to carry
out the recommendations of the Jay Commission, had condoned the
collector's wrong-doing if any existed, making him an agent for
reform, and that his subsequent removal was simply in the interest of
faction. Cornell's case likewise presented a peg upon which to hang
severe criticism, since the Administration, when asked for the reason
of his removal, dodged the decisive one. Such inconsistency showed
timidity 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 six
weeks after Congress convened he bent all his energies and diplomacy
to defeat the confirmation of Roosevelt and Prince. That a Republican
senator 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 a
forceful and pathetic speech, regarded by colleagues as his most
impressive address,[1631] he illuminated what he deemed an act of
injustice to Arthur and Cornell. It was less bitter perhaps than that
in the contest with Fenton over the confirmation of Thomas Murphy, but
no less carefully worked up and quite as successful. To the
consternation of the Administration, which relied upon a solid
Democratic party, the Senator won by a decisive vote, having the
support 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 another
canvass for members of the Legislature. It sent a thrill of joy
through the ranks of his friends, renewed the courage of
office-holding lieutenants, and compelled the Administration's
supporters to admit that the President was "chiefly to blame."[1632]
Moreover, the cordial support given Conkling by Blaine created the
impression that it had led to their complete reconciliation, a belief
strengthened by a conversation that subsequently occurred between them
on 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 friendly
one.[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 the
adjournment of Congress, he suspended Arthur and Cornell and appointed
Edwin A. Merritt and Silas W. Burt. Arthur's suspension did not
involve his integrity. Nor was any distinct charge lodged against
Cornell. Their removal rested simply upon the plea that the interests
of the public service demanded it, and the death of Roosevelt very
naturally 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. After
holding successively several local offices in St. Lawrence, the people
sent him to the Assembly in 1859 and in 1860. When the rebellion began
he entered the quartermaster's and commissary departments, and at its
close served as quartermaster-general of the State until appointed
naval officer in 1869, an office which he lost in 1870 when Conkling
got control of the patronage. Then he followed Fenton and Greeley into
the Liberal party, but returning with other leaders in 1874, he
accepted the nomination for State treasurer in 1875, the year when
administrative reform accelerated Tilden's run for the White House.
This made him eligible for surveyor, an office to which he had been
confirmed in December, 1877. His unsought promotion to the
collectorship, however, was a testimonial to his ability. Whatever
Merritt touched he improved. Whether quartermaster, naval officer, or
surveyor, he attended rigorously to duty, enforcing the law fairly and
without favour, and disciplining his force into a high state of
efficiency, so that revenues increased, expenses diminished, and
corruption talk ceased. In selecting him for collector, therefore, the
President had secured the right type of man.

Nevertheless, Hayes's action roiled the political waters. Conkling's
friends accused the President of violating his own principles, of
endeavouring to set up a new machine, and of grossly insulting the
Senator. On the other hand, Administration supporters maintained that
the law authorising removals was as obligatory as that empowering a
senator to advise and consent to appointments, and that in removing
Arthur the President did not insult Conkling any more than Conkling
insulted the President by rejecting the nomination of Roosevelt. This
renewal of an ugly quarrel was auguring ill for the Republicans, when
the organisation of the National Greenback-Labour-Reform party,
suddenly presenting a question which involved the integrity and
welfare of the country, put factional quarrels and personal politics
into eclipse.

Conkling had exhibited both tact and skill in that campaign. He did
not lead the gold column. In fact, it was not until the last moment
that the Saratoga committee on resolutions which he dominated,
substituted "the fixed monetary standard of the commercial world" for
the word "coin." But after the guide-boards pointed the way he became
a powerful champion of hard money. Besides, the moderation and good
temper with which he discussed the doctrine of the inflationists did
much to hold dissenters within the party and justly entitled him to
high praise. His unanimous re-election to the Senate followed as a
matter of course. Not that unanimity of action implied unanimity of
feeling. It was rather, perhaps, a yielding to the necessity of the
situation.[1635]

[Footnote 1635: The strength of the anti-Conkling sentiment was clearly
shown in the contest for speaker of the Assembly. Thomas G. Alvord
received 52 votes to 43 for George B. Sloan of Oswego. Although Sloan
and his supporters declared for Conkling, Alvord was confessedly the
Conkling candidate.]

Nevertheless, to all appearances Conkling had recovered the prestige
lost at Rochester. His conduct at the convention and in the campaign
excited the hope, also, that he would drop his opposition to Merritt
and Burt. Such a course commended itself to the judgment of a large
majority of the New York delegation in Congress as well as to many
stout legislative friends; but re-election seemed to have hardened his
heart, and when, ten days after that event, he rose in the Senate to
defeat confirmation he exhibited the confidence of the man of
Gath.[1636]

[Footnote 1636: New York _Tribune_ (correspondence), February 1, 1879.]

Prior to his re-election Conkling had not voluntarily moved in the
matter. To him the settlement of one thing at a time sufficed. Early
in January, however, the Secretary of the Treasury, on his own
initiative and with the skill of a veteran legislator, had addressed
the President of the Senate, setting forth that Arthur's conduct of
the custom-house was neither efficient nor economical. To this Arthur
answered, denying inattention to business or loss of revenue, and
affirming that he had recommended a system of reform upon which the
Secretary had not acted.[1637] After the reception of this letter
Conkling demanded immediate action. But the Senate, by two majority,
preferred to wait for Sherman's replication, and when that statement
came the Senate again, by a vote of 35 to 26, put off action until the
document, with its many exhibits, could be carefully examined.[1638]
These delays augured ill for the Senator. It appeared that a
Democratic member of his own committee had left him, and on the day
fixed for consideration other Democrats, while calmly discussing the
matter, disclosed a disposition to desert. Alarmed at their loss
Conkling suddenly moved to recommit, which was carried by a _viva
voce_ vote amidst shouts of approval and whispered assurances that
further action should be deferred until a Democratic Senate convened
on 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 which
308 were extracts from the testimony taken by the Jay Commission, then
published for the first time.]

Believing the matter practically settled, Conkling, to improve the
last chance "of freeing his mind," he said, unexpectedly took the
floor, and for more than an hour, with a bitterness and eloquence not
excelled at Rochester, assailed the President and those associated
with him. To illustrate the insincerity of the Administration's desire
to reform the civil service he read several place-seeking letters
addressed to Arthur while collector and written by the President's
private secretary, by a member of the Cabinet, and other reformers.
One letter sought a position for the son of Justice Bradley, who had
figured conspicuously on the Electoral Commission. Such a scene had
never before been witnessed in the Senate. Exclamations of mock
surprise followed by fun-making questions and loud laughter added to
the grotesque exhibition. It was so ludicrous as to become pitiful and
painful. Although no particular harm was done to anybody, the
Government for the moment was made ridiculous.

At times Conkling was blessed with the gift of offence, and on this
occasion he seems to have exercised it to its full capacity. Before he
began speaking the Senate exhibited a readiness to recommit the
nominations, but as he proceeded he lost ground, and when he finished
several Republican senators, unwilling to afford another opportunity
for such a scene, demanded that the matter be disposed of at once and
forever. Each succeeding name, as the roll-call proceeded on the
motion to recommit, showed more and more the change that had taken
place in senators' feelings. Failure to recommit turned defeat into
confusion, and confusion into disaster. When the three roll-calls were
over it was found that Merritt had been confirmed by 33 to 24 and Burt
by 31 to 19. An analysis of the "pairs" increased the rout, since it
disclosed that twenty-five Democrats and fifteen Republicans favoured
confirmation, while only seven Democrats and twenty-three Republicans
opposed it. In other words, the Administration required only five
Democratic votes to match the strength of the dissatisfied
Republicans. Kernan, although he had spoken slightingly of Merritt,
refused to vote, but Blaine, who had joined heartily in the laughter
provoked by Conkling's thrusts as he read the letters, antagonised the
President. This noticeable desire of the Maine statesman to attach his
fortunes to those of the New York Senator neither escaped the
attention nor faded from the memory of Secretary Sherman.

The next morning everybody knew what had happened. Although secrecy
was removed only from the vote, nothing of the seven hours' conflict
remained untold, the result of which to all New Yorkers proved a great
surprise. They had supposed Conkling invincible in the Senate.
Nevertheless, to most Republicans, whether friends or foes, his defeat
on February 3 was a great relief. Merritt had made an excellent
collector, and a feeling existed, which had crystallised into a strong
public sentiment, that it was unwise to force into his place an
official unsatisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury.




CHAPTER XXXII

JOHN KELLY ELECTS CORNELL

1879


If threatened danger had bred an artificial harmony among the
Republican factions of the State in 1878, the presence of a real
peril, growing out of the control of both branches of Congress by the
Democrats, tended to bring them closer together in 1879. During a
special session of the Forty-sixth Congress the Democratic majority
had sought, by a political rider attached to the army appropriation
bill, to repeal objectionable election laws, which provided among
other things for the appointment of supervisors and deputy marshals at
congressional elections. This law had materially lessened cheating in
New York City, and no one doubted that its repeal would be followed in
1880 by scenes similar to those which had disgraced the metropolis
prior to its enactment in 1870.

But the attempt to get rid of the objectionable Act by a rider on a
supply bill meant more than repeal. It implied a threat. In effect the
Democrats declared that if the Executive did not yield his veto power
to a bare majority, the needed appropriations for carrying on the
government would be stopped. This practically amounted to revolution,
and the debate that followed reawakened bitter partisan and sectional
animosities. "Suppose in a separate bill," said Conkling, "the
majority had, in advance of appropriations, repealed the national bank
act and the resumption act, and had declared that unless the Executive
surrendered his convictions and yielded up his approval of the
repealing act, no appropriations should be made; would the separation
of the bills have palliated or condoned the revolutionary purpose?
When it is intended that, unless another species of legislation is
agreed to, the money of the people, paid for that purpose, shall not
be used to maintain their government, the threat is revolution and its
execution is treasonable." Then he gave the mortal stab. Of the
ninety-three senators and representatives from the eleven disloyal
States, he said, eighty-five were soldiers in the armies of the
rebellion, and their support of these "revolutionary measures is a
fight for empire. It is a contrivance to clutch the national
government. That we believe; that I believe."[1639] The President, by
advising the country through his spirited veto messages of the
desperate tactics invoked by the majority, added to Northern
indignation.

[Footnote 1639: Cooper, _American Politics_, Book 3, pp. 176-186.]

It was a losing battle to the Democrats. The longer they insisted the
more the Southern brigadiers were held up to public scorn as if they
had again betrayed their country, and when, finally, the appropriation
bills were passed without riders, it left Republicans more firmly
united 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 distinguished
Republican of the State was present save Thurlow Weed, whose
feebleness kept him at home. Conkling presided. With fine humour,
George William Curtis, the sound of whose flute-like voice brought a
burst of applause, asked that the crowded aisles be cleared that he
might see the chairman. Conkling's speech excited close attention. It
was freer and more vivid because of more human interest than his
address of the year before, and his appeal for harmony, his
denunciation of revolutionary methods in Congress, and his demand that
freedmen be protected in their rights, brought strenuous, purposeful
applause from determined men. The principles thus felicitously and
rhetorically stated formed the basis of the platform, which pledged
the party anew to national supremacy, equal rights, free elections,
and honest money. It also thanked the President for his recent
attitude.

[Footnote 1641: On August 29, the State convention of Nationals
assembled at Utica, and nominated Harris Lewis of Herkimer, for
governor. The platform opposed National banks and demanded an issue of
greenbacks at the rate of $50 per capita, at least. Lewis, who had
been a member of the Assembly twenty years before, was president of
the Farmers' Alliance.

The State Prohibition convention met at Syracuse, September 3, and
nominated a full State ticket, with John W. Mears of Oneida, for
governor. The platform declared the license system the cornerstone of
the liquor traffic and favoured woman suffrage.]

Nevertheless, a disposition to contest the strength of the
organisation and its methods boldly asserted itself. For months
Cornell had been Conkling's candidate for governor. A searching
canvass, extended into all sections of the State and penetrating the
secrets 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 it
did in 1876, in defeating Cornell.

So much depended upon the control of the temporary organisation that
the anti-Conkling forces begged the Vice-President to stand for
temporary chairman. They could easily unite upon him, and the belief
obtained that he could defeat the Senator. But Wheeler, a mild and
amiable gentleman, whose honours had come without personal contests,
was timid and unyielding.[1642] What the opposition needed was a real
State leader. It had within its ranks brilliant editors,[1643]
excellent lawyers, and with few exceptions the best speakers in the
party, but since Fenton lost control of the organisation no man had
arisen capable of crossing swords with its great chieftain.

[Footnote 1642: "The only complaint that his friends have ever made of
Mr. Wheeler is that his generous nature forbids him, politically, to
fight. Had he been willing to lead in the State convention in 1879, it
would have had a different result."--_Harper's Weekly_, March 26,
1881.]

[Footnote 1643: Among the more influential Republican editors, who
wrote 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 William
Curtis, _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 of
Syracuse divided the support of the central counties with Theodore M.
Pomeroy of Cayuga, while William H. Robertson of Westchester and John
H. Starin of New York claimed whatever delegates Cornell did not
control in the metropolis and its vicinity. Among them and their
lieutenants, however, none could dispute leadership with Conkling and
his corps of able managers. Starin had pluck and energy, but two terms
in Congress and popularity with the labouring classes, to whom he paid
large wages and generously contributed fresh-air enjoyments, summed up
his strength.[1644] Pomeroy was better known. His public record, dating
from the famous speech made in the Whig convention of 1855, had kept
him prominently before the people, and had he continued in Congress he
must have made an exalted national reputation. But the day of younger
men had come. Besides, his recent vote for John F. Smyth, the head of
the Insurance Department, injured him.[1645] Robertson, as usual, had
strong support. His long public career left a clear imprint of his
high character, and his attractive personality, with its restrained
force, made him a central figure in the politics of the State.

[Footnote 1644: The sale of a condition powder for cattle started
Starin on the road to wealth, which soon discovered itself in the
ownership of canal, river, and harbour boats, until he became known as
High Admiral of the Commerce of New York. Like success attended his
railroad operations.]

[Footnote 1645: Pomeroy was district-attorney of his County, 1851-56;
in the Assembly, 1857; in Congress, 1861-69, being elected speaker in
place of Colfax on the day the latter retired to be sworn in as
Vice-President; mayor of Auburn, 1875-76; State Senate, 1878-79.]

Hiscock was then on the threshold of his public career. He began life
as the law partner and political lieutenant of his brother, Harris, an
adroit politician, whose violent death in 1867, while a member of the
constitutional convention, left to the former the Republican
leadership of Onondaga County. If his diversion as a Liberal
temporarily crippled him, it did not prevent his going to Congress in
1876, where he was destined to remain for sixteen years and to achieve
high rank as a debater on financial questions. He was without a sense
of humour and possessed rather an austere manner, but as a highly
successful lawyer he exhibited traits of character that strengthened
him with the people. He was also an eminently wary and cautious man,
alive to the necessity of watching the changeful phases of public
opinion, and slow to propound a plan until he had satisfied himself
that it could be carried out in practice. It increased his influence,
too, that he was content with a stroke of practical business here and
there in the interest of party peace without claiming credit for any
brilliant or deep diplomacy.

It is doubtful, however, if the genius of a Weed could have induced
the disorganised forces, representing the four candidates, to put up a
single opponent to Cornell. Such a course, in the opinion of the
leaders, would release delegates to the latter without compensating
advantage. It was decided, therefore, to hold the field intact with
the hope of preventing a nomination on the first ballot, and to let
the result determine the next step. In their endeavour to accomplish
this they stoutly maintained that Cornell, inheriting the unpopularity
of the machine, could not carry the State. To win New York and thus
have its position defined for 1880 was the one great desire of
Republicans, and the visible effect of the fusionists' attack,
concededly made with great tact and cleverness, if without much effort
at organisation, turned Conkling's confidence into doubt. Then he put
on more pressure. In the preceding winter Pomeroy's vote and speech
in the State Senate had saved John F. Smyth from deserved impeachment,
and he now counted confidently upon the Commissioner's promised
support of his candidacy. But Conkling demanded it for Cornell, and
Smyth 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 into
an ominous silence, and every response sounded like the night-step of
a watchful sentinel. Only when some conspicuous leader voted was the
stillness broken. A score of men were keeping count, and halfway down
the roll the fusionists tied their opponents. When, at last, the call
closed with nine majority for Cornell, the result, save a spasm of
throat-splitting yells, was received with little enthusiasm.[1646] On
the motion to make the nomination unanimous George William Curtis
voted "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 the
Senator's headquarters, while in an inner room he strengthened the
weak, won the doubtful, and directed his forces with remarkable skill.
He asked no quarter, and after his triumph every candidate selected
for a State office was an avowed friend of Cornell. "It would have
been poor policy," said one of the Senator's lieutenants, "to
apologise for what he had done by seeming to strengthen the ticket
with 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; Secretary
of 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. Some
thought the defeat of Cornell in 1876 deceived the opposition as to
his strength; others, that a single candidate should have opposed him;
others, again, that the work of securing delegates did not begin early
enough. But all agreed that the action of George B. Sloan of Oswego
seriously weakened them. Since 1874 Sloan had been prominently
identified with the unfettered wing of the party. Indeed, his activity
along lines of reform had placed him at the head and front of
everything that made for civic betterment. In character he resembled
Robertson. His high qualities and flexibility of mind gave him
unrivalled distinction. He possessed a charm which suffused his
personality as a smile softens and irradiates a face, and although it
was a winsome rather than a commanding personality, it lacked neither
firmness nor power. Moreover, he was a resourceful business man, keen,
active, and honest--characteristics which he carried with him into
public life. His great popularity made him speaker of the Assembly in
the third year of his service (1877), and his ability to work
tactfully and effectively had suggested his name to the coalition as a
compromise candidate for governor. He had never leaned to the side of
the machine. In fact, his failure to win the speakership in the
preceding January was due to the opposition of Cornell backed by John
F. Smyth, and his hopes of future State preferment centred in the
defeat of these aggressive men. Yet at the critical moment, when
success seemed within the grasp of his old-time friends, he voted for
Cornell. For this his former associates never wholly forgave him. Nor
was his motive ever fully understood. Various reasons found
currency--admiration of Conkling, a desire to harmonise his party at
home by the nomination of John C. Churchill for State comptroller, and
weariness of opposing an apparently invincible organisation. But
whatever the motive the coalition hissed when he declared his choice,
and then turned upon Churchill like a pack of sleuth-hounds, defeating
him upon the first ballot in spite of Conkling's assistance.

