\ ' . ■ . 'r'^ \^ * POLITICAL HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR £11 ?70—W w ' **% PREFACE Within the past dozen years or so, there has been a growing recognition that the political history of some of our states is worthy of investigation. That this is true of New York especially has been frequently observed. Until a very recent date, the only political history of this State deserv- ing the name was Hammond's; and that carried the nar- rative only to 1848. Since then, Alexander's three-volume work has been published. My study was begun before the announcement of Alexander's first two volumes was made in 1906, and it was nearly finished when his third vol- ume (which deals with the greater part of the period here covered) appeared in 1909. I have made little or no use of Alexander. A comparison of my attempt with his work will show how differently we have conceived the field. In the treatment of topics which belong to the general history of the country or the history of the national political parties, the aim here has been to omit so far as possible whatever did not relate immediately to New York State or its action; in other words, to avoid repeating what may be found in other books, such as Rhodes' History of the United States. The most interesting and piquant details of the politics of the time, I am not able to give. Until more memoirs relat- ing to the subject are published or correspondence of the leaders revealed, occurrences such as those which took place in Thurlow Weed's room at the Astor House * must remain unknown. Thus far, there is a paucity of material dealing 1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 237. 205] 5 6 PREFACE [ 20 6 with this phase of New York's history, outside of the news- papers. It is largely upon these sources of information, rather looked down upon though perhaps not with good reason, as Mr. James Ford Rhodes has pointed out, 1 that one must rely. I trust that by basing many of the statements made upon at least two sources of different political faith or of a different nature, some of the pitfalls attending the use of newspapers as material for history have been avoided. Of course, where a document is printed in full in a paper or book, this double reference has not been made. Care has been taken, by a comparison of wording, not to cite Associated Press dispatches from more than one paper. The Herald references frequently include both material furnished by the Associated Press and by the Herald's own special correspond- ent. The press of that day was not the same as now. More attention was given to politics ; legislative proceedings were reported in detail, as were those of conventions and com- mittees ; and important letters bearing upon politics were often published. From the newspapers, one can at least learn the outward doings in the political field of that time. I wish to express my gratitude to Professors William A. Dunning and Herbert L. Osgood for reading the manu- script and proofs. I am especially indebted to Professor Dunning. He suggested the subject and encouraged me while working it out, and to his assistance must be attributed very many corrections and improvements. Sidney D. Brummer. New York, March i, 1910. 1 Rhodes' Historical Essays, p. 83 et seq. CONTENTS CHAPTER I PAGB The Political Situation in New York State in i860 Character of New York politics during the war period 17 Factions within the Republican party 17 Thurlow Weed 19 How far was Weed corrupt ? 22 The Democratic factions. The Albany Regency 24 Tammany Hall 26 Mozart Hall 27 Wood's up-State allies 29 Fragments of decomposed parties 31 The offices in i860 . 32 Character of the state government . ■•.... 33 The rings in New York City 35 Political rottenness in New York City, 1860-1865 36 The slavery issue in the Legislature of i860 39 The New York City railroad bills 40 Proposed legislation against the New York Central Railroad ... 42 The metropolitan police bill and the proposed charter amendments for New York City .... 46 CHAPTER II New York and the Presidential Nominations of i860 The Wood delegation to Charleston 48 The Regency delegation 49 The Regency wins the first stages of the contest 52 The Regency delegation seated .... 53 Action of the New York delegation in the Charleston convention. 54 New York at Baltimore 56 New York's part in the nominations of Bell and Everett 60 Seward the choice of the Republicans of New York 62 Greeley's activity at Chicago 63 Bitter controversy among New York Republicans 64 Nevertheless, New York supports Lincoln heartily 67 207] 7 8 CONTENTS [ 20 8 PAGE CHAPTER III The Campaign of i860 in New York Prospects of a fusion electoral ticket 70 Fernando Wood, Mozart Hall, and other prominent Democrats for fusion 71 Attitude of the Bell-Everett men 73 Obstacles to the formation of a fusion 73 The Constitutional Union State Convention of i860 75 The Breckinridge Democratic State Convention 76 The Douglas Democratic State Convention • . . . 78 Controversy over the Bell-Everett electoral candidates 80 Attempt of the Democratic State Committees to arrange a fusion . 81 Fusion finally consummated 83 Democratic prospects of success weakened by the long and em- bittered negotiations 86 The Republican State Convention of i860 86 Weakness of the fusion 88 The issues of the campaign in New York State ...» 90 Part played by the commercial interests of New York City .... 91 Notable array of speakers and numerous meetings of the Republi- cans 93 The Wide Awakes and the Little Giants 94 Disadvantages of the Democrats 95 The former American vote 96 Attempt to frighten Lincoln supporters by a commercial panic . . 96 Results of the election. Defeat of the proposed amendment to the state constitution 97 CHAPTER IV New York Politics at the Eve of the War The crisis of December, i860: measures advocated by Greeley and Weed respectively 99 The majority of New York Republicans opposed to Weed's pro- posed compromise . . 101 Attitude of the Democrats: fhe Pine Street meeting 101 The Legislature of 1861 : contest in the Republican caucus ... 102 Differences in the Republican ranks 104 Robinson's resolutions concerning the territories 105 Attitude of the Democrats in the Legislature during the early months of 1861 105 Resolutions reported from committee in the Assembly and in the Senate 107 209] CONTENTS g PAGE A Republican caucus votes down compromise 109 The compromisers defeated in the Assembly 109 The question of the appointment of commissioners to the Peace Conference at Washington . no Call for a Democratic state convention to save the Union .... 112 Prominent members of the convention 114 Contest between Tammany and Mozart 116 Seymour's speech 117 Speeches of Tremain, Thayer, and Tilden 119 The resolutions adopted and the committees appointed 121 Ineffectiveness of the convention 123 Utterances of New York Democratic extremists: Mayor Wood, the Albany Argus, and Daniel E. Sickles . 123 The great " Union-saving " meeting at Cooper Institute 126 Wood and the Georgia muskets 126 Rivalry between the Greeley and Weed factions 127 Their contest in Washington over the cabinet 128 The Greeley-Evarts senatorial contest 130 Election of Ira Harris 134 The two factions battle for the control of the federal patronage in New York 136 Democratic opposition in February to a bill appropriating money for equipping the militia 139 Tremendous change caused by the attack on Fort Sumter: action of the Legislature; attitude of the Democratic legislators .... 140 Patriotic meetings throughout the State 143 The monster meeting in New York City 144 Patriotic stand of many Democrats 147 Evidence that some Democrats were swept along unwillingly by the revolution in public sentiment 148 CHAPTER V The Genesis of the Union Party in New York Early appearance of a partisan revival in this State 151 Activity of the peace press 152 The Democratic state organization refuses to accept the Republican invitation to unite on a Union ticket 154 Importance of the action of the Democratic organization on this occasion 155 Resolutions of the Democratic State Committee 156 IO CONTENTS [2io PAGE The necessity of subordinating politics to the interests of the coun- try admitted by all parties in New York, but rejected in practice by the Democratic state organization 157 The Democratic State Convention of 1861 158 Contest between Tammany and Mozart 160 The platform a victory for the advocates of peace 162 The ninth resolution a great handicap to the Democrats 164 The People's State Convention 165 The Republican State Convention unites with the People's Con- vention in support of a Union ticket ... . 169 The Union platform 169 Partial fusion of Republicans and War Democrats on local and legislative nominations .... 170 Mozart ratifies the Union state ticket; Tammany repudiates a part of the Democratic state platform 171 Nevertheless, Mozart and Tammany amicably divide the local spoils: triumph of the ring . . 173 Result of the election 175 The New York City charter election of December, 1861 . . . 175 CHAPTER VI The Legislative Session of 1862 A lull in New York politics during the early part of 1862 179 The Legislature of 1862: composition and leaders 180 Caucus contest for the speakership 181 Weakness of the Democratic minority . 184 Subjects of the few partisan divisions which did occur . . . 185 Notable absence of party spirit in the Legislature of 1862 186 The session develops, however, important personal rivalries in the ranks of the majority 187 The question of taxation 187 The bill for harbor defence 189 Struggle between the New York City factions transferred to the Legislature 190 Nevertheless, the threatened, rupture in the ranks of the majority fails to develop 191 Attitude of the Seward-Weed faction toward a renewal of the fusion. 191 Calling of a Union legislative caucus 194 Action of the caucus 194 The Union legislative address and resolutions 197 Importance of the action of New York on this occasion . . . . 200 \ 2i i] CONTENTS H PAGE CHAPTER VII The Revival of Party Politics Influences at work in New York to produce a revival of party politics 201 Temporary eclipse of Weed; his trip to Europe 201 Return of Weed; the effect of his reentrance into New York politics. 202 Revival of rumors of a conservative alliance 203 Influence of the progress of the Republican party toward abolition. 204 New York City as a center of abolition agitation 205 Activity of anti-abolitionists in New York City 206 Influence of the reverses met with by the Federal armies during the summer of 1862 208 Union war meetings 208 The proposed state draft 209 Attitude of the former Bell-Everett men and of the Democrats toward a Union ticket 210 The Constitutional Union State Convention of 1862 ..... 212 The Democratic State Convention of 1862 213 Nomination of Seymour. His speech 215 The platform 217 Strength of the ticket 217 The Republican-Union Convention of 1862 218 Wadsworth favored by the radicals ... 218 Weed supports Dix and a conservative platform 220 Morgan, Fenton, and Cook 221 Tremain's speech 222 Speeches of Johnson, Raymond, and Noyes 224 A victory for the radical wing 224 CHAPTER VIII The Triumph of the Opposition Justification of a detailed account of the campaign in New York State in 1862 227 The importance of the election in New York to the country as a whole emphasized by both parties 227 The Democrats accused of disloyalty . . 228 The past utterances of Seymour and other New York Democratic leaders used against their party 230 Charge that Seymour if elected governor would not cooperate with the national administration in carrying on the war 232 12 CONTENTS [212 PACK The necessity of laying aside party as an issue of the campaign . . 233 Seymour denies the charges of disloyalty 235 The Democrats accuse their adversaries of being the real enemies of the national administration 236 Bitterness of the canvass 237 Abolition as an issue in New York 238 Arbitrary proceedings of the national administration as an issue . 240 Corruption and inefficiency at Washington as issues 242 Answer of the Republican-Unionists to the charges of corruption and inefficiency on the part of the national administration . . . 243 Weakness of the Democratic attacks on the failures to end the war. 244 Wadsworth's relations to McClellan 245 Other issues 247 Notable speakers during the campaign 247 Importance of the contests for congress and for the state legislature. 247 Effect of the state enrolment on the election 248 Result of the election 249 Examination of the causes of Wadsworth's defeat 249 Effect of the Democratic victory . 254 CHAPTER IX The Partisan Revival in the Legislature Seymour's opportunity as governor in 1863 255 His inaugural speech 257 His annual message of 1863 258 Attempt to remove the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. 261 The tie in the Assembly . 264 Exciting and disorderly contest for the speakership 265 Election of Callicot 269 Democratic charge of a corrupt bargain leads to a renewal of par- tisan battles over Callicot . . . 270 The election of a United States senator. Result of the Union caucus 271 The Democratic nomination 273 Morgan's election a victory for the conservative wing of the Union party . . . 273 Partisan debates in the Legislature of 1863 274 Debates on the McClellan resolutions 275 Debates on the administration's emancipation policy 276 The question of the payment of the interest on the state debt in specie or greenbacks . 277 213] CONTENTS 13 PAGK The bill authorizing state banks to become national banks .... 277 The bill to permit those in the federal military service to vote . . . 278 Seymour's special message . . 280 Passage of the bill by the two houses, and its veto by the Governor. 282 Comparative weakness of the peace faction among the Democratic legislators of New York 283 The Democratic legislative address • . 285 Criticism of the address 287 The Union legislative address . 288 CHAPTER X Movements within the Unionist Ranks The Weed faction and the Democrats 290 Retirement of Weed from the Albany Evening Journal 291 Warfare between Weed and his radical adversaries 292 John Van Buren and James T. Brady 295 Organization of the Loyal Union League 295 The Loyal National League 297 The Madison Square demonstration 298 Political significance of the loyal league movement 300 State conventions of the loyal leagues . 301 CHAPTER XI Copperheadism in New York Attitude of the Democrats of New York toward conscription . . • 303 Mozart Hall and Fernando Wood declare against the act . ... 304 Wood's mass meeting favors peace and opposes conscription . . 306 Indignation of New York Democrats at the Vallandigham arrest 308 Vallandigham meetings of protest at Albany, Buffalo, and Brooklyn. 309 The New York City meeting 311 Divisions in the New York Democracy on the question of support- ing the prosecution of the war 315 Wood's mass state convention for peace and reunion 316 CHAPTER XII Seymour on Trial The draft riot 320 Governor Seymour's actions and measures on this occasion . . . 321 H CONTENTS Warm controversy among the metropolitan newspapers over the riot 323 The draft in the rest of the State . . -?"-? The question of whether the draft would be enforced in New Yo .. City 324 Action of Democratic common councils and boards of supervisors. 325 Seymour's correspondence with Lincoln about the draft ... . 327 Criticism of Seymour's letters 329 Correspondence between Dix and Seymour 335 Seymour's proclamation of August 18th 336 The Union State Convention of 1863 337 The platform 338 The new Union State Committee 339 The Democratic State Convention of 1863 340 Seymour's address to the convention 340 The resolutions and nominations 342 Issues of the campaign -44 General substitution of the designation " Union " for the old party name "Republican" 348 Prominent speakers during the campaign 349 Factors effecting the result 350 Furloughs for the soldiers 351 Result of the election 352 The Tammany and Mozart machines defeated in the New York City charter election 353 CHAPTER XIII The Legislative Session of 1864 Governor Seymour's annual message of 1864 355 Criticism of the message 358 Seymour's position compared with that of the Woods 359 Character and composition of the Legislature of 1864 359 Constitutional amendment and law to enable soldiers to vote . . . 360 Party debates over the appropriation for the militia 361 Question of legalizing bounty debts 362 National versus state banks 363 Interest on the state debt 366 The metropolitan police commission bill 368 Resolution in favor of an amendment to the federal constitution prohibiting slavery 368 2I3 ] CONTENTS I5 PAGE CHAPTER XIV New York and the Presidential Nominations of 1864 mocratic State Convention of February, 1864, to elect delegates to the national convention 371 Proposed address and declaration of principles of Tammany Hall . 373 Action of the Unionists of New York on the question of endorsing Lincoln for a renomination 374 Activity of those opposed to Lincoln 376 New York at the Cleveland convention 378 The Union State Convention of May, 1864, to elect delegates to the national convention 379 The State Committee of War Democrats 380 New York's part in the National Union Convention at Baltimore. 381 Controversy among New York Unionists after the convention . 384 Weed's relations with Lincoln 389 The, United States assistant treasurership at New York City . . . 392 We a's joy at Chase's resignation 393 The New York custom-house captured by the Weed men .... 394 The Union State Convention of September, 1864 395 Superior strength of the anti-Weed men in the convention .... 397 Activity of the peace advocates among New York Democrats dur- ing the summer of 1864 397 The mass peace convention 399 Movement in New York in behalf of McClellan 401 New York at the National Democratic Convention of 1864 .... 403 CHAPTER XV The Defeat of the Peace Party Danger of a collision between the federal government and the state administration of New York . 407 The seizure of the New York World and of the New York Journal of Commerce ; action of Seymour ... ... 408 Refusal of the Grand Jury to indict the military officers. Further action of Seymour and of Judge Russel 409 Seymour and the call for hundred days men 410 His order for the increase of the militia. John A. Green 412 Renewal of friction between the national and state administrations over the draft 413 The Democratic State Convention of September, 1864 414 Renomination of Seymour 417 1 6 CONTENTS [216 PAGE Reception of the presidential nominations in New York State - . 419 Effect of the victories of the army and navy 423 The War Democrats of New York 423 Other features of the campaign in New York . . 424 Issues of the canvass in this State 425 Threats of violence 432 The alleged frauds in the collection of the soldiers' votes 432 Orders issued by General Dix before the election; Seymour's proclamation 436 Exciting incidents at the close of the campaign 438 Result of the election 439 Conclusion 442 CHAPTER I The Political Situation in New York in i860 In the history of American political parties, the years from 1852 to 1868 form a transition period, a time of dis- integration and instability, new alignment and reorganiza- tion. The causes which produced these results in the coun- try generally were active in New York State ; and as a result, New York politics, always complicated, were during these years even more tangled than usual. On the eve of the Civil War, each of the great parties in this State was torn by rival factions more or less defined. In addition, there were the various unattached fragments of former political or- ganizations then but recently shattered. So it was that tremendous as the effects of the war were, it produced only a momentary unity among the many jarring elements pres- ent at its outbreak; and consequently, factional struggles formed the main characteristic of party politics in New York State during the war. Where unanimity might rea- sonably have been expected, we not only have two rival parties, one composed of supporters of the national admin- istration and the other of those hostile to it, but each of these organizations partly paralyzed by continual struggles within. The Republican Party in i860 was of too recent birth to have crystallized entirely. Composed of heterogeneous ele- ments, of which the most important, the former Whigs and the former Free-soil Democrats, had no bond but a common attitude on the slavery question and had recently been ac- tively opposed on other issues, the resulting discord was especially prominent in New York. That portion of the 2171 17 ig NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 i8 party which was of Whig antecedents looked upon William H. Seward as their leader, but was actively generated by Thurlow Weed, aided by Henry J. Raymond. As is well known, Weed was devoted to Seward's advancement. On the other hand, Seward once remarked, " Weed is Seward, and Seward is Weed ; each approves what the other says or does " j 1 and as far as we have any evidence, this statement was true. The most prominent organs of this faction were Weed's paper, the Albany Evening Journal, and Raymond's New York Times. The anti-Seward wing, as the oppo- nents of Weed were often denominated in the press, was for the most part made up of the former Free-soil Democratic element, 2 plus Horace Greeley. The other leading men of this faction were Lieutenant-Governor Campbell, a man of ability, integrity, and independence, who appears to have been a serious obstacle to the execution of some of Weed's plans ; 3 David Dudley Field, one of New York's most eminent lawyers ; George Opdyke, later mayor of New York City; and William Cullen Bryant, poet and editor. All of these four men were former Barnburners, opposed to corruption, and radicals on the slavery question. The opponents of Weed had two powerful organs in Greeley's '"Diary of Gideon Welles," Atlantic Monthly, April, 1900, p. 482. Weed practically said the same (Weed, Autobiography, pp. 422-3). 2 This statement, based partly on an examination of the names of the leading men opposed to Weed and partly upon the scattered character- izationsof newspaper writers, is confirmed by Godwin s Bryant , ii, p. 142. 3 Herald, Jan. 14, 26, March 29, i860; Tribune, Jan. 5, 1863. Camp- bell's uprightness was alluded to from time to time by the correspond- ents of both the Herald and the Tribune', while the Argus, politically opposed to him, said upon his retirement: " Campbell's integrity in public life is something more than a mere passive virtue. He has re- sisted wrong not only with energy and courage, but with forecast and judgment. He has not awaited the approaches of public corruption; but he has gone forth armed against it, to defeat it ere it grew strong " {Argus, Jan. 1, 1863). 219] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 IO , Tribune and Bryant's Post. But they lacked a general equal in political ability to Weed, and it was their misfortune to be led by so poor a politician as Greeley. The existence of this faction, however, served to temper the sway of Weed. Up to i860, he had kept firm control over his party. He was another Warwick, making sena- tors, governors, and state officers; and in the three decades previous to that year, but three state conventions refused to follow his lead. 1 Speakers of the assembly had been wont to consult him when forming their committees. 2 Those who aspired to office sought his influence. 3 But begin- ning about i860, the anti-Weed men raised their heads. In that year, they had possession of some of the higher state offices, and as ex-officio members of the Canal Board 4 had control of some of the most important state patronage. 5 In the state Senate of i860, the Weed slate for harbor-masters met with a setback, two of the nominations being rejected at first because of the defection of seven Republican mem- bers and the casting vote of the Lieutenant-Governor; and they were confirmed later only because of the repentance of three of the rebels and the aid of some of the Democrats. 6 1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 258. 2 Letter of Weed to the editors of the Albany Argus, April 10, 1863. 3 Weed, Autobiography, p. 584. 4 The canal board consisted of the lieutenant-governor, the secretary of state, the controller, the state treasurer, the attorney-general, the state engineer and surveyor, and three canal commissioners. 5 Herald, March q, May 7, i860. This was confirmed by the Argus of Jan. 16, i86r, which said that Bruce would be the " sole representa- tive of Seward Whig Republicanism in the Canal Board." An idea of the extent of this patronage may be gained by a list of appointments made in 1864; this included 36 collectors, 10 inspectors and measurers, 6 weighmasters, 5 superintendents for the Erie Canal, 7 superintend- ents for the other canals. Tribune, Jan. 28, 1864. 6 Herald, Feb. 3, 9, 16, March 29; Argus, Feb. 1, 9, 16; Tribune, Feb. 9. j NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 20 Then came the Chicago convention, accompanied by a ser- ious revolt against Weed and ending in disaster for him. At the beginning of the war, Weed's influence had passed its zenith. An examination of a list of names of those raised to high office, who Weed in after years declared had been upon his slate, shows that his power in that direction suffered a great decline with the beginning of the period here treated; 1 and further evidences of this will appear in the course of the narrative. In fact, the political history here set forth is largely concerned with the active, bitter, and more or less successful attempt to overthrow him. What was the nature of Weed's power? He was a man who never spoke in public, 2 content to distribute the spoils without taking office for himself, a natural politician, evi- dently not overscrupulous, but of great magnetism in per- sonal contact. In i860, he impressed Samuel Bowles of the Springfield Republican, as " one of the most remarkable men of our time— one whom I had rather have had such an interview with than with any president of our day and gen- eration." 