A Political History of the State of New York Volume III Part 28

[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 a.s.sumed the right to subst.i.tute 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 embarra.s.sed 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 a.s.semblage 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 att.i.tude 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 champions.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sembled 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 _Cyclopaedia_, 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 a.s.sailed 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 a.s.sume to overlook such treatment and accept its author as a political a.s.sociate 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 a.s.sembling 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 a.s.sociates been content with power without plunder. Samuel S. c.o.x, 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. c.o.x's election to Congress from New York occurred in 1870, three years after he became a resident of the State.]

Next to c.o.x 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 cooperate with the Bar a.s.sociation, with the Committee of Seventy, and with the Munic.i.p.al Taxpayers' a.s.sociation. 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 a.s.sembling of the convention, for the question of nomination or indors.e.m.e.nt 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 indors.e.m.e.nt. 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 a.s.sumed 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 Ma.s.sachusetts 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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sembled 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, ca.n.a.l 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 ca.n.a.l 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 canva.s.sed a majority seemed inclined to William H. Robertson of Westchester. He had been an a.s.semblyman, 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 pus.h.i.+ng 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 canva.s.s 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 pa.s.sage.

[Footnote 1387: August 21, 1872; New York _Tribune_, August 22.