Tammany's threat to bolt Robinson's renomination may have encouraged
Cornell's nomination, since such truancy would aid his election. John
Kelly was _in extremis_. Tammany desertions and the election of Mayor
Cooper had shattered his control of the city. To add to his
discomfiture the Governor had removed Henry A. Gumbleton, charged with
taking monstrous fees as clerk of New York County, and appointed
Hubert O. Thompson in his place. Gumbleton was Kelly's pet; Thompson
was Cooper's lieutenant. Although the Governor sufficiently justified
his action, the exercise of this high executive function was generally
supposed to be only a move in the great Presidential game of 1880. His
failure to remove the Register, charged with similar misdoings,
strengthened the supposition that the Tilden camp fires were burning
brightly. But whatever the Governor's motive, Kelly accepted
Gumbleton's removal as an open declaration of war, and on September 6
(1879), five days before the Democratic State convention, Tammany's
committee on organisation secretly declared "that in case the
convention insists upon the renomination of Lucius Robinson for
governor, the Tammany delegation will leave in a body."[1649] In
preparation for this event an agent of Tammany hired Shakespeare Hall,
the only room left in Syracuse of sufficient size to accommodate a
bolting 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 Democrats
had selected a candidate for governor in Syracuse reflected the fierce
struggle waged in the intervening five years. In 1874 Tweed was in
jail; Kelly, standing for Tilden, assailed Sanford E. Church as a
friend of the canal ring; Dorsheimer, thrust into the Democratic party
through the Greeley revolt, was harvesting honour in high office;
Bigelow, dominated by his admiration of a public servant who concealed
an unbridled ambition, gave character to the so-called reform; and
Charles S. Fairchild, soon to appreciate the ingratitude of party, was
building a reputation as the undismayed prosecutor of a predatory
ring. Now, Tweed was in his grave; Kelly had joined the canal ring in
sounding the praises of Church; Dorsheimer, having drifted into
Tammany and the editorship of the _Star_, disparaged the man whom he
adored as governor and sought to make President; and Bigelow and
Fairchild, their eyes opened, perhaps, by cipher telegrams, found
satisfaction in the practice of their professions.

But Tilden was not without friends. If some had left him, others had
grown more potent. For several years Daniel E. Manning, known to his
Albany neighbours as a youth of promise and a young man of ripening
wisdom, had attracted attention by his genius for political
leadership.[1651] He seems never to have been rash or misled. Even an
exuberance of animal vitality that eagerly sought new outlets for its
energy did not waste itself in aimless experiments. Although
possessing the generosity of a rich nature, he preferred to work
within lines of purpose without heady enthusiasms or reckless
extremes, and his remarkable gifts as an executive, coupled with the
study of politics as a fine art, soon made him a manager of men. This
was demonstrated in his aggressive fight against Tweedism. Manning was
now (1879) forty-eight years old. It cannot be said that he had then
reached the place filled by Dean Richmond, or that the _Argus_ wielded
the power exerted in the days of Edwin Croswell; but the anti-ring
forces in the interior of the State cheerfully mustered under his
leadership, while the _Argus_, made forceful and attractive by the
singularly brilliant and facile pen of St. Clair McKelway, swayed the
minds of its readers to a degree almost unequalled among its party
contemporaries.[1652]

[Footnote 1651: In the early forties Manning began as an office-boy on
the Albany _Atlas_, and in 1865, as associate editor of the _Argus_,
he dominated its policy. Upon the death of James Cassidy, in 1873, he
succeeded to the presidency of the company with which he continued
throughout his life.]

[Footnote 1652: After service on the New York _World_, and the Brooklyn
_Eagle_, McKelway became chief editor of the _Argus_ in 1878. He
rejoined the _Eagle_ in 1885. Among other accomplished editors who
made their journals conspicuous in party (Democratic) and State from
1865 to 1880, may be mentioned William Cassidy, Albany _Argus_; Thomas
Kinsella, Brooklyn _Eagle_; Joseph Warren and David Gray, Buffalo
_Courier_; Samuel M. Shaw, Cooperstown _Freeman's Journal_; James and
Erastus 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 _Republican
Watchman_; E. Prentiss Bailey, Utica _Observer_. Although previously
of Democratic tendencies, the New York _Herald_, by 1865, had become
wholly independent.]

Manning took charge of the interests of Robinson, who did not attend
the convention, receiving Kelly's tactful and spirited assault with
fine courage. The Governor's enemies were more specific than
Cornell's. They predicted that Robinson's renomination would lose
twenty thousand votes in New York City alone, and an ingenious and
extensively circulated table showed that the counties represented by
his delegates had recently exhibited a Democratic loss of thirty
thousand and an increased Republican vote of forty thousand, while
localities opposed to him revealed encouraging gains. Mindful of the
havoc wrought in 1874 by connecting Church with the canal ring, Kelly
also sought to crush Robinson by charging that corporate rings,
notably the New York Mutual Life Insurance Company, had controlled his
administration, and that although he had resigned from the Erie
directorate at the time of his election, he still received large fees
through his son who acted as attorney for the road. Moreover, Kelly
intimated, with a dark frown, that he had another stone in his sling.
This onslaught, made upon every country delegate in town, seemed to
confuse if not to shake the Tilden men, whose interest centred in
success as well as in Robinson. The hesitation of the Kings County
delegation, under the leadership of Hugh McLaughlin, to declare
promptly for the Governor, and the toying of Senator Kernan with the
name of Church while talking in the interest of harmony, indicated
irresolution. Even David B. Hill and Edward K. Apgar, who desired to
shape affairs for a pledged delegation to the next national
convention, evidenced weariness.

Manning steadied the line. In proclaiming Robinson's nomination on the
first ballot he anticipated every movement of the enemy. He knew that
Henry W. Slocum's candidacy did not appeal to McLaughlin; that Chief
Justice Church's consent rested upon an impossible condition; and that
Kelly's threatened bolt, however disastrously it might end in
November, 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; John
C. Jacobs, a senator from Brooklyn, was made chairman; the fairness of
committee appointments allayed suspicion; a platform accepted by if
not inoffensive to all Democrats set forth the principles of the
party,[1653] and an avoidance of irritating statements characterised
the 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 the
Democratic programme in Congress.--See Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1879,
p. 680.]

Tammany's part was less cleverly played. Its effort centred in
breaking the solid Brooklyn delegation, and although with much tact it
presented Slocum as its candidate for governor, and cunningly
expressed confidence in Jacobs by proposing that he select the
Committee on Credentials, two Bowery orators, with a fierceness born
of hate, abused Robinson and pronounced Tilden "the biggest fraud of
the age."[1654] Then Dorsheimer took the floor. His purpose was to
capture the Kings and Albany delegations, and walking down the aisles
with stage strides he begged them, in a most impassioned manner, to
put themselves in Tammany's place, and to say whether, under like
circumstances, they would not adopt the same course. He did it very
adroitly. His eyes blazed, his choice words blended entreaty with
reasoning, and his manner indicated an earnestness that captivated if
it did not convert. His declaration, however, that Tammany would bolt
Robinson's renomination withered the effect of his rhetoric. Kelly had
insinuated as much, and Tammany had flouted it for two days; but
Dorsheimer's announcement was the first authoritative declaration, and
it 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 a
committee of one from each county be appointed to secure harmony, a
Saratoga delegate moved that John C. Jacobs be nominated for governor
by acclamation. This turned the convention into a pandemonium. In the
midst of the whirlwind of noise a Tammany reading clerk, putting the
motion, declared it carried. Similar tactics had won Horatio Seymour
the nomination for President in 1868, and for a time it looked as if
the Chair might profit by their repetition. Jacobs was a young man.
Ambition possessed and high office attracted him. But if a vision of
the governorship momentarily unsettled his mind, one glance at
McLaughlin and the Brooklyn delegation, sitting like icebergs in the
midst of the heated uproar, restored his reason. When a motion to
recess increased the tumult, Rufus H. Peckham, a cool Tilden man,
called for the ayes and noes. This brought the convention to earth
again, and as the noise subsided Jacobs reproved the clerk for his
unauthorised assumption of the Chair's duties, adding, with a slight
show of resentment, that had he been consulted respecting the
nomination he should have respectfully declined.

At the conclusion of the roll-call the Tammany tellers, adding the
aggregate vote to suit the needs of the occasion, pronounced the
motion carried, while others declared it lost. A second call defeated
a recess by 166 to 217. On a motion to table the appointment of a
harmony committee the vote stood 226 to 155. A motion to adjourn also
failed by 166 to 210. These results indicated that neither tricks nor
disorder could shake the Robinson phalanx, and after the call to
select 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 the
nomination of Lucius Robinson," said Schell; "but the rest of the
ticket will receive its warm and hearty support." Then he paused.
Kelly, standing in the background of the little group, seemed to
shrink from the next step. Regularity was the touchstone of Tammany's
creed. Indifference to ways and means gave no offence, but
disobedience to the will of a caucus or convention admitted of no
forgiveness. Would Kelly himself be the first to commit this
unpardonable sin? He could invoke no precedent to shield him. In 1847
the Wilmot Proviso struck the keynote of popular sentiment, and the
Barnburners, leaving the convention the instant the friends of the
South repudiated the principle, sought to stay the aggressiveness of
slavery. Nor could he appeal to party action in 1853, for the Hunkers
refused to enter the convention after the Barnburners had organised
it. Moreover, he was wholly without excuse. He had accepted the
platform, participated in all proceedings, and exhausted argument,
diplomacy, trickery, and deception. Not until certain defeat faced him
did he rise to go, and even then he tarried with the hope that
Schell's words would bring the olive-branch. It was a moment of
intense suspense. The convention, sitting in silence, realised that
the loss meant probable defeat, and anxious men, unwilling to take
chances, looked longingly from one leader to another. But the symbol
of peace did not appear, and Schell announced, as he led the way to
the door: "The delegation from New York will now retire from the
hall." Then cheers and hisses deadened the tramp of retreating
footsteps.

After the bolters' departure Irving Hall took the seats of Tammany,
and the convention quickly closed its work. The roll-call showed 301
votes cast, of which Robinson received 243 and Slocum 56. Little
conflict occurred in the selection of other names on the ticket, all
the candidates save the lieutenant-governor being renominated.[1655]

[Footnote 1655: The ticket presented was as follows: Governor, Lucius
Robinson, Chemung; Lieutenant-Governor, Clarkson N. Potter, New York;
Secretary of State, Allen C. Beach, Jefferson; Comptroller, Frederick
P. 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's
counsel before the Electoral Commission, presided; Dorsheimer, whose
grotesque position must have appealed to his own keen sense of the
humorous, moved the nomination of John Kelly for governor; and Kelly,
in his speech of acceptance, prophesied the defeat of Governor
Robinson. This done they went out into darkness.

Throughout the campaign the staple of Republican exhortations was the
Southern question and the need of a "strong man." Even Conkling in his
one speech made no reference to State politics or State affairs. When
Cornell's election, midway in the canvass, seemed assured, Curtis
argued that his success would defeat the party in 1880, and to avoid
such a calamity he advocated "scratching the ticket."[1656] Several
well-known Republicans, adopting the suggestion, published an address,
giving reasons for their refusal to support the head and the tail of
the ticket. They cited the cause of Cornell's dismissal from the
custom-house; compared the cost of custom-house administration before
and after his separation from the service; and made unpleasant
reference to the complicity of Soule in the canal frauds, as revealed
in the eleventh report of the Canal Investigating Committee.[1657]
Immediately the signers were dubbed "Scratchers." The party press
stigmatised them as traitors, and several journals refused to publish
their address even as an advertisement. So bitterly was Curtis
assailed that he thought it necessary to resign the chairmanship of
the Richmond County convention. Party wits also ridiculed him. Henry
Ward Beecher said, with irresistible humour, that scratching is good
for cutaneous affections. Martin I. Townsend declared that no
Republican lived in Troy who had any disease that required scratching.
Evarts called it "voting in the air." To all this Curtis replied that
the incessant fusillade proved his suggestion not so utterly
contemptible 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. Evarts
represented an Administration which had removed Cornell that "the
office may be properly and efficiently administered." Now, he endorsed
him for governor, ridiculed Republicans that opposed him, and pointed
unmistakably to Grant as the "strong man" who could best maintain the
power of the people.[1659] The _Nation_ spoke of Evarts' appearance as
"indecent."[1660] Curtis was not less severe. "Both his appearance and
his speech are excellent illustrations of the reason why the political
influence 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 of
which the poet sings, which was shot into the air and found in the
heart of an oak. It is hearts of oak, not of bending reeds, that make
and 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 managers
began very early in the campaign. Perhaps the fulsome praise of John
Kelly in Republican journals, the constant support of John F. Smyth by
Tammany senators, and Kelly's avowed intention to defeat Robinson,
were sufficient to arouse suspicion. Conkling's sudden silence as to
the danger threatening free elections, of which he declaimed so warmly
in April, seemed to indicate undue satisfaction with existing
conditions. To several newspapers the action of two Republican police
commissioners, who championed Tammany's right to its share of poll
inspectors, pointed unmistakably to a bargain, since it gave Tammany
and the Republicans power to select a chairman at each poll.[1662]
Evidence of a real alliance, however, was nebulous. The defeat of
Robinson meant the election of Cornell, and Republicans naturally
welcomed any effort to accomplish it. They greeted Kelly, during his
tour of the State, with noise and music, crowded his meetings, and
otherwise sought to dishearten Robinson's friends. Although Kelly's
speeches did not compare in piquancy with his printed words, his
references to Tilden as the "old humbug of Cipher Alley" and to
Robinson as having "sore eyes" when signing bills, kept his hearers
expectant and his enemies disturbed. The _World_ followed him,
reporting his speeches as "failures" and his audiences as "rushing
pell-mell from the building."[1663]

[Footnote 1662: The _Nation_, September 25 and October 23, 1879; New
York _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 to
elect the minor State officers. But he learned on the morning after
election that he had entirely miscalculated the effect of his scheme,
since every Democrat except the nephew of Horatio Seymour rested in
the party morgue by the side of Lucius Robinson.[1664] In the city
Kelly also disappointed his followers. His own vote ran behind
Robinson's, and all his friends were slaughtered. Indeed, when Tammany
surrendered its regularity at Syracuse it lost its voting strength.
Even Cornell whom it saved ran 20,000 behind his ticket. The election
was, in fact, a triumph for nobody except Conkling. He had put into
the highest State office a personal adherent, whom the Administration
had stigmatised by dismissal; he had brought to New York his principal
opponents in the Cabinet (Evarts and Sherman) to speak for his nominee
and their dismissed servant; and he had induced the Administration to
call 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 the
campaign, Sherman replied; "We must carry New York next year or see
all the result of the war overthrown and the constitutional amendments
absolutely nullified. We cannot do this if our friends defeat a
Republican candidate for governor, fairly nominated, and against whom
there 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 much
speculation respecting his renomination for the Presidency. Very
cautiously started on the ground of necessity because of the attitude
of the Southerners in Congress, the third-term idea continued to
strengthen until the widespread and deep interest in the great
soldier's home-coming was used to create the belief that he was
unmistakably the popular choice. Grant himself had said nothing
publicly upon the subject except in China, and his proper and modest
allusions to it then added to the people's respect. But during the
welcome extended him at Philadelphia, the Mayor of that city disclosed
a well-laid plan to make him a candidate. This frank declaration
indicated also that Grant expected the nomination, if, indeed, he was
not a party to the scheme for securing it.

The question of discrediting the traditions quickly became a serious
one, and its discussion, stimulated by other aspirants for the
Presidency, took a wide range. The opponents of a third term did not
yield to any in their grateful remembrance and recognition of what
Grant had done for the country, but they deemed it impolitic upon both
public and party grounds. If the tradition of two terms be overthrown
because of his distinguished service, they argued, his election for a
fourth term, to which the Constitution offered no bar, could be urged
for the same reason with still more cogency. Such apparently logical
action would not only necessarily familiarise the public mind, already
disturbed by the increasing depression to business caused by the
turmoil incident to quadrennial elections, with the idea of a
perpetual Presidency, but it would foster confidence in personal
government, and encourage the feeling that approved experience, as in
the case of trusted legislators, is necessary to the continuance of
wise administration.

Party reasons also furnished effective opposition. German voters,
especially in New York and Wisconsin, early disclosed an indisposition
to accept Grant even if nominated, while the Independent or Scratcher
voiced a greater hostility than the Cornell nomination had excited.
Never before had so much attention been given to a political question
by persons ordinarily indifferent to such speculation. Anti-Grant
clubs, springing up in a night, joined the press in ridiculing the
persistent talk about the need of "a strong man," and charged that the
scheme was conceived by a coterie of United States senators, managed
by former office-holders under President Grant, and supported by men
who regarded the Hayes administration as an impertinence. Matthew
Hale, in accepting the presidency of the Albany Club, declared the
movement to be at war with American traditions and with the spirit of
American institutions.[1666]

[Footnote 1666: The Albany Club was organised early in January, 1880.]

Such acrimonious antagonism quickly uncovered the purpose of the
Stalwarts, who now sought to control the nomination regardless of
opposition. For this purpose unusually early conventions for the
selection of delegates to the National Convention, to be held at
Chicago on June 2, were called in Pennsylvania, New York, and other
States. Pennsylvania's was fixed for February 4 at Harrisburg, and New
York's for the 25th at Utica. Like methods obtained in the selection
of delegates. At Albany John F. Smyth issued a call in the evening for
primaries to be held the next day at noon, and furnished his followers
with pink coloured tickets, headed "Grant." Smyth was already in bad
odour. Governor Robinson had accused him of compelling illegal
payments by insurance companies of a large sum of money, to which he
replied that the act making it illegal was unconstitutional, although
no court had so pronounced. His misdemeanour was confirmed in the
public mind by the fact, elicited on the impeachment trial, that the
money so obtained had been divided among agents of the Republican
organisation. Indeed, the _Times_ charged, without reservation, that
in one case the place of division was in none other than the house of
Cornell himself.[1667] Although the Senate of 1878 and of 1879 failed
to remove Smyth, the Senate of 1880, notwithstanding his reappointment
by Governor Cornell, refused to confirm him.[1668] In the presence of
such a sorry record the ostracised Albany Republicans were not
surprised at his attempt to cheat them at the primaries, and their
indignation at the shameless procedure resounded through the State. At
the end of a week Charles Emory Smith, the gifted editor of the Albany
_Journal_, who headed the delegation thus selected, deemed it
expedient to withdraw. Five associates did likewise. Nevertheless, the
opponents of a third term refused to participate in a second election,
called to fill the vacancies, since it did not remove the taint from
the majority who refused to resign.