3 Weed's genius for organization, which even an enemy * had to admit, his usually sure judgment in regard to men and measures, and his " mystery and secretiveness that neither wine nor passion ever betrayed," 5 all contributed to make him the greatest political strategist of his day. Unlike in these respects, both Greeley and Weed had found in the newspaper office a school wherein each acquired a knowledge of affairs, ability to think, and a capacity to write clear, incisive, English; and Weed's rise was perhaps ' Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 473- ' Weed, Autobiography, p. 172. s Merriam's Life of Bowles, i. p. 302. 'Open letter of Samuel Wilkeson. assailing Weed, printed in the Tribune, April 1, 1861. i Ibid. 22 1 ] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 21 the more wonderful in that his early poverty and lack of facilities for obtaining an education were even greater than Greeley's. 1 It was because of this training that Weed was able to create the very great influence which the Albany Evening Journal exercised over the up-state press, 2 forming an important element in his power. Then too, in choosing candidates, Weed paid such shrewd regard to availability and party strength that, once estab- lished, he had retained the prerogative of slate-making for years. Weed, like feebler bosses of later times, knew how to work secretly with his nominal opponents. He himself has left an account of one of his earliest successes in the way of obtaining desired legislation in the face of great ob- stacles, from which it appears that the bill went through because of the close personal and social relations which he held with the legislators irrespective of party. 3 Dean Rich- mond, the leading Democratic politician, was Weed's warm friend. 4 At an annual series of dinners, Weed entertained 'Weed, Autobiography, pp. i, 2. 2 " Diary of Gideon Welles," Atlantic Month/y, Sept., igoo, p. 357. 3 'Weed, Autobiography . pp. 105, 106. Greeley understood that the Dem- ocratic managers also were to get something in case Weed's plan of raising campaign funds out of railroad grants went through, and pointed to the large support given by the Democrats in the Legislature of i860 to the bills as evidence of this (Tribune, Sept. 30, 1861). During the period here treated, there are other traces of secret dealings between Weed and the Democrats. There seems to be some evidence that Weed worked with Dean Richmond to protect the New York Central Railroad. He was accused of conspiring with the New York Central managers to secure the repeal of the tolls upon railroads, of making money through operations in New York Central stock, of accepting from the road a commission upon passengers sent over the line from the emigrant depot in New York City, and of sharing in the profits of the printing patronage of the Central — all this by Wilkeson, who had once been Weed's business associate. (Letter of Wilkeson in the Tribune, April 1, 1861). * Weed, Autobiography, p. 492. 22 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 22 2 the members of the legislature, regardless of party, 1 and he boasted that he was personally acquainted with each and every member of that body for over thirty years. 2 Weed's enemies accused him of corruption. He him- self admitted that there had " scarcely been a session of the Legislature for more than a quarter of a century out of which, if we had chosen to do so, a large amount of money could not have been made." 3 But he also said, " During the more than thirty years that we have been connected with this Journal ... no pecuniary consideration — no hope of favor or reward — has tempted us to support a measure which did not commend itself to our judgment and con- science, or to oppose a meritorious one." 4 Again, we find Weed privately unburdening himself to Seward with refer- ence to the charges made by Mr. Van Wyke in the House of Representatives : 5 It is hard to be abused for doing right. I chartered the vessels that took the first troops to Washington, leaving Grin- nell and Comstock to fix the charter, and without a thought of interest, or receiving the value of a cigar. I helped Smith, of Ulster, to get a powder order without the thought of a commission or even thanks, but I did not expect abuse ! 8 Frequent as these accusations against Weed were, we must at least say that in the absence of better evidence, his specific and emphatic denials are of great weight in clearing him in this respect. But he acknowledged that " there have been 1 Herald, Feb. 29. i860; Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 232. 2 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 502. 3 Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 27, 1860. 'Ibid. 5 Tribune, Feb. 8, 1862. 6 Letter of Weed to Seward in F. W. Seward's Seward at Washing- ton, iii, p. 75. 223] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 23 legislative measures, right in themselves, and promotive of the general welfare, in which we have had, in common with other citizens, ultimate or prospective interests. In this category belong New York city railroads." l Thus, Mr. Weed was to some extent a commercialist in politics. Of the truth of another variety of accusations, there can be little doubt. This was that Weed collected contributions for the party treasury from those desirous of furthering or opposing particular legislation. To the allegation that the notorious city railroad bills had been passed through an agreement between Weed and the lobby by which the latter were to deliver to Weed the funds for the presidential cam- paign, 2 Weed confessed : Obnoxious as the admission is to a just sense of right and to a better condition of political ethics, we stand so far " im- peached ". We would have preferred not to disclose to public view the financial history of political life. . . . Public men know much of what " the rest of mankind " are ignorant. We suppose it is generally understood that party organizations cost money and that presidential elections especially are expensive. ... It has been our duty and task for nearly forty years to raise money for elections. . . . Believing that railroads were essential to the City of New York, and that legislative grants for them would be obtained, we conceived and attempted to carry out the idea of making these grants available politically. 3 1 Albany Evening Journal, August 27, i860. 'This charge was made by Greeley's counsel, J. L. Williams, in his opening speech for the defense in the Littlejohn libel suit (printed in the Tribune, Sept. 16, 1861). 'Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 21, 1861. Greeley, however, said that "neither the Democratic nor the Republican party treasury re- ceived one dollar from this source," and that the pretext was only a "lure for the votes of political zealots" (Tribune, Sept. 30, 1861). The Albany Statesman (anti-Weed Republican) published the follow- ing, which the editor said was written by a Republican state senator: 24 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [224 If, however. Weed was like party managers of all ages in that the corner-stone of his power lay in the patronage, if he merely anticipated the modern boss in his manipulation of legislation for party purposes, there yet remained some- thing in the personal qualities which have been dwelt upon above, which distinguished him from the ordinary American politician. The Republicans were far more united in i860 than were their adversaries. The factional struggles within the Demo- cratic ranks in New York State were at this time deep- seated, of some years' existence, and apparently incurable. 1 In the case of the Republicans, lines of cleavage were poten- tial rather than actually present; while three rival Demo- cratic forces, definitely organized, contended with one an- other, or two in alliance against a third ; and bolts had become the regular order of the day. First, there was the regular state organization, led by the Albany Regency, a degenerate descendant of the famous clique of Van Buren and Marcy. Its power lay wholly in the up-state districts as distinguished from New York City, and seems to have been partly due to an intimate alliance with what was probably the most important corporation of the State, the New York Central Railroad. The rule of the Regency was hated by many. The accusations against this group, of trickery, treachery, playing with loaded dice, and " I know I voted for bills last winter that my conscience did not ap- prove, . . . But in no case did I vote for a questionable bill, unless solicited to do so by party leaders, upon the plea that those to be bene- fited by such bills would contribute to the fund of the Republican State Committee, ... I can name more than one instance in which Mr. Weed has solicited me to vote for bills for such reasons" (Quoted by the Argus, Aug. 21, i860). For an interesting description of Weed's methods, see a letter of Lieutenant-Governor Campbell to Salmon P. Chase, quoted in Hart's Chase, pp. 185-87. 1 For the origin of these divisions, see Bancroft's Seward, i, p. 135, 368. 225] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 25 selling their power, were common from Democrats as well as from Republicans. The principal Regency leader in i860 was Dean Richmond, vice-president of the New York Cen- tral Railroad and chairman of the Democratic State Com- mittee. A correspondent described him as a thick-set, cor- pulent man, with a large, red, and Dutch-looking face, and a very prominent nose. 1 Richmond, like Thurlow Weed, had had no educational advantages in early life and was self-made. He, too, was a shrewd, practical politician who refused office and never spoke in public. 2 Indeed, he was said to have been unable to express himself grammatically in private conversation. 3 More than one noted his liberal use of profanity. Weed and Richmond evidently looked upon each other in a sympathetic light ; for in i860 Weed rendered this tribute to his rival and incidentally to him- self: "The secret of his [Richmond's] power, next to his intuitive knowledge, consists in his prominent disinterested- ness . . . through more than thirty annual campaigns, ... he has neither asked nor accepted anything in re- turn. Such patriotism, coupled with the almost unerring wisdom of his counsels, gives him great, controlling, and permanent power." 4 Others who made up the more or less shadowy body known as the Regency were Erastus Corn- ing, a wealthy iron manufacturer and the president of the New York Central; Peter Cagger, a lawyer and the sec- retary of the Democratic State Committee; William Cassidy, editor of the Regency organ, the Albany Atlas and Argus, 1 Herald, Feb. 25, i860. A description in the World, June 20, i860, agrees with the particulars given above. ''Herald, Nov. 24, i860; Tribune, Aug. 20, 1864. s New York World, June 20, i860. * Albany Evening Journal, June 20, i860. It can be easily seen from Weed's Autobiography that he prided himself on the possession of the same merits which he praises in Richmond. 2 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [226 and a brother-in-law of Cagger; and ex-Governor Horatio Seymour. Then there was Tammany Hall, the regular local Demo- cratic organization in New York City, yet, because of its relative weight and its jealousy of the Regency, deserving at that time to be reckoned as a second faction within the Democratic party. Tammany, nevertheless, was not then the power that it once had been or that it was to be in the future. At the beginning of i860 its principal leader and grand sachem was Postmaster Isaac V. Fowler, whom even the Tribune could speak of as " personally popular among all parties as a genial, gentlemanly, and liberal- minded man." * Educated at Columbia College and for years a leading lawyer and a prominent member of the " soft-shell " Democracy, he was appointed postmaster in 1853; but in May, i860, a defalcation of over $150,000 on his part was detected, and he absconded. 2 After Fowler's fall, the control of the organization was obtained by such spoilsmen as Purdy, Genet, and Boole, who so far as political capacity was concerned were far inferior to the triumvirate of Fowler, Fernando Wood, and Daniel E. Sickles, which had but a few years before ruled Tammany. 3 In i860 and the years succeeding Tammany had no " boss," but was distracted by struggles between those connected with a cor- rupt aldermanic ring and those not having that lucrative advantage. 4 William M. Tweed, George Barnard, and 1 Tribune, May 15, i860. * Herald, May 15, i860. 3 Elijah F. Purdy was a member of the Board of Supervisors; Henry W. Genet was an alderman, the county clerk, and the controller of the street department; for Boole, infra. During the latter years here dealt with, however, Tweed and Sweeney seem to have been the great- est powers in Tammany. 4 Tribune, Oct. 6, 1862. Article dealing with the struggle between the Genet and Boole factions. 227] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 2 J Peter B. Sweeney were already becoming prominent in its councils. At the end of the period here considered, Tweed was president of the Board of Supervisors, deputy street cleaning commissioner, referee for Judge Barnard, member of the county volunteering committee, commissioner for opening streets, contractor for supplying furniture to the City, fire commissioner, and chairman of the Tammany Hall General Committee. 1 While some of the patronage in the metropolis was con- trolled by the Republicans, the City Hall in i860 was pos- sessed by Tammany's most bitter opponent, Mozart Hall. This third Democratic power, against which the other two were often found in alliance, was the creation and the creature of Fernando Wood, the most infamous of New York City's mayors — unless this distinction belongs to Oakley Hall. Wood was born in Philadelphia. Eventually he came to New York and engaged in various pursuits — keeping a wine and cigar shop, then becoming an auctioneer, then a ship- chandler, and later a grocer. 2 Devoting himself largely to politics, he was elected to Congress in 1840, and after rising so far in Know Nothing circles as to have been a candidate for that party's mayoralty nomination, he became a leading member of Tammany. 3 Nominated for mayor on the Democratic ticket in 1850, he was defeated ; but in 1854 and again in 1856, he was successful. After his scan- dalous attempt to control the police, 4 Wood was defeated for a second re-election. Then, unable to rule Tammany, he set up an organization of his own, Mozart Hall, of which 1 Tribune, Jan. 9, 1864. *Longworth's New York Directory, 1832-1840 inclusive. ' Tribune, Nov. I, 1862; Myers' History of Tammany Hall, p. 179. *See Wilson's Memorial History of the City of New York, iii, pp. 456 7- 2 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [228 he was in our present-day sense the boss ; a and in the three- cornered contest of 1859 Wood was again chosen mayor. By the outbreak of the war, he was a past master of practical politics in the worst meaning- of the term. 2 Able, energetic, ambitious, and unscrupulous, tall, handsome, and of pleasing manners, Fernando Wood built up Mozart Hall until it had in a few years become a formidable rival of Tammany. In this, he was assisted by his brother Ben- jamin, who edited the Daily News and at the same time carried on an extensive lottery business. Included in Mo- zart's following seems to have been a large number of Irish, the foreign born generally, and lastly, the disreputable class. 3 It was not merely Wood's official action in his vio- lent effort to secure the police force that aligned in opposi- tion to him the best elements of the city, and practically the entire metropolitan press other than the Herald and his brother's paper. 4 It was alleged that in his earlier days Wood had swindled his brother-in-law, one Marvin, and that when indicted for felony, he escaped through the statute of limitations. Moral proof of his guilt was seen by his opponents in the fact that judgment against him was ren- dered in a civil suit and confirmed on appeal. 5 Of Wood's 1 1 have not come across any use during the period here treated of the word "boss" in a political sense. Breen, Thirty Years of New York Politics, p. 31, confirms this observation, saying that the term was first so applied when the Tweed ring was at the height of its power. 2 Myers' History of Tammany Hall, pp. 179, 209. 'Letter cf Samuel J. Tilden, written in December, 1859, saying that Wood "had gained the lower stratum of the Irish, combined with many special interests, and at last the aid of jobbing Republicans" (Tilden's Letters, i, pp. 126-128). See also Tribune, Jan. 4, i860; Myers' History of Tammany Hall, pp. 179, 330. 4 Extract from the Sunday Atlas, quoted in the Tribune, Dec. 2, 1861. At that time, the News had been suppressed, so that the Herald alone supported Wood for re-election. 6 Tribune, Nov. 1, 1862. 229J POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 29 last administration of the city government, it is enough to mention here a letter signed by three successive foremen of grand juries, wherein permission was requested of the dis- trict attorney for the publication of evidence taken before those bodies, tending to prove that before Wood as mayor would approve of the valuable street cleaning contract, it was an indispensable condition that one quarter of the con- tract should be given to his brother Benjamin, and that the latter was the owner of one-fourth of the then existing con- tract. According to the district attorney's reply, confirming these assertions and appending the evidence, the contract was awarded at the rate of $279,000 a year although a re- sponsible person bid $84,000 less. 1 Wood had up-state allies. The schism in the Democratic party in New York State began in 1848; healed in the fol- lowing year, the breach was again opened in 1853, an< ^ re- mained so until 1856. At the state convention of 1859, when delegates to the forthcoming National Democratic Convention were chosen, the climax came. Wood having tried by the aid of a select Mozart crowd to get control of the convention by a trick and by violence, the dele- gates withdrew from the hall, and later proceeded to or- ganize. In this latter or " regular " convention, all but two delegates eventually participated. But Wood, with the aid of some up-state politicians, mostly former " hard-shells " who hated the rule of the Regency, set up a rival conven- 1 Letter signed by Messrs. Bailey, Reading, and Cooper to Nelson J. Waterbury, District Attorney, and reply of Waterbury, printed in the Tribune, Nov. 30, 1861. Waterbury was a prominent member of Tam- many, and the correspondence together with the publication of the evi- dence on the eve of the mayoralty election was a partisan move. Never- theless, in connection with other parts of Wood's record, the matter seems to incriminate Wood strongly. For other details of Wood's trickery in local politics, see Breen's Thirty Years of New York Poli- tics, pp. 79 81. 30 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [230 tion. 1 At the opening of the year i860, the great question in the politics of the State was, would the Charleston con- vention seat in whole or in part Wood's contesting dele-* gates. Wood had intimate connections with prominent Southern leaders and called his Democracy national, while most of the Regency leaders and the greater part of their followers were ex-barnburners 2 and favorable to Douglas. Moreover, Wood had recently been chosen mayor of New York City in opposition to Havemeyer, a " soft " ; and in the selection of delegates, he had adopted the more popular plan of elections by congressional districts. 3 Yet the organ of the Regency persisted in belittling the Wood movement, and spoke of the " bolting delegations being appointed under Fernando Wood's dictation by little knots of disorganizes." It insisted that there was " really no contest in question, except what originated in ruffianism," and that the Democrats of New York State must be per- mitted to manage their own organization. It denounced from day to day the Wood delegation as " bogus ", and as- 1 Argus, Jan. 11, i860. This, of course, gives the Regency's side of the affair; but it is confirmed by Andrew D. White's Autobiography , i, p. 59; also by the facts that nearly all the delegates went over to the regu- lar convention and that Daniel S. Dickinson — no friend of the Regency — denounced the attempt of Wood. The other side of the story is given in a speech of Thomas G. Alvord before the committee on contested seats at Charleston (Argus, May 1, i860, quoting the Charleston Courier) . 2 Tribune, Aug. 9, i860. 3 Herald, Jan. 16, i860; Argus, Jan. 11, i860. That the district sys- tem was far more popular was shown by extracts from Democratic papers throughout the State, published in the Argus during January, i860. These, while deprecating any movement toward a double dele- gation, distinctly stated that they favored the district system. With one exception (1852), however, delegates to national Democratic con- ventions had been chosen in New York by state conventions (Argus, Jan. 17, i860). 231] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 $1 serted that outside of New York City, there were not five hundred men engaged in the Wood movement. 1 One must note, however, that by no means all the " hards " went over to Wood. The latter himself had been a " soft " in 1853. Accordingly, the Regency organ claimed that the attempts to represent the old division between " hards " and " softs " as still continuing in i860 were made for mischievous pur- poses. 2 But even if this contention was true, hatred of the Regency upon the part of the former " hards " still ex- isted, and was the connecting line between the two factional struggles. Thus, the animosities within the New York Democracy were partly due to jealousy among the leaders and greed for the offices, and partly an outgrowth of the old divisions between " hards " and " softs ". There were also then in New York State various unat- tached political odds and ends. In the previous year, the American party, with what was called a balance-of-power ticket or one composed of candidates selected from those of the two principal parties, had actually carried the State, and the recentness of this success caused some designing politicians to look to these fragments as a lever for personal advantage. 3 At the beginning of i860 there still existed in New York City a Whig General Committee. This met and drew up an address in favor of the organization of the Whigs throughout the State; 4 but as the address itself con- 1 Argus, Jan. 11, 24, Feb. 8, 9, 22, 27. From day to day it published letters stating that the Wood county conventions were so poorly at- tended as to be farcical; e. g., Jan. 17, 24, 25, 30, Feb. 7. Per contra, the Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 10, said that the Albany district con- vention was very fully attended. 2 Argus, Jan. n, i860. 3 Privately circulated call, signed by Erastus Brooks and four others, committee, dated Jan. 28, i860, printed in the Herald, Feb. 15. * Herald, Jan. 19. 32 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [232 fessed, the party had slumbered for the past few years and its organization was nearly destroyed. The remnant of the American party showed more vitality, especially in con- nection with the movement which resulted in the nomination of Bell and Everett. At the beginning of i860, the Republicans had control of most of the state patronage through their possession of the gubernatorial chair and of three of the five most important state offices; they likewise had a two-thirds majority in both branches of the legislature, 1 both the United States senators, and a majority of the congressional delegation. The national patronage was still in the hands of the Demo- crats. The opposition to the Regency in the up-state coun- ties was too weak to render it doubtful that the followers of the Regency held the federal offices in the greater part of the State. In New York City, the much-prized collectorship was occupied by Augustus Schell, who was a " hard ", yet ap- parently not acting at this time with Wood. 2 The latter, elected on the Mozart or National Democratic ticket in op- position to Havemeyer on the Tammany and Opdyke on the Republican ticket, was mayor. His power over the city patronage, however, was checked by a hostile common coun- cil which again and again rejected his nominations ; 3 the heads of the street cleaning and city inspector's departments, under which lay the bulk of the municipal spoils, had yet a 1 Argus, Jan. 2; Herald, Jan. 1. The Assembly contained 90 Re- publicans, 37 Democrats, /and 1 Independent. De Witt C. Littlejohn was elected speaker with no opposition in his own party, receiving 89 votes to 30 for Theophilus C. Callicot (Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 3). The Senate consisted of 23 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 1 Schell removed a custom-house official for not resigning his place as a Wood delegate to Charleston {Tribune, Mar. 19). ' Tribune, Jan. 2, 25; Herald, Feb. 4, Mar. 1, 17, April io. 233 J POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 33 year of office, and they, as well as other heads of depart- ments except the controller and the corporation counsel, both of whom were elected, were irremovable except with the consent of the board of alderman and for cause ; 1 the police were wholly without the mayor's power and were governed by a metropolitan police board ; finally, the board of supervisors, a bi-partisan body, exercised legislative and executive functions over county matters. 