[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 const.i.tutional 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 pa.s.sed it to Morgan. For Seward, it read, 173-1/2; for Lincoln, 102. Morgan repeated it to the mult.i.tude, 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 G.o.d 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 embarra.s.sment, 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 "ingrat.i.tude." 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 embarra.s.sing 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 att.i.tude 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 rea.s.sembled 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 subst.i.tute 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 princ.i.p.al 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 a.s.serted 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. G.o.d 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 a.s.sembled 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 doc.u.ment 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 const.i.tuencies, 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 subst.i.tute 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 embarra.s.sing. 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 a.s.serted 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 Soule, 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 antic.i.p.ated the withdrawal of Ma.s.sachusetts.
When they were gone, Pierre Soule 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 Soule"s speech greatly animated and rea.s.sured the friends of Douglas, who now received 173-1/2 of the 190-1/2 votes cast. d.i.c.kinson 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 circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.sed 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. d.i.c.kinson, told the story of the majority"s purpose at Charleston and Baltimore. d.i.c.kinson 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 Inst.i.tute ma.s.s-meeting, called to ratify the Breckenridge and Lane ticket, revealed a vision clouded with pa.s.sion 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 n.o.ble party. They proclaimed personally and through their accredited organs that the Southern States were ent.i.tled 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.]