[Footnote 1667: New York _Times_ (editorial), February 18, 1880.]

[Footnote 1668: "The Governor showed his contempt for public opinion by
nominating John F. Smyth, while the Senate had self-respect enough to
refrain from confirming him."--_Ibid._, May 28, 1880.]

In reward for his defence of Smyth, if not to express contempt for the
Albany malcontents, Charles Emory Smith was made chairman of the Utica
convention. This evidenced Conkling's complete control. Smith had
lived in Albany since early boyhood. He passed from its Academy to
Union College, thence back to the Academy as a teacher, and from that
position to the editorship of the _Express_. In a few years his clear,
incisive English, always forcible, often eloquent, had advanced him to
the editorship of the _Evening Journal_. Singularly attractive in
person, with slender, agile form, sparkling eyes, and ruddy cheeks,
he adorned whatever place he held. Indeed, the beauty and strength of
his character, coupled with the esteem in which Republican leaders
held him as a counsellor, gave him in the seventies a position in the
politics of the State somewhat akin to that held by Henry J. Raymond
in the sixties. He did not then, if ever, belong in Raymond's class as
a journalist or as an orator. Nor did he possess the vehement desire
for office that distinguished the brilliant editor of the _Times_. But
Smith's admirable temper, his sweet disposition, and his rare faculty
for saying things without offence, kept him, like Raymond, on friendly
terms with all. His part was not always an easy one. Leaders changed
and new issues appeared, yet his pen, though sometimes crafty, was
never dipped in gall. While acting as secretary for Governor Fenton he
enjoyed the esteem of Edwin D. Morgan, and if his change from the
Albany _Express_ to the Albany _Journal_ in 1870, and from the
_Journal_ to the Philadelphia _Press_ in 1880, carried him from
Fenton's confidence into Conkling's embrace and converted him from an
ardent third-termer to a champion of Blaine, the bad impression of
this prestidigitation was relieved, if not excused or forgotten,
because of his journalistic promotion.

In State conventions, too, Smith played the part formerly assigned to
Raymond, becoming by common consent chairman of the Committee on
Resolutions. His ear went instinctively to the ground, and, aided by
Carroll E. Smith of the Syracuse _Journal_, he wrote civil service
reform into the platform of 1877, the principle of sound money into
that of 1878, and carefully shaded important parts of other platforms
in that eventful decade.[1669] In like manner, although a pronounced
champion of Conkling and the politics he represented, Smith encouraged
moderate policies, urged frank recognition of the just claims of the
minority, and sought to prevent the stalwart managers from too widely
breaching the proprieties that should govern political organisations.
If his efforts proved unavailing, it seemed that he had at least
mastered the art of being regular without being bigoted, and of living
on good terms with a machine whose methods he could not wholly
approve. Nevertheless, there came a time when his associations, as in
the career of Raymond, seriously injured him, since his toleration and
ardent defence of John F. Smyth, besides grieving sincere friends and
temporarily clouding his young life,[1670] dissolved his relations with
a journal that he loved, and which, under his direction, had reminded
its readers of the forceful days of Thurlow Weed. Fortunately, the
offer of the editorship of the Philadelphia _Press_, coming
contemporaneously with his separation from the Albany _Journal_, gave
him an honourable exit from New York, and opened not only a larger
sphere of action but a more distinguished career.[1671]

[Footnote 1669: "Mr. Smith is one of the happily diminishing class of
amphibious editors, one-third journalist, two-thirds 'worker,' who
consult with the Bosses in hotels all over the State about 'fixing
things,' draw fustian platforms for State conventions, embody the Boss
view of the nation and the world in 'editorials,' and supply the pure
milk 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 become
enraged in the course of a factional controversy over public
appointments, in particular that of Smyth to be the Insurance
Commissioner. At a conference Mr. Smith's partners desired to get
editorial 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 the
prompt change of the Albany _Evening Journal_, probably the most
influential party paper in the State, from the position of a
thick-and-thin machine organ to that of an advocate of sound and
independent Republicanism."--_Harper's Weekly_, March 13, 1880.]

Having control of the convention Conkling boldly demanded the adoption
of a resolution instructing "the delegates to use their most earnest
and united efforts to secure the nomination of Ulysses S. Grant." The
admirers of Blaine seemed unprepared for such a contest. The meagre
majority given Grant at the Pennsylvania convention had greatly
encouraged them, but the intervening three weeks afforded insufficient
time to gather their strength. Besides, no one then suspected the
overwhelming public sentiment against a third term which was soon to
sweep the country. As it was no one seemed to have definite plans or a
precise knowledge of how to proceed or what to do, while local leaders
frittered away their strength in petty quarrels which had little
bearing upon the question of Presidential candidates. Finally, an
amendment simply endorsing the nominee of the Chicago convention was
offered as a substitute for the Grant resolution.

The Stalwarts, with the steadiness of veterans conscious of their
strength, deftly, almost delicately, in fact, silenced the minority.
Only once, when the reader of the resolutions hesitated over an
illegible word, did the dramatic happen. At that moment a thin voice
in the gallery exclaimed, "Hurrah for Blaine!" Instantly the audience
was on fire. The burst of applause brought out by Smith's opening
reference to the "never vanquished hero of Appomattox" had been
disappointing because it lacked spontaneity and enthusiasm, but the
sound of the magic word "Blaine," like a spark flying to powder, threw
the galleries into a flame of cheering which was obstinate in dying
out. Conkling, in closing the debate on the resolution, showed his
customary audacity by hurling bitter sarcasm at the people who had
presumed to applaud. It was in this address that he recited Raleigh's
famous line from _The Silent Lover_: "The shallows murmur but the
deeps 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 to
obey the convention's instructions regardless of the preference of
their districts. He did it very adroitly, arguing that a delegate is
an agent with a principal behind him, whom he represents if he is
faithful. "For what is this convention held?" he asked. "Is it merely
to listen while the delegates from the several congressional districts
inform the convention who the districts are going to send to the
national convention? Is it for that five hundred men, the selected
pride of the Republican party of this State, have come here to meet
together? I think not. Common sense and the immemorial usages of both
parties answer the question. What is the use of a delegate? Is it a
man to go to a convention representing others, and then determine as
he individually prefers what he will do? Let me say frankly that if
any man, however much I respect him, were presented to this convention
who would prove recreant to its judgment, I would never vote for him
as 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 hero
of Fort Fisher, had insisted with much vehemence that district
delegates represented the views of their immediate constituents and
not those of the State convention. Others as stoutly maintained the
same doctrine. But after Conkling had concluded no one ventured to
repeat the claim.[1674] Indeed, when the several districts reported
their delegates, the Stalwarts openly called upon the suspected ones
to say whether they submitted to the instructions. Woodin and Curtis
voluntarily surrendered. Thus the Grant forces accomplished by
indirection what prudence deterred them from doing boldly and with a
strong hand.[1675]

[Footnote 1674: The vote on the resolution endorsing Grant, stood 216
to 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 in
prestige. If the Harrisburg convention punctured the assumption that
the people demanded Grant's nomination, the Utica assembly destroyed
it, since the majority of thirty-three indicated an entire absence of
spontaneity. Moreover, the convention had scarcely adjourned before
its work became a target. George William Curtis declared the
assertion "audacious" and "ridiculous" that a district delegate was an
agent of the State convention, claiming that when the latter
relinquished the right to select it abandoned the right to instruct.
Furthermore, the National Convention, the highest tribunal of the
party, had decided, he said, that State instructions did not bind
district delegates.[1676] The _Tribune_, voicing the sentiment of the
major part of the Republican press, thought the convention had clearly
exceeded its power. "It was the right of the majority to instruct the
delegates-at-large," it said, "but it had no right to compel district
delegates to vote against their consciences and the known wishes of
their constituents." This led to the more important question whether
delegates, pledged without authority, ought to observe such
instructions. "No man chosen to represent a Blaine district can vote
for Grant and plead the convention's resolution in justification of
his course," continued the _Tribune_, which closed with serving notice
upon delegates to correct their error as speedily as possible, "since
a delegate who disobeys the instructions of his constituents will find
himself 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 more
certain if Pennsylvania and New York voted under the unit rule, the
pressure to create a break in those States steadily increased. The
Stalwarts rested their case upon the regularity of the procedure and
the 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 honour
to obey the voice of the people as expressed by the traditional and
accepted methods."[1678] On the other hand, the Blaine delegates relied
upon the decision of the last National Convention, which held that
where a State convention had instructed its delegation to vote as a
unit, each delegate had the right to vote for his individual
preference. "My selection as a delegate," said Woodin, "was the act of
the delegates representing my congressional district, and the State
convention has ratified and certified that act to the National
Convention. Our commissions secure the right to act, and our
conventions guarantee freedom of choice without restraint or
fetters."[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 Conkling
in the convention. He may not have been an organiser of the machine
type, but he was a born ruler of men. Robust, alert, florid, with
square forehead, heavy brows, and keen blue eyes, he looked determined
and fearless. His courage, however, was not the rashness of an
impetuous nature. It was rather the proud self-confidence of a rugged
character which obstacles roused to a higher combative energy. He was
not eloquent; not even ornate in diction. But his voice, his words,
and his delivery were all adequate. Besides, he possessed the
incomparable gift of reserved power. During his career of ten years in
the State Senate he was unquestionably the strongest man in the
Legislature and the designated as well as the real leader for more
than half a decade. He was not intolerant, seldom disclosing his
powers of sarcasm, or being betrayed, even when excited, into angry or
bitter words. Yet he was extremely resolute and tenacious, and must
have been the undisputed leader of the anti-Conkling forces save for
the 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 forces
had the reasonableness of the argument, but the acceptance of the
Utica instructions put delegates in a delicate position. To say that
Conkling had "tricked" them into a pledge which the convention had no
authority to exact,[1680] did not explain how a personal pledge could
be avoided. Finally, William H. Robertson, a delegate from the
Twelfth District, who had not appeared at Utica, published a letter
that he should vote for Blaine "because he is the choice of the
Republicans of the district which I represent."[1681] Two days
afterwards John Birdsall of the First District and Loren B. Sessions
of the Thirty-third announced on the floor of the Senate that they
should do likewise. Woodin said that as he could not reconcile a vote
for some candidate other than Grant with his attitude voluntarily
taken at Utica he should let his alternate go to Chicago.[1682] From
time to time other delegates followed with declarations similar to
Robertson'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 the
offending 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 a
sense of disappointed ambition ever since the defeat of his nomination
for 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 regarded
State Senator Sessions as a type of all that is corrupt in politics at
Albany," it said, "and we have steadily defended Mr. Woodin against
the attacks made upon him on the testimony of Tweed. But if these
recent accessions to the Blaine camp are half as bad as the _Tribune_
has painted them in the past, that journal and its candidate must have
two as disreputable allies as could be found outside of state
prison."[1685] Woodin's manner of avoiding his Utica pledge seemed to
arouse more indignation than the mere breaking of it. The _Times_
called it "a sneaking fashion,"[1686] and charged lack of courage. "He
does not believe that he who performs an act through another is
himself 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 the
important question. It involved the admission of many delegates, and
after two days of debate the convention sustained it by a vote of 449
to 306.[1688] To complete the overthrow of the unit-rule a resolution
was also adopted providing that when any delegate excepted to the
correctness of a vote as cast by the chairman of a delegation, the
president of the convention should direct a roll-call of the
delegation. This practically settled the result. Nevertheless, the
belief obtained, so strong was the Stalwarts' faith in their success,
that when the Blaine and Sherman forces broke to a compromise
candidate, Grant would gain the needed additional seventy-four votes.

[Footnote 1688: The minority, representing fourteen States and ably led
by Benjamin F. Tracy, sustained the authority of State conventions to
overrule the choice of the districts.]

Conkling had never before attended a national convention. Indeed, he
had never been seen at a great political gathering west of the
Alleghanies. But he now became the central figure of the convention,
with two-fifths of the delegates rallying under his leadership. His
reception whenever he entered the hall was the remarkable feature of
the great gathering. Nothing like it had occurred in previous national
conventions. Distinguished men representing favourite candidates had
been highly honoured, but never before did the people continue, day
after day, to welcome one with such vociferous acclaim. It was not all
for Grant. The quick spontaneous outburst of applause that shook the
banners hanging from the girders far above, had in it much of
admiration for the stalwart form, the dominant spirit, the iron-nerved
boss, who led his forces with the arrogance of a gifted, courageous
chieftain. His coming seemed planned for dramatic effect. He rarely
appeared until the audience, settled into order by the opening prayer
or by the transaction of business, might easily catch sight of him,
and as he passed down the long aisle, moving steadily on with graceful
stride and immobile face, a flush of pride tinged his cheeks as cheer
after 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 about
him clustered Chester A. Arthur, Levi P. Morton, Benjamin F. Tracy,
Edwards Pierrepont, George H. Sharpe, and the boyish figure of Charles
E. 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 there
was a moment when General Garfield apprehended such a result. There
was, however, never a time when it was possible. The 306 would never
have consented unless Grant's name were first withdrawn by his
authority. A firmer obstacle would have been Conkling's sturdy refusal
to 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 the
needed votes. Prior to 1876 little importance attached to such
speeches, but after the famous oration of Robert G. Ingersoll at
Cincinnati, which became influential almost to the point of success,
the solicitude exhibited in the selection of dominating speakers
constituted a new phase in convention politics and added immeasurably
to the popular interest. By common consent Conkling was named to
present the Stalwarts' choice, and in most of the qualities desirable
in such an address his was regarded the best of the day.

The lines of Private Miles O'Reilly,[1690] suggested to the Senator on
the evening before he spoke, caught the convention as quickly as did
Ingersoll's opening sentences in 1876, and all that followed, save his
sarcasm and flashes of scorn, held the closest attention. "His
unmatched eloquence," said Brandegee of Connecticut.[1691] This was the
judgment of an opponent. "It had the warmth of eulogy, the finish of
a 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 master
found expression in every sentence, polished and balanced with
rhetorical skill, and delivered with the emphasis and inflection of a
great orator. One critic thought it a revelation to find a man who
could be eloquent with studied composure, who could be fervid without
wildness, and who could hold imagery and metaphor to the steady place
of relentless logic without detracting from their special and peculiar
character.

[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 by
launching 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 manufacture
sentiment in his favour, without intrigue or effort, Grant is the
candidate whose supporters stand by the creed of the party, holding
the right of the majority as the very essence of their faith, and
meaning to uphold that faith against the charlatans and guerillas,
who, from time to time, deploy and forage between the lines."[1693] As
these sabre-cuts, dealt with the emphasis of gesture and inflection,
flashed upon the galleries, already charmed with the accomplishment of
his speech and the grace of his sentiment, loud hisses, mingled with
distracting exclamations of banter and dissent, proclaimed that the
spell of his magic was broken.

[Footnote 1693: New York _Times_, June 7.]

Balloting for a candidate began on the fifth day. Many rumours
preceded Conkling's method of announcing New York's vote, but when his
turn came, he explained that although he possessed full instructions
concerning the true condition of the vote, he thought it better to
call the roll, since several of the delegates preferred to speak for
themselves. This plan, so adroitly submitted, made it impossible to
conceal one's vote behind an anonymous total, and compelled John
Birdsall, the Queens County senator, to lead in the disagreeable duty
of disobeying the instructions of the State convention. Birdsall rose
with hesitation, and, after voting for Blaine in a subdued voice,
dropped quickly into his seat as if anxious to avoid publicity. Then
the convention, having listened in perfect silence, ratified his work
with a chorus of hisses and applause. Gradually the anti-third termers
exhibited more courage, and after Robertson and Husted had called out
their candidate with an emphasis that indicated pride and defiance,
the applause drowned the hisses. Woodin's conduct contrasted sharply
with his usual courage. He was an aggressive member of the opposition,
but at this moment, when brave hearts, unflinching resolve, and
unruffled temper were needed, he stood at the rear of the hall, while
Leander Fitts, his alternate, upon whom he cast the responsibility of
violating a solemnly uttered pledge, feebly pronounced the name
"Blaine." The result of the roll-call gave Grant 51, Blaine 17, and
Sherman 2.[1694] On the seventeenth ballot Dennis McCarthy, a State
senator from Onondaga, changed his vote from Grant to Blaine. Thus
modified the New York vote continued until the thirty-sixth ballot,
when the Blaine and Sherman delegates united, recording twenty votes
for Garfield to fifty for Grant. On this roll-call Grant received 306
votes to 399 for Garfield.[1695] Thus by a strange coincidence the
Stalwarts registered the fateful number that marked their strength
when the unit rule was defeated. During the thirty-six roll-calls
Grant's vote varied from 302 to 313, but in the stampede, when two
hundred and fifteen Blaine men and ninety-six supporters of Sherman
rushed into line for Garfield, the faithful 306 went down in defeat
together. 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 number
of 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-sixth
ballot: Grant, 306; Blaine, 42; Sherman, 3; Washburne, 5; Garfield,
399.

Conkling's peculiar manner of announcing New York's vote excited
criticism. "Two delegates," he declared, "are said to be for Sherman,
eighteen for Blaine, and fifty are for Grant." The chairman of the
West Virginia delegation, whom the Senator had sought to unseat,
mimicking the latter's emphasis, announced: "One delegate is said to
be for Grant, and eight are known to be for Blaine."]

[Footnote 1696: Some months later Chauncey I. Filley, a delegate from
St. Louis, caused the Grant medals to be struck for the 306, on which
was emblazoned "The Old Guard."]