2 Wood himself said in his annual message of i860: "Under the present laws, it makes little difference who occupies the mayoralty. That functionary is but a clerk. . . ." 3 Attempts at re- form were made. A charter amendment, which was con- sidered in the legislature, provided for centralizing power in the mayor, the controller, and the corporation counsel, and for depriving the aldermen of the right to confirm or reject nominations; but the aldermen successfully fought the proposition. 4 Thus, the struggle of Wood against Tam- many and the Regency was an up-hill one. The state government was already notorious for its vicious features. The Legislature of i860 gained an unen- 1 " By his [the mayor's] own authority, he cannot remove any per- son holding office under the city government, except a few clerks in his own office." — Wood's annual message, Herald, Feb. 1, i860. A decision of the state Supreme Court implied that it was within the dis- cretion of the mayor and the aldermen to decide what was cause for re- moval for all heads of departments save the two elective ones (Herald, June 16, i860). But this decision did not increase the mayor's power when he was confronted with a hostile board of aldermen. 2 The supervisors expended about one-third of the city budget ( Tribune, Jan. 2, i860). 3 Annual message of Wood, printed in the Herald, Feb. 1, i860. Mayors Opdyke and Gunther, the immediate successors of Wood, made similar complaints. * Infra, p. 46. 34 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [234 viable reputation because of the jobs passed in that year. 1 The Albany Evening Journal pronounced the testimony taken before a grand jury concerning the corrupt doings in the Legislature of 1861 a " sickening expose ", and further said : " It presents a dark picture of the processes employed to secure legislative action upon important bills. . . ." 2 " Now to be a member of the State Legislature," said Mr. Pierce on the floor of the Assembly in 1862, " is an impeachment of a man's standard of honesty." 3 Henry J. Raymond gave utterance to similar sentiments. 4 The lobby was estimated as more numerous than either of the legislative houses. 5 In Gideon Welles' opinion, this feature at Albany was " the most offensive lobby combination of that date." 6 Greeley wrote: We reported the proceedings of the Assembly through a good part of the session of '38, without making the acquaintance of any person who made a gainful business of advocating or opposing the passage of bills now their name is Legion, their impudence sublime, .... Some of them are well dressed, dispense real champagne and will touch nothing under $100 ; others are seedy suckers, who will take a five dollars [sic] if they can get no more. Greeley also recorded his belief that the ability of the legis- lators, as shown in the debates, had degenerated. 7 The Gov- 'H. B. Stanton to Chase: "New York Republicanism has been made a reproach, a by -word, by the rascally conduct of our state legis- lature under the lead of Weed" (Hart's Chase, p. 185). See also Argus, April 10, 1861. 2 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 23, 1862. 3 Herald, Jan. 16, 1862; Argus, Jan. 16, 1862. *■ Herald, Jan. 24, 1862; Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 24. 1862. 5 Tribune, Jan. 27, i860. * Welles' Lincoln and Seward, p. 27. 7 Tribune, April 28. 1863. 235] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 35 ernor, Edwin D. Morgan, was somewhat better than the legislature, and used his veto with good effect j 1 but he seems to have been without much independence where Thurlow Weed was concerned. In New York City, the robbery which came to a culmi- nation ten years later, was already present in a startling degree. The ring in the board of supervisors, which a decade later became so notorious, was already in existence, having been formed, according to Tweed's own testimony, about 1859 for the purpose of controlling in the interests of Tammany the appointment of registry clerks ; and from that time, the corrupt combination operated on many subjects that came before the board. 2 Toward the end of the period here treated, the expenditure of immense sums of money by New York City to fill its quotas of troops, all of which money was handled by the board of supervisors, furnished a great opportunity for Tweed and his allies. 3 But it was the aldermanic ring which was conspicuous in the early sixties. " It is to this Ring," said the Tribune, that we owe the shameful Battery swindle ; the disorganization of the Williamsburg Ferries; the defeat of the plan for putting the Post Office in the Park; the daily violation of the charter 'Democrats accused Morgan of attempting to work an "honesty dodge," saying that his vetoes were intended to be overridden, and they asserted that Morgan and Weed had a thorough understanding while the vetoes were paraded in public. This seems to have been merely a partisan accusation; the Evening Post, which was sufficiently independent to expose such a condition had it existed, spoke of the " perfect understanding among the leaders of the majority in their war with Governor Morgan" {Evening Post, quoted by Argus September 5, i860). Upon Morgan's retirement, the Argus acknowledged that he had "with great fidelity fulfilled the duties of his high office" {Argus, Jan. 1, 1863). * Report of the Special Committee of the Board of Aldermen appointed to investigate the Ring Frauds, pp. 14, 16. 'Breen's Thirty Years of New- York Politics, p. 55. 36 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [236 in refusing to contract for the street cleaning; the retardation of the Central Park by refusing to issue bonds ; the expensive and unreasonable extensions of Belgian pavements in remote and unfrequented streets ; the doubling and trebling of ex- penses for celebrations ; the shameless extravagance of public printing. . . . Let any man come to the City Hall with ever so just a bill against the City, and he will be put off, until quite accidentally a friend of the Ring hints that a few dollars paid to such an outsider will induce the Board to put his bill forward. . . . Confirming contracts is a good busi- ness for the Ring. . . . 1 Perhaps, it was to hit at some rival but surely it was not without knowledge that Judge Barnard — he of subsequent Tweed ring fame — in 1864 thus charged the Grand Jury: A few years since a body of unprincipled and corrupt men banded together for the purpose of controlling the legislative branch of the city government by their votes, forming what is now known as the " Ring." It is still in active operation. There is no scheme, no matter how corrupt or wicked, but what will pass through provided a sufficient pecuniary induce- ment is brought to bear; and no measure, however meritor- ious, is sufficient to become a law unless a like influence is used. 2 The years 1860-61 were said to have been the heyday of these boodlers. At this time and later the leading spirit of the combination was an alderman named Boole. 3 The city 1 Tribune, Aug. 2, i860. The Herald, too, bore testimony to the ex- istence and corrupt doings of the ring, e. g., Herald, Aug. 7, i860. ' Tribune, April 8, 1864. 8 Tribune, Nov. 28, 1863. See also A. D. White's Autobiography, i, p. 108. Boole had been a member of the Board of Councilmen of 1856, which body acquired a bad reputation because of its jobbery. Later, the Board of Aldermen, under Boole's leadership, appropriated $80,000 for the Japanese Reception, including $7,000 for carriages, a proceeding which rightfully was considered a scandal. In 1863 Boole was both city inspector and alderman {Tribune, Nov. 28, 1863). 237 j POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 37 and county debt rose from fourteen millions in 1855 to twenty-eight and a quarter millions in 1862. Speaking of a few years later — and the same conditions probably existed in i860 — an address signed by prominent citizens said that the public wharves, piers, ferries, markets, and buildings were so mismanaged as to yield but trifling revenue, that the streets were badly paved and many of them filthy, and that through neglect the mortality of the city had become alarmingly great. 1 The Herald editorially declared that some of the newly- elected members of the Common Council were at that moment under indictment, and the Tribune affirmed that the charge was true. 2 The former paper said : Our city legislators, with but few exceptions, are an unprin- cipled, illiterate, scheming set of cormorants, foisted upon the community through the machinery of primary elections, bribed election inspectors, ballot box stuffing, and numerous other illegal means. . . . The consequence is that we have a class of municipal legislators forced upon us who have been edu- cated in barrooms, brothels and political societies ; and whose only aim in attaining power is to consummate schemes for their own aggrandizement and pecuniary gain. 3 The Tribune bore like testimony. It said : " Our local gov- ' Address of the Citizens' Association, signed among others by Peter Cooper, Hamilton Fish, and William E. Dodge — printed in the Tribune, Feb. 8, 1864. Godkin's Life and Letters, i, pp. 171-3 gives similar testimony written in 1857. 2 Herald, Jan. S, i860. The aldermen adopted a resolution appointing a special committee to take into consideration the Herald' s article. The Tribune warned the Common Council to beware how they played " with two-edged tools, as, unfortunately for the city, some of the mem- bers are amenable to the charge made by the Herald" — Tribune, Jan. 17, i860. It does not appear that any further action was taken by the aldermen. 3 Herald, Jan. 13, i860. Similar testimony was given in 1857 by Godkin, Life and Letters, i, pp. 171-3. 38 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [238 eminent could not well be worse. . . . Our Common Coun- cil is probably as utterly shamelessly corrupt as any such body ever was on earth. It is a stench in the nostrils of the whole city . . . ," and Republican though this paper was, it expressed the opinion that half of the Republican minority in either board was about as rotten as the majority of the Democrats. 1 In i860, there were the same complaints that we frequently hear now about the lack of interest in municipal nomina- tions and elections by those classes of the population having most at stake. 2 Robert B. Roosevelt, a prominent citi- zen, asserted that the candidates at the municipal election of December, 1864, included " prize fighters, emigrant run- ners, baggage smashers, bounty swindlers, notorious thieves, state's prison graduates, and others whose occupation has been too low to mention." 3 How much worse conditions, were then than now, is shown by the fact that reform was then far more difficult; for the primaries were in 1862 " notoriously and proverbially the scenes of the most dis- graceful fraud, chicanery, and violence," unregulated by law, and so bad that " Peaceable and orderly citizens, almost without exception, refuse [d] to attend " them. 4 To make conditions even more hopeless, elections were tainted with frauds, apparently far worse than those with which we may now be afflicted. 5 The present-day laments over the short- 1 Tribune, Mar. 12, i860. 3 Tribune, June 29, i860; Herald, Dec. 6, i860; Godkin (in 1857) Life and Letters, i, pp. i7 I- 3- 3 Herald, Dec. 2, 1864. 1 Report of a select committee of the Board of Aldermen, Documents of the Board of Aldermen, 1862, xxxiv, no. 7, quoted in Myers' His- tory of Tammany Hall, p. 243; see also Tribune, Dec. 27, 1864. ■' Davenport's Election Frauds of New York City and their Preven- tion, i, pp. 30, 34, 35, 49, 57; Myers' History of Tammany Hall, p. 233. 239] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 39 comings of New York's municipal government hardly ex- ceed the fierce denunciation of the character and actions of the officials of the metropolis during the period here dealt with ; and, in view of the development a few years after the war, these allegations were seemingly all too well founded. The great subjects which engaged the attention of the whole nation had not, at the beginning of i860, entirely dis- placed, as party questions in New York, matters relating more particularly to the State, but the transition was going on. This was shown in the session of the Legislature of that year. By far the greater part of Governor Morgan's annual message ! was devoted to the state finances, charities, canals, railroads, and other institutions. The Governor re- ferred briefly and moderately to the slavery issue, express- ing the common Republican opinions on the evils of slavery, the duty of non-interference with it in the states where it existed, opposition to its extension into the territories, and the right of Congress to legislate thereon. As to the John Brown raid, he declared that New York State emphatically disavowed " all sympathy or co-operation with those mis- guided men. . . . We may admit that their aims were un- selfish and even philanthropic . . . but we must never forget the obvious truth, that social order can only exist through a general recognition of the sanctity of law, ..." This passage in the message, some resolutions bearing on similar topics, and the various Union-saving meetings held within the State furnished occasion for several party de- bates and speeches in both houses. 2 Two party measures of this session were closely connected with the great national question. One was a personal-liberty 1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 151-198. ' Argus, Jan. 12, 18, 28, Feb. 8, 15, Mar. 3, 5; Herald, Jan. 12, 18, 21, Feb. 8. 15. 4 o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [240 bill. 1 Such a measure had passed in the Assembly during" the previous year, but failed in the Senate. 2 The radical Republicans, who were strongly in favor of this bill, were not able this time to secure its passage even through the lower house, owing, one of their number charged, to their opposition to the city railroad bills. 3 The other measure referred to was the constitutional amendment, already acted upon favorably by the preceding legislature, abolishing the property franchise qualification for negoes. Such an amendment, it was estimated, would increase the negro vote from three or four hundred to nine or ten thousand. 4 Despite some dissent on the Republican side in both houses and a vigorous and unanimous opposition from the Democrats, the measure passed. 5 As the session advanced, however, the legislators got down to more interesting business. In i860, the New York legislature was already distinguished for its numerous and powerful lobby, for its constant tinkering with the local government of New York City, and generally for its corrup- tion. This particular legislature of i860 went down in the annals of the State with a very bad record, because of its grants of charters for New York City railroads. The at- tempted abuse in the giving of such franchises by the muni- cipal Common Council of 1852 — " the forty thieves " — had led to the power being taken from that body in the follow- ing year and being vested in the legislature. Three projects 1 Herald, Mar. 12; Assembly Journal, I860, pp. 356, 463. 2 Herald, Jan. 9; Argus, Jan. 27. 3 Letter of Assemblyman Powell, one of the committee which reported the bill, to the editors of the Evening Post, printed in the Post, Oct. 27. The bill was debated at several sessions on party lines. 'Herald, Sept. 18. 5 Herald, Feb. 11, April 19; Argus, Feb. 11, April 10; Assembly Journal, 1S60, p. 712. 2 4 l] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 4 I for city railroads had failed at the session of 1859. Now these bills were lumped together in the infamous " grid- iron " bill, whose chief beneficiary was George Law. 1 The Tribune said of this bill that it was " generally regarded as a scheme to divide about $1,000,000 between the lobby kings who devised and the members who voted " for it. 2 We have already seen what Thurlow Weed's connection with this measure was. 3 Though the committee on cities and villages reported adversely on the bill as creating a monopoly, and though the Assembly by an overwhelming majority agreed with its committee, 4 a fortnight later separ- ate bills for the street railroads were reported and the House reversed its previous course. 5 In the end, the measures went through both houses. The Governor vetoed all but one ; 6 but they were passed over his veto in both Senate and As- sembly, 7 through Weed's influence, 8 though the Albany Evening Journal later positively denied that charge. 9 The Democratic members in their customary address issued at the close of the session, assailed the corruption of the legis- lature controlled by their opponents; but the fact was that on these railroad bills, which gave that body its black record, party lines were wiped out. 10 1 Herald, Mar. 9: Tribune, Mar. 9. 2 Tribune, Mar. 9. 3 Ante, p. 23. * Herald, Mar. 15; Assembly Journal, I860, pp. 641-2. 5 Assembly Journal, I860, pp. 861-867. 8 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 238-242. 7 Assembly Journal, 1860, pp. 1363-1366; 1382 (Senate's concurrence). 8 Supra for Weed's admission of his connection with this leg- islation. The Tribune of August 20 declared that "the editor of the Albany Evening Journal is well known to have been the most active and powerful agent in inducing Republican senators and members of the Assembly to ... . nullify his [Morgan's] veto." 9 Albany Evening Journal , Aug. 21. 10 Herald, April 19; Tribune, April 12. 42 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [242 Three of this session's bills of a partisan nature were aimed at the New York Central Railroad. Many Repub- licans believed that the influence of this corporation was used against their party and in behalf of the Democrats ; 1 and despite the denials of that accusation on the part of the directors, a persistent agitation was kept up for several years against the company. One of the bills prevented voting by proxy by railroad stockholders, the intent probably being to get control of the road from Erastus Corning by depriving him of the votes of foreign stockholders, 2 and perhaps (as charged) to transfer the road's influence to the Republicans. Those opposed to this measure argued that such a law would be regarded abroad as practical repudiation and that since American corporations were largely dependent on foreign capital, such legislation would be fatal. 3 The Re- publicans were not unanimous in support of the bill, and it failed to pass. 4 The other two bills, if enacted, would have hit the New York Central principally. They were both in the interests of the canals. One was the pro-rata bill, which aimed to prevent discrimination in freight charges against shippers in New York State. 5 The western counties were urgently asking for relief of this sort. 6 Naturally the canal for- 1 Herald, Jan. 11; Tribune, Feb. 20. 1 Herald, Jan. 12, partly confirmed by remarks in the assembly de- bate, Argus, Mar. 1. :t Argus, Jan. 23. Frequent editorials in the Argus during February denounced the bill. 4 Assembly Journal, i860, p. 941. The Albany Evening Journal (Feb. 27) was against the bill. The warfare against the Central was renewed in 1863, when the Times and the Tribune assailed the road's management. The Argus (Nov. 20) replied that six of the directors were Republicans, six Democrats, and one a non-resident whose poli- tics were not known. s Argus, Feb. 29. ''Herald, Feb. 25. 243] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 43 warders desired such a measure. On the other hand, the op- ponents of the bill, who included the New York City Cham- ber of Commerce, 1 claimed that such a law would drive traffic to other states and to Canada, and irreparably injure the commerce of New York State. The third measure was the bill to toll the railroads. It was urged that the State, upon authorizing the construction of the various railroads which had been subsequently merged into the New York Central, had done so on the express condition, that they should not carry freight, or if they did, that they should pay tolls; and it was declared that the action of the Legis- lature of 185 1 in relieving the roads from such tolls was un- wise and unconstitutional. 2 But a stronger argument was the imperative need of the State for additional revenues. Such a law would provide funds sufficient to avert the threatened large increase in the direct tax, which it was thought might endanger Republican supremacy in the State. 3 In his annual message, Governor Morgan recommended the reimposition of tolls ; and during the session he sent in a special message renewing the advocacy of such a meas- ure. 4 On the other hand. Dean Richmond appeared on the scene and lobbied against these bills; 5 and the Albany Argus kept up a daily warfare upon them. As to the toll bill, it was said that as the State had not constructed the railroads, it would be unjust to levy tolls upon them, and also that it was inequitable to single out one species of property for tax- 1 Protest of that body against the pro-rata bill, printed in the Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 16. 'E.g., speech of Senator Bell {Argus, Mar. 23); Tribune, April 5; opinion of the Attorne3 r -General, Argus, April 4. 3 Tribune, April 3; Herald, April 6. * Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 204-212. s Herald, Jan. 14, Feb. 5. 44 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [244 ation. 1 The Republican majority, the Argus asserted, had not " the courage to meet the responsibility of direct tax- ation or to hold the government to its necessary and simple functions." 2 The raid upon the railroads was declared to be the consequence of the policy of extravagance and debt which the Republicans had introduced ; 3 and the bills were denounced as acts of " rapine and confiscation and plunder" * — " the legacy of Sewardism to the State." 6 The debates in both houses, however, seem to have been for the most part on economic and financial rather than on party lines. 6 Perhaps this was owing to the fact that upon both the pro-rata and the toll bills the Republicans were di- vided. In vain caucuses were resorted to. 7 A part of the Republicans in both houses joined with almost all the Demo- crats against the canal representatives. The pro-rata bill passed the Assembly, though with twenty-eight Republican nays ; 8 but the scheme was practically defeated by a coali- tion in the Senate between the Democrats and part of the Republicans, by which a substitute was adopted providing for the appointment of a commission to confer with like 1 Argus, Jan. 23. * Argus, Feb. 25. Similar attacks, Feb. 11, Mar. 23. s Argus, Jan. 31. * Argus, Mar. 22. 6 Argus, Feb. 29. 6 Pro-rata bill debates, Argus, Feb. 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, Mar. 1, 3. Toll bill debates, Argus, Feb. 11, Mar. 8, 10, 15, April 13. ''Argus, Mar. 21, 22, 23. The Albany Evening Journal, after being silent on the pro-rata bill for a month and a half, came out against it (Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 15, 24); during the earlier half of the session it favored the toll bill with a removal of restrictions on fares as a compensation to the railroads (Albany Evening Journal, Mar. 9). It also favored accepting a lump sum from the railroads (Albany Evening Journal, April 12). Weed later (Aug. 21) said that he had acquiesced in a policy of which he did not approve. 8 Assembly Journal, 1S60, p. 461. 245 ] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 45 bodies from other states on the feasibility of establishing a uniform and equitable system of freight rates. 1 Even this measure, however, failed to pass, owing to a disagreement between the houses as to the composition of the commission. 2 As to the toll bill, it passed the Assembly ; s but in the Sen- ate the same sort of combination as had been formed on the pro-rata bill passed a substitute, imposing tolls for three years but authorizing in lieu thereof the payment of certain fixed sums (including $500,000 from the New York Cen- tral) and authorizing the Central to charge two and a half cents a mile on way travel. 4 This would have thrown part of the tax upon passengers. The Assembly refused to ac- cept the substitute, 5 each house clung to its own bill, 6 and thus the attempt to toll the railroads failed. 