"Informal ballot: Morgan, 25; King, 16; d.i.c.kinson, 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; d.i.c.kinson, 11; Raymond, 8; Sedgwick, 7; Field, 5.
"Second formal ballot: Morgan, 50; d.i.c.kinson, 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 cla.s.s 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. d.i.c.kinson. 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 ca.n.a.ls.
[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 a.s.sembly 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 d.i.c.kinson.--_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 "n.o.body 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 pa.s.s 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 pa.s.sion. For avarice is more ign.o.ble 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 G.o.d 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 d.i.c.kinson, 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 const.i.tuted authorities, and respect for legal and const.i.tutional obligations;" he demanded economy and integrity; and he affirmed that "under no circ.u.mstances 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 Const.i.tution, 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 Const.i.tution." 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 a.s.sumed," 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 a.s.sume 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 cooperation 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 a.s.sure 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 const.i.tutional powers. For the preservation of this Union I am ready to make any sacrifice of interest, pa.s.sion, 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 a.s.sailed the Administration. In a moment the whole North was in a turmoil. Everywhere ma.s.s 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 a.s.sembly 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 inst.i.tutions at the North."[895]