After Garfield's nomination the Stalwarts of the New York delegation
did not conceal their disappointment. When everybody else was cheering
they kept their seats, and while others displayed Garfield badges,
they sullenly sought their headquarters to arrange for the
Vice-Presidency. Leaders of the Garfield movement, now eager to
strengthen the ticket, looked to them for a candidate. New York
belonged in the list of doubtful States, and to enlist the men who
seemed to control its destiny they instinctively turned to the
defeated faction. William M. Dennison, a former governor of Ohio,
promptly made their wishes known, confidently counting upon Conkling's
coöperation, since the Senator had been the first on his feet to make
Garfield's nomination unanimous. In doing so he expressed the hope
that the zeal and fervour of the convention would characterise its
members "in bearing the banner and carrying the lances of the
Republican party into the ranks of the enemy."

Conkling's treatment of Dennison's request has been variously
reported. 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 his
desire to vindicate Arthur and humiliate Sherman; the second is
supported by Alfred R. Conkling's biography of his uncle.[1697] But
neither report is correct. Conkling bitterly resented Garfield's
nomination, predicted his defeat at the polls, and did not hesitate to
dissuade friends from accepting the nomination for Vice-President.
"The convention has nominated a candidate, but not a President," he
said to Stewart L. Woodford. "Since the nomination I have heard from
an influential friend at Albany, who declares that Garfield cannot
carry New York. Now, the question is, whom shall we place upon the
altar as a vicarious sacrifice? Mr. Morton has declined. Perhaps you
would like the nomination for Vice-President?" Being assured that
Woodford would accept it if tendered to him, Conkling added: "I hope
no sincere friend of mine will accept it."[1698]

[Footnote 1697: "It has been asserted that this nomination was a boon to
Roscoe Conkling to secure his support of Garfield. To deny this is almost
supererogatory. 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 prominently
mentioned as a proper candidate for Vice-President. He was then
fifty-six years of age, and had achieved high reputation in banking
and financial circles. Though not eloquent according to the canons of
oratory, he spoke with clearness, was widely intelligent, and had
given careful attention to public questions. Conservative in his
nature and sturdy in his principles, he always advised against
rashness and counselled firmness. A single session in Congress had
proven his zeal in the performance of public duty, and his fitness for
Vice-President was recognised then as it was eight years later when he
became the running mate of Benjamin Harrison. Upon his nomination,
therefore, Garfield, before the convention had recessed, sent word by
Dennison that he desired Morton nominated for second place. Morton,
answering that his nomination must not be made without previous
consultation with his associates, immediately informed Conkling of
Garfield's desire. Conkling replied, "If you think the ticket will be
elected; if you think you will be happy in the association, accept."
To this Morton answered, "I have more confidence in your judgment than
in my own." Conkling then added: "Governor Boutwell of Massachusetts
is a great friend of yours. Why don't you talk with him?" Acting upon
this suggestion Morton sought Boutwell, who advised against it. Morton
acquiesced 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, upon
the suggestion and insistence of George H. Sharpe, quickly agreed upon
Chester A. Arthur, who gave an affirmative response to their appeal.
Conkling was not present at the time, but subsequently in Arthur's
room, where Howard Carroll and several other delegates lingered, he
bitterly opposed placing a Stalwart upon the ticket and expressed in
unmeasured terms his disapprobation of Arthur's acceptance.[1700] On
their way to the convention Sharpe told Woodford of the pungent
flavour of Conkling's invective, and of Arthur's calm assertion of the
propriety of his action. At the wigwam Conkling refused Sharpe's
request to place Arthur in nomination.[1701]

[Footnote 1700: Letter of Howard Carroll to the author, dated October
15, 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 of
New York, amidst cordial and hearty applause from the galleries,
seconded in a forceful speech. This indicated that Arthur was _persona
non grata_ to the anti-Grant delegates of the Empire State. Jewell of
Connecticut, Ferry of Michigan, Settle of North Carolina, and Maynard
of Tennessee, were likewise presented. As the call of States proceeded
New York made no response in its turn, but when Woodford subsequently
proposed the name of Arthur, Dennison responded with a spirited
second, followed by delegates from New Jersey, Illinois, Mississippi,
Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. This array of backing
brought McCarthy to his feet, who withdrew his second to Washburne and
moved that Arthur's nomination, under a suspension of the rules, be
made by acclamation. This required a two-thirds vote and was lost.
Then Campbell of West Virginia, amidst the loudest cheers of the
evening, seconded the nomination of Washburne. "Let us not do a rash
thing." he said. "The convention has passed a resolution favouring
civil service reform. Let us not stultify ourselves before the
country."[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, thirty
of which came from the South. But as the roll-call proceeded New York,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania brought other States into line, the ballot
giving Arthur 468, Washburne 193, and other favourite sons 90.

Arthur's nomination was a distinct disappointment. To many it was an
offence. Within the State leading Republican journals resented it by
silence, while others were conspicuously cold; without the State it
encountered even greater disadvantages, since his dismissal as
collector of customs had advertised him as the enemy of reform, the
apostle of bossism, and the friend of whatever was objectionable in
politics.[1703] Yet his friends found a creditable record. He had
successfully opposed the well-known action of Jonathan Lemmon, who
sought to recover eight slaves which he incautiously brought into New
York on his way from Virginia to Texas; he had established the right
of coloured people to ride in the street-cars; and he had rendered
valuable service in the early years of the war as engineer-in-chief
and quartermaster-general on the staff of Governor Morgan. He
possessed, too, an inherited instinct for keeping faith with men. In
his relations with politicians of high or low degree there was not a
trace of dissimulation or double-dealing. His career is a study of the
evolution of character. It is not strange, perhaps, that in the days
of custom-house investigations and bitter partisan strife, when he was
known as an henchman of Conkling, there was a lack of public
appreciation of the potentialities of a unique personality, but the
Arthur heritage included then as afterward absolute truthfulness,
shrewdness of judgment, high-minded patriotism, and consciousness of
moral obligation.[1704]

[Footnote 1703: After the nomination John Sherman wrote to a personal
friend: "The nomination of Arthur is a ridiculous burlesque, inspired,
I fear, by a desire to defeat the ticket. His nomination attaches to
the ticket all the odium of machine politics, and will greatly
endanger the success of Garfield. I cannot but wonder how a
convention, even in the heat and hurry of closing scenes, could make
such a blunder."--Burton, _Life of Sherman_, p. 296.]

[Footnote 1704: "I do not think he [Arthur] knows anything. He can
quote a verse of poetry, or a page from Dickens and Thackeray, but
these are only leaves springing from a root out of dry ground. His
vital 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 party
sentiment respecting Tilden's renomination for the Presidency. No
other candidate was seriously discussed. Indeed, the Democratic press
continued to treat it as a matter of course, coupling with it the
alleged subversion of an election, transcending in importance all
questions of administration, and involving the vital principle of
self-government through elections by the people. This new issue,
dwarfing all other policies, had been for three years the cornerstone
of every Democratic platform in state, county, or congressional
convention. No argument seemed to weaken it, no event could destroy
it. The Republican claim that the vote of three Southern States, as
declared at the polls, was the result of terrorism and did not in any
sense represent an honest expression of the popular will, made no
impression upon it. The well-known fact that Congress, because of the
confusion of the situation, had wisely sought a remedy in the
Electoral Commission, which was passed by Democratic rather than
Republican votes, in nowise weakened the force of its appeal. Not even
did the disclosure that Tilden's house had become the headquarter of
confidential agents, who sought to corrupt the electors, produce any
change in it. The one declaration, patiently and persistently kept
before the people, was that Tilden had been elected by the popular
vote and defrauded by a false count of the electoral vote, and that
the supreme issue in 1880 must be whether "this shall be a government
by the sovereign people through elections, or a government by
discarded servants holding over by force and fraud."[1705] The
reiteration of this proposition made Tilden, it was claimed, the
necessary and inevitable candidate of the Cincinnati convention,
called to meet on June 22. The party seemed to believe, what Tilden
himself had announced from his doorstep three years before, that the
country would "never condone fraud," and it did not propose to
sacrifice a winning issue.[1706]

[Footnote 1705: Tilden's letter of June 18, 1880.--_Public Writings and
Speeches_, Vol. 2, pp. 502-506.]

[Footnote 1706: "If the Democrats do not nominate Mr. Tilden, they do
relinquish 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 into
threatening proportions after Kelly's dissatisfaction had settled into
a relentless feud. This condition made Tilden's chances of carrying
the State uncertain if not absolutely nil, and encouraged his critics
to magnify his weaknesses until the belief generally obtained that
serious, perhaps fatal opposition would array itself at the State
convention on April 20. Statements as to Tilden's ill-health likewise
found currency. When not displaying evidence of unimpaired mental
vigour in the courtroom, he was said to be on the verge of total
paralysis.[1707] To his burdens the government also added another by
pursuing his income tax. This suit, commenced in January, 1877, and
destined to drag through five years until dismissed by the prosecution
without costs to either party, was fixed for the April term in 1880,
although the United States attorney admitted his unpreparedness for
trial.[1708] "Thus was he persecuted with unrelenting virulence by the
Administration," says his biographer, "and by the Republican press,
which neglected no opportunity of refreshing the memory of its readers
in regard to his imputed capacities for wickedness."[1709]

[Footnote 1707: The _Nation_, April 22.]

[Footnote 1708: See district attorney's letter, Bigelow, _Life of
Tilden_, 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, three
miles beyond the northernmost limit of the city, on the highest ground
south of the Highlands. Here he brought a portion of his library; here
he mingled with his flocks and herds; and here in the seclusion of a
noble estate, with the comforts of a palatial stone dwelling, he
discoursed with friends, who came from every part of the country to
assure him that he alone could keep the party together. Ever silent as
to his own intentions Tilden talked of the crime of 1876 until his
visitors, imbued with his own spirit, left him thoroughly impressed
with the importance of his renomination.

But Tilden did not trust the result to sentiment. Throughout New York
Daniel E. Manning and other lieutenants held a tight rein, and when
the Syracuse convention assembled an early roll-call, on a resolution
to determine the character of the Committee on Credentials, showed 295
votes for Tilden to 80 against him. If this overwhelming majority
shocked the dissenters, it was not less a surprise to the regulars. In
the convention of 1876 Tilden mustered, including Tammany, only 201
out of 375; now, after his enemies had exhausted their opposition, he
proved stronger than in the closing months of his famous career as a
reform governor. The result of this vote settled all controversies,
leaving the convention free to appoint electors and to select
delegates to Cincinnati.[1710] It was not to adjourn, however, until it
had shown a serene and polite contempt for John Kelly. During the
morning John B. Haskin, on behalf of the Tammany convention, had
presented a resolution expressing a desire for the union of the party
and asking the appointment of a harmony committee. Ignoring the
assembly from which he came, the convention treated the resolution as
a personal communication from Haskin, whom it assured, after politely
reciprocating his desire for the union of the Democratic party, "that
the deliberative wisdom of the national convention will result in such
action as will secure the triumph of the Democratic party in the
ensuing election."[1711] This bitter rebuff, coupled with the
overwhelming majority for Tilden, indicated a conscious strength which
deeply impressed the party in other States, and greatly aided in
demoralising 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 chairman
of the Democratic State committee.]

[Footnote 1711: New York _Tribune_, April 21.]

Nor did the convention adjourn until its Committee on Resolutions
sprung a further surprise. The delegates anticipated and applauded an
elaborate statement of the fraud issue, but the presentation of Tilden
as a candidate for President came with the suddenness of his
unexpected majority. Manning did not intend to go so far. His courage
came with his strength. Proof of this, if any were needed, existed in
the fact that the endorsement was in manuscript, while the rest of the
platform was read from a printed slip. To define the situation more
clearly the committee submitted a unit rule, declaring "that in case
any attempt is made to dismember or divide the delegation by
contesting the seats of a portion of the delegates, or if delegates
countenance such an attempt by assuming to act separately from the
majority, or fail to coöperate with such majority, the seats of such
delegates shall be deemed to be vacated."[1712] Never did convention
adopt a more drastic rule. The reading of these ball and chain
provisions provoked hisses and widened the chasm between Tilden's
convention 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 his
friends, if not to himself, it must have been deeply humiliating to
see 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 for
himself. Nevertheless, he walked on apparently heedless of the signs
of conflict. Since the regular Democratic convention would not admit
him, he threateningly assembled one of his own in Shakespeare Hall, to
be used, if the party did not yield, in knocking at the door of the
Cincinnati convention. William Dorsheimer acted as its temporary
chairman. Dorsheimer had become a political changeling. Within a
decade he had been a Republican, a Liberal, and a Democrat, and it was
whispered that he was already tired of being a Kellyite. His appeal
for Horatio Seymour indicated his restlessness. The feuds of Tilden
and Church and Kernan and Kelly and Robinson had left Seymour the one
Democrat who received universal homage from his party, and it became
the fashion of Tilden's enemies to refer to the Oneidan as the only
one who could unite the party and carry the State. It did not matter
to Dorsheimer that Seymour, having retired from active politics in
1868, was placidly meditating at Deerfield, devoted to agricultural
and historical interests. Nor did his clamour cease after the bucolic
statesman had declared that if he must choose between a funeral and a
nomination he would take the first,[1713] since the mention of
Seymour's name always waked an audience into cheers. Later in the day
Amasa J. Parker, on taking the chair as president, artfully made use
of 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, and
having defeated him they now returned to the same hall to threaten
Tilden with similar treatment. This was their only mission.
Humiliation did not possess them, however, until John B. Haskin
reported that the regulars refused to recognise their existence. Then
John Kelly threw off his muzzle, and with the Celtic-English of a
Tammany brave exhibited a violent and revolutionary spirit. "Tilden
was elected by the votes of the people," said Kelly, "and he had not
sufficient courage after he was elected to go forward, as a brave man
should have gone forward, and said to the people of the country, 'I
have been elected by the votes of the people, and you see to it that I
am 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 did
not decide for himself that he had been elected and proceed to take
his seat at the cost of a tremendous civil convulsion. Perhaps it was
this policy more than Kelly's personality which had begun to alienate
Dorsheimer. One who had been brought up in the bosom of culture and
conservatism could have little confidence in such a man. The platform,
though bitter, avoided this revolutionary sentiment. It protested
against the total surrender of the party to one man, who has "cunning"
and "unknown resources of wealth," and who "attempts to forestall
public 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 dangerous
to 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 with
the scandals brought to light by the cipher despatches."[1715] Haskin
proposed a more compact statement, declaring that "the Democratic
party does not want any such money-grabber, railroad wrecker, and
paralytic 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 the
following: 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 interest
was, would Tilden seek the nomination at Cincinnati? The action of the
convention demonstrated that the regular party organisation was
unaffected by the Kelly bolt, that Tilden controlled the party in the
State, and that his nomination was a part of the programme. Moreover,
it showed that the New York Democracy did not intend asking support
upon any principle other than the issue of fraud. But intimations of
Tilden's purpose to decline a nomination found expression in the
speech and acts of men presumedly informed. Lester B. Faulkner's
statement, in calling the convention to order, that he did not know
whether the Governor would accept a renomination, coupled with the
convention's reply to Haskin, expressing confidence that the action at
Cincinnati would result in the Democracy's carrying New York, had made
a deep impression. To many these insinuations indicated that because
of his health or for some unknown cause he was not seriously a
candidate. Others found reason for similar belief in the indisposition
of prominent delegates to resent such a suggestion. One veteran
journalist, skilled in reading the words and actions of political
leaders, asserted with confidence that he would not be a candidate. To
him 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 was
said, the fraud issue would lose its influence. Besides, if he
intended to withdraw, why did Kelly assemble his convention? Surely
some one, said they, would have given him an inkling in time to save
him from the contempt and humiliation to which he had subjected
himself. There was much force in this reasoning, and as the date of
the national convention approached the mystery deepened.

Tilden was not a paralytic, as Haskin proclaimed. He could not even be
called an invalid. His attention to vexatious litigation evidenced
unimpaired mental power, and his open life at Greystone proved that
his physical condition did not hide him from men. He undoubtedly
required regular rest and sleep. His nervous system did not resist
excitement as readily as in the days of his battle with Tweed and the
Canal ring. It is possible, too, that early symptoms of a confirmed
disease had then appeared, and that prudence dictated hygienic
precautions. Once, in December, 1879, when contemplating the strain of
the campaign of 1876, he questioned his ability to go through another.
Again, in the early spring of 1880, after prolonged intellectual
effort, he remarked in rather a querulous tone, "If I am no longer fit
to prepare a case for trial, I am not fit to be President of the
United States." Such casual remarks, usually made to a confidential
friend, seemed to limit his references to his health.[1718] He
doubtless felt disinclined, as have many stronger men, to meet the
strain that comes when in pursuit of high public office, but there is
no evidence that ill-health, if it really entered into his
calculations, was the determining factor of his action. Conditions in
the Republican party had changed in the Empire State since the
nomination of Garfield. Besides, the cipher disclosures had lost him
the independent vote which he received in 1876. This left only the
regulation party strength, minus the Kelly vote. In 1876 Tilden's
majority was 26,568, and in 1879 Kelly polled 77,566. If Kelly's bolt
in 1880, therefore, should carry one-half or only one-quarter of the
votes it did in 1879, Tilden must necessarily lose New York which
meant the loss of the election. These were conditions, not theories,
that confronted this hard-headed man of affairs, who, without
sentiment, never failed to understand the inexorable logic of facts.
Nevertheless, Tilden wanted the endorsement of a renomination. This
would open the way for a graceful retreat. Yet, to shield him from
possible defeat, he secretly gave Manning a letter, apparently
declining 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 candidates
made it difficult to determine Tilden's strength. The ranks of the
opposition, based on cipher disclosures and Kelly's threats, rapidly
strengthened, and although many friends of other candidates thought it
less hazardous to nominate him than to repudiate him, ominous warnings
piled up like thunder clouds on a summer day. Meantime New York's
active canvass for Henry B. Payne of Ohio seemed to conflict with
Tilden's candidacy, while Tilden's remarks, spoken in moments of
physical discouragement, added to the impression that he did not seek
the nomination. But why did he not say so? Manning, supposing he was
the sole possessor of the letter and believing the time not yet ripe
for producing it, kept his own counsels. Tilden, however, had given a
duplicate to his brother Henry, who now announced through the press
that Tilden had forwarded a communication. This reached Cincinnati on
the eve of the convention.