7 The Tribune charged that the loss of the bill involved the setting aside of a policy which had previously " received the deliberate and hearty assent of the Editor of the Albany Evening Journal," that Weed had become " a powerful element in the combina- tion headed by Dean Richmond which defeated" the bill, and that " individuals made large sums out of the stock specu- lations based upon an early and certain knowledge that the Governor's recommendation as to Railroad Tolls was to be defeated." 8 Subsequently, the Argus, while praising the 'Assembly Journal, 1860, p. 1135; Senate Journal, I860, pp. 602, 606. * Argus, April 11; Assembly Journal, I860, p. 1383. 3 Five Democrats voted for and six Republicans against the bill. Assembly Journal, 1860, p. 576. 4 Argus, Mar. 8; Senate Journal, 1860, p. 465. 6 Assembly Journal, 1860, p. 944. 6 Assembly Journal, 1860, pp. 1134, 1345, 1368; Senate Journal, 1860, PP- 693, 936. ''Argus, April 18. 8 Tribune, Aug. 20. 4 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [246 Senate for having fearlessly defended the public interests, said that the upper house of the Legislature had defied " a storm of abuse and detraction unprecedented in the his- tory of the State." * Lastly, mention should be made of the metropolitan police law 2 and of the proposed charter amendments for New York City. The former, a Republican measure, which it was asserted had Tammany back of it, 3 took from the mayors of New York City and Brooklyn their ex-ofrkio seats in the metropolitan police board, thereby dealing a blow at Fernando Wood, 4 and reduced the membership of the board to three persons appointed by the governor. The career of the charter amendments showed how the interests of New York City were buffeted about by contrary political currents at Albany. Tammany was eager to clip still further Wood's wings, Wood was anxious to take from the aldermen the control of the municipal patronage, and Hawes, the Republican controller of New York City, wanted increased power. 5 The amendments took such form as to deprive the aldermen of the right to confirm or reject nomi- nations, and to give more power to the mayor and the con- troller. 6 This combination, however, met with strenuous opposition from Tammany. 7 Near the close of the session the committee reported an amendment taking from the mayor certain powers which were given to the controller 1 Argus, Nov. 19. * Assembly Journal, 1%60, p. 1209. 'Herald, Feb. 3. * Herald, April 12; Argus, April 5, II. 5 Herald, Feb. II, Mar. 2, 12; Argus, Mar. 21. ''Herald, Mar. 24; Tribune, Mar. 28. 7 Herald, Mar. 22, 24. 247] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 47 and leaving those of the aldermen untouched; whereupon the whole matter was buried by the House. 1 1 Herald, April 7; Assembly Journal, 1860, p. 1051. The same sort of conflict between Tammany and Mozart occurred during the session of 1861 over a bill for a commission to draw up a new charter for New York City {Herald, April 6, 1861). The debates and divisions on ques- tions connected with the canals were in part on partisan lines, though mostly not so {Argus, Mar. 1, 2, 8, 10). Two minor bills, which caused quite warm party debates, were those concerning the public health in New York, Kings and Richmond Counties {Argus, April 4, 10), and abolished the Almshouse governors {Argus, April 10). CHAPTER II New York and the Presidential Nominations of i860 The Wood movement was more formidable than thej Regency organs affected to believe. During the early part of the year, the anti-Regency Democrats in their respective congressional districts throughout the State, chose delegates to the Charleston Convention ; * and at the beginning of February, a state convention for the purpose of naming the delegates at large was held at Syracuse. Every county was represented, a number of men prominent in local politics were in attendance, the proceedings were harmonious, and the delegates were reported as confident of their admission at Charleston. 2 Thomas G. Alvord, ex-speaker of the as- sembly and later lieutenant-governor, was elected president of the convention. The prevailing note in the speeches was that those assembled represented the national Democracy of the State, " that portion of the Democracy who contend honestly and faithfully, not hypocritically, for the reserved equal and sovereign rights of every State, . . . whose record is not stained with any Wilmot proviso or anti-slav- ery agitation." 3 Fernando Wood, John A. Green, Gideon J. Tucker, and Joshua R. Babcock were selected as delegates at large. Wood being subsequently chosen chairman of the x Herald, Jan. 4, 7; Tribune, Feb. 7. 1 Herald, Feb. 7; Tribune, Feb. 7. 5 Speech of John A. Green upon calling the convention to order. The same sentiments were expressed by Thomas G. Alvord. 48 ' [248 249] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 49 delegation. 1 His own speech was of a tone which must have satisfied the most rabid state rights Southerner. The Charleston Mercury commended it as " a sound Democratic speech," and Wood's principles as " all the Southern rights party . . . require of the Convention." 2 The consequences of this rift in the New York Democracy were not difficult to foresee. The Herald, at the beginning of February, pre- dicted that whichever set of contestants might be seated at Charleston, the result would be the same, the loss of the state by the Democrats. The regular delegation included far more men of ability and prominence than did that of Wood. In the former as delegates at large were Dean Richmond, Isaac V. Fowler, and Augustus Schell ; among the district delegates were Au- gust Belmont, ex-Speaker William H. Ludlow, John Kelly, United States Marshal Isaiah Rynders (of Empire Club fame and for years a character in New York politics), John Cochrane, Nelson J. Waterbury, John Clancy, Erastus Corn- ing, Henry S. Randall (the biographer of Jefferson), Peter Cagger, Lemuel Stetson and Darius A. Ogden (both of whom later were prominent war Democrats), Edwin Cros- well and Sanford E. Church. 3 It will be seen from these names that the delegation was not wholly composed of former " softs ". At the state convention in the previous year, Daniel S. Dickinson had made a speech utterly repro- bating the tactics of Wood and thus influenced many of the delegates to desert that wily leader. 4 It was subsequently asserted that this effective aid from Dickinson was procured 'Herald, Feb. 8. 'Charleston Mercury of Feb. 18, quoted in Herald, Feb. 22. 3 Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 14. * Argus, Jan. 11; Dickinson's Speeches, Correspondence, etc., i, pp. 624, 678. 5 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [250 by the Regency leaders through an understanding that half of the delegation to the Charleston Convention should be " hards ", thus securing a chance for Dickinson's presiden- tial aspirations, but that having carried their point, the Regency had played false to the Sage of Binghampton. 1 Certainly, the majority of the delegation were " softs " ; and through the unit rule which they had been instructed to follow at the state convention, they were all in Dean Rich- mond's control. Dickinson's friends were active in his support. They claimed that as a Northern man who had consistently clung to Southern views for years and who had not bolted nor even revenged himself when Buchanan handed over the patronage to the " softs ", Dickinson would be very accept- able to the South. Moreover, they urged that he could carry New York against Seward. In January, when the Argus was disparaging the Wood movement, it made much of Dickinson's adherence to the regular state convention, and said editorially that if the Charleston Convention should summon from a dignified retirement to lead the Demo- cratic hosts, such a man as Daniel S. Dickinson — or any other patriotic son of this State — it would be mere affectation, it would be positively ungrateful in us, or the Democrats of this State, to conceal the gratification which such a selection would afford. 2 But when the time for action drew near, the Regency leaders would not support Dickinson. 3 They were subse- 1 Washington correspondence of the Hetald, May 2; Herald, Jan. 7, June 21, July 7; Tribune, June 27; Albany Evening Journal, June 26. 2 Argus, Jan. n. 8 Herald, April 23; Tribune, April 23, 24. Dickinson's strength was shown later when he received in the seceders' convention at Baltimore 24 out of 105 votes for the presidential nomination (Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 224). 251] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 51 quently accused of manoeuvring to hand the prize eventu- ally to Horatio Seymour. Very likely they would have been glad to take advantage of any opening for him, but it seems that they were sincerely for Douglas. Before the question as to which delegation should be admitted was de- cided, both sets of contestants naturally preserved more or less of a discreet silence as to preferences j 1 but the Regency leaders doubtless realized that the Democracy of New York State could but kill itself if it favored an extreme Southern platform or candidate. That the major part of the delega- tion leaned toward Douglas and that he was the favorite of the larger portion of the party in this State, 2 the Doug- las men at Charleston were probably aware. On the other hand, the sympathies of the Wood contestants could hardly be in doubt. So it was that in the contest for New York's seats the ultra Southerners sided with Wood and the Douglas men with the Regency. Just before the opening of the convention, Senator Slidell, withdrawing his name from consideration for the presi- dential nomination, indicated the acceptability to the South of Dickinson, Horatio Seymour, Lane, or Toucey as the head of the ticket ; 3 but the presence of two delegations from 1 Herald, Washington dispatch, April 17 (both delegations were then in Washington); Herald, April 21; Tribune, April 19, 23, 24. Wood, however, was reported as having circulated in Charleston his Connecti- cut speeches and as having professed there his attachment to slavery {Tribune, April 23) . 2 John Stryker, a delegate who in caucus at Charleston cast his vote for Dickinson, said later: "... the feelings of their [i. e., the New York delegates'] constituents had become somewhat excited in favor of Mr. Douglas." The regular state convention of 1859, -at which the delegates to the national convention were chosen, had passed resolu- tions approving the Cincinnati platform (speech of Stryker, quoted from the Rome Daily Sentinel in the Argus, Aug. 20). 3 Letter of Slidell printed in the Herald, May 17. 52 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [252 New York deprived it of the consideration which ordinarily is given to its favorite sons. And yet, as events proved, New York's attitude proved all decisive. At the national conventions of 1852 and 1856, New York had sent two dele- gations, and the seats had been equally divided between them. To have gained such recognition would have been a great triumph for Fernando Wood, and in all likelihood would have greatly increased his power. Probably, Wood hoped for no more than this. But in addition to the disad- vantages stated above, he and his followers labored under the handicap of not being the " regular " delegation ; and Wood's reputation was so much against him that, if a press correspondent may be believed, the committee on creden- tials were astonished to find him a polished gentleman and not a rowdy. 1 The Regency delegation won the first stage of the con- test by securing tickets of admission, which were denied to the Wood delegation. 2 Immediately after the temporary organization of the convention, Fisher of Virginia offered a letter of protest from the Wood contestants. Cochrane, of New York, objected to the reading of the document, whereupon Fisher questioned the right of Cochrane to speak on the subject and moved that neither of the contestants from New York be allowed to vote in the organization of the convention or to take part in its proceedings until the contest should be determined. This brought on an exciting and disorderly debate. In the end, New York, like Illinois, was permitted to participate in the work of the committee on organization, and in the committee on credentials to vote upon all cases except its own. Upon motion of Cochrane, Wood's letter was referred to the committee on credentials 1 Herald, April 25. ' Tribune, April 19; Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 7. 253J THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 53 without being read to the convention. 1 Thus, at the end of the first day's session, the Regency delegates actually held the seats, had taken part in the proceedings, and had been accorded representation upon the two important com- mittees ; the Wood delegates had nothing. A number of Southerners had fought upon the floor for Wood; but the Douglas men stood steadily by the Regency delegates, and the presiding officer, a Douglas adherent, steadily ruled in their behalf. 2 Before the committee on credentials, Alvord for the Wood delegation and Cochrane for the Dean Richmond delegation presented their respective versions of what had occurred at the state convention of 1859, each charging the faction of the other with disgraceful fraud and violence. 3 Wood also made an argument for his admission, asserting that the system of choosing delegates by congressional dis- tricts was fairer and more democratic than that according to which his opponents had been selected, that a large majority of the delegates at the state convention had acted with his or- ganization until after the passage of the resolution order- ing the election of delegates to the national convention by congressional districts, and that his delegation was na- tional in principle while his opponents were Free-soilers and bolters. 4 Despite this appeal to the South, the com- mittee on credentials decided in favor of the Dean Rich- mond delegation by the surprising vote of 23 to y. 5 Per- haps the large majority for the Regency contestants was due to hopes that New York would go for some other than 1 Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, pp. 19-22; Herald, April 24; Tribu7ie, April 24. 2 Herald, April 24; Charleston Mercury, April 24, quoted in the Argus, April 28. 3 Charleston Courier, quoted in the Argus, May 1. 4 Herald, April 28. 5 Herald, April 26. 54 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [254 Douglas; possibly it was understood that her votes in the convention would be cast for some one acceptable to the South. 1 A minority report favoring the equal division of the New York seats between the two contesting delega- tions was signed by six members, five of whom came from the cotton states. The convention adopted the majority report by a vote of 210J/2 to 55, all but three and a half votes of the nays coming from the South. 2 Thus the Re- gency won a complete victory. It was charged at the time that the votes of many South- ern men in the convention were secured for the Regency delegation by causing it to appear that New York would vote for a platform and a candidate satisfactory to the South, and that subsequently Dean Richmond and his asso- ciates treacherously repudiated the understanding. 3 That promises, expressed or implied, were made is not unlikely; and some probability is lent to the first part of the accusation by the fact that Edwin Croswell, a " hard ", was permitted to be New York's representative on the committee on reso- lutions. The great fight in the convention was on the plat- form. This matter caused heated dissension among the New York members. Most of the New York City men fav- ored a pro-Southern platform, but they and the relatively few up-state "hards" were outnumbered. 4 Dean Richmond was able to control the delegation so that Croswell was in- structed in caucus to reverse his vote on the platform, and he did so accordingly. Nevertheless, the committee offered 'A report of such an arrangement was published in the Herald, April 26. ' Herald, April 26: Charleston Mercury, quoted in the Argus, May 2. 3 2s. g., Herald, April 27, May 2, 17; Charleston correspondence of the Washington Star, quoted in the Herald, May 1; Senator Bayard in the seceders' convention. Herald, May 2; Tribune, May 23. 1 Herald, May 1. 255] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 55 by a vote of 17 to 16 a majority report embodying resolu- tions favored by the South. In the convention, New York, through the unit rule, cast all of its thirty-five votes for the minority or Douglas platform, which was thus adopted. Then came the secession of a number of Southern delegates. Later, the votes of New York were decisive in the adop- tion of a resolution requiring for nomination two-thirds of the entire membership of the convention. Such a condition, if adhered to, made it impossible for Douglas to obtain the prize. The accusation was therefore made that the Re- gency were traitors to both the Douglas and the anti-Douglas men with the purpose of ultimately bringing about the nomi- nation of Horatio Seymour. 1 However, a very plausible explanation of New York's apparent inconsistency was made. It was pointed out that the vote of her delegation on the platform was called for by the overwhelming sentiment of the larger portion of the party in the State, which prob- ably would have rendered a complete surrender to the South suicidal ; while the threatened withdrawal of the remain- ing Southern delegations rendered necessary the passage of the two-thirds rule. 2 The New York delegation, said one prominent Regency leader, supported this last mentioned proposition after a conference with the Southerners who still retained their seats in the convention, " although we re- garded the two-thirds rule as one of doubtful propriety, and although we all regarded the proposed construction of the rule ... as grossly unjustifiable under ordinary circum- stances." 3 1 Herald, May 17; Washington correspondence of the Herald, June 1, 2; Tribune, May 3, 23, June 27. 'This explanation of the adoption of the two-thirds rule was given by Butler in a speech delivered at Lowell, Massachusetts, May 15 {Herald. May 21). * Speech of Sanford E. Church at Albany, Argus, June 28. 5 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [256 In caucus the New Yorkers expressed their preference for standard-bearer, Douglas receiving 37 votes, Dickinson 20, Guthrie 10, Hunter 2, and Breckinridge i. 1 In the con- vention the whole vote, of course, went to Douglas, Dickin- son receiving a few scattering votes from other delega- tions. 2 Here again there were charges of treachery against the Regency leaders on the ground of their alleged promises to support Dickinson. From the standpoint of New York politics, the net result of the convention and of its adjourned session at Baltimore was to deepen the divisions and hatred in the New York Democracy. At Baltimore, as at Charleston, the New York delegation held the balance of power. Again there was talk of the nomination of Seymour or of Dickinson as a compromise candidate ; 3 but the Regency would have none of Dickinson, and Seymour wrote a letter of withdrawal. 4 Nevertheless, Dean Richmond was accused of waiting for a favorable moment to drop Douglas for Seymour. 5 When the New York delegation was held united against the proposal of- fered by one of the leading Democrats from that State, San- ford E. Church, providing that all accepting seats in the convention should be bound in honor to abide by the action of the convention and agree to support the nominee — a proposition which the ardent Douglas men supported — it 1 Herald, May 1, 19, giving the vote in detail, said to be "from the notes of the secretary." These figures are partly confirmed by a speech of John Stryker in the Rome Sentinel, quoted by the Argus, Aug. 20. 2 Herald, May 3. , 3 Herald, June 19, 20; partly confirmed by Halstead, Political Con- ventions of 1860, p. 160. * Letter of Seymour to the editor of the Utica Daily Observer, printed in the Tribune, June 6. 5 Herald, June 18, 21, 2j. Partly confirmed by Halstead, Political Conventions of I860, p. 229. 257] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 57 was suspected that New York was wavering in its allegiance to Douglas. 1 The editor of the Albany Argus was, as we have seen, specially well qualified to speak on the inner workings of the Regency. After the convention, the Argus declared that despite the admission of the contesting South- ern delegates at Baltimore, Douglas could not have been nominated had there not been a further secession ; " we speak confidently," it went on, when we say that there was no purpose — certainly not on the part of the New York delegation — to declare him nominated without a two-thirds vote of the delegates present. Further than this, we are entirely satisfied that, had there been no secession, after it had been demonstrated by a few ballots that Mr. Douglas could not receive two-thirds, he would have been withdrawn by his friends, and a harmonious nomination of some other person would have taken place. If not with- drawn, we are certain he would have been abandoned by a sufficient number to have given another candidate a two-thirds nomination. 2 John Cochrane years afterwards wrote that just before the reassembling of the convention at Baltimore, Slidell, " assuming and unquestionably empowered with author- ity," offered to Dean Richmond and to Cochrane the united support of the Southerners, including the delegates who had seceded, for Seymour's nomination, provided the New York 1 Tribune, June 19; Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 165. * Argus, June 25. This statement was in part confirmed by Sanford E. Church, who said: " While we supported Mr. Douglas with earnest- ness and sincerity, because we knew he was the choice of nine-tenths of the Democracy of the State, yet had the seceders remained in the convention, and had it become evident that Mr. Douglas could not se- cure the nomination by the regular, legitimate rule of the Democratic party, we should have been ready to vote for any other candidate who stood upon the Democratic platform and who would have received the fair nomination of the convention " (Speech of Church, Argus, June 28). 58 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [258 delegation voted for him; Richmond, however, after con- ferences declined the offer because of his inability to carry with him his friends in the delegation. 1 There is no neces- sary inconsistency between these two statements. Richmond perhaps was ready for a coup; but in the delegation there were not only staunch Douglas men, like Church, but also Dickinson men who probably could not have been brought to Seymour's support ; as for the others, it was not apparent that Douglas men from other states could have been in- duced, in sufficient numbers, to transfer their votes to Sey- mour. Meanwhile, it was far more preferable for the Re- gency to stick to Douglas rather than risk Dickinson's nomi- nation. As one correspondent put it, the Regency leaders found that New York could not " cut Douglas' throat with- out having her own cut in turn." 2 The crucial question was that of the admission of the delegates who had seceded at Charleston or of the Douglas contestants who had been chosen in the interval. To give to the former the seats would have meant the killing-off of Douglas, which would have prepared the way for a com- promise candidate. Without New York's thirty-five votes, there were 110^2 votes favorable to and 99^ votes against the admission of the seceders. 3 New York was ready to make further concessions both as to the admission of dele- gates and as to candidates, had sufficient assurances been given that no further secession would occur ; but it was not willing to adopt a platform such as the Southerners de- manded. 4 For two days, the Regency leaders " shivered on ' Article by John Cochrane in the Magazine of American History, xiv, pp. 151, 623. s Tribune, June 21; partly confirmed by Halstead, Political Conven- tions of I860, p. 227. * Herald, June 20. * Speech of Sanford E. Church, Argus, June 28; Argus editorial, June 25. 059 J THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 59 the brink of a decision," l meanwhile keeping the conven- tion and the political world in suspense. At last, after a prolonged contest in caucus, the delegation decided by a vote of 40 to 29 in favor of the report of the majority of the committee on credentials which recommended the ad- mission of the new Douglas delegations from Alabama and Louisiana. 2 Even then, the New Yorkers were said to have held the way open to harmonious action. A motion to lay upon the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the con- vention had refused to substitute the resolutions of the minor- ity of the committee on credentials for those of the ma- jority report, was defeated by the votes of the New York delegation. Thus a reconsideration was still possible when the convention adjourned to the evening. Douglas had already written to Richardson of Illinois authorizing the withdrawal of his name, and on the morning when the de- cisive vote was taken, had telegraphed to the same effect to Dean Richmond. The conditions attached to this offer, namely that the unity of the party could thereby be pre- served and that a non-intervention Union-loving Democrat should receive the nomination, 3 were such as to create the opportunity for New York to get the prize, if only the South could have been appeased. The New Yorkers endeavored to learn from the delegates who threatened to leave the con- vention what they desired. As the admission not only of the Louisiana seceders but also of those from Alabama and the adoption of the original majority report at Charleston 1 Tribune, June 21 . 