A Political History of the State of New York Volume II Part 29

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 Const.i.tution 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 subst.i.tuted 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 Const.i.tution.[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 unsurpa.s.sed by any words of Seward's earlier productions,"[699] and Whittier, charmed with its conciliatory tone, paid its author a n.o.ble 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 n.o.bly 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 Pa.s.sion 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 beat.i.tudes, 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 bas.e.m.e.nt 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 a.s.sumed a sort of dictators.h.i.+p for defence."[702] He advised the President-elect to reach Was.h.i.+ngton 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, _Ma.s.sachusetts 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 Was.h.i.+ngton," 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-fellows.h.i.+p 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 att.i.tude 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 pet.i.tion, with thirty-eight thousand signatures, which William E. Dodge and other business men of New York had brought to Was.h.i.+ngton, 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 pa.s.s 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 ent.i.tled 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 att.i.tude 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 Const.i.tution, 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 a.s.sail 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 p.r.o.nounced. "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 pa.s.sages 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."--Was.h.i.+ngton 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 Const.i.tutional 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 Was.h.i.+ngton, 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 ma.n.u.script, "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 _pa.s.sion_ 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 pa.s.sion 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, pa.s.s 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 pa.s.sion 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 Was.h.i.+ngton 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 att.i.tude, was given the treasury. The shock of this defeat led the New York Senator to decline entering the Cabinet. "Circ.u.mstances 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 a.s.sistance 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 s.h.i.+ver 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.]