It was long and characteristic. He recalled his services as a private
citizen in overthrowing the Tweed ring and purifying the judiciary,
and as governor of the State in breaking up the Canal ring, reducing
the taxes, and reforming the administration. He told the familiar
story 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 count
to the Electoral Commission. Since 1876, he said, he had been "denied
the immunities of private life without the powers conferred by public
station," 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 of
ceaseless toil. Such a work of renovation after many years of misrule,
such a reform of systems and policies, to which I would cheerfully
have sacrificed all that remained to me of health and life, is now, I
fear, 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 hope
of stimulating loyalty he sought to impress upon the delegates his
vicarious sacrifice and the need of holding to the fraud issue. This
was the interpretation quickly given it by his enemies. Kelly declared
it a direct bid for the nomination. But a majority of the New York
delegation regretfully accepted it as final. Nevertheless, many ardent
Tilden men, believing the letter had strengthened him, insisted upon
his nomination. The meeting of the delegation proved a stormy one.
Bold charges of infidelity to Tilden reacted against Payne, and to
escape controversy Manning indiscreetly asked if he might yield to the
pressure which his letter had stimulated. To this Tilden could make
but one reply: "My action is irrevocable. No friend must cast a doubt
on 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 seems
no reason for surprise. Tilden was essentially an opportunist. He
attacked the Tweed ring after its exposure; he made war upon the Canal
ring after its record had become notorious; and he reduced the State
taxes after the war debt had been paid. Upon these reforms he rode
into power, and upon the cry of fraud he hoped to ride again to
success. He was much too acute not to know that the cipher disclosures
had robbed him of the rôle of reformer, but he seems to have been
blind 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 a
circle of admirers such as usually surround public men of great
prominence. Nevertheless, the opinion then obtained, and a quarter of
a century perhaps has not changed it, that had Manning, when he
reached the convention city, boldly and promptly demanded Tilden's
nomination it could have been secured. Whether, if tendered him, he
would have accepted it, "no one," says Bigelow, "is competent to
affirm or deny. He probably did not know himself."[1721]

[Footnote 1721: _Ibid._]

Meanwhile, New York lost whatever prestige it had inherited through
him. 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 its
early success. George Hoadley of Ohio, Tilden's devoted friend, had
been made temporary chairman; Kelly, rising to address the convention,
had felt most keenly the absence of a friend in the chair; and a
two-thirds majority excluded the Shakespeare Hall delegation. Such
influence, however, was at an end. The delegation affected control
when Rufus H. Peckham declared from the platform that as Tilden had
renounced all claims New York would support Randall; but the
convention failed to join in the excited cheers of the Philadelphians,
while the roll-call soon disclosed Hancock as the favourite. Before
the result was announced officially Wisconsin asked permission to
change its twenty votes to the soldier, and in the twinkling of an eye
the stampede began. At the conclusion of the changes Hancock had
received all the votes cast save 33.[1724] William H. English of
Indiana, a rich man, who had served four terms in Congress during the
administrations of Presidents Pierce and Buchanan, was nominated for
Vice-President. The platform favoured a tariff for revenue only,
exploited the election fraud, demanded honest money of coin or paper
convertible 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 the
unit 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 number
of votes, 728. Necessary to a choice, 486.]

[Footnote 1724: Before changes were made the second ballot gave Hancock
319; Randall, 129-1/2; Bayard, 113; Field, 65-1/2; Thurman, 50;
Hendricks, 31; English, 19; Tilden, 6; scattering, 3. After the
changes the result was as follows: Hancock, 705; Hendricks, 30;
Tilden, 1; Bayard, 2.]

After Hancock's nomination Kelly's inning began. The convention had
treated him coldly. On the first day, when New York was called,
desiring to protest against seating a member of the regular
delegation, 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 his
delegation was not less crushing. The vote combined a compliment to
Tilden and an official utterance against the action of his great
enemy, and as the States, answering promptly and sharply, dealt death
to bolting and paralysis to Tammany it became evident to the blindest
that Tilden possessed the confidence of his party. In spite of the
friendly relations between Hendricks and Kelly, Indiana voted a solid
No. Nine other States, including Kentucky, Louisiana, and North
Carolina, did likewise. Indeed, nearly two-thirds of the Southern
delegates ranged themselves against the Boss. To add to the public
proof of Kelly's weakness New York asked to be excused from
voting.[1725]

[Footnote 1725: The vote stood, without New York, 205 to 457 in favor
of rejecting the Shakespeare Hall delegation. With New York it would
have been thirty-nine more than a two-thirds majority.]

Nevertheless, Kelly had his friends. They were not as strong in
numbers or in voice as those who cheered Conkling at Chicago, but in
the absence of a master-mind the galleries seized upon the Tammany
leader and cheered whenever he appeared. To give greater spectacular
effect to his first greeting, Wade Hampton of South Carolina got upon
his crutches and stumped down the aisle to shake him solemnly by the
hand. Kelly, however, did not reach the culminating point of his
picturesque rôle until Hancock's nomination. After Randall, Hampton,
and others had spoken, cries for Kelly brought to the platform a
delegation of Tammany leaders walking arm in arm, with John Kelly,
Augustus Schell, Amasa J. Parker, and George C. Green in front. The
convention, save the New York delegation, leaped to its feet, and when
Kelly declared that hereafter whoever alluded to the differences which
had heretofore existed in the New York Democracy should be considered
a "traitor to his party," the great enthusiasm forced cheers from
one-half of the New York delegation. To make the love-feast complete,
John R. Fellows, finally responding to impatient calls from all parts
of the hall, also took the platform.

Fellows, still in his forties, had had a varied, perhaps a brilliant
career. 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 1868
came to New York, where he secured an appointment in the office of the
District Attorney. Public attention became instantly fixed on the
attractive figure of the intrepid young assistant. He leaped into
renown. He soon became the principal Democratic speaker in the city,
and from the first followed the fortunes of the pale, eager form of
the distinguished reform Governor. At Cincinnati he represented the
conservative Tilden men, and although upon reaching the platform he
faced a man of greater force, he betrayed no docile character, ready
to receive passively whatever the Boss might allot. His speech was
cleverly framed. He expressed no desire that Tilden Democrats be
forgiven for the political sins which their opponents had committed;
neither did he mar the good feeling of the occasion. But when, at the
conclusion of his remarks, John Kelly stepped forward, seized his
hand, and began working it up and down like a handle, Fellows stood
stiffly and passionlessly as a pump, neither rejecting nor accepting
the olive branches thrust upon him. Thus ended the great scene of the
reconciliation of the New York Democracy.

When plucked the fruit of this reunion was found not to be very
toothsome. Returning to New York, Tammany held a ratification meeting
(July 1) in which the regulars would not unite. Subsequently the
regulars held a meeting (July 28) at which Tilden presided, and which
Tammany did not attend. Similar discord manifested itself respecting
the choice of a chief judge for the Court of Appeals. The Republican
State Committee had chosen Charles J. Folger, but when the regulars
advocated the same method of selection Kelly defiantly issued a call
(August 14) for a State convention. Such bossism, the product of a
strange, fitful career, was only less dramatic than that of Tweed. At
a subsequent conference Kelly submitted a letter stating that if a
convention were regularly summoned and Tammany given its full share of
delegates and committeemen, his call would be withdrawn.[1726] To this
the regulars finally yielded, and a State convention, held at Saratoga
on September 28, made Kelly its head and front. His advent evoked the
loudest cheers, his demand for five members of the State committee met
little resistance, and Dorsheimer, besides serving as chairman of the
Committee on Resolutions, presented the name of Charles J. Rapallo,
who became the nominee for chief judge of Appeals. Thus within a few
months Kelly had defeated Robinson for governor, prevented Tilden's
nomination for President, and imposed his will upon the regular
organisation.

[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 the
bickering and bargaining of conference committees resulted in nothing.
Finally, Kelly proposed that the regulars select several satisfactory
persons from whom he would choose. Among those submitted was the name
of William Russell Grace, a respected merchant, a native of Ireland, a
Roman Catholic in religion, and a man of large wealth, but without
official experience of any kind. This was better, it was said, than
official experience of the wrong kind. Irving Hall included his name
with considerable reluctance. It distrusted his loyalty, since a
rumour, too well founded not to cause alarm, revealed Kelly's interest
in him. But Kelly's cunning equalled his audacity. He had secured the
nomination of Rapallo by voting for William C. Ruger of Onondaga, and
he now caused it to be understood that under no circumstances would
Grace be acceptable. The merchant's name once upon the list, however,
the Boss snapped it up with avidity, while the Germans muttered
because three of the five city candidates were Irishmen. Thus the
campaign opened badly for the Democrats.

Nor did it open more auspiciously for the Republicans. Garfield's part
in the Crédit Mobilier scandal was reviewed without regard to the
vindicatory evidence, while Nast's incriminating cartoon of 1873[1727]
emphasised the failure of the great artist to introduce the Republican
candidate into his campaign pictures of 1880. It advertised the fact
that Nast retained his early opinion of the nominee's conduct. Further
to alienate the independent vote it was charged that Garfield, during
the visit of Grant and Conkling at Mentor (September 28), had
surrendered to the Stalwarts. Appearances did not discourage such a
belief. Conkling's hostility disclosed at Chicago was emphasised by
his 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 Hayes
and an implied threat at Garfield.[1728] Yet two weeks later the
Senator, while on a speaking tour through Ohio and Indiana, went out
of his way, riding three-fourths of a mile through a heavy rain, to
call upon Garfield. This looked as if somebody had surrendered. As a
matter of fact Conkling did not meet Garfield in private, nor did they
discuss any political topic,[1729] but the apparent sudden collapse of
Conkling's dislike supplied Garfield's opponents with abundance of
powder. Meantime the loss of the September election in Maine crushed
Republican hope. A victory had been confidently expected, and the
failure to secure it, although the adverse majority was less than two
hundred, 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 minute
with General Garfield, intending by that care-taking to avoid the
suggestion that his visit was designed to afford an opportunity for
any personal or party arrangement."--Boutwell, _Reminiscences_, Vol.
2, p. 272.]

Spurred to greater effort by this blighting disappointment, the
Republicans regained courage by a spirited presentation of the
industrial question, which was strongly reinforced by returning
activity in trade and commerce. To offset its effect and to win the
industrial masses to Democratic support, lithographic copies of the
so-called "Morey letter," approving Chinese immigration, which
purported to be written by Garfield, were spread broadcast (October
20) over the country. Garfield promptly branded it a forgery. Though
the handwriting and especially the signature resembled his,
accumulating evidence and the failure to produce the man to whom the
letter purported to be addressed, rapidly made clear its fictitious
character. Nevertheless, many Democratic journals and orators, notably
Abraham S. Hewitt, assuming its genuineness, used it with tremendous
force as favouring Chinese competition with home labour.

To add to the slanderous character of the closing days of the campaign
John Kelly, through the New York _Express_, rained fierce personal
assaults upon the distinguished editor of the New York _Herald_, who
opposed Grace. In bitterness the mayoralty fight surpassed the
presidential contest. Hints of a division of public money for
sectarian purposes had deeply stirred the city and given prominence to
William Dowd, the Republican candidate, whose interest in the common
schools characterised his public activities. Dowd had the support of
many members of Irving Hall, who, as they gnashed their teeth in
resentment of Kelly's cunning, became unweariedly active in combining
the strange and various elements of opposition. Not Daniel himself
was more uncomfortably encompassed than Grace.

The October elections in Ohio and Indiana plainly indicated the trend
of public opinion, and on November 3 the Republicans carried New York
and the country.[1730] The significant point in the State returns,
however, was the severe punishment administered to Kelly. Whomsoever
he supported suffered humiliation. Hancock received 21,000 votes less
than Garfield, Rapallo 55,000 less than Folger, and Grace 38,000 less
than Hancock. In the presence of such a showing the Brooklyn _Eagle_,
a Democratic journal friendly to Tilden, thus philosophised: "Bosses
and thorough organisation are incompatible. The success of
organisation depends upon reason. The success of the boss is due to
underhand arts. No young man can hope for the favour of a boss who
does 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 leaders
discovered a disposition to profit by the election of Garfield. They
wanted to learn their voting strength, and to encourage assemblymen to
oppose George H. Sharpe, the Stalwart candidate, the _Tribune_, in
double-leaded type, announced, apparently with authority, that the
President-elect would not allow them to suffer.[1732] This sounded a
trifle warlike. It also quickly enhanced the stress between the
opposing factions, for those who are themselves not averse to
wire-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 creditable
service on Grant's staff, his cleverness as a Stalwart manager, and
his acceptability as a speaker of the preceding Assembly, brought him
troops of friends. Although making no pretensions to the gift of
oratory, he possessed qualities needed for oratorical success. He was
forceful, remarkably clear, with impressive manners and a winning
voice. As a campaign speaker few persons in the State excelled him.
Men, too, generally found him easy of approach and ready to listen. At
all events his tactful management won a majority of the Republican
assemblymen before the opposition got a candidate into the field.
Under these circumstances members did not fancy staking good committee
appointments against the uncertainty of Presidential favours, and in
the end Sharpe's election followed without dissent.

In the election of a United States senator to succeed Francis Kernan
on March 4, the Stalwarts did not find such smooth sailing. For
several years, ever since the gubernatorial nomination in 1876,
jealousy, accumulated resentment, and inevitable distrust had divided
them, but not until Thomas C. Platt of Owego and Richard Crowley of
Niagara announced their candidacy did the smouldering bitterness burst
into a blaze. Cornell and his friends promptly declared for Platt,
while Arthur, Sharpe, Thomas Murphy, and John F. Smyth, known as ultra
Conkling men, wheeled into line for Crowley. Conkling held aloof. He
probably preferred Levi P. Morton, although each candidate claimed to
be his preference. In the end Morton's name was tangled up in the
controversy, but he did not really get into it. Besides, a place in
the Cabinet seemed open to him.

At this time Cornell was at the height of his power. Prior to his
inauguration he had not stood for much in the way of statesmanship. He
was known principally as the maker and chauffeur of Conkling's
machine, which he subsequently turned over to Arthur, who came later
into the Conkling connection from the Morgan wing. Moreover, the
manner of his election, the loss of many thousand Republican votes,
and his reappointment of Smyth seriously discredited him. But friend
and foe admitted that he had shown real ability as governor. He had
about him no angles and no surprises. He exercised authority
cautiously, marshalled facts with skill, and presented clear and
enlightened reasons for his action. He seemed to be above rather than
below the level of his party, and his official colleagues, working in
harmony with his policies, found him honourable, if sometimes stubborn
and aggressive.

But in his relations to men as well as to policies he had betrayed a
disposition to change position. He did not attend the Chicago
convention. Nor did Arthur's nomination, brought about largely by
Sharpe's activity, particularly please him. While he behaved with
decorum and perhaps with loyalty, it was evident that if he did not
raise the standard of revolt, he had chosen to fight for his hand.
This became the more apparent as the senatorial contest progressed. A
grim darksomeness about the expression of his countenance showed that
he took a sullen satisfaction in humiliating those who had humiliated
him. It was deftly done, but in the result it left its impression.

Crowley, then in his forty-sixth year, was well equipped for the
Senate. As a forceful speaker he was an object of respect even by his
opponents. In whatever legislative body he appeared he ranked amongst
the foremost debaters, generally speaking with an enlightenment and a
moderation that did credit to his intellect and to the sweetness of
his nature. He had served four years in the State Senate, one term in
Congress, and eight years as United States attorney in the Northern
District, being justly distinguished as one of the able men of Western
New York. He was sadly handicapped, however, by the infirmity of his
backers. Sharpe excited the deepest resentment by withholding the
appointment of the Assembly committees;[1733] and Smyth and Murphy
represented all that was undesirable in politics.

[Footnote 1733: "Senator Woodin spoke of Truman G. Younglove, the only
speaker in the history of the State who had dared to hold back the
committees in order to influence a senatorial caucus, as a 'political
corpse,' and said that Sharpe would share his fate."--New York
_Tribune_, January 13, 1881.]