'Protest of twenty-nine members of the delegation printed in the Albany Evening Journal, June 30; see also Herald, June 22; Tribune, June 22. s Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860 \ pp. 194-5. 60 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [260 were asked as the price of harmony, the New York delega- tion found itself helpless to patch up a peace, for such terms could not, of course, have been accepted by it. 1 The tele- gram to Richmond was suppressed and Douglas was nomi- nated. The times were particularly favorable to a third-party movement. These were the days when great Union-sav- ing meetings on the basis of compromise and concession were common through the North and not less so in New York State. There, as elsewhere, many finding no haven in either the Republican or Democratic camps and dislik- ing or fearing extreme and sectional agitation, sought a political party which would prevent the threatened rup- ture. After the events at Charleston had shown clearly how matters were drifting, the necessity for a conservative Union party seemed to many the more evident. In New York, the elements ready for amalgamation into such an organization were more promising to the politicians than in some states. The success of the balance-of-power ticket in 1859 was recalled as showing what could be done here. Besides those impelled by love of country into such a move- ment, there was a powerful commercial class in New York City which would probably support any means of safeguard- ing their Southern interests. In brief, it was hoped to unite every man without the Democratic party who was opposed to Seward and his extreme doctrines. In the middle of January, i860, a National Union Ex- ecutive Committee of New York was formed. The transi- tion of the American party to the new organization may be ir The last twelve lines of the narrative above are based upon a speech by John Stryker, a delegate at Charleston, printed in the Argus, Aug. 20 (citing the Rome Sentinel), corrected by Halstead, Political Con- ventions of 1860, p. 194; also partly confirmed by the speech of Sanford E. Church in the convention (Halstead, pp. 215-216); see also Halstead, p. 228. 2 6l] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 6 1 placed at a convention attended by but nineteen men at Bing- hampton a month later, when resolutions were adopted stating that the National Union organization had the hearty sympathy and cooperation of those who had supported the American balance-of-power ticket of the previous year, and pledging support to all measures of the new party which should be in favor of the Union, the Constitution, and the enforcement of the laws. 1 Soon after, ex-Governor Wash- ington Hunt, ex-Congressman George Briggs, and Francis Granger were among those from New York State who signed the address to the people of the United States adopted by the new Constitutional Union party. 2 In this State, a call for a National Union State Conven- tion was issued by three representatives from the old-line Whigs, three from the American State Committee, three from the New York City Union Executive Committee, and three from the National Union Committee. 3 This conven- tion met at Troy on April 18th. William C. Hasbrouck, an old-line Whig and ex-speaker of the assembly, pre- sided. An almost complete set of delegates, headed by Washington Hunt and Erastus Brooks, was chosen to repre- sent New York at the National Union Convention ; but with an eye to future combination with the Democrats, a resolu- tion was adopted that action on the nomination of a distinct electoral ticket should be finally determined at a future state convention. 4 The nomination of Bell seems to have caused some dissat- isfaction in this State. The New York delegation at Balti- 1 Herald, Feb. 16; Tribune, Feb. 18. 'Printed in the Herald, Feb. 21. s Printed in the Herald, Mar. 7. * Herald, April 20; Tribune, April 20, 24. 62 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [262 more favored Houston, 1 and there were signs in New York of considerable sentiment for the Texan even after Bell and Everett had been nominated. 2 Nevertheless, the nominees were promptly ratified at a large Cooper Institute meeting; 8 the organization of clubs was reported as proceeding throughout the State ; 4 and ex-President Fillmore an- nounced his intention of voting for the ticket. 5 The Republicans of New York State entered upon the campaign far more united than did their opponents, and this despite the grievous disappointment which Lincoln's nomination caused to thousands. The evidence that Seward was the choice of the great majority of New York Repub- licans is quite conclusive. True, there was in the early part of the year activity among Chase's friends, 6 and in Febru- ary the Tribune came out for Bates. 7 The opposition to Weed was to some extent 8 synonymous with antagonism to Seward. H. B. Stanton, Lieutenant-Governor Campbell, and William Cullen Bryant privately at least were against Seward's nomination. 9 Yet, in a lengthy estimate of Re- publican sentiment throughout the State, written by a cor- respondent evidently strongly desirous of exaggerating the possibility of a split in the Republican ranks, the writer 1 Herald, May 9, 11. Speech of Brooks at a Bell-Everett ratification meeting, Herald, June 9. 2 Houston and Stockton were nominated for president and vice-presi- dent at a meeting held at Schenectady in July. A full set of electors was named, but Houston later declined {Tribune, July 19). A demonstration in favor of Houston's nomination, held in Union Square at the end of May, was Well attended {Herald, May 30). 3 Herald, June 9. 4 Herald, May 3. 6 Letter of Fillmore, read at a Bell- Everett meeting, Herald, June 9. 6 Herald, Feb. 25. 7 Tribune, Feb. 20. 8 Bryant to Bigelow, Dec. 14, 1859, in Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 127. 9 Hart's Chase, p. 185; Bigelow to Bryant, in Bancroft's Seward, i, p. 528. 263] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 63 failed to find any section where considerable feeling against Seward existed except in Erie County, and there it was at- tributed to the wish to conciliate the friends of Fillmore; the conclusion was reached that, taking the State as a whole, Seward was the first choice and the man whom a large ma- jority of the Republicans desired to see nominated. 1 At the meeting of the Republican State Committee to arrange for the election of delegates to the Chicago convention, a difference arose as to the manner of choosing the delegates, several members of the committee favoring election by con- gressional districts. Behind this move can be seen an at- tempted revolt against Weed. Yet the committeemen were reported as expressing without exception their preference for Seward's nomination. 2 Furthermore, when the Re- publican State Convention met in April, i860, but one reso- lution was adopted, and that amidst uproarious applause and evidently with no opposition; this resolution presented the name of Seward for the presidential nomination. 5 Weed was not a delegate at Chicago, but he was there as Seward's chief manager. The picturesque details of the operations of Weed on the one hand and of Greeley, who was a delegate from Oregon, on the other, have been so often told as to render unnecessary their repetition. 4 It is sufficient to note here that the close association between Seward and Weed, together with a feeling that the influences of the Albany lobby would, in the event of Seward's elec- 1 Herald, Feb. 25; compare Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 261. "'Herald, Feb. 1; Tribune, Feb. 1, 2. 8 Herald, April 19; Tribune, April 19. * E. g., Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln, ii, p. 262 et seq.; Bancroft's Sew- ard, i, p. 531 et seq.; Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 269; TarbeW s Lincoln , i, p. 342 et seq.; Schurz's Reminiscences, ii, p. 176 et seq.; Field's Field, p. 136 et seq. 64 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [264 tion, be transferred to Washington, 1 did far more, probably, to defeat Seward than did the efforts of Greeley, George Opdyke, and David Dudley Field. 2 Greeley and Field, it is true, were exceedingly active against Seward. 3 After Lin- coln's nomination, some attributed to them and especially to the Tribune editor, the blame or praise (according to the point of view) for bringing about the result. Greeley in his paper disclaimed the responsibility. Immediately after the convention, he wrote that the most influential delegates — es- pecially Curtin and Lane — were against Seward, and that the New York Senator would have been stronger in the con- vention but for Weed's presence and support. 4 However effective or ineffective Greeley's efforts were, they served to prepare the way for the future enmities in the party in New York State by winning for him the bitter dislike of Seward's friends. The effect of Lincoln's nomination upon New York Re- publicans was eagerly watched. Before the convention, Seward men had been very confident, and hence the blow was felt all the more. The disappointment of New York Re- 1 Hart's Chase, p. 184 et j^./Schurz's Reminiscences , ii, p. 184; Ban- croft's Seward, i, pp. 524-5; Welles' Lincoln and Seward, p. 27; Argus, April 10, 1861; Bryant to Bigelow (on the effect of the fact referred to in weakening Seward's prospects) in Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 127. 'Chicago correspondence of the Herald, June 19; New York Times, quoted in the Tribune, May 26. Greeley, while declaring that Seward's association with Weed had been used with great effect against Seward, positively denied that he had used that argument. He said that he "carried none of New York's dirty linen to the Chicago laundry, and never voluntarily spoke of the distractions and complications of our New York politics, save to a New Yorker " {Tribune, May 26). 3 Herald, May 15, 16, 17, 18; Ingersoll's Life of Greeley, p. 339: Field's Life of David Dudley Field, p. 125 et seq. 4 Tribune, May 28. 265] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 65 publicans generally was certainly apparent ; 1 and of Thur- low Weed and the ardent friends of Seward, it was intense. Democrats for a few days hoped for and professed to see a refusal on the part of Seward Republicans cordially to support Lincoln. The tone of the chief Seward organs in the State lent justification to these hopes. The Albany Evening Journal published a mournful editorial letter, written by Weed's associate George Dawson, which said: " Misrepresentation has achieved its work. The timid and credulous have succumbed to threats and perversions. . . . The recognized standard bearer of the Republican party has been sacrificed upon the altar of fancied availability. The sacrifice was cruel and unnecessary." And although Lincoln and his friends were absolved from blame for this result, yet the writer remarked that the candidate did not owe his nomination to Seward's adherents, but " to other men and to other influences. . . . Upon them devolves the responsibility of the campaign." 2 Webb in the New York Courier and Enquirer and Ray- mond in the New York Times opened fire upon Greeley. Replying to the latter's denial of having brought about Seward's defeat, Webb declared that a more deliberate and wicked falsehood than this never found publicity, even through the columns of the Tribune ... It was under the garb of friendship that the viper struck the 1 Tribune, May 19, 26 (Rochester Correspondence); Herald, May 22 (effect in Albany); A. B. Cornell's Ezra Cornell, p. 136; F. W. Sew- ard's Seward at Washington, ii, pp. 452-3. 2 Albany Evening Journal, May 21. Dawson distinctly disclaimed having consulted Weed in regard to the matter in this letter; he, how- ever, probably gave utterance to sentiments common to both. See ac- count of McClure's interview with Weed on the evening after the nomi- nation was made: "He [Weed] . . . intimated very broadly that Pennsylvania, having defeated Seward, could now elect Curtin and Lincoln" (McClure's Lincoln and Men of War Times, p. 35]. 66 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 66 blow ; it was as the long-tried and well known friend of Seward, shedding crocodile tears over his unavailability, that he [Greeley] poisoned the minds of the leading men in the Convention and created doubts in regard to Mr. Seward's strength . . . 1 In another issue, Webb said that " even the enemies of Re- publicanism . . . should execrate the conduct of the viper, which warmed into life and power by his [Seward's] coun- tenance . . . used the life and power thus bestowed, to sting to death his benefactor and confiding friend." Then Webb went on to attack Greeley's personal character, say- ing that the Tribune editor was " a coarse man " and pos- sessed none of the instincts of a gentleman . . . The Empire State is Republican to the core ; but let it be proclaimed that Horace Greeley is to guide her, and he and his friends to receive the credit of the work to be done . . . , neither Seward nor his friends . . . will avail to make the people wake up from the apathy which now pervades the State from a mere suspicion that those who cheated us at Chicago are now engineering the machine for the coming election. 2 Raymond, on the way home from the convention, after stopping at Auburn, wrote a savage attack upon Greeley for his share in defeating Seward. Greeley was accused of gaining the confidence of delegates " by professions of re- gard and the most zealous friendship for Governor Seward, but presenting defeat, even in New York f as the inevitable result of his nomination," and of privately repudiating all further political friendship with Seward because the latter 1 New York Courier and Enquirer, quoted in the Herald, May 31. 2 New York Courier and Enquirer, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 14. 267] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 67 •"had never aided or advised his [Greeley's] elevation to office." 1 Greeley, while pleading- not guilty to the first two charges, was irritated by the last. He held Seward respon- sible for it, and in the Tribune called upon the New York Senator for the private letter 2 which Greeley had written to Seward in November, 1854, in order that it might be printed verbatim and that every reader might judge how far it sustained the accusation. 3 Greeley's famous epistle dissolving the political partnership with Seward and Weed was duly returned by Seward and published in the Tribune, accompanied by a long editorial signed by Greeley, wherein he defended himself and assailed Raymond and Webb. 4 No immediate effect upon the campaign was apparent from this incident. Yet, the chance of healing the breach between Greeley and Weed was doubtless lessened from this time. Notwithstanding the absolution of Lincoln from blame for Seward's defeat and the pledges of loyalty to the ticket, this warfare among the four leading Republican journals of the State might well have encouraged the Democrats. 5 However, from the very first, there were reassuring signs. The nominations were received with the usual salutes of one hundred guns, and the prevailing tone of the earliest rati- 1 New York Times, May 24. 2 For this incident, see Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 277 et seq. 3 Tribune, May 25. 4 Tribune, June 14. In the Tribune of May 31, Greeley had made a bitter attack upon Raymond. 5 "The nomination of Lincoln places the recovery of this State from Black Republican misrule clearly within reach of the Democratic party" — New York News, quoted by the Argus, May 23; upon which the Argus comments: "When the New York delegation go to Balti- more they cannot be taunted as at Charleston, with representing a Re- publican State! New York is Democratic by 20,000 majority; . . ." Another editorial in the Argus of May 19 said, " The Republican party is struck with a paralytic stroke, especially in the State of New York. . ." 68 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [268 fication meetings was, along with regret, confidence in the nominees and a determination to give them a hearty sup- port. 1 The Republican press, including the principal Seward organs, coupled their sorrow with hearty acquiescence in the convention's decision, 2 and had nothing but praise for Lin- coln and Hamlin and predictions of their election. Above all, Seward did not sulk in his tent, though his correspondence shows how much he felt his defeat. 3 How- ever, under date of May 21st, he wrote to the New York City Republican Committee declining an invitation to a pro- posed demonstration in his honor and at the same time stoi- cally declaring that the presentation of his name at Chi- cago was the act of his friends and the disappointment theirs, not his. He said that he had no sentiment of either disappointment or discontent, and that the resolutions of the convention were as satisfactory to him as if framed by his own hands ; and he saw in the candidates eminent and able republicans, ... I cheerfully give them a 1 Herald, May 19, 23; Tribune, May 19; Albany Evening Journal, May 23. 2 The Albany Evening Journal of May 19 said: "We place at the head of our columns this evening the nominations of the National Con- vention. They will command the united support of all those who cherish a devotion to the principles of the Republican party." In the same issue, it said: " It would be idle to attempt to disguise the disap- pointment which the people of this State feel at the failure of the Chi- cago Convention to place in nomination for President the candidate of their own State. But there can be no doubt that the nomination which was made is regarded as the very next choice of the Republicans of New York." See also editorials of May 23, 24, 25, 28. The New York Courier and Enquirer said, " we bow to the decision " (quoted by the Tribune, May 21. Similar extracts from up-state Republican papers in the same). ' Bancroft' $ Seward, i, p. 543; F. W. Seward's Seward at Washington, ii, p. 454. 269 j THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 69 sincere and earnest support. I trust, moreover, that those with whom I have labored so long . . . [will] . . indulge me in a confident belief that no sense of disappointment will be allowed by them to hinder or delay or in any way embarrass the progress of that cause . . . * In the early part of July, it became known that Seward would take the stump in behalf of Lincoln ; 2 and later, he did so. Lastly, it may be noted that Weed visited Lincoln, and came away apparently satisfied. Thus, though the news- paper war continued for a while, by the beginning of summer the Republican party in New York State was in hearty accord in support of the nominees. A few weeks after the election, Swett wrote to Weed : " We all feel that New York and the friends of Seward have acted nobly. They have not only done their whole duty to their party, but they have been most generous and magnanimous." 8 1 Printed in the Herald, May 25. 1 Reply to invitation of Michigan Republicans, in Herald, July 4. 3 Swett to Weed, Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 301. CHAPTER III The Campaign of i860 in New York State During the summer the question of most interest in New York politics was whether a fusion of the various anti-Lin- coln parties would be effected. It was recognized, of course, that the division of the Democracy, if continued, would en- sure Republican victory; and consequently, no sooner were the Baltimore and Richmond * conventions adjourned than suggestions for running a fusion electoral ticket in North- ern states where there was a chance of Democratic success were made. 2 Most important of all to defeat Lincoln was New York. The loss of its thirty-five electoral votes, even if the Republicans carried every other Northern and every Western state, was sufficient to elect a Democrat or to send the election into the House. This could not be said of any other single state. Moreover, there were hopeful features for the Demo- crats, if only a fusion could be brought about. Though the Republicans had carried New York in 1856, there re- mained as an uncertain element the large vote for Fillmore — 124,000, or almost 21 per cent of the whole. In 1859, the Americans had run what was called a " balance of power " ticket, composed of half of the Republican and of half of the Democratic nominees, with the result that those on the Republican and balance-of-power tickets had 45,000 ma- 1 The seceders at Charleston later met in convention at Richmond, and joined in the nomination of Breckinridge and Lane. See Rhodes, History of the United States, ii, p. 475. • Herald, June 25. 70 [270 271] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 71 jority while those on the Democratic and balance-of-power tickets had 1,000 majority, showing an American strength of 23,000. If the stay-at-home voters at the election of 1859 should cast their ballots at the coming contest in the same proportion as the votes cast in 1859 showed, the Re- publicans would be in an absolute minority. Then too, the Democratic vote for governor in 1857 compared with that for Buchanan in 1856 increased by 35,000, while the Re- publican vote decreased by 30,000 and the Know Nothing by 64,000. In 1859, the Democratic and American candi- date for secretary of state received 22,000 votes more than the Democratic candidate for governor in 1857, while the Republicans who were endorsed by the Americans received but 4,000 over the Republican vote of 1857. All this en- couraged the belief that the major part of the former Know Nothings were opposed to the Republicans and could be drawn to the support of a fusion electoral ticket in favor of conservative principles. One of the earliest and most energetic supporters of a united anti-Lincoln campaign was Mayor Wood. 1 At the end of June, he was reported as conferring with Breckin- ridge, Douglas, and the President upon the subject. 2 A day later, the press published the statement that Wood had been in consultation with his former arch enemy, Dean Rich- mond. 8 The result was a burying of the hatchet by these two politicians. About the same time the Mozart Hall Gen- eral Committee, doubtless at Wood's bidding, adopted reso- lutions which, while reaffirming their principles as to the duty of the coordinate branches of the federal government to protect the constitutional rights of all persons in the ter- 1 Letter of Wood to J. J. Van Allen, printed in the Herald, July 7. 3 Herald, June 27. * Herald, June 28; Tribune, June 28. 72 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 J2 ritories, at the same time earnestly recommended the nomi- nation of a joint electoral ticket, and they further declared that if this could not be effected, the national Democracy in this State ought to support Douglas inasmuch as his follow- ers were the most numerous of the anti-Lincoln parties in New York. 1 These resolutions did not go through without some dissent. 2 Nevertheless, the Mozart General Com- mittee later unanimously adopted resolutions offered by Wood, declaring it incumbent upon all good Democrats to bow to the decision made by the Democratic National Con- vention, " previous to any disagreement or dissension therein," against the regularity of the state committee headed by John A. Green, and " to cease hostility to the State organization recognized by a united National Conven- tion ". Moreover, by these resolutions steps were taken toward the election of delegates to the coming state con- vention, and such delegates were instructed to exert their influence toward accomplishing a union of all opposed to black republicanism upon one electoral and state ticket. 3 Such an attitude on Mozart's part was a considerable ad- vance toward producing a united front against the Repub- licans. A conference in July, having the same object in view, was attended by prominent Democrats, including John A. Dix, Edwin Croswell, John Van Buren, Dean Rich- mond, Calvert Comstock, Charles O'Conor, James T. Brady, and Elijah F. Purdy. 4 About the same time, the Albany Argus declared in favor of fusion and thereafter repeatedly urged it. 5 , 1 Resolutions printed in the Herald, June 30. 2 Letter signed "Member of the Mozart Hall General Committee, printed in the Herald, July 2; Herald, July 14. 3 Resolutions printed in the Herald, Aug. 3. 4 Herald, July 17. 5 Argus, July 11. 18, 21, and throughout August. 2^3] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 73 The supporters of Bell and Everett, led by Washington Hunt, were from the very start anxious to promote fusion. They had much to gain by it, and nothing to lose. Running a separate ticket was recognized by them as hopeless, for they had neither the powerful press nor the excellent or-. ganization which the Know Nothings had in 1856. 3 The Bell-Everett men professed to hope that if fusion were ef- fected, the election would be thrown into the House, when Bell would have a good chance of being chosen president. 