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 pa.s.sing 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 att.i.tude 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 a.s.suring 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 a.s.sociate 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 Const.i.tution 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 a.s.sisted 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 acc.u.mulation 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 p.r.o.nouncing 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. Ca.s.sidy 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 Const.i.tution; 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 pa.s.sion, placed obstacles in its own pathway which it cannot overcome, and has hampered its own freedom of action by unconst.i.tutional acts. The bigotry of fanatics and the intrigues of placemen have made the b.l.o.o.d.y pages of the history of the past three years."
It was impossible not to be impressed by such an impa.s.sioned 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 pa.s.sions. 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 l.u.s.tre."[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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 _Cyclopaedia_, 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, a.s.sociated with a n.o.ble 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 surpa.s.sing 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 coordinate all his resources and to bring them into their place in the accomplishment of his purposes. This was conspicuously ill.u.s.trated 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 const.i.tuents 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; Ca.n.a.l 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. d.i.c.kinson, 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 indors.e.m.e.nt 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.]