Cornell was fortunate in his candidate. Platt's cool, quiet methods
had aroused little antipathy, while around him gathered loyalty and
gratitude. Very early in the contest, too, it began to be whispered
that if elected he might act independently of Conkling. To think of a
light-weight sparring up to a recognised champion tickled the
imagination of the Independents who numbered about forty, of whom
Chauncey M. Depew was the choice of a majority.[1734] Ira Davenport of
Steuben, a State senator of decided character and strength, supported
his brother-in-law, Sherman S. Rogers of Erie, and others talked of
Vice-President Wheeler. George William Curtis argued that the aim of
the Independents should be to vote for the cause even if they voted
for different candidates, and thus show to the country and to Garfield
that a large and resolute opposition to the ruling organisation
existed in the party.[1735]

[Footnote 1734: "Blaine, representing Garfield, came to New York and
asked me to enter the contest for the purpose of securing the election
of a senator who would support the Administration. That was the reason
why 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 the
machine." It was a taking proposition. If the two senators, they
argued, differed upon questions of patronage, the one agreeing with
the President would undoubtedly prevail. Thus the Senator and the
Governor, backed by the patronage of the State and Federal
administrations, 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 of
manufacturer and farmer, evidenced marked capacity for business, and
gave substantial promise of growing leadership. From the schools of
Oswego he had entered Union College, and after teaching in Fort Edward
Collegiate Institute he became a soldier. Since 1874 he had been in
the Assembly and in Congress. He was fully six feet tall, well
proportioned, with a large head, a noticeably high forehead, a strong,
self-reliant, colourless face, and a resolute chin. A blond moustache
covered a firm mouth. He had the appearance of a man of reserve power,
and as a speaker, although without the gift of brilliantly phrased
sentences, he made a favourable impression. His easy, simple manner
added to the vigour and clearness of his words. Perhaps in the end he
fell short of realising the full measure of strength that his ardent
friends anticipated, for he possessed none of the characteristics of
the boss and seemed incapable of submitting to the daily drudgery that
political leadership demands. But for several years the reasonableness
of his opinions had an unmistakable influence upon the judgment of
men. Certainly, in 1881, his opinion greatly strengthened the Depew
scheme, and it soon became apparent that a sufficient number of
Independents could be relied upon to choose Platt. In the conference
that followed the latter promised to support the Garfield
administration. "Does that statement cover appointments?" asked
Woodin. Platt said it did. "Even if Judge Robertson's name should be
sent in?" insisted Woodin. Platt replied, "Yes."[1736] That settled it,
and Platt's nomination occurred on the first ballot.[1737] Among the
earliest 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 at
the conference," added Depew, "were Webster Wagner, John Birdsall,
Dennis McCarthy, and William H. Robertson of the State Senate, James
W. Husted, and George Dawson of the Albany _Evening Journal_. Woodin
remarked, 'We can trust Platt, and when he's elected senator we shall
not 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 feeling
exhibited toward Garfield at Chicago, and in February (1881), at the
invitation of the President-elect, he visited Mentor. The Senator
asked the appointment of Levi P. Morton as secretary of the treasury,
and Garfield consented to give him the Navy, or select Thomas L. James
for postmaster-general. "This conference was not wholly
satisfactory,"[1738] but Conkling's position at the inauguration
ceremonies, voluntarily taken directly behind Garfield while the
latter read his inaugural address, indicated a real friendship. His
motion in the Senate that James be confirmed as postmaster-general
without the usual reference to a committee seemed to support this
belief, an impression subsequently stimulated by the prompt
confirmation of William M. Evarts for commissioner to the
International Monetary Conference, Henry G. Pearson for postmaster of
New York, and Levi P. Morton for minister to France.[1739] Two weeks
later came a bunch of five Stalwarts.[1740] The next day (March 23)
Garfield nominated William H. Robertson for collector of customs at
New York and Edwin A. Merritt for consul-general to London. "That
evens things up," said Dennis McCarthy, the well-known Half-breed of
the State Senate. "This is a complete surprise," added Robertson. "To
my knowledge no one has solicited for me any place under Garfield. It
comes entirely unsought."[1741] It was no less a surprise to the
Stalwarts. Not a hint of it had been dropped by the President. "We had
been told only a few hours before," wrote Conkling, "that no removals
in the New York offices were soon to be made or even considered, and
had been requested to withhold the papers and suggestions bearing on
the subject until we had notice from the President of his readiness to
receive them."[1742] Indeed, the nomination came with such suddenness
that 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 the
mission 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. attorney
for the Eastern District; Clinton D. MacDougall, U.S. marshal for the
Northern 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 men
during the last decade have opened a flood of memories, some of them
giving specific statements from the principal actors. Blaine assured
George S. Boutwell that he had no knowledge of Robertson's nomination
until 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 private
secretary, that "the attempt to shift the fight to Blaine's shoulders
is as weak as it is unjust. The fact is, no member of the Cabinet
behaves with more careful respect for the rights of his brother men
than Blaine. It should be understood that the Administration is not
meddling in New York politics. It only defends itself when
assailed."[1744] The President said to Conkling, declares Hoar, that he
desired to make one conspicuous appointment of a New York man who had
supported him against Grant, and that thereafter, upon consultation
with the two Senators, appointments should be made of fit men without
regard to factions. To this Conkling refused his consent, stoutly
objecting to Robertson's appointment to any important office in this
country. "Conkling's behaviour in the interview," said President
Garfield "was so insolent that it was difficult for him to control
himself and keep from ordering him out of his presence."[1745] Conkling
says the President, on the Sunday preceding the appointment, informed
him "that the collectorship of New York would be left for another
time."[1746] In a statement purporting to come from the President,
Jewell relates that when the five Stalwart nominations went to the
Senate, Garfield was immediately burdened with letters and despatches
in protest, coupled with the suggestion that everything had been
surrendered to Conkling, and that without delay or consultation he
sent in Robertson's name. "It was only an instance," says Boutwell,
"of General Garfield's impulsive and unreasoning submission to an
expression of public opinion, without waiting for evidence of the
nature 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 Blaine
triumph. Senators, especially those who had served in the House with
the President and his Secretary of State, had no doubt of it. Such a
tremendously bold act was entirely foreign to Garfield's character.
Nor could it have but one meaning. The man who had split the New York
delegation for Blaine was to have his reward and to occupy the place
of patronage and of power. More than that it was Blaine's long look
ahead. Such action required the highest order of political courage. It
opened an old quarrel, it invited opposition, it challenged to battle.
Men like Senator Frye of Maine, who had many times witnessed the
resolution and dominating fearlessness of Blaine, knew that it was his
act. "For sixteen years," said Frye, "the sting of Blaine's attack
kept Conkling unfriendly. Besides, he had no confidence in him.
Whenever reconciliation seemed imminent, it vanished like a
cloud-shadow. I could never unite them. Blaine was ready, but Conkling
would accept no advances. When Robertson's appointment came he knew as
well as I that it was the act of Blaine."[1748] Depew, with whom Blaine
had conferred, took the same view. On the day after the nomination was
sent in, Mrs. Blaine, rather exultingly and without any expression of
surprise, wrote her daughter of the incident. "Your father has just
gone to the Department. Did you notice the nominations sent in
yesterday? 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. After
the latter had become secretary of state he said to the Massachusetts
Senator that Conkling was the only man who had had three elections to
the Senate, and that he and his friends would be considered fairly in
the New York appointments. "When in conversation with Conkling, I
mentioned 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 the
President and the Senator encouraged the hope that confirmation of
the nomination might not be opposed. Because of this feeling the New
York Legislature, by a formal resolution, endorsed it, and Republicans
generally spoke not unkindly of it. But Conkling, knowing that though
the voice was Garfield's, the hand was Blaine's, quickly precipitated
a contest in which the interest of the whole country centred. It
recalled the Arthur controversy, renewed the feverish energy of
Stalwart and Half-breed, and furnished glimpses of the dramatic
discord which stirred restlessly behind the curtains of Senate
secrecy. Under the rules of the Senate, Robertson's nomination went to
the Committee on Commerce, of which Conkling was chairman and in
control. Here the matter could be held in abeyance, at least until the
Stalwarts marshalled their influence to have it withdrawn. For this
purpose Vice-President Arthur and Postmaster-General James called at
the White House. Governor Cornell, through a personal friend, sent a
message to the President, declaring the nomination a great mistake and
urging its withdrawal.[1751] Other distinguished men, including Senator
Allison of Iowa, visited the President on a similar mission. When
these overtures failed compromises were suggested, such as making
Robertson a Federal judge, a district attorney, a foreign minister, or
the solicitor general.

[Footnote 1751: Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 637.]

Meanwhile assuring messages and comforting letters from Blaine's New
York friends stimulated Garfield's courage. On March 27, four days
after the nomination, Whitelaw Reid, the accomplished editor of the
_Tribune_, telegraphed John Hay, in part, as follows: "From
indications here and at Albany we have concluded that the Conkling
plan is: First, to make tremendous pressure on the President for
withdrawal of Robertson's name under threats from Conkling and
persuasion from James. Second, if this fail, then to make their
indignation useful by extorting from the President, as a means of
placating them, the surveyorship and naval office. With these two they
think they could largely neutralise Robertson. Cornell is believed
willing to acquiesce in Robertson, hoping to get other offices.

"I wish to say to the President in my judgment this is the turning
point of his whole administration--the crisis of his fate. If he
surrenders now Conkling is president for the rest of the term and
Garfield becomes a laughing stock. On the other hand, he has only to
stand firm to succeed. With the unanimous action of the New York
Legislature, Conkling cannot make an effectual fight. That action came
solely from the belief that Garfield, unlike Hayes, meant to defend
his own administration. The Assembly is overwhelmingly Conkling, but
they did not dare go on the record against Robertson so long as they
thought the Administration meant business. Robertson should be held
firm. Boldness and tenacity now insure victory. The least wavering
would be fatal."[1752]

[Footnote 1752: For full text of telegram see New York _Tribune_,
January 7, 1882. This confidential despatch found its way into the
public press. "It must have been stolen from the wires," wrote Hay.
"Nobody but myself has ever seen it--not even Garfield. I read it to
him. 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 may
take him out of the Senate head first or feet first; I will never
withdraw him."[1753] That the President might not weaken, Depew and
other Independents spent much time in Washington during the
controversy. "The party standing of Blaine's New York supporters at
Chicago absolutely depended upon Robertson's confirmation," declared
Depew.[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 windward
by coquetting with Democratic senators and soothing his Republican
colleagues.[1755] He knew how to control in caucus as well as in
committee, and on May 2, the Republican senators appointed a Committee
of Safety, which recommended that a majority decide the order of
executive business including "uncontested nominations." These
nominations, it was explained, embraced such as were favourably
reported by a committee or accepted by the Republican senators of the
State from which the nominee hailed. In other words, the caucus action
practically notified the President that no nomination would be
confirmed that did not please a senator, if a Republican. To exclude
Robertson under such a rule it was only necessary that the New York
senators object to his confirmation. Immediately the press of the
country teemed with protests. The Constitution, it declared, imposed a
moral obligation upon senators to confirm a nomination which was not
personally unfit or improper, or which did not imperil the public
interest, and it was puerile for a majority to agree in advance to
refuse to consider any nomination to which any member, for any reason
whatever, saw fit to object. Such a rule substantially transferred the
Executive power to one branch of Congress, making the President the
agent of the Senate. It was "senatorial courtesy" run mad.

[Footnote 1755: "If any Democratic senator is thinking only of New York
politics, and of the mere party relations of the pending question of
Presidential nominations, the Democrats of New York must frankly tell
him that nothing but injury to the Democracy of New York has come or
can come of coalitions with Senator Conkling. The past is eloquent on
the subject. Whether set on foot by Mr. Tilden in 1873, or by Mr.
Kelly at a later date, Democratic coalitions with Mr. Conkling have
benefited only the Republicans. Mr. Tilden finally came to grief
through them, and so did Mr. Kelly; and, what is more important, so
did the Democratic party.... It is high time that the false lights
which Senator Conkling displayed to certain Democratic senators, and
with the help of whom the nominations of President Hayes were
thwarted, should be understood. The chequered career of Senator
Conkling should compel cautious people to inquire carefully into the
evidence for any declaration which may be made by him as to President
Garfield and his undertaking."--New York _World_, April 1, 1881.]

As the days passed senators exhibited, under pressure from the country
as well as from the White House, a growing desire to have the matter
settled, and as a final effort in the interest of harmony the
Committee of Safety itself called upon the President, proposing that
he withdraw Robertson's name and have the others confirmed. To this
Garfield emphatically declined to accede. A few days later (May 5)
Vice-President Arthur and Senator Platt suggested that he withdraw all
the New York nominations. The President replied that he would
willingly withdraw all except Robertson's, and if the latter failed an
entire new slate could then be made up. This did not satisfy, but
within an hour after his visitors had departed, the President, to
prevent the confirmation of some while Robertson's was left tied up in
committee, put his suggestion into a message, withdrawing the names of
the five Stalwarts. This was another surprise, more alarming than the
first, 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 demonstrated
their power to prevent a reorganisation of the Senate, and discord in
Republican States threatened disaster. Until recently Conkling had
felt sure of victory. But now, appreciating the delicacy of the
situation, he opened the caucus (May 9) with an earnest, conciliatory
speech. He disclaimed desiring any conflict with the President,
against whom he made no accusations of bad faith; described the
impracticability of his sustaining any relations with Robertson, in
whose way, however, he would place no obstacle to any office other
than that of collector; discussed the danger to which a lack of
political harmony would expose the party in New York; and in almost
pathetic tones urged that the courtesy of the Senate be not withheld
from him in this hour of his extreme need.

It was plain that he had won the sympathy of his colleagues, but
succeeding caucuses, now held daily, lined his pathway with portents
and warnings. The iron-clad rule ceased to be operative; a resolution
to postpone action until the next session avoided defeat because
hastily withdrawn; and a compromise, the last to be suggested,
proposing confirmation on condition that Robertson then decline the
office, met with no favour. It was plain that at last the stress had
reached a climax. Senators no longer exchanged their impressions, or
asked "How long?" or "What next?" In their opinion either Garfield or
Conkling must recede, and they had learned that the President would
not. Moreover, it was rumored, after the caucus of May 13, that
Conkling had talked harshly, with much of the temper of a spoiled
child. As senators separated on that eventful Friday they declared
without hesitation, though not without misgiving, that the last caucus
had been held and the last obstacle to Robertson's confirmation
removed.

The position of Platt had at last become intolerable. Mindful of the
promise to Depew and his friends he had tactfully and patiently sought
to avoid a contest by satisfactorily arranging matters between the
President and Conkling. Now the end of compromises had come and a vote
impended. At this critical if not desperate moment he suggested
resignation.[1756] The Legislature that chose him in January was still
in session, and the combined votes of the Stalwarts would be
sufficient to re-elect them. This would liberate him from a promise
and strengthen both with a legislative endorsement. It was neither an
intrepid nor an exalted proposition, but Conkling accepted it.
Perhaps his nature required a relief from its high-strung
irritability in some sort of violence, and resignation backed by the
assurance that he would soon be restored to office and to greater
power on the shoulders of the party offered the seductive form which
that violence could take.

[Footnote 1756: "I walked over to Conkling and said, 'I shall send my
resignation to Governor Cornell to-night.' Conkling turned to me and
replied: 'Don't be too hasty about this matter, young man.' We then
went to the rear of the Senate Chamber and talked it over. Conkling
insisted that we should wait, and fight it out in Committee. I
replied, 'We have been so humiliated that there is but one thing for
us to do--rebuke the President by immediately turning in our
resignations and then appeal to the Legislature to sustain us.' I
induced Conkling to join me in offering our joint resignations, and
that 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 was
unjust to the junior Senator, who at least took the lead in suggesting
and insisting upon resigning.]

Before the Senate reconvened on Monday (May 16) the resignation of
Conkling and Platt was in the hands of Governor Cornell. It came with
the suddenness of Robertson's nomination. Neither Vice-President
Arthur shared their intention, nor did Cornell suspect it. The first
intimation came in two brief notes, read by the clerk, informing the
Senate of their action. But the crash--the consternation, if any were
anticipated, did not appear.[1757] No doubt many senators sincerely
regretted the manner of Conkling's going, but that all were weary of
his restless predominance soon became an open secret.[1758] Nor did his
reasons appeal to any one except as regarded his own personality and
power, since the Senator's statement showed a deliberate, personal
choice, not based on a question of public policy.

[Footnote 1757: "The sensational resignations of Conkling and Platt
produce no excitement here (Washington), and I have yet to hear one
criticism complimentary of Conkling, though I have seen all sorts of
people 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 May
18. Two days afterward the names of the five Stalwarts, which had been
withdrawn, were resubmitted, except those of Payn and Tyler.]

[Footnote 1758: "Conkling was unrelenting in his enmities. He used to
get angry with men simply because they voted against him on questions
in which he took an interest. Once he did not for months speak to
Justin S. Morrill, one of the wisest and kindliest of men, because of
his 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 and
Platt presented but two causes of complaint, one that the President,
in withdrawing some of the New York nominations, tried to coerce the
Senate to vote for Robertson; second, that Robertson, in voting and
procuring others to vote against Grant at Chicago, was guilty of "a
dishonest and dishonourable act."[1759] The poverty of these reasons
excited more surprise than the folly of their resignation.[1760] Every
one knew that in urging senators to say by their vote whether William
H. Robertson was a fit person to be collector, the President kept
strictly within his constitutional prerogative, and that in
withdrawing the earlier nominations he exercised his undoubted right
to determine the order in which he should ask the Senate's advice.
Moreover, if any doubt ever existed as to Robertson's right to
represent the sentiment of his district instead of the decree of the
State convention, the national convention had settled it in his
favour.

[Footnote 1759: The full text of the letter is published in the New
York papers of May 17, 1881.]

[Footnote 1760: "I was very much surprised at Senator Conkling's
action," said Senator Frye of Maine, "because of Judge Robertson's
personal hostility to him and not on account of his lack of fitness.
During President Hayes' administration not an important appointment
was made in Maine to which Senators Blaine and Hamlin were not
bitterly opposed. One man was appointed after Mr. Blaine had stated
that he was probably the only prominent Republican in the State
personally hostile to him. Yet, with a single exception, all were
confirmed, notwithstanding the opposition of the Maine Senators. But
neither of them resigned. They were too good Republicans for
that."--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 and
engage in the practice of his profession.[1761] But that such
intention did not influence his resignation was evidenced by the fact
that immediately afterward he bivouacked at Albany and sought a
re-election. With his faithful lieutenants he constantly conferred,
while the faithless ones, scarcely less conspicuous, who openly
refused their support, he stigmatised. From the first Cornell was an
object of distrust. He had wired Conkling advising Robertson's
confirmation, and the Senator crushed the telegram in his hand. This
put the Governor into the disloyal class.[1762] It added to Conkling's
irritation also that Cornell remained silent. The Governor's friends
expressed some surprise that the Senator did not suggest an interview.
It would have been much more surprising if he had, for it is doubtful
if Conkling ever suggested an interview in his life. On the other
hand, Cornell, unwilling to use the machinery of his great office to
force Conkling's return, did not care to approach the Senator. It was
not unknown, however, that he refused to become a candidate for United
States senator, and that, although ten or fifteen members continued to
vote for him, he steadily encouraged his Stalwart friends not to
desert Conkling.

[Footnote 1761: A.R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 632.]

[Footnote 1762: Conkling spoke of Cornell as "The lizard on the
hill."]

Although the Legislature which elected Platt on January 18 was still
in session, the sentiment dominating it had radically changed. The
party was deeply stirred. The Senator's sudden resignation had added
to the indignation aroused by his opposition to the Administration,
and members had heard from their constituents. Besides, a once
powerful Senator was now a private citizen. At the outset Independents
and several Stalwarts refused to enter a caucus, and early in the
contest the Democrats, marshalled by Manning, refused to come to the
rescue. Thus, without organisation, Republicans began voting on May
31. Seven weeks and four days later (July 22), after fifty-six
ballots, their work was concluded. The first ballot marked the highest
score for Conkling and Platt, the former receiving 39 and the latter
29 out of 105 Republican votes.[1763] This severe comment upon their
course plainly reflected the general sentiment of the party. It showed
especially the dissatisfaction existing toward Conkling. Yet a few
Stalwarts remained steadfast to the end. On the morning of July 1,
when Platt, to the surprise of his friends, suddenly withdrew, he had
28 votes. On July 22 Conkling had the same.