2 With them, however, the defeat of Lincoln rather than the success of their own candidate was the chief aim; and it was quite evident that a second conservative electoral ticket would merely increase Lincoln's prospects of carrying New York. 3 There were, however, great difficulties in the way of bringing about a combination of such diverse elements. The Douglas National Committee, at the end of June, recom- mended to the various state committees that the latter take measures to run in their respective states an electoral ticket pledged to the unequivocal support of Douglas and John- son. 4 In July, the Douglas National Executive Committee pronounced in favor of a " fair and square fight with the Breckinridge party," and declared that no compromise what- ever was admissible. 5 To many Douglas adherents, more- 1 The Fillmore supporters were said to have had over fifty journals in New York State, whereas in August, i860, the number of New York papers favoring Bell were said to be no more than six, and those gen- erally of very limited influence {Herald, Aug. 2). 2 Speeches of Hunt: at the Utica convention {Argus, July 14), at Albany {Herald, July 20), at New York City {Herald, Aug. 29); speech of James Brooks {Herald, July 13). 3 Speech of Hunt justifying the fusion, Herald, Aug. 29; letter of Hunt to Crittenden in Chapman's Life of Crittenden, ii, pp. 217-218. 4 Resolutions printed in the Herald, June 27. 5 Manifesto of the Douglas National Executive Committee, printed in the Herald, July 19. 74 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [274 over, it seemed that the proposed fusion would be of little advantage to their candidate, for Douglas had no chance of an election in the House. On the other hand, many of the Breckinridge men were filled with bitter hatred of the Albany Regency because of its alleged treachery. One correspondent said of the southern tier of counties in this State : " It is difficult to determine . . . which curse the other the loudest and deepest, the Breckinridgers or the Douglasites." * Daniel S. Dickinson especially poured out invective upon the Regency leaders. At a Breckinridge meeting, he de- clared that those who ruled, and dictated to, and wielded the vote of the New York delegation, through the fraudulent process of a unit vote . . . will hereafter be known by the name plainly branded upon their guilty foreheads at Charleston — " political gam- blers " — as creatures who hang festering upon the lobbies of State and federal legislation to purchase chartered privilege and immunity by corrupt appliances ; who thrive in the foetid atmosphere, and swell to obese proportions like vultures upon offal ; office brokers, who crawl and cringe around the foot- steps of power, and by false pretences procure themselves or vile tools places of official trust . . . they have torn open again its [the Democratic party's] wounds to subserve their own selfish schemes, and now let division be the order of the day until these faithless " political gamblers " are driven without the pale of the democratic party forever. 2 When the leading adherent of Breckinridge in this State talked thus, denouncing the principal politicians who sup- ported Douglas at such length as to fill two newspaper col- umns of fine print, and devoted most of the remainder of his speech to justifying the platform and the regularity of the 1 Herald, July 25. ' Herald, July 19. 275] THE CAMPAIGN 0F l86 ° 75 Breckinridge ticket in contrast with the Douglas ticket, hav- ing but little to say against the Republicans, the formation of any alliance which should include the two wings of the Democracy was plainly up-hill work. Another obstacle to fusion was the desire of the sup- porters of Breckinridge for a general decapitation of Douglas office-holders by the national administration. 1 Of such a move there were rumors 2 and perhaps a beginning. 3 Of course, a fusion would put an end to any chance of a pro- scription. Moreover, it was recognized that the running of separate state tickets would weaken a joint electoral ticket, so that a complete union of those opposed to Lincoln neces- sitated besides the apportionment of electors a division of the nominations for state offices. The Constitutional Union Convention was the first of the state assemblages to meet. It made no nominations; but instead, under the influence of speeches by Hunt and James Brooks, it appointed a committee authorized to form an electoral ticket and in such manner as should be deemed " best calculated to unite the National Union men of every name and designation and promote the election " of Bell 1 Herald, Aug. 21, Sept. 6. * Herald, May 19, July 12; Tribune, July 2. 'Removal of U. S. Marshal Jewett {Herald, Aug. 8); three re- movals at Albany by Collector Schell for political reasons (Argus, July 25); letter from a correspondent at Pultneyville, Wayne County, saying that the deputy-collector of that port had been removed because he sup- ported Douglas {Argus, July 28) ; citation from the Jamaica Democrat wherein the editor stated that he had been removed from office by Col- lector Schell because of support given to Douglas {Argus, July 19). The cases of Messrs. Sanders and North and that of the postmaster at Albion were attributed to other reasons by the Argus (July 13), and President Buchanan was declared guiltless of having followed a pre- scriptive course. Buchanan in a letter of August 11 to Halleck said, "I do not indulge a proscriptive spirit, and have not removed one in twenty of the Douglas officeholders " ( Works, ed. by Moore, x, p. 466) . 76 HEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [276 and Everett. 1 The names on this committee show as promi- nent men in the Bell-Everett movement in this State, be- sides Hunt and the two Brookses, William Duer, George Briggs, Amos H. Prescott, Lorenzo Burrows, and Solomon G. Havens, all of whom had held high places at the hands of either the Whigs or the Know Nothings. Next came the Breckinridge State Convention at Syra- cuse on August 7th. Here a further division of the De- mocracy was threatened by the fact that the convention met in response to two calls, one issued by John A. Green, chair- man of the state committee, and the other by Augustus Schell and one gentleman from each congressional district. A contest as to who should organize the body seemed not unlikely. 2 At the last moment, however, Schell yielded to Green. 3 A fortnight before the convention, the leading Breckinridge paper in the State, the New York Journal of Commerce/ advocated such a policy as would result in co- operation with the Douglas and Bell men in running an unpledged electoral ticket, the nominees if successful to vote for Douglas if their votes would elect him, but for Breckin- ridge or Bell if by so doing either of them might be chosen president. Such an arrangement, it was urged, might give Breckinridge the prize, whereas New York's vote could not elect Douglas ; if the contest went to the House, Douglas had no chance, while Breckinridge had a first-rate one; if neither the electoral colleges nor the House chose a presi- dent, the Senate would elect Lane vice-president and he 1 Herald, July 13; Argus, July 14. ^Herald, Aug. 7; Argus, Aug. 9. 3 Herald, Aug. 8; Argus, Aug. 9. 4 The New York World, then an independent paper, declared that the Journal of Commerce was the only influential Breckinridge paper in the State ( World, Sept. 4) . 277J THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 yy would become acting president. The writer also asserted that a letter from Mr. Breckinridge favoring cooperation had been received in New York City. 1 The sentiment of the dele- gates, however, on the eve of the convention was strongly opposed to any arrangement with the supporters of Douglas, 2 and a speech by Dickinson still further weakened the hopes of those who desired to leave the way open for such a step. 3 A full set of presidential electors and a complete state ticket headed by James T. Brady for governor was nominated. 4 Brady was a man of great integrity, eloquence, and legal learning, and of fine personality. For years he had been one of the leading minds of the New York bar. He was, apparently, neither a politician nor an office-seeker; 5 but he consented to lead a forlorn hope. The resolutions adopted by the convention equally dis- approved of the " plan of Abraham Lincoln for interfering with the rights of slaveholders in the Territories by act of Congress, and the plan of Stephen Arnold Douglas for in- terfering with them by unfriendly territorial legislation." After endorsing the national platform and candidates and Buchanan's administration, the resolutions went on to " re- probate and condemn in unmeasured terms the conduct of the controlling majority of the New York delegation in the National Convention at Charleston and Baltimore," and charged that majority with " the disruption and division of the Democratic party." The nominations of Douglas and Johnson were declared to have no semblance of regularity whatever. Other resolutions dealt with state questions, in- 1 Citations from the Journal of Commerce in the Argus, July 21, Aug. 3. 1 Herald, Aug. 7. * Herald, Aug. 8. 'Ibid. 5 Breen's Thirty Years of New York Politics, pp. 321, 322. 78 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [278 eluding the canals and railroad charters. 1 A resolution to appoint a committee to confer with similar bodies for the purpose of uniting upon one electoral ticket in opposition to the Republicans, with power to substitute others for those nominated by the convention, was overwhelmingly defeated. Later, through the pleading of a few, a resolution was adopted empowering the state committee to confer, if it deemed it proper to do so, with any other committee ap- pointed for the purpose, in order to consolidate upon the principles enunciated by the convention in its platform those opposed to the Republican electoral ticket. 2 Of course, no cooperation was possible — and probably none was hoped for — on the basis demanded, since it could not have been expected that the Douglas wing, having possession of the regular state and county organizations as well as control of nearly all the influential papers in New York, would yield their principles to a minority. Thus, the action of the Breckinridge men did not augur harmony in the Democratic ranks. A week later the Douglas State Convention assembled. After the temporary organization had been effected, ex- Governor Seymour entertained the gathering with a speech assailing the Republican administration of the State and pleading for attention to ills at home. New York City, he said, had been oppressed and deprived of self-government, while the State had been heavily burdened with taxation and "stood disgraced amongst her sister States of the Con- federacy by the corruptions of her legislatures for the past two years ;" and he attributed all this to the fact that " the people have been paying so much attention to the affairs of other States that they have neglected the interests of their 1 Herald, Aug. 9. a Herald, Aug. 9; Tribune, Aug. 10. 279 ] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 79 own." 1 The customary contest between Tammany and Mozart was compromised by admitting both delegations upon an equality, much to Tammany's indignation. When the report recommending this settlement was adopted, Tam- many withdrew for consultation. Later the braves returned ; but presented a protest setting forth Tammany's exclusive claims to regularity and stating that in view of the crisis threatening the Democratic party and the country, Tam- many would retain seats in the convention and would sup- port its nominees, but would cast no vote therein. 2 William Kelly was nominated for governor by acclama- tion, and the rest of the state ticket was disposed of quickly. 3 Kelly had retired from business in New York City in the forties and since then had devoted himself to farming in Dutchess County, where he had a model establishment. Be- sides having sat in the state senate, he had been president of the State Agricultural Society, trustee of the State Agri- cultural College, and interested in various charitable, edu- cational, and commercial enterprises. 4 Now he was set up as the " farmer's candidate." B His " private virtues " were recognized by the chief organ of his opponents in the heat of the campaign. 6 A more important matter was that of presidential elec- tors. A committee of the Bell-Everett party was present to arrange a fusion; and after extended negotiations, a joint ticket was formed whereby the Bell-Everettites were given ten of the nominations for electors. The 1 Herald, Aug. 16. 2 Herald, Aug. 16. 3 William F. Allen was nominated for lieutenant-governor and Wil- liam C. Rhodes for state prison inspector by acclamation; William W. Wright was named for canal commissioner {Herald, Aug. 16) . * Argus, Oct. 1. 5 The Argus urged its readers to "vote for Kelly, the Farmer's Can- didate." * Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 20. 80 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [280 resolutions condemned the doctrines of the Republicans and of the Breckinridge supporters alike, and declared that in case of a struggle "we will stand by the Union against disunion." The Republican administration of the State and the proposed constitutional amendment abolishing the prop- erty qualification for negro voters were warmly denounced. In order to bring about cooperation to defeat Lincoln, the state committee was authorized to fill any vacancy that might occur on the electoral or state tickets and to take proper measures to give " united expression and effect to the national conservative sentiment of the State." * Immediately after the convention, a controversy arose among the adherents of the new allies. Brooks ~ and Hunt, 3 representing the Bell-Everettites, declared that their ten electors, if chosen, would be free to vote for the Constitu- tional Union candidates. On the other hand, Oswald Otten- dorfer, a Douglas nominee for elector and editor of the New York Staats Zeitung, asserted that the distinct understand- ing was that all on the electoral ticket should vote for Douglas. 4 Irish Democratic papers claimed the same. 5 The Tammany Hall General Committee ratified the Douglas nominees " in full faith and confidence that every person whose name is on the ticket will, if elected, vote for Stephen A. Douglas." G The Tribune maliciously asked, " What do the Bell-Everettites say to this?" 7 and it aptly labelled the arrangement " the confusion ticket." Meanwhile the ten 1 Herald, Aug. 15, 16, 17. 2 Extract from the New York Express in the Tribune, Aug. 29. 'Speech of Hunt in New York City, Herald, Aug. 29. 4 Extract from Staats Zeitung, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 22. 5 New York Freeman s Journal, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 24; New York Irish American, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 27. 6 Tribune, Aug. 24. ' Ibid. 2 8!] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 8 1 Bell-Everett candidates remained silent as to their inten- tions. 1 A partial union of the " conservative " men in this State had now been effected, but the Breckinridge supporters were not so easily fused. Though both of the Democratic state conventions had left a way open for a coalition, though both of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates in their letters of acceptance had intimated their willingness to withdraw, 2 yet the two factions came to an agreement on the electors after the hard work of the campaign should already have been begun, and then only after much negotiation and recrimination, many delays and cautious advances. The strongest pressure against continuing the division came from New York City, 3 whose public opinion finally forced an un- willing union. Yet even in the metropolis there continued to be opposition to such a step.* Moreover, the attitude of the Breckinridge State Committee was especially hostile to fusion, and at a meeting soon after the Douglas State Con- vention, the committee refused to make any advance. 5 The Douglas State Committee at the end of August took the in- itiative by appointing a conference committee consisting of Benjamin Wood and two others. 6 Soon after, a number of prominent adherents of Breckinridge visited Washington to consult, it was reported, with General Lane and with the 1 New York Evening Post, Aug. 28. 'Letter of acceptance of Brady {Herald, Aug. 30); letter of accept- ance of Kelly {Herald, Sept. 11). 1 Herald, Sept. 11; New York World (then independent), Sept. 4. * Editorial from a Douglas organ, the Sunday Mercury, printed in the Tribune, Sept. 10; extract from the Staats Zeitung, printed in the Tribune, Sept. 18. ''Herald, Aug. 22; confirmed by the Argus, Sept. 12. * Herald, Aug. 31; Argus, Sept. 1. 82 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [282 administration in regard to fusion. 1 Evidently the decision was favorable to a coalition on satisfactory terms. Immediately following the return of the Breckinridge men, their state committee met at the Astor House in New York City, while the conferees appointed by the Douglas State Committee met at the Metropolitan. The Douglas men re- quested a conference, to which the Breckinridgers acceded, appointing for this purpose a sub-committee of three headed by John A. Green. In conference, the two sub-committees haggled in vain, the Breckinridge men finally demanding ten electors and two places on the state ticket, and the Douglas men offering five electors and two state nomina- tions or six electors and one place on the state ticket. Then the Breckinridge State Committee adjourned after authoriz- ing its chairman to arrange a fusion upon the rejected terms. Wood, finding that the other side was obdurate, notified Green that the proposition of the Breckinridge State Committee would be favorably reported to the Douglas State Committee. 2 The Breckinridge State Committee, however, had meanwhile departed, and Green purposely avoided — so the press reports said — receiving the message of Wood. 3 Before adjourning, the Breckinridge men issued an address putting the blame for the failure to agree on the Douglas conferees, and concluding : " We ask the more than one hundred thousand old adamantine hard-shell na-r tional democrats of this State, will you desert your party now, to follow Richmond and Cagger, and their Know 1 Herald, Sept. 6; address of the Breckinridge State Committee, printed in the Herald, Sept. 17. 2 Herald, Sept. 8, 11; Wood'sreport to the Douglas State Committee printed in the Herald, Sept. 15; Address of the Breckinridge State Committee printed in the Herald, Sept. 17. 3 Argus, Sept. 12; also quotations therein from the New York News and the New York Day Book. 283] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 83 Nothing allies, on the road towards the free soil republican camp ? " x The Regency organ, on the other hand, claimed that the Breckinridge committee was insincere and that it desired to prevent fusion by " insisting upon impossible terms, by irritating language, and by the interposition of all possible obstacles and stratagems." 2 The Douglas men could not afford to incur the odium of throwing New York's vote to Lincoln, they were anxious to save the local, state, and congressional tickets, and a part of the commercial and financial class of New York City — an important source of campaign contributions — was strongly in favor of fusion. 3 On the other hand, Richmond probably did not care to strengthen the new machine oper- ated by Green. The objects of the Regency would be at- tained if the majority of the Breckinridge followers should be won over by some mode other than making an arrange- ment with the Green committee. When the Douglas State Committee met in mid-September, a resolution acceding to the Breckinridge proposal was defeated by a vote of seven to five, the nays including Richmond and Cagger. 4 A dele- gation from the Volunteer Democratic Association, a body of New York merchants who were supposed " to furnish the sinews of war, and take their pay in Southern trade," 5 ap- peared before the committee and urged that to effect a united front, ten Breckinridge men should be placed upon the electoral ticket and two upon the state ticket. While this request was refused, the committee before adjourning gave 1 Address of the Breckinridge State Committee printed in the Herald, Sept. 17. 2 Argus, Sept. 12. s Herald, Sept. 15. 4 Herald, Sept. 15; Argus, Sept. 18. 6 Tribune, Sept. 15. 6 Argus, Sept. 18, containing reply of Peter Cagger, Secretary to John T. Henry, Chairman. 84 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [284 full power in the whole matter to a sub-committee con- sisting of Richmond, Cagger, and one other. 1 These three, after consultation with some merchants and New York City supporters of Breckinridge, adopted a plan which satis- fied Richmond's conflicting aims. 2 The mercantile and moneyed interests and the Breckinridge vote in the metro- politan district, where alone in the State, Breckinridge had any important strength, were appeased, without, however, any recognition of the Green organization. At a monster meeting of those opposed to the Republican party and its principles, held in New York City on Sep- tember 17th, and presided over by Joshua J. Henry, a mer- chant in the Southern dry-goods trade and the leading spirit in the Volunteer Democratic Association, a resolution was adopted for the appointment of a committee of fifteen which should form a fusion electoral ticket. 3 This committee in- cluded Charles O'Conor, Edwin Croswell, Samuel J. Tilden, and Peter B. Sweeney. 4 The fifteen, unable to satisfy the conflicting demands of Green and Richmond, finally decided upon a settlement of its own, by which four of the names on the Breckinridge ticket, including Henry S. Randall for elector-at-large, and three other Breckinridge men from New York City were substituted for seven on the Douglas list. 6 The committee made no attempt to arrange a fusion on the state ticket, regarding that as beyond its powers. It recom- mended, however, that a concession be made to the sup- porters of Breckinridge by the nomination of one of their number for lieutenant-governor. 6 The electoral ticket thus 1 Herald, Sept. 15; Argus, Sept. 18. * Herald, Sept. 17. * Herald, Sept. 18. * Herald, Sept. 20. 5 Herald, Sept. 25, including the official report of the committee of fifteen. 6 Argus, Oct. 9, quoting the New York Journal of Commerce . 285 j THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 85 proposed consisted of eighteen Douglas, ten Bell, and seven Breckinridge adherents. Letters were then sent to Richmond and Green requesting their ratification of the arrangement. 1 Richmond's committee agreed to this, substituting in place of nominees who conveniently stepped aside all the pro- posed names except that of Henry S. Randall, who had al- ready denounced the negotiations for fusion. 2 Another Breckinridge man, Greene C. Bronson, corporation counsel of New York City and a former chief judge of the Court of Appeals, was inserted in Randall's stead. 3 William C. Crain, ex-speaker of the assembly and a supporter of Breck- inridge, was named by the committee for lieutenant-gov- ernor upon the declination of Judge Allen. 4 The State Executive Committee of the Constitutional Union party also accepted the arrangement. 5 At another great meeting in New York City on October 8th, the committee of fifteen ticket as amended by Dean Richmond's committee was en- thusiastically adopted. 6 On the following day the candi- dates for elector on the Breckinridge ticket met at the call of John A. Green, and declined the nominations on that ticket. Green's state committee then convened and accepted the declinations, at the same time issuing an address to the national Democrats of New York, declaring that neither their principles nor their organization were abandoned, but that the fusion ticket was accepted as the best chance of electing Breckinridge. They further said that they would keep their state ticket in the field ; and, after denouncing the 1 Herald, Sept. 26. 2 See letter of Randall, quoted infra. 3 Resolutions of the Douglas State Committee, printed in the Argus, Oct. 4. 4 Resolutions of the Douglas State Committee, Argus, Oct. 4. 5 Herald, Oct. 6. 6 Herald, Oct. 9. 86 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [286 New York Central Railroad and the Albany Regency, the address concluded with the fling, " Nor does the repute of their new allies, the Know Nothing leaders, elevate the character of the alliance." At the same time, the friends of Breckinridge were advised to perfect their local organization and to place in nomination candidates for local offices. 1 Thus it was the middle of October before this partial fusion was effected. Pennsylvania had by that time gone Republican in its state election, and the sole hope for Lin- coln's opponents was now New York. Yet the Breckinridge committee acceded to the coalition with recriminations and reproaches for their new allies. Since Douglas had no chance of election by the House, a union on the state ticket was the kind of fusion which alone would have been of value to the Richmond organization ; but the Breckinridge men re- fused to withdraw Brady and his associates. The mutual bickerings, prolonged for so long a time, could not but weaken the prospects of the Democrats. 2 The Republicans, on the other hand, although for a while slightly distracted by an intermittent warfare between Greeley and his enemies, 3 were nevertheless quite harmon- ious compared to their opponents. It is true that just before the Republican State Convention at Syracuse in the latter part of August, Greeley had made in the Tribune an on- slaught on Weed, connecting him with the corruption of the 1 Herald, Oct. 10. "August Belmont in a letter to John Forsyth, written shortly after the election, described this as one the chief causes of the defeat of the fusion ticket (Belmont's Letters, Speeches and Addresses, p. 37). s Even after the convention, Greeley and Weed kept denouncing each other {e.g., Tribune, Aug. 28). Greeley personally interfered against the reelection of Speaker Littlejohn, charging him with corruption, while Raymond entered the lists in behalf of the Speaker ( Tribune, Oct. 23; Herald, Oct. 25). Later, Littlejohn sued Greeley for libel {Herald, Dec. 6). 2 g^] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 87 Legislature of i860. Greeley was not alone in his desire to cleanse the party from any taint which might have arisen from the doings at Albany, many Republicans openly re- pudiating the acts of their representatives at the past ses- sion. 1 The matter seemed likely to be the subject of a struggle in the convention between Weed's supporters and his adversaries. 2 Dana and Field were active among the latter, but the anti-Weed men were in the minority. In the end, the convention proceeded with its work harmoniously. A resolution drafted by Field was toned down so as to de- nounce merely the attempt to fasten upon the Republican party the odium of profligate legislation, declaring that the jobs lately put through at Albany could not have been passed without the almost unanimous support of the Democratic members, and condemning official corruption generally. Besides the ratification of the Chicago nominations and plat- form, and the usual praise of the Republican state adminis- tration and of the Republican canal policy, a plank was adopted declaring that the people should watch the use made of franchises to corporate bodies and enforce necessary re- strictions upon them. 3 Headed by Edwin D. Morgan and Robert Campbell, both renominated by acclamation though Campbell's name was probably a bitter pill for Weed, 4 the slate went through 1 Report of a meeting of the Republican editors from the interior of the State {Herald, Aug. 23) ; letter to Governor Morgan, thanking him for using his veto against " the dangerous schemes of the late Legisla- ture," signed by a number of well-known Republicans (Tribune, May 9); resolutions of the Brooklyn Rocky Mountain Club (Herald, April 27); resolution of the Brooklyn Seventh Ward Republican Association {Tribune, Aug. 17). 1 Herald, Aug. 22. * Herald, Aug. 23. * Ante, chapter i, confirmed by many statements scattered in the press, e.g., Herald, Aug. 23; Tribune, Aug. 25. When E. Delafield Smith moved the unanimous nomination of E. D. Morgan for gover- 88 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 88 smoothly. The nominations for electors were divided among the various elements of which the party was composed, William Cullen Bryant who was of radical Democratic ante- cedents and James O. Putnam a prominent former Ameri- can being selected for electors-at-large. 1 The results of the convention apparently showed that, despite his defeat at Chicago, Weed still had some degree of control over the party in this State. It is very probable that New York, despite the formation of what the Tribune labeled the " hybrid, tesselated, three- legged anti-Republican ticket," 2 was safe for Lincoln from the beginning of the contest. Yet, that the campaign in this State after the fusion had been accomplished was a hard fought one was later attested by Greeley, who spoke of it as " a struggle as intense, as vehement, and energetic, as had ever been known." 3 The Democrats put some hope in this desperate chance when no other was left. It is true that in 1856, the Republicans had been aided by a peculiar enthu- siasm for the candidate, by the new-born zeal for a great cause, by the climax of the Kansas struggle, and by activity in the pulpit and the religious press — all of which were largely or wholly absent in i860. In September of the latter year, the Republican press of New York showed signs of alarm. It was asserted that the party was overconfident and nor, James S. Wadsworth moved to amend by nominating at the same time and by the same vote Robert Campbell for lieutenant-governor. As Wadsworth was an anti- Weed man, this looks like a clever move on the part of Weed's adversaries. After the convention, however, Weed denied his hostility to Campbell, and declared, " We went to Syracuse anticipating and prepared for the renomination of our present Governor and Lieutenant-Governor" (Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 27). 1 Herald, Aug. 23. ' Tribune, July 11. Of course, at that date, the formation of such a ticket was not accomplished but merely anticipated. 'Greeley's American Conflict, i, p. 326. 2 g 9 ] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 89 sunk in lethargy. After the middle of September, however, the outlook for the Republicans in this State brightened; and with the October elections, the weakness of the anti- Lincoln ticket became daily more apparent. The fusion itself proved a source of weakness to the allies. The Republicans not only assailed and ridiculed such an in- congruous coalition, but also took good care to remind na- turalized Irish and German as well as Roman Catholic citi- zens, of the former Know Nothing activities of some of the fusion electoral candidates. 1 Then too, the Republicans were inspired with new vigor by the union of their oppo- nents. From up the State came reports of hostility and disgust on the part of both factions of the Democracy toward the ticket, and it seems probable that many Demo- cratic votes were for that reason cast for Lincoln. 2 In the middle of October, the New York Herald, an ardent advocate of a combination of the anti-Lincoln forces, as- serted that there was no genuine fusion between the two Democratic wings and that the breach between them had widened since the October elections. 3 Dickinson, as late as October 18th, having come around so far that he appealed for support of the fusion ticket, did so on the ground that its success might make possible the choice of Breckinridge and that no other candidate could expect to be helped by it. 4 1 E. g., Raymond's speech at Brooklyn (Albany Evetring Journal, Oct. 10); various editorials in the Albany Evening Journal during Sep- tember and October. 3 Herald, Oct. 30, Nov. 1; Brooklyn Eagle (Dem.), quoted in the Tribtme, Nov. 10; letter written by one whom the Argus described as a "gentleman of long and honorable service in the party," saying, "In my judgment this coalition cost us thousands of votes in this State " (Argus, Nov. 21). 3 Herald, Oct. 19. 4 Letter of Dickinson to John A. Green (Herald, Oct. 22). 9 o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [290 Brady gave utterance to the same sentiments. 1 Henry S. Randall correctly described the situation when he wrote: Enthusiasm won't stay at a red heat during a long train of protocols and conferences. . . Our columns were arrayed for battle, and looked to see the signal. Bah ! They saw a little white flag crossing and recrossing between us and our foes. And this has been kept up until cowards have had time to look for the strongest side, until the ardor of our bravest has been chilled ! For why should they strike gallantly against those who may to-morrow be allies, and who, though allies will not forget the present blow ? 2 Besides issues which were common to the whole land, there were in New York several less important matters re- lating more especially to this State which received atten- tion during the campaign. Democratic speakers and news- papers 3 assailed the corruption of the last legislature. " While public attention has been directed to remote ob- jects," said Washington Hunt, and a fictitious alarm excited lest slavery should invade lati- tudes where negroes are frozen in the winter months, our people have been too neglectful of the duties of self-govern- ment. . . . Corruption stalks abroad. ... If we can believe their own organs, the friends of freedom have introduced the slave trade into the halls of our Capitol. Worst of all, they have been selling white men and the representatives of white men. Legislation bought and sold — bills passed or defeated 1 Herald, Oct. 23. 'Letter of Randall, printed in the Tribune, Oct. 3. On the other hand, a Douglas adherent wrote: "... in spite of ourselves, in spite of the better sense of our State Central Committee, we were forced into an association with disunionists. . . . What remained of the enthusiasm which had existed for Judge Douglas and his principles, was crushed out, . . ." (Letter referred to in note 2, supra, p. 89). % E.g., Argus, Sept. 13, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, Oct. 1,6, 12, 15, Nov. 3. 2 9I ] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 9 1 to suit the highest bidder — bribery the order of the day — such is the hideous picture presented to the people of our noble State. 1 The Republicans could only put forth denunciations of all corruption and endeavor to shift the blame upon the Demo- crats who had voted for the obnoxious acts. Secondly, the Republicans were charged with greatly increasing the state taxes for canals through the abandonment of the Demo- cratic policy of pay as you go for one of borrowing. In this connection, the Democrats asked, somewhat inconsistently, 2 who was responsible for the five and a half million dollars tax of that year. " Every household in the State," said the Argus, " feels the oppression of the reckless, extravagant, and profligate policy inaugurated by Seward and Ruggles, 3 which has fastened upon us the incubus of debt and taxa- tion." 4 Thirdly, the proposed amendment to the state con- stitution, abolishing the property suffrage qualification for negroes, was denounced by the Democrats. 5 The great mercantile interests of New York City were for the most part a source of strength to the anti-Lincoln ticket. It was the merchants who took the lead in effecting the fusion. Fernando Wood 6 and Yancey of Alabama 7 in 1 Herald, Aug. 29. 'Inconsistently, because they had strenuously opposed measures de- signed to avoid the necessity of resorting to direct taxation for this purpose. s For this, see Weed, Autobiography, pp. 458-9. 4 Argus, Oct. 19. Other similar editorials, Oct. 3, 5, 9 (where it speaks of "Republican profligacy" and "Republican dishonesty and grand larceny"), 12, 22, 25. The Albany Evening Journal (Oct. 22) in reply claimed that the Republicans had not control over the canal administration during the four preceding years, and hence were not re- sponsible for the increased taxation. % E.g., Argus, Aug. 27, Sept. 5, 7, Oct. 1, Nov. 1, 2. • Herald, Sept. 18. T Herald, Oct. 11. 92 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [292 speeches at New York dwelt upon the importance from the business point of view of defeating- Lincoln. The New York Herald kept emphasizing the same argument, and held before the merchants " the prospect of a staggering blow to the commercial and financial interests of New York," should Lincoln be successful. 1 Immediately before the election, the same paper printed a series of special appeals to the various trades having much at stake in Southern business. To the hotel keepers, it said : " If the relations between North and South are disturbed, as they will be by Lincoln's election, your houses will be half empty. ..." To the ship car- penters, it urged : " Don't forget that if Lincoln is not de- feated at the polls to-day your trade is gone to the dogs . . . no more ships for the Southern trade will be built here." Similar arguments were addressed to the builders, milliners, shoemakers, carriage makers, and tailors. 2 After the elec- tion, the Tribune spoke of the " very general enlistment of the Mercantile and Capitalist classes in the Fusion cause by shrieks of apprehension that the Union was about to be dissolved in case of Lincoln's election " as a " salient feature of the canvass," and said further : " Nothing like it has been seen since the Bank Controversy of 1832-8; and even that did not compare in the intensity and unanimity of the com- mercial furor with that [of i860]." 3 This, however, while mainly true, was an exaggeration. The Republicans sought — and with some success — to win over the business commu- nity by pointing out the dangerous consequences to those en- gaged in mercantile pursuits, if the election were thrown into the House, involving probably excitement and political un- 1 Herald, Sept. 24. 2 Herald, Nov. 6. This argument was not confined to the metropolis; the Argus (Nov. 1) made a similar appeal to the workingmen of Albany. 5 Tribune, Nov. 8. 2 g$] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 93 rest far worse than that which had attended the election of speaker in the previous year. 1 This argument was a telling one. 2 Taking the State as a whole, the Republicans had the advantage in better organization, more enthusiasm, more and better attended meetings, and superior talent on the plat- form. Long before the presidential nominations were made, they had in the first half of the year undertaken a campaign of education at Cooper Institute, where successive meetings were addressed by Frank Blair, Cassius M. Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and John Sherman. 3 After the battle proper was joined, other eminent men, including Carl Schurz, Senators Wade, Sumner, Hale, Doolittle, and Wilson, Galusha A. Grow, Thaddeus Stevens, Oliver P. Morton, Owen Love- joy, and Salmon P. Chase, were imported, most of them speaking a number of times ; while of New Yorkers, Seward, besides going West to stump for Lincoln, spoke six times for that cause within this State, and Greeley, George William Curtis, William Cullen Bryant, David Dudley Field, Henry B. Stanton, Henry J. Raymond, James O. Putnam, and 1 E. g., Albany Eveni?ig Journal, Oct. 22, 24, Nov. 3. 1 Herald, Nov. 6: letter of Seymour to Crittenden (Chapman's Life of Crittenden, ii, pp. 254-5): "Thousands and thousands voted for the Lincoln ticket in this State, who had no partiality for, or confidence in republican doctrines. They, however, judged that success of the Union ticket here would, at best, throw the election into the House and pos- sibly result, after bitter animosity, finally in the selection of Mr. Lane by the Senate. From their point of observation this large class re- garded . . . the election by the people of a candidate they did not ap- prove, less disastrous than a long, embittered, congressional contest." Similar testimony was given by August Belmont in a letter of Novem- ber 22, i860, to John Forsyth (Belmont's Letters, etc., p. 37). That all the big merchants and capitalists of the metropolis were not for the fusion ticket is seen from the Wall Street meeting in favor of Lincoln (Herald, Nov. 6) . s Herald, Jan. 26, Feb. 16, 27, April 14. 94 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [294 Daniel Ullman were other prominent names on the lists of speakers. The Tribune thought that two thousand would be a low estimate of the number of Republican speeches de- livered in the interior of the State during a single week. 1 The Democrats had nothing to compare with such ac- tivity. 2 Hunt, Brady, Amasa J. Parker, James S. Thayer, and Fernando Wood were among their speakers; of out- siders, Douglas traversed the State in September, attended a monster barbecue at Jones' Wood in New York City, and made speeches there and at Troy, Glens Falls, Albany, El- mira, Clifton Springs, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, besides briefer addresses at various way stations. 3 Her- schell V. Johnson went through the central counties, speak- ing at nine places; William L. Yancey addressed several meetings; General Ewing, ex-Governor Brown, and Felix K. Zollicoffer, all of Tennessee, stumped the State; while among those who spoke here at least once were Vallandig- ham, Logan and Richardson of Illinois, and Foote of Mis- sissippi. After the middle of October, there came from all over New York reports of Democratic apathy and of Republican activity. 4 The Wide-Awakes were very numerous in this State, Wide-Awake halls and wigwams were dedicated at various places, 5 and Wide-Awake torchlight processions 1 Tribune, Nov. 3. 2 " They [the Republicans] have an army of spouters stumping the State in every direction . . . The opposition . . . have only three or four stragglers on the stump ..." (Albany correspondence, Herald, Oct. 20) ; a Herald editorial of Oct. 22 gives similar testimony. 3 Argus, Sept. 17, 18, 20, 21. * Herald, Oct. 20, 25, 30, Nov. 1,3. Of course, the Argus files give the opposite impression; but as the Argus was so plainly partisan and as the Herald was anti-Lincoln, the latter's admissions are deemed the better evidence. 5 In New York City, Tribune, Aug. 9; Herald, Sept. 11; in Brooklyn, 295] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 95 formed a noteworthy feature of the campaign here as else- where. An article in the anti-Lincoln New York Herald declared that " the character and standing of many mem- bers of our community who have joined in this movement, bearing torches as privates in the ranks, give it a weight and importance heretofore unknown to any political order. Merchants, lawyers, doctors, and members of all trades and professions seem to have caught the infection. . . ." x On the other hand, there were Democratic uniformed organiza- tions formed throughout the State, known usually as "Little Giant " clubs. They, too, were equipped with cap, cape, and torch, had the same functions as the Wide-Awakes, and at- tained some of the latter's discipline and enthusiasm. 2 There were also Douglas and Johnson clubs and Bell-Everett uni- formed organizations called Union Sentinels and Minute Men. According to the New York Herald, however, none of these were comparable to the Wide-Awakes in drill, appearance, or numbers. 3 Moreover, the Republicans had confidence, whereas the Democrats were dejected by their poor prospects 4 and later by their disastrous defeat in the October elections. 5 An- other handicap to the Democrats was their rival local and Tribune, Aug. 11, Sept. 25; in Jamaica, Tribune, June 28; at Catskill, Tribune, Sept. 11; at Owego, Tribune, July 16; at Lockport, Tribune, July 23; at Brushville, Tribune, July 26; at Haverstraw, Tribune, July 26; at Troy, Tribune, July 27; at Syracuse, Tribune, Aug. II. 1 Herald, Sept. 19. 2 Many instances of uniformed clubs of '' Little Giants" are referred to in the files of the Argus. A description of the Albany regiment of such clubs is given in the Argus of Aug. 4. In some places, Giants' castles, corresponding to the Wide-Awake wigwams, were erected. 3 Herald, Sept. 29. 4 The Argus kept urging upon its readers that New York could be carried, if proper efforts were made. 5 Belmont's Letters, p. 37. 96 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL IV AR [296 congressional tickets in some parts of the State. Of course, New York City had the most confused field. 1 Speaking of the numerous candidates there, a newspaper article said : " To a stranger this indiscriminate nomination presents very much the appearance of a general training day amongst the militia, in which the officers are very far in excess of the main body of the army ; it is, however, one of the peculiari- ties of political life in New York in i860." 2 It is impossible to determine how the former American vote divided. There are indications, though, aside from the results of the election, that the greater part of those who supported Fillmore in 1856 voted for Lincoln in i860. 8 Among the prominent former Americans of New York who came out for Lincoln were Daniel Ullman and G. A. Scroggs, respectively candidates for governor and lieutenant- govenor in 1854; E. R. Jewett, chief manager of the Fill- more campaign; H. D. Northrup, once president of the American State Council; James O. Putnam, late state sen- ator, and Amos H. Prescott, the latest president of the American State Council. 4 Near the close of the campaign, an attempt to frighten voters from supporting Lincoln was made by stirring up a financial panic. The Herald — the paper which then had the largest circulation within the metropolis — said : " The pre- monitory symptoms of a financial revulsion are upon us. 1 List of candidates in New York City and County (Herald, Oct. 22). 1 Herald, Oct. 17. s A number of signed n'otices of former Americans supporting Lincoln appeared in the Albany Evening- Journal, e. g., one signed by 412 men of Rochester (Sept. 8), a similar letter signed by 125 Albany electors (Sept. 10), etc. The statement in the text is confirmed by Rhodes' History of the United States, ii, p. 498. 4 Tribune, Aug. 9, Oct. 3, 10, 16. Prescott apparently changed dur- ing the campaign. 297] THE CAMPAIGN 0F l86 ° 97 . . . They are visible everywhere. . . . Nor can we com- prehend how we can possibly escape a general financial earth- quake in the event of Lincoln's election." 1 This was fol- lowed by similar editorials on the succeeding days. 2 It was asserted by Republican organs, on the other hand, that a combination had been formed by capitalists and banks to call in simultaneously loans and thus, helped on by the cry that a dissolution of the Union was inevitable in case of Lin- coln's success, create a panic; also that Secretary Cobb — who about that time was in New York City — had declared that disunion was certain in case Lincoln was elected; and lastly that Collector Schell had said, " One more turn of the screw will fetch 'em." 3 Stocks fell heavily, but the tide was not turned. The fusion vote in New York City was but a slight increase over the combined Buchanan and Fill- more vote; while Lincoln had 15,000 more there than Fre- mont. Lincoln's majority in the State was over 50,000. Mor- gan received 63,000 and Campbell 68,000 more votes than the candidates on the Regency ticket; while Brady polled almost 20,000 votes. 4 Of twenty-seven counties lost by Fre- mont, only ten went against Lincoln, and every one of these by greatly reduced majorities. In Albany County, the ma- jority against the Republicans was decreased between six and seven thousand, in Kings almost ten thousand, and in New York almost eighteen thousand. Queens showed a change of over two thousand in favor of the Republicans, 1 Herald, Oct. 30. '/The Albany Argus also contained editorials of similar character '.Oct. 23, 24, 26, 29, 30). 8 Tribune, Oct. 26; Courier and Enquirer, quoted in the Herald, Oct. 31; Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 24, 26, 27, 29; Rhodes' His- tory of the United States, ii, p. 500. * Albany Evening Journal Almanac for 1861. 9 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [298 Erie almost eight thousand, Rensselaer nearly four thou- sand, and Ulster about seven thousand. The whole State showed a Republican gain over the figures for 1856 of almost 1 00,000. x Nevertheless, the proposed constitutional amendment re- lating to negro suffrage was defeated by over 140,000. Almost 140,000 voters, or over twenty per cent of the whole number, failed to cast a ballot for or against the amendment. In Buffalo, Syracuse, and Oswego, it was lost, while New York City with 25,000 votes for Lincoln gave the amend- ment but 1 ,600. Even in the nineteen counties where it was carried, the majorities were greatly below those for the Re- publican electoral candidates. As the vote against the amendment exceeded the vote for the fusion electoral ticket by 30,000, many supporters of Lincoln must have cast their ballots against an extension of negro suffrage. 2 'Albany Evening Journal, Nov. 13. * Argus, Dec. 10, 12. The majority against the amendment showed but a slight increase over the majority against a similar proposed amend- ment in 1846; in that year, but nine counties were carried for the pro- posal; in i860, nineteen. CHAPTER IV New York Politics at the Eve of the Civil War The advance of the Southern secession movement during November and December, i860, affected New York politics in several important directions. The appalling difficulties which stared the nation in the face with no visible way of avoiding them called for the highest statesmanship, which, with the exception of Lincoln's prudent course, was con- spicuously lacking almost everywhere. And so it was in New York. Politicians blundered there as elsewhere. Most colossal of all the errors made then was Greeley's famous editorials acknowledging the right to secede as a revolutionary one and insisting upon letting the cotton states go in peace if they should deliberately resolve to leave the Union. 1 If these utterances hurt Greeley's future political career, still more did Thurlow Weed's editorials in the Albany Evetiing Journal shake his leadership. At the end of November, Weed came out in favor of such a fugitive slave law as should arm the Federal authorities with all needful power for its execu- tion, together with a provision making Counties where fugi- tives are rescued by violence . . . liable for the value of the slaves so rescued. And in regard to the other vexed question, viz: the right of going into the Territories with slaves, why not restore the Missouri Compromise line? 1 Tribune, Nov. 9, 16, Dec. 17. Rhodes' History of the United States, iii, p. 140-1, as to the authorship of these editorials. 