[Footnote 1763: The ballot resulted as follows: To succeed Platt (long
term), 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 2
had a visible effect upon the proceedings at Albany.[1764] Although
for a time conditions indicated that the distinguished sufferer might
recover, legislators evinced a great desire to conclude the
disagreeable work, and on July 5, sixty-six Republicans held a
conference. Up to this time Depew had been the favourite for the long
term, 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 saw
the powers of government about to be transferred to the leader of
their defeated adversaries, and that transfer effected by the act of
an assassin. Many of them could not instantly accept the truth that it
was the act solely of a half-crazed and disappointed seeker for
office; many of them questioned whether the men who were to profit by
the act were not the instigators of it."--From address of Elihu Root,
delivered at the unveiling of President Arthur's statue in Madison
Square, New York, June 13, 1899.]

[Footnote 1765: On June 9, S.H. Bradley of Cattaraugus, made a
personal explanation in the Assembly, charging Loren B. Sessions, of
the Senate, with offering him $2,000 to cast his vote for Depew.
Sessions denied the charge. Investigation proved nothing, and an
indictment, subsequently returned against Sessions, resulted in a
trial and an acquittal.]

This opened the way for Warner Miller, who received in caucus on the
fifth ballot sixty-two of the sixty-six votes cast for the long term.
By previous agreement a Stalwart was entitled to the short term, and
had Cornell allowed his Stalwart friends to enter the caucus he might
have had the nomination. But he would not oppose Conkling. Moreover,
the belief obtained that the Democrats and Stalwarts would yet unite
and adjourn the session without day, thus giving the Senator time to
elect other friends to a new Legislature, and the Governor would not
disturb this hallucination. With Cornell out of the way Elbridge G.
Lapham easily won the nomination on the second ballot. Lapham had been
the first to desert Conkling, who now exclaimed, not without the
bitter herb of truth: "That man must not reap the reward of his
perfidy."[1766]

[Footnote 1766: New York _Tribune_, July 7, 1881.]

The caucus did not at once bring union, but on July 12 Miller's vote
reached seventy; on the 15th it registered seventy-four; and on the
16th, with the help of Speaker Sharpe, who had encouraged Conkling's
going to Albany, Miller was elected.[1767] Lapham's vote, however,
hung fire until July 22, when, during a brief and most exciting
conference in the Assembly Chamber, State Senator Halbert, the
Conkling Gibraltar, exclaimed with the suddenness of a squall at sea:
"We must come together or the party is divided in the State. I am
willing to vote now."[1768] Reason and good nature being thus
restored, each Republican present rose and voted his choice, Lapham
receiving sixty-one, Conkling twenty-eight. In the general rejoicing
State Senator Pitts, a leader of the Independents, no doubt voiced the
feeling of all at that moment: "I am as happy as Mr. Halbert. This
nomination has been made good-naturedly. It is an augury of good
feeling in the future. New York proposes to stand by the Republican
administration. I hope we shall never hear more the words Stalwart,
Featherhead, Half-breed."[1769] When the joint convention again
reassembled 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 of
Chester A. Arthur, No. 123 Lexington Avenue, the following persons
were present: Chester A. Arthur, Thomas C. Platt, Louis F. Payn,
Charles M. Denison, George H. Sharpe, John F. Smyth, A.B. Johnson, and
Roscoe Conkling. Each person was asked to pass judgment upon the
future course of the two Senators. Each one spoke in turn. The sense
of the meeting was that they should proceed to the State
capital."--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 that
while he and other friends were still battling for the organisation
Sharpe would desert them. Payn proved himself a prophet. Sharpe went
over to the opposition." Platt's Reminiscences.--_Cosmopolitan
Magazine_, 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 subject
of some criticism on the part of the Democrats because he was a member
of the Legislature, and on June 22, after the twenty-third ballot, he
withdrew. A caucus then substituted the name of Potter.]

For Conkling it was worse than defeat. The humiliation of having gone
to Albany, of being deserted by friend after friend, of enduring the
taunts of an inhospitable press, and, finally, of having his place
taken by one, who, in his opinion, had proven most faithless, was like
the torture of an unquenchable fire. Lord Randolph Churchill, after
his historic resignation as chancellor of the exchequer, declared that
he would not live it over again for a million a year. It is likewise a
matter of history that Senator Conkling never ceased to deplore his
mistake.[1771]

[Footnote 1771: Conkling at once resumed the practice of law in New
York City. The strain and exposure of making his way on foot through
the snowdrifts of the historic blizzard which visited that city in the
spring of 1888, resulted in an abscess in the inner ear, from which he
died on April 18. A bronze statue, erected in his memory, is located
in Madison Square.

"We have followed poor Conkling down to the gates of death and have
been truly sorry to see them close upon him. I have never heard your
father, in all the twenty-two years since he spoke hard words to him,
say a syllable which he need regret, but his deathbed seemed hardly
less inaccessible than his life."--Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_,
Vol. 2, p. 203. Dated, San Remo, May 1, 1888. Addressed to Walker
Blaine.]




CHAPTER XXXVI

CLEVELAND'S ENORMOUS MAJORITY

1881-2


While Conkling was being deposed, John Kelly, to whom responsibility
attached for Hancock's defeat, also suffered the penalty of selfish
leadership.[1772] Although his standard of official honesty had always
been as low as his standard of official responsibility, it never
aroused violent party opposition until his personal resentments
brought Democratic defeat. This classified him at once as a common
enemy. In vain did he protest as Tweed had done against being made a
"scape-goat." His sentence was political death, and as a first step
toward its execution, Mayor Cooper refused to reappoint him
comptroller, an office which he had held for four years. Republican
aldermen joined in confirming his successor. Similar treatment,
accorded his office-holding associates, stripped him of patronage
except in the office of register.

[Footnote 1772: "He wantonly sacrificed the Hancock ticket to his
unscrupulous quest of local power. The Democracy here and elsewhere
perfectly understand his perfidy, and they only await an opportunity
for a reckoning. They intend to punish him and make an example of him
as a warning to bolting renegades and traitors."--New York _Herald_,
November 5, 1880.]

Then his Democratic opponents proposed depriving him of control in
conventions, 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 of
public works, and other leaders of similar character, heading a
Committee of One Hundred, became its inspiration. Under the Tammany
system twenty-four men constituted the Committee on Organisation,
while a few persons at any Assembly primary might represent all the
votes of the district. The new organisation proposed to make its
Committee on Organisation consist of six hundred and seventy-eight
members and to place the control of all nominations in the hands of
the people. It was a catchy scheme and quickly became popular. To
carry it into effect a public enrolment was made of the Democratic
voters in each election district, who had an opportunity, by
registering their names, to join the Election District Committee. When
thus affiliated each one could vote for a member of the Committee on
Organisation 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 enrolled
members, and had elected delegates to attend the State convention
which met at Albany on October 11.

Kelly did not attend the convention. On his way from the depot to the
hotel he found the air too chilly and the speech of people far from
complimentary. It was plain, also, that the crushing defeat of Hancock
had obliterated factional division in the up-State counties and that
Daniel 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 the
preliminary roll. To make its rebuff more emphatic Rufus W. Peckham,
in presenting the report on contested seats, briefly stated that the
committee, by a unanimous vote, found "the gentlemen now occupying
seats entitled to them by virtue of their regularity."[1773] Kelly's
conceit did not blind his penetration to the fact that for the
present, 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 not
appear, and Warner Miller's surprising vote for temporary chairman
(298 to 190), sustaining the verdict of the Legislature in the
prolonged 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 had
sneeringly referred to as a "creature of no influence," became
permanent chairman without opposition. In the selection of State
candidates few organization men found favour.[1775] Finally, in their
overconfidence the Independents carelessly postponed a resolution
reorganising the party in New York City to an hour when their rural
support had left the convention, and the most important business
before it failed by five majority. "Thus by sheer negligence," said
George William Curtis, "the convention has left a formidable nucleus
for the reconstruction of the machine which had been overthrown."[1776]
The platform deplored the death of Garfield, expressed confidence in
President Arthur, praised Cornell's wisdom, prudence, and economy, and
insisted upon equal taxation of corporations and individuals.

[Footnote 1774: "It was a common saying of that time among those who
knew him best, '"Chet" Arthur, President of the United States! Good
God!'"--White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 193.]

[Footnote 1775: The ticket was as follows: Secretary of State, Joseph
B. 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 in
Ohio pervaded the campaign in New York, Republicans believed that
President Arthur, by the moderation and dignity of his course, had
favourably impressed the public.[1777] His nomination of Postmaster
General James and the tender of the Treasury to Edwin D. Morgan
commanded universal approval. When Morgan declined, the nomination of
Charles J. Folger, suggested by Morgan, added to his prestige. In
fact, the most ardent champions of Garfield had taken little exception
to the acts of the new Administration, and although Arthur's
supporters had suffered defeat in convention, it was inferred that the
President and his friends sincerely desired the triumph of their
party. Moreover, the action of Tammany and the County Democracy in
nominating separate local tickets had stimulated Republican
confidence. It meant that Kelly, in his inevitable desire to defeat
his enemy, would trade, combine, and descend to other underhand
jobbery, which usually benefited the opposite party.

[Footnote 1777: "I dined at the President's on Wednesday. The dinner
was extremely elegant, hardly a trace of the old White House taint
being perceptible anywhere, the flowers, the silver, the attendants,
all showing the latest style and an abandon in expense and
taste."--Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_ (March 13, 1882), Vol. 2, pp.
4, 5.]

However, the harmony blandly predicted did not appear. James W. Husted
was overwhelmingly defeated, while his party, for the first time in
twelve years, lost both branches of the Legislature.[1778] This
amazing disclosure exhibited the bitter animosity of faction. In
Albany, Erie, Oneida, and Oswego counties, Stalwart and Independent
resolutely opposed each other, even to the point in some instances of
supporting the Democratic ticket.

[Footnote 1778: Plurality of Carr, secretary of state, 13,022. Other
Republicans 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 the
combined opposition of Tammany and Irving Hall, the Whitney
organisation carried the county by several thousand majority, securing
four of the seven senators, twelve of the twenty-four assemblymen, and
twelve of the twenty-two aldermen. This left Tammany absolutely
without patronage. It was not unnatural that many of Kelly's
co-workers should doubt the possibility of longer working harmoniously
under his leadership, and the great secession of prominent men from
Tammany after the formation of the County Democracy created little
surprise. But that the movement should include the rank and file was
an astonishing revelation.

Nevertheless, Kelly, gathering up his three senators and eight
assemblymen, carried the war to Albany. Strangely enough Republican
discord had given him the balance of power in each legislative body,
and until the Democrats acceded to his terms (February 2) the Assembly
remained without a speaker.[1779] Two weeks later, upon the
announcement of the Assembly committees, Tammany, declaring its
agreement violated, joined the Republicans in modifying the rules of
the Senate so as to permit the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint its
committees and complete its organisation.

[Footnote 1779: Kelly demanded the chairmanship of cities in both
Houses, a satisfactory composition of the committees on railroads and
on commerce and navigation, a share in the subordinate offices, and
the exclusion of John C. Jacobs of Kings from the presidency of the
Senate.]

No one knowing Kelly expected him to act otherwise. Nor can it be
seriously doubted that he fully expected the Democracy, at the very
next opportunity, to make substantial concessions. At all events Kelly
presented with great confidence Tammany's claims to representation in
the State convention which assembled at Syracuse on September 22
(1882).[1780] He knew it was a critical moment for the Democracy. The
poverty of the Republican majority in the preceding election, and the
Administration's highhanded efforts to defeat Cornell for
renomination, seemed to put the State within the grasp of a united
party. Yet the Tilden leaders, although divided among themselves,
shrank from giving him power. This feeling was intensified by the
renewed activity of the old canal ring. The presence, too, of Stephen
T. Arnot of Chemung, who served as a member of the Kelly State
Committee in 1879, added to their hostility. Indeed, so pronounced was
the resentment that on the first day of the convention Tammany was
refused tickets of admission.

[Footnote 1780: The Greenback-Labour party held its convention at
Albany 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 no
nominations were made. It favored abolition of the contract-labour
system in prisons; of cigar factories in tenements; of child labour
under fourteen; enforcement of the compulsory education act; reduction
of labour to ten hours a day, etc.

An anti-monopoly convention assembled at Saratoga on September 13. No
nominations were made. It demanded commissioners to supervise and
control corporation charges; advocated free canals; government
ownership of the telegraph; postal savings banks; discontinuance of
railroad 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's
support, had created a strong sentiment favourable to Tammany's
admission, while Henry W. Slocum, mindful of Tammany's dislike, had
also done what he could to smooth its way. Under such pressure the
leaders, after recognising the County Democracy as the regular
organisation with thirty-eight votes, gave Tammany twenty-four and
Irving Hall ten.

[Footnote 1781: There were eight candidates for governor: Erastus
Corning of Albany, Homer A. Nelson of Dutchess, Grover Cleveland of
Erie, Roswell P. Flower of Jefferson, Henry W. Slocum of Kings, and
Allan Campbell, Waldo M. Hutchins, and Perry Belmont of New York.]

Although this preliminary struggle did not clarify the gubernatorial
situation, it had the effect of materially weakening Flower. Of his
popularity no doubt existed. As an industrious young man in Watertown
he had been a general favourite, and in New York, whither he went in
early manhood to take charge of his sister's property, left by her
millionaire husband, he became the head of a prosperous banking house
and the friend of all classes. The liberality of his charities
equalled the splendour of his social entertainments, while a few
months in Congress as the successor of Levi P. Morton and the
successful opponent of William W. Astor, had introduced him to the
voters of the metropolis. He was now forty-four years old, with ample
wealth, a wide acquaintance, and surrounded by scores of experienced
political diplomats.

But Manning distrusted Flower. Back of him were Arnot, DeWolf, and
other anti-Tilden leaders. He also deeply resented Flower's support of
Kelly. It gave the Boss a new lease of power and practically paralysed
all efforts to discipline him. Besides, it betrayed an indisposition
to seek advice of the organisation and an indifference to political
methods. He seemed to be the rich man in politics, relying for control
upon money rather than political wisdom. Nor did it improve Flower's
chances among the country delegates that one of the convention
speakers thought him guided by Jay Gould, in whose questionable deals
he had generously participated.

Slocum had likewise sinned. Manning thought well of the distinguished
soldier whom he promised one hundred votes, which he delivered. But
his support of Kelly had been distasteful to the County Democracy.
Besides, he was charged with voting, when in Congress, for the "salary
grab," and one delegate, speaking on the floor of the convention,
declared that as a trustee of the Brooklyn Bridge, "Slocum would be
held responsible for the colossal frauds connected with its
erection."[1782] It added to the chaos of the situation that Flower's
supporters resented Slocum's activity, while Slocum's friends excepted
to 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 not
wholly unknown throughout the State. Lawyers recognised him as a
prominent member of the profession, and politicians knew him as
sheriff of Erie County in the early seventies and as the recently
elected mayor of Buffalo. But people outside the Lake city knew
nothing of his character for stubborn independence, uncompromising
honesty, and fearless devotion to duty. His friends tried to tell the
delegates that he insisted upon public officials treating the people's
money as its trustees, and that he had promptly vetoed every departure
from this rule. They claimed also that he could neither be coaxed nor
constrained into the approval of men or measures that were not honest
and proper, citing several illustrations that had greatly gratified
and aroused his home people. This was the gist of Daniel N. Lockwood's
short, happy, and forceful speech in presenting his name to the
convention.

But such recommendations of candidates were not unusual, and although
Erie and the surrounding counties mustered fifty or sixty votes, no
movement toward Cleveland existed other than that growing out of the
peculiar political situation. If Slocum and Flower failed, Nelson or
Corning might benefit. Edward Murphy of Rensselaer, then mayor of Troy
for the fourth term and closely associated with Manning in leadership,
represented Corning with spirit, while the Dutchess friends of Homer
A. Nelson exhibited their devotion by an energetic canvass. Yet
Cleveland possessed one strategic point stronger than either of them.
His absolute freedom from the political antagonisms of New York and
King counties commended him to the County Democracy. This organisation
of extraordinary leadership had tired of deals and quarrels. The
hammering of Tilden, the sacrifice of Robinson, the defeat of Hancock,
and the hold-up in the last Legislature made a new departure
necessary, and it may be said with truth and without injustice that
the night before the convention opened the nomination of Cleveland, if
it could be accomplished, seemed to the County Democracy the wisest
and safest result.

When the roll-call began Kelly, playing for position, divided
Tammany's vote among the possible winners, giving Flower seven, Slocum
six, Cleveland six, and Corning five. The County Democracy voted for
Campbell. Corning's withdrawal and large secessions from Nelson and
Belmont sent Slocum and Flower far in the lead on the second ballot,
while Cleveland moved up five points with the help of Kelly and
others. The County Democracy again voted for Campbell. On the third
ballot a break was inevitable. Hutchins had remained stationary,
Nelson and Belmont were practically out of the race, and Slocum and
Flower stood even. It was now in the power of the County Democracy to
nominate Slocum. Manning approved it and Murphy had already given him
the Corning vote. But the County Democracy, inspired by men of
prescience and of iron nerve, went to Cleveland in a body, making the
hall resound with cheers. Had Tammany, the next delegation called,
followed suit, Kelly might have divided with his opponents the honour
of Cleveland's nomination. Instead, it practically voted as before.
But Albany, Rensselaer, and other counties, catching the tide at its
turn, threw the convention into a bedlam. Finally, when Kelly could
secure recognition, he changed Tammany's vote to Cleveland.

To the tally-clerks Cleveland's nomination by two majority was known
before the completion of the ballot. Yet upon the insistence of the
Slocum men, because of confusion in making changes, the convention
refused to receive the result and ordered another roll-call. This gave
Cleveland 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 first
time in many years. It had come without the exercise of illegitimate
influences or the incurrence of personal obligation. To no one in
particular did Cleveland owe his nomination. Besides, his success as a
politician, his character as a public official, and his enthusiastic
devotion to the clients whose causes he championed, challenged the
most careful scrutiny. He was then unmarried, forty-four years old,
tall, stoutly-built, with a large head, dark brown hair, clear keen
eyes, and a generous and kindly nature concealed under a slightly
brusque manner. His sturdy old-fashioned rectitude, and the just
conviction that by taste and adaptability for public life he had
peculiar qualifications for the great office of governor, commended
him to popular confidence. In Buffalo, where he had lived for a
quarter of a century, people knew him as a man without guile.

Two days before Cleveland's nomination (September 20), the Republicans
had selected Charles J. Folger, then secretary of the treasury. In
character for honesty and ability the two men were not dissimilar, but
the manner of their selection was antipodal. Of the five candidates
who appealed to the convention, Cornell was the only real opponent of
the Secretary.[1784] For more than a year, ever since he took office,
in fact, Cornell had counted upon a renomination. He cleverly
strengthened the State machine, surrounded himself with able
lieutenants, and never failed to make appointments promotive of his
ambition. The confirmation of Isaac V. Baker as superintendent of
prisons with the aid of Tammany's three senators, especially
illustrated his skill in reaching men. But he had done more than
organise. His numerous vetoes called attention to his discriminating
work, indicating honesty, efficiency, activity in promoting the
people's interests, and fidelity to Republican principles. An honest
public sentiment recognised these good features of his work. Indeed,
his administration admittedly ranked with the best that had adorned
the State for a century, and his friends, including Independents and
many 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 was
notorious that their hostility grew out of the Governor's passivity in
the senatorial election, Arthur feeling the humiliation of that defeat
scarcely less than Conkling, while memories of Crowley's failure and
of the Governor's exultation had not faded. Conkling, not less bitter,
had more recent cause for resentment. As the attorney of Jay Gould he
had indicated a willingness to forgive and forget the past if the
Governor 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 had
signed the bill, neither Gould nor Conkling would have opposed his
renomination.[1786]

[Footnote 1785: The bill provided that the elevated railroad companies
of New York should, in lieu of other public charges, pay a tax of four
per cent. on their gross receipts. As first submitted the bill had the
approval of the mayor and comptroller of the city, but after its
modification they withdrew their approval and opposed its passage on
the ground that it unjustly discriminated in favour of these
particular corporations and deprived the city of a large amount of
revenue.--Appleton's _Cyclopædia_, 1882, p. 600.]

[Footnote 1786: Albany _Evening Journal_, August 20, 1882.]

For these purely personal reasons an extraordinary situation was
created, revealing the methods of purse and patronage by which the
Gould-Conkling combine and the Administration got revenge. In their
efforts in Folger's behalf delegates were coerced, and efficient
officials at Albany, Brooklyn, Utica, and Ogdensburg, removed in the
middle of their terms, were replaced by partisans of the President.
Even after the patronage packed convention assembled the questionable
methods continued. Gould's agent hovered about Saratoga. To secure the
selection of a temporary chairman by the State committee, Stephen B.
French, an intimate of Arthur, presented a fraudulent proxy to
represent William H. Robertson.[1787] Had the convention known this
at the moment of voting swift defeat must have come to the
Administration, which barely escaped (251 to 243) by getting
postmasters into line.[1788]

[Footnote 1787: French presented a telegram to the secretary of the
State committee purporting to be sent from New York by Robertson. An
investigation made later showed that the message was written in Albany
on a sender's blank and had not been handled by the telegraph company.
French explained that he had wired Robertson for a proxy, and when
handed the message supposed it to be an answer. It was plain, however,
that the telegram to Robertson and his alleged answer were parts of
the 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, and
recently state-comptroller, likewise became a decoy for Folger.
Wadsworth himself had no understanding with that wing. He was
absolutely independent and unpledged. But the Stalwarts, in districts
opposed to them, promoted the choice of such so-called Wadsworth
delegates as could be captured by the persuasive plea for harmony, and
under the stress of the second ballot, when Starin's and Robinson's
support broke to Cornell, some of them voted for Folger. This gave the
Administration'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 of
Appeals, Charles Andrews, Onondaga; Congressman-at-large, A. Barton
Hepburn, St. Lawrence. Subsequently, Howard Carroll of New York, was
substituted for Hepburn.]

The belated platform, fulsomely eulogistic of Cornell, added to the
indignation of the Independents, since it seemed a mockery to present
what the Stalwarts did not offer until after a nomination. It gave
still greater offence when the State Committee selected John F. Smyth
as its chairman to conduct the campaign.[1790]

[Footnote 1790: "Look at John F. Smyth and B. Platt Carpenter. Instead
of being at the head of the whole business, they should be at the tail
or out of sight."--From speech of Theodore F. Pomeroy, the _Nation_,
October 5.]

"It is hardly worth while analysing the influences which have
contributed to this result," said the New York _Times_. "The fact is
plain that the Gould-Conkling combination, backed by the power of the
Federal Administration, has accomplished what it set out to do."[1791]
Henry Ward Beecher in a Sunday evening sermon, said that "When Cornell
went 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, but
when it shunted off on the wrong track I will not go over the
precipice with it."[1792] In hastening to deny that _Harper's Weekly_
would support Folger, George William Curtis wrote: "Judge Folger's
ability and character are not in question, but his nomination is. That
nomination was procured by the combined power of fraud and patronage,
and to support it would be to acquiesce in them as legitimate forces
in a convention."[1793] The Buffalo _Express_, a vigorous and
independent Republican journal, also bolted the ticket,[1794] an
example followed by several other papers of similar character
throughout the State. After the lapse of a fortnight, Hepburn,
candidate for congressman-at-large, declined to accept because "it is
quite apparent that a very large portion of the Republicans, owing to
the unfortunate circumstances which have come to light since the
adjournment of the convention, are not disposed to accept its
conclusion 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 are
liable in the absence of the responsible head, an article by Mr.
Curtis was modified to commit the paper to the support of the
candidate. Curtis resigned the editorship. It was promptly and in the
most manly manner disavowed by the house of Harper & Bros."--Edward
Cary, _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 unfair
dealing, but the deep and general Republican dissatisfaction greatly
disturbed him. His friends urged him to withdraw. Stewart L. Woodford,
then United States attorney, insisted that fraud and forgery vitiated
all the convention did, and that the "short, direct, and honourable
way out of it was to refuse the nomination."[1796] The Kings County
executive committee assured him that many influential Republicans
considered this the wisest course. From prominent men in all parts of
the State came similar advice. This view appealed to his own better
judgment, and he had decided so to act until persuaded otherwise by
the pleadings of the Stalwarts.[1797] His acceptance, recalling the
Tilden letter of 1880, was a touching appeal to the voters. Referring
to 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 to
measure the truth of all these reports; that of one is beyond
dispute."[1798] Nevertheless, Folger could not deny that he was a
willing recipient of that "one," through the influence of which, by
creating the impression that Robertson and other anti-Administration
leaders favoured the Stalwart's choice of a temporary chairman, he
gained a much greater power in the convention than his eight majority
represented.[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 of
October 4.]

[Footnote 1799: It was generally known that this influence changed the
votes of two acting State committeemen, who had agreed to act with the
Cornell men.--See the _Nation_ of October 5; also the New York
_Tribune_, October 4.]

In accepting the Democratic nomination Cleveland had the great
advantage of not being obliged to refer to anything of which he was
ashamed. Its tone was simple, sober, and direct, and from the
principles expressed, the measures advocated, or the language
employed, the reader could form no idea to what party the writer
belonged. He desired primary elections to be "uncontaminated and
fairly conducted"; condemned the interference of "officials of any
degree, State or Federal, for the purpose of thwarting or controlling
the popular wish"; favoured tenure of office in the civil service
being dependent upon "ability and merit"; and denounced the levying of
political assessments, declaring "the expenditure of money to
influence the action of the people at the polls or to secure
legislation is calculated to excite the gravest concern."[1800]

[Footnote 1800: Cleveland's letter appears in the press of October
10.]

The campaign became historic because it revealed the most serious
disturbance in the Republican party since the war. Little was heard
save apology, indignant protest, and appeal to tradition. Whatever
Republican hope existed was based upon the unworthiness of the
Democratic party. In a letter to an Albany meeting Folger declared,
after highly praising his opponent, that "There is one difference
which goes to the root of the matter when we are brought to view as
public men and put forward to act in public affairs. He is a Democrat.
I am a Republican." Then, becoming an alarmist, he referred to the
shrinkage in the value of stocks on the day after the Democratic
victory in Ohio. "That shrinkage has been going on ever since," he
said. "Do the business interests of the country dread a return of the
Democratic party to power? Will the election of Cleveland increase it?
These are questions for hesitating Republicans to ponder."[1801] This
Stock Exchange view of politics, redolent of the operations of brokers
in Wall Street, did not help the Republican candidate. Curtis thought
it, coming from the Secretary of the Treasury, "most extraordinary."[1802]
Besides, the decline in the stock market began before the Ohio
election, 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 of
its avowed purpose to rid the city of dishonest political tricksters,
the County Democracy made bedfellows of Tammany and Irving Hall, and
nominated Franklin Edson for mayor. This union was the more offensive
because in its accomplishment the Whitney organisation turned its back
upon 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, and
of the highest integrity, independence, and courage. His friends
naturally resented the indignity, and for ten days an effective
canvass deeply stirred New York.

Nevertheless, the Republican party was doomed. Managers beckoned hope
by frequent assertions, sometimes in the form of bulletins, that the
indignation was subsiding. Smyth and his State Committee disclaimed
any part in the wrong-doing by expressing, in the form of a
resolution, their "detestation of the forged proxy, and of all the
methods and purposes to which such wretched fraud and treachery
apply."[1803] Even the nominee for lieutenant-governor argued that he
was an honest man. But the people had their own opinion, and a count
of the votes showed that Folger, in spite of his pure and very useful
life, had been sacrificed,[1804] while Cleveland had a majority
greater than was ever known in a contested State election. It was so
astounding that Democrats themselves did not claim it, in the usual
sense, as a Democratic victory.[1805] Everybody recognised it as a
rebuke to Executive dictation and corrupt political methods. But no
one denied that Cleveland helped swell the majority. He became known
as the "Veto Mayor," and the history of his brief public life was
common knowledge. His professional career, unlike Tilden's, disclosed
no dark spots. He had been an honest lawyer as well as an upright
public official, and the people believed that his stubborn
independence and sturdy integrity would make him a real governor, the
enemy 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 with
Judge Howe, the postmaster-general, going out to the table with him,
and here he is dead! Poor Arthur, he will find the Presidency more
gruesome with a favourite cabinet minister gone! If it were Folger
now, I suppose he would not care, for they really do not know what to
do 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 Federal
Constitution, 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 as
del.-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 on
Niagara 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 (carriage
extra).

This work presents a history of the movements of political parties in
New York State from 1774 to 1861, and embraces a series of brilliant
character studies of the leaders, most of them of national importance,
who, from the days of George Clinton, have drawn the attention of the
nation to New York. The astute methods and sources of power by which
George Clinton, Hamilton, Burr, DeWitt Clinton, Van Buren, Seymour and
Thurlow Weed each successively controlled the political destiny of the
State are clearly and picturesquely set forth.

"It meets a want widely felt and repeatedly expressed during the past
hundred years.... It would be impossible in a dozen notices to render
any sort of justice to the extensive scope of this work and to the
multiplicity 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 the
subject."--_Boston Transcript._

"Without question he has performed ... his task very capably. He
addresses the general reader and takes pains to be entertaining,
dealing with men in preference to measures--and only the most
conspicuous, the most interesting men.... Of these outstanding figures
there are full length portraits--biographies, indeed, in ample detail
strung on a long thread of politics, while very many minor characters
have thumb-nail sketches. Few of the good anecdotes available, it
would seem, have escaped Mr. Alexander, and good stories do not suffer
at his hands."--_The New York Globe._

"Will not only repay careful reading, but should be placed among the
permanent reference books of every man who has occasion to know
anything about the politics of this state.... Estimates of the great
men ... are among its most interesting features."--_Buffalo Express._

"The most entertaining story of state politics in American
history."--_Review of Reviews._

"Will be read with great interest and profit outside the Empire
State."--_Cleveland Plain Dealer._


Henry Holt and Company
29 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 of
Reviews._

"Very interesting.... Much sound originality of treatment, and the
style is clear."--_Springfield Republican._


AS THE HAGUE ORDAINS

Journal of a Russian Prisoner's Wife in Japan. Illustrated from
photographs. $1.50 net, by mail $1.62.

"Holds a tremendous human interest.... Author writes with wit and a
delightfully feminine abandon."--_Outlook._

"This surprisingly outspoken volume ... could have been written only
by an extraordinarily able woman who knew the inside of Russian
politics and also had actual experience in Japanese war
hospitals."--_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 Panama
Canal."--_Nation._


JOHN L. GIVENS' MAKING A NEWSPAPER

The author was recently with the _New York Evening Sun_. $1.50 net; by
mail $1.62.

Some seventy-five leading newspapers praise this book as the best
detailed account of the business, editorial, reportorial and
manufacturing organization of a metropolitan journal. It should be
invaluable to those entering upon newspaper work and a revelation to
the general reader.


THE OPEN ROAD
THE 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 American
authors, 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 COMPANY
PUBLISHERS (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 Immigration
Restriction League. 393 pp. $1.50 net. By mail, $1.65.

"Should prove interesting to everyone. Very readable, forceful and
convincing. Mr. Hall considers every possible phase of this great
question and does it in a masterly way that shows not only that he
thoroughly understands it, but that he is deeply interested in it and
has 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. As
a trustworthy general guide it should prove a godsend."--_N.Y. Evening
Post._

"Earnest and unprejudiced.... Cannot fail to be of great assistance in
clarifying and setting on a solid foundation the ideas of people who
are now becoming convinced that the problems of immigration in the
nation and the municipality will soon reach a more acute stage than
ever before."--_Philadelphia Press._

"An auspicious omen of the worth of Messrs. Henry Holt and Company's
recently announced series on American Public Problems.... Mr. Hall has
been in close touch with the immigration movement and he writes with a
grasp and a fullness of information which must commend his work to
every reader.... A handbook ... to which one may turn conveniently for
information for which he would otherwise be obliged to search through
many a dusty document."--_The World To-day._


THE ELECTION OF SENATORS

By Professor GEORGE H. HAYNES, Author of "Representation in State
Legislatures." 300 pp. $1.50 net. By mail $1.65.

Shows the historical reasons for the present method, and its effect on
the senate and senators, and on state and local government, with a
detailed review of the arguments for and against direct election.

"A timely book.... Prof. Haynes is qualified for a historical and
analytical treatise on the subject of the Senate."--_N.Y. Evening
Sun._

"Well worth reading, and unique because it is devoted wholly to the
election of senators and to the deliberations of the Senate."--_Boston
Transcript._

"Able and dispassionate, and ought to be widely read."--_New York
Commercial._

"Of considerable popular as well as historical interest."--_Dial._


Henry Holt and Company
29 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 to
our politics, _2d printing_ 436 pp. $1.75 net. By mail $1.92.

The Rev. EDWARD EVERETT HALE in "Lend a Hand": "Sensible people who
wish to know, who wish to form good sound opinions, and especially
those who wish to take their honest part in the great duties of the
hour, will read the book, will study it, and will find nothing else
better worth reading and study."

"Admirable, exactly the sort of book needed.... Enlightened and
persuasive discussion of the negro problem in its present phases and
aspects. Not a dry history. Human, dramatic, interesting, absorbing,
there is philosophy of national and political life back of it--a
philosophy which not only furnished interpretation of past events, but
offers guidance for the future.... Impartial and informing.... There
is much that tempts quotation.... Mr. Merriam has given us an
excellent, high-minded, illuminating book on the problem of the
American negro."--_Chicago Record-Herald._

"A deeply interesting story.... An exceedingly readable volume,
especially valuable in its analyses of conditions, causes, situations
and results; and against his main conclusions no sane person can
contend."--_Boston Transcript._


STUDIES IN AMERICAN TRADE-UNIONISM

J.H. HOLLANDER and G.E. BARNETT (Editors)

Twelve papers by graduate students and officers of Johns Hopkins
University, the results of original investigations of representative
Trade Unions. There are also chapters on Employers' Associations, the
Knights 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 result
is a substantial contribution to our knowledge of trade-union
structure and functions.... Excellent studies."--_New York Evening
Post._

"It is doubtful if anything approaching it in breadth and coördination
has yet found its way into print.... A very useful book."--_San
Francisco Chronicle._


Henry Holt and Company
34 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 the
Philippines by a former editorial writer of the _New York Evening
Post_, who was also Washington correspondent of the _New York Journal
of Commerce_ and _Springfield Republican_, and is now a professor in
Washington and Lee University.

"Anyone desiring to inform himself fully as to the history, politics,
public questions, in short, everything dealing with the subject of
American control of the Philippines from the day Dewey entered Manila
harbor to the present, will find Mr. Willis's work a most important
book.... He writes of the Filipinos as he found them, and with the
knack of the true investigator, has avoided falling in with the
political views of any party or faction. More valuable still is his
exposition of the Philippine question in its bearings on American life
and politics. A most exhaustive, careful, honest and unbiased review
of every phase of the question."--_The Washington Post._

"A keen, exhaustive and merciless criticism of the whole Philippine
experiment.... His unsparing analysis of all the departments of
Philippine government must (however) command respect as able, honest
and sincere ... no other book contains more solid truth, or a greater
section 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 the
Panama Canal, to those on both coasts of the Pacific, and to the
islands, besides analyzing the strength and weakness of our rivals. 13
maps, 334 pp. $1.50 net. By mail, $1.62.

"A most interesting treatise ... having an important bearing upon our
future progress."--_Public Opinion._

"His observations on the Panama Canal and the future of the Dutch East
Indies are particularly interesting and suggestive."--_Review of
Reviews._

"An interesting ... survey of a broad field ... contains a great
variety of useful information ... especially valuable to American
exporters."--_Outlook._


Henry Holt and Company
34 W. 33D STREET (V, '06) NEW YORK




BIOLOGY AND ITS MAKERS

By W.A. Locy.

By the Professor of Biology in Northwestern University. 123
illustrations. 8vo. $2.75 net, by mail $2.88.

"Entertainingly written, and, better than any other existing single
work in any language, gives the layman a clear idea of the scope and
development 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 as
clear a notion of what the old régime was at its best as may be found
anywhere 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. Historical
biographies 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. $1.25
net, by mail $1.35.

"A most readable book. He touches upon everything."--_Boston
Transcript._


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-time
Frenchmen.... In his text he explains the controversy so that the
plain man may understand it, while in the notes he adduces the
evidence that the specialist requires.... A brilliant book that
deserves general attention."--_New York Sun._

       *       *       *       *       *

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 COMPANY
34 WEST 33d STREET NEW YORK