299] 99 IO o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [300 These measures, Weed advocated at intervals in his paper x with the object of holding the border states in the Union. This amazing change of views by one who from youth had been an anti-slavery man, 2 who had bitterly as- sailed the fugitive slave law, 3 and who had nothing to gain from such a reversal but much to lose, was probably the result of an ardently patriotic desire to avert the threatened calamity, combined with a long-standing hatred of aboli- tionists. 4 Weed declared that in urging the proposed compro- mise, he spoke for himself alone, and the Auburn Advertiser asserted that Seward disclaimed newspaper assumptions that he approved the plan favored by the Albany Evening Journal. 5 The speeches of Seward in the Senate in Janu- ary, however, were thought by many to accord with the policy advocated by Weed. 6 And, indeed, this interpretation was not wrong, perhaps, inasmuch as Weed began what Seward called " well intentioned " movements after long conferences between the two, and moreover, Seward never directly came out against Weed's views on this matter. 7 1 Albany Evening Journal, Nov. 26, 30, Dec. 14, 17; Weed's Auto- biography, pp. 603-4-5. ' Barnes' Memoir of Weed, pp. 188-9, 2 4 2 - * Barnes' Memoir of Weed, pp. 185, 242. 4 See Weed's letter to Granger in 1845, Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p.230. 5 Quoted by the Albany Evening Journal, Dec. 19. 6 The Albany Argus so interpreted the speeches and took some comfort from them {Argus, Jan. 14). Senator Fessenden considered Seward's speech of January 31st/' an abandonment of our party ground" (Fes- senden' s Life of Fessenden, i, pp. 121-2). So did the Tribune (Feb. 4). 'Bancroft's Seward, ii, pp. 26, 28. Storey's Sumner, p. 190, tells of Weed and Seward visiting Sumner during January, 1861, and urging ad- justment. Rhodes' History of the United States , iii, pp. 288-9, however, remarks that "in no public utterance nor private letter which has been printed did he [Seward] assert that he would sustain it" [the Critten- den compromise, which was practically what Weed advocated]. 3 oi] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR ioi Seward apparently wished the proposition to be made; but he desired to escape the responsibility, 1 and Weed promised to effect that. 2 Weed's plan found few friends in his party. Though the New York Times and the New York Courier and En- quirer endorsed his suggested compromise, 3 it created almost a revolt in the Republican ranks of New York. 4 Senator Preston King wrote to Weed : " It cannot be done. You must abandon your position. It will prove distasteful to the majority of those whom you have hitherto led." 5 From Albany, George E. Baker wrote to Sumner that Weed's proposals were approved of by no one of influence and had no support in the rural districts. 6 And in the middle of December, the Albany Evening Journal itself ac- knowledged that, with two or three exceptions, its sugges- tions for adjusting the controversy which threatened the Union had been utterly rejected by the Republican press of this and other states. 7 Yet Weed persisted during Decem- ber and the following months in advocating his plan of com- promise. His courage on this occasion 8 may well be granted; but it was misguided bravery, a poor move from the standpoint of both politician and statesman. On the Democratic side, however, the desire for conces- sion was more excusable. The united feeling of the party in that direction found its most prominent exposition at this time in the New York City Pine Street meeting. This 1 Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 27. 2 Ibid., p. 26, footnote. 3 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, ii, p. 308. 4 In addition to the evidence given in the text, see the Herald, Dec. 14, 21; Tribune, Dec. 6, 7. 5 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 209. 6 Pierce's Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, iv, p. 6, footnote. 7 Albany Evening Journal, Dec. 17. 8 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 335. 102 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [302 demonstration took place in the middle of December. Al- though Mr. Richard Lathers, the prime mover in the af- fair, 1 declared that the meeting was one of "national men, irrespective of party," the lists of those who signed the call 2 and of the one hundred and eighty to whom invitations were sent 3 show only Democrats with a sprinkling* of Bell- Everett men taking part. Of the speakers, Charles O'Conor, John A. Dix, Daniel S. Dickinson, and John McKeon were Democrats, while Hiram Ketchum had supported Bell. The resolutions 4 favored the rendition of fugitive slaves, the repeal of personal liberty laws, and the maintenance of the rights of the South in the territories ; the people of a terri- tory alone should decide the question of slavery therein when they framed a constitution for admission as a state; while deploring the excitement in the South, the resolutions did " not hesitate to say that there is just ground for it; " and finally, they entreated the South to abstain from hasty action. Millard Fillmore, Greene C. Bronson, and Richard Lathers were appointed to proceed to the South with the address and resolutions adopted. 5 Though Lathers pre- sented these to various Southern officials, nothing came of this effort to avert disunion. Upon the meeting of the Legislature in January, 1861. the Weed and Greeley forces joined battle in the choice of a nominee for the speakership. The speaker of the previous assembly, 6 Dewitt C. Littlejohn, a lieutenant of Weed, was 1 Tribune, Dec. 17; Sanborn's Reminiscences of Richard Lathers, p.91. 'Printed in the Herald, Dec. 15. 'Printed in the Herald, Dec. 16. I have not been able to recognize a single Republican of any prominence in this list; thirty-three were well known Democrats and a smaller number Bell-Everett men. * Herald, Dec. 16. 5 Herald, Dec. 16; Sanborn's Reminiscences of Richard Lathers, p. 112; Dix's Memoirs of John A. Dix, i, pp. 347-8-9. 6 And also of the Assemblies of 1855, '57, and '59. 303] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 103 a candidate for reelection. Littlejohn was accused of hav- ing been connected with the passage of the railroad acts generally stigmatized as corrupt, which had gained for the previous legislature its bad name. 1 The Greeley faction backed Lucius Robinson of Chemung County, a man who had already served creditably in the legislature and who later rose to be governor of the State. Greeley, David Dud- ley Field, and George Opdyke went up to Albany to work for Robinson. Weed, with a large number of politicians, was, of course, on the ground. 2 The contest was purely factional and personal ; for Robinson was, as later events proved, in accord with Weed upon the great question of the hour. When the caucus met, the opposing sides were found to be quite evenly balanced. Upon the first ballot, Robinson had 42 votes, Littlejohn 38, Henry A. Prendergast 4, and Anson Bingham 3. On the next three ballots, Robinson continued to lead, though with decreasing strength ; while on the fifth trial, Littlejohn had 38 votes to Robinson's 37. It was evident that the supporters of Prendergast and Bing- ham held the balance. Accordingly, Robinson withdrew his name and nominated Bingham. This was a false move, for Bingham declined. The anti-Weed men found them- selves in an embarrassing position, being without a candi- date, and so renominated Robinson. On the next ballot, however, Littlejohn was successful in obtaining a majority. 3 Whether this was because the followers of the minor candi- dates became convinced that there was no chance of the prize falling to a third man, or whether, as Greeley declared, 4 the result was brought about " by the influences usually para- 1 Argus, Jan. 7. * Herald, Jan. 1. * Argus, Jan. 1; Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 1; Tribune, Jan. 1; Herald, Jan. 1; Utica Telegraph purporting to give an "inside view" of the caucus occurrences (quoted in the Argus, Jan. 7). * Tribune (dispatch signed "H. G."), Jan. 1. !04 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [304 mount here," cannot be said. Francis Kernan of Oneida was chosen as the Democratic candidate. In the Assem- bly, Littlejohn received 90 votes, Kernan 3I. 1 This contest for the speakership was significant because it showed the strength of the opposition to Weed. The new legislature consisted of 23 Republicans and 9 Democrats in the Senate, and 93 Republicans and 35 Demo- crats in the Assembly. 2 The Republican majority was not only divided into Weed and anti-Weed factions, but it was not in accord on policy. As for the latter difference, Weed was, as we have seen, the disturbing cause. Governor Morgan, though he belonged to the Weed-Seward wing of the party, came out strongly in his annual message against the proposed compromise. Despite a generally mod- erate tone and some conciliatory sentiments, such as a recommendation that the law of 1840 giving fugitives a jury trial be repealed, and a suggestion that other states having personal liberty laws be invited to repeal them, the message displayed upon the main question the same firm attitude that was held by the mass of the party throughout the country. After declaring that to permit or acquiesce in a treasonable conspiracy against the national authorities was to confess the absolute failure of our polity, and that the people of New York would support the federal authorities in the enforce- ment of the laws — thus indirectly endorsing coercion — the Governor went on with reference to the proposed compro- mise on the basis of the Missouri line : " . . . this State does not ask, nor does she desire the restoration of that line. . . . her people have declared against the extension of slavery into any of the territories, . . . there should be no sur- render of important rights, nor sacrifice of vital principles." 3 1 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 6. * Annual Cyclopaedia, 1861, p. 519. 3 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 3CO-302. 305] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR IQ 5 Soon after the beginning of the session, Mr. Robinson introduced resolutions favoring the formation of all terri- tory remaining after the admission of Kansas into two states with such constitutions as the inhabitants thereof should adopt. 1 Curiously enough, Robinson had been, but a few days before, the anti-Weed candidate for speaker, and now he championed a policy strongly supported by Weed but repudiated by very many of the latter's followers. The ex- planation of this situation lies in the personalities and char- acters of Weed and Greeley. The former attracted many, while others hated the fact and methods of his leadership; Greeley, on the other hand, by his impracticability, his insta- bility, his readiness to take up various " isms ", and his gen- eral inaptitude in politics repelled many. The factions in the Republican party in New York were as yet largely per- sonal, and had not at this time been consolidated on the basis of principle into a radical and a conservative wing. An illustration of this is found in the statement of one who took part in the celebrated canvass for United States senator in 1 86 1 to the effect that " Mr. Weed might have been chosen Senator, even when known to vary in judgment on questions vital in importance from the party making the appointment." 2 A Democratic legislative caucus, at which there were also present some of the leading men of the party residing in Albany, resolved unanimously to support the Robinson resolutions. 3 The Albany Argus came out in their favor, thus agreeing for once with its rival, the Evening Journals Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 39. J Quoted in Barnes' Rlemoir of Weed, p. 322. s Tribune, Jan. 4. *ln a number of editorials, e. g., Jan. 16, the Argus strongly favored the passage of the resolutions. The Albany Evening Journal of Jan. 3, 4, 19, contained similar editorials. While the two rivals agreed on 106 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [306 While the resolutions were being considered in committee, both houses were devoting a good deal of attention to var- ious matters involving the great national issue of the day. The debates show that the majority of the Republicans were not in accord with Weed's border-state policy. The Demo- crats favored conciliation, compromise, delay, and the avoid- ance of every thing which might conceivably irritate the South. 1 Their position was well illustrated in a party de- bate in the Assembly on resolutions 2 to present Major Anderson with a sword. While the Democrats expressed their admiration of Anderson and their approval of his course, they argued against the resolutions on the ground that their passage would add bitterness to the existing state of affairs. 3 Now and then, however, there was an occa- this matter, it must not be supposed, however, that the Journal ' s posi- tion toward the South was the same as that of the Democrats. In jus- tice to Weed, it should be stated that the Journal advocated coercion of seceding states (Jan. 18) , and the putting of New York into condi- tion for defence (Jan. 28). Weed simply maintained that there was a "Union sentiment in the border slave states worth preserving," and that the passage of the Robinson resolutions would give that Union sentiment the needed support and sympathy from the North (Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 19). 'The Argus, in accord with the views of the Democratic legislators, published such editorials as these: " We say emphatically, let the great State of New York not be foremost in kindling a flame. . . . We re- peat — if disunion must come, let it come without war " (Jan. 12). Jan. 18, it said: " Shall we talk of coercing such a Nation? ... If the at- tempt is made, New York will not be an accomplice in it — certainly not the Democracy of New York." 1 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 49. 3 Argus, Jan. 9, 11, 12; Herald, Jan. 9, 12. At first, but two Repub- licans (including Robinson) favored the expression of approval in some other way than by the presentation of a sword; subsequently, a number of Republicans supported such a proposal, partly for the sake of unan- imity. Action on the subject was postponed by a vote of 62 to 50 (As- sembly Journal, 1861, p. 82), and the resolutions were finally laid on the table (Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 91). The attitude of the Demo- 307] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 107 sional divergence from this position by a few of the minor- ity, anticipating the later War Democrats. 1 Thus, the effect of the news that the Star of the West had been fired upon by South Carolina was marked. In the Assembly, the Speaker took the floor and offered resolutions tendering to the President " whatever in men and money may be re- quired to enable him to enforce the laws and uphold the authority of the federal government." Under a patriotic impulse these resolutions passed the Assembly, 117 to 2, the nays being cast by New York City Democrats who refused to vote for what they termed coercion. 2 In the Senate, the resolutions were adopted by a vote of 28 to I. 3 The Demo- crats, however, soon relapsed into their former attitude. About the middle of January, a majority of the select committee, to which had been referred in the Assembly so much of the Governor's message as related to national dif- ficulties as well as the Robinson resolutions, reported a series of resolutions condemning secession and pledging support crats was also shown in a debate on a resolution to inquire into rumors of cannon being made at Troy for South Carolina. Mr. Kernan, the minority leader, opposed the resolution and every Democrat present voted against it {Argus, Jan. 21; Herald, Jan. 20). The Democratic position was again shown in a long debate over a bill to prevent aiding, abetting, and comforting the enemies of the Republic {Argus, Jan. 25). 1 E. g., Senators Spinola {Argus, Jan. 4, 12) and J. McLeod Murphy {Argus, Jan. 26; Tribune, Jan. 26). The latter, in a speech delivered near the end of January, took the ground that disunionists were guilty of treason, that compromise was out of the question, advocated thor- oughly arming the State, and condemned the call for a Democratic convention. Immediately, one of his Democratic colleagues proceeded to read Murphy out of the party. * Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 76-77; Argus, Jan. 12; Herald, Jan. 12. s Senate Journal, 1861, p. 57. The resolutions were, of course, ap- proved by the Governor and were telegraphed by him to Buchanan. They are printed in Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 306-7. I0 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [308 to the federal government, but ending with an expression of a desire for conciliation and with an embodiment of the resolutions previously introduced by Robinson. 1 This re- port was signed by three Republicans and two Democrats. 2 Two Republicans presented a minority report, reciting that " the basis of settlement now proposed has, to a certain ex- tent, been tried and found wanting," and pledging the members of the Legislature to use all their influence " to secure the faithful observance and due execution " of such laws as were not declared unconstitutional by the judiciary, " as well as to maintain all the constitutional rights of the citizens of all the States; and we tender this as the only com- promise which can be honorably offered or accepted." 8 These sentiments were more in accord with those of the majority of the Republican members. In the Senate, resolutions 4 approved by every member of the committee on federal relations declared that a state had no right to secede, that the Legislature would sustain the Executive of the State in offering and pledging the mili- tary power and resources of the State and would " ' provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions,' whether within or without the State;" that New York would make equal sacrifices to preserve the Union and the constitutional rights of the states ; that Congress had no power to interfere with slavery within the states; that it was inexpedient to exer- cise its power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia except with the approval of the majority of voters in the District and the consent of Maryland ; that Congress should 1 Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 115-116. 2 Argus, Jan. 19; Herald, Jan. iq. 'Assembly documents, 1861, no. 25. 4 Senate Journal, 1861, p. 67. 309] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 109 not inhibit or impair interstate slave traffic; and that while the rendition of fugitive slaves was a constitutional obliga- tion, the law of 1850 ought to be modified. Robinson's proposals were, however, not approved ; and it was this that occasioned complaint from the Democratic members of the committee. The resolutions of the committee, so far as they went, were concurred in by the whole committee; but they did not go as far as the minority desired. They failed to touch upon the question of slavery in the territories, for every proposition on this point, including the Robinson resolutions, had been voted down by the majority members of the committee. 1 A caucus was now held to endeavor to produce harmony in the Republican ranks. One member was reported to have said that the day for conciliation had passed ; another was opposed to yielding an inch; a third thought it a waste of time to consider compromise resolutions: another declared that the Chicago platform was a sufficient expression of opinion; and still another wanted no conciliation, but arm- ing the militia. Robinson in vain combated these ideas. • A resolution declaring it inexpedient to take any further action whatever on the subject — the effect of which would be to cut off any compromise resolutions in the Legislature — was adopted by a vote of 67 to 5- 2 Two days later, however, this program was upset from without. Governor Morgan transmitted to the Legislature resolutions from Virginia requesting the appointment of commissioners to the Peace Convention to be held at Wash- ington on February 4th. In the accompanying message he declared that the great mass of the people of this State de- sired that no honorable effort to maintain the Union by 1 Argus, Jan. 17; Herald, Jan. 17. * Herald, Jan. 23; Argus, Jan. 26. HO NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [310 peaceful means should be left untried and accordingly he recommended the appointment of commissioners. 1 This message reopened the subject. The Robinson resolutions were brought up again in the assembly committee of the whole, despite the caucus decision. In the course of the de- bate, one Republican remarked : " It has also been said that the . . . editor of the Evening Journal had only to wave his wand over the Assembly and a majority of knees would bow, but if the wand was waved to encompass the passage of these resolutions it would be found to have lost its magic power." This member spoke truly; for Mr. Robinson, influential as he was and though aided by the support of Weed and of the Democrats, could not carry with him the majority of his party or sufficient of them to pass the resolutions. 2 Meanwhile, Weed in the Albany Evening Journal came out strongly in favor of the appointment of commissioners to the Peace Convention. At the end of January, the ma- jority of the joint committee, to which the Virginia reso- lutions had been referred, reported. They recommended that there be appointed as delegates the following: David Dudley Field, Erastus Corning, William Curtis Noyes, Ad- dison Gardiner, James S. Wadsworth, Greene C. Bronson, James C. Smith, William E. Dodge, and Amaziah B. James. The report said that, while " acceding to the request of Virginia, it is not to be understood that this Legislature ap- proves of the propositions submitted by the General Assem- bly of that State, or concedes the propriety of their adoption by the proposed convention." 3 In the Assembly, the report met with considerable opposition. One Republican declared that he was not willing to yield a jot of Republican prin- 1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 309-313. s Argus, Jan. 30; Herald, Jan. 31. 'Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 205, 227-8. 3 i i ] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR m ciples; another said that if commissioners were appointed, they should all be Republicans ; and a third moved to amend by substituting Republicans for the Democrats named by the committee. Though thirty-seven Republicans voted for this amendment, 1 it was defeated after a warm debate — a triumph for the supporters of conciliation led by Robinson. An amendment, however, that a majority of the nine com- missioners should determine how the State's five votes were to be cast, was carried. 2 The effect of this was to place New York's voice in the convention in the control of men not likely to yield anything important. 3 On the main ques- tion, thirty-nine nays were cast. 4 In the Senate, too, the adoption of the report was opposed. Here too, there was an attempt to send none but Republicans. Finally, after the names of General Wool and John A. King had been added to the delegates, the majority report was adopted, 19 to 12. 5 The House, after a warm debate, later agreed to the Senate amendment, though thirty-four Republicans voted against so doing. 6 Addison Gardiner declined to serve. A resolution designating in his stead Thurlow Weed was then passed, every Democrat present voting aye ; while in the Assembly, seventeen Republicans voted nay. 7 Weed, however, refused to accept, " though sympathizing warmly 1 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 225. 1 Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 226, 227. 3 For New York's course in the Peace Convention, see the Annual Cyclopaedia for 1861, p. 567. * Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 228. 5 Senate Journal, 1861, pp. 141, 142, 143; Argus, Feb. 5, 6; Tribune, Feb. 5. Senator J. McLeod Murphy acted with the Republicans on this occasion and spoke strongly against accepting Virginia's invitation. Otherwise, the debate was on party lines. * Argus, Feb. 6; Tribune, Feb. 7; Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 256- 260. 'Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 283; Senate Journal, 1861, p. 157. H2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [312 with this beneficent movement;" and by his inspiration, Francis Granger, who as a member of Harrison's cabinet and as a candidate for governor and vice-president had had a distinguished political career almost a generation before, was chosen to fill the vacancy. 1 The differences in the Republican ranks seemed to some not unlikely to lead to new political alignments, in which the Democrats and the Weed Republicans would join hands on the principle of supporting such a compromise as was ad- vocated by both. On the other hand, Thurlow Weed and Horace Greeley kept up an acrimonious controversy through- out the month of February. A Tribune editorial said : " In the present crisis, the Republican policy is no new compro- mise with Slavery. The Democrats, on the other hand, de- clare themselves ready and anxious to make any and every compromise that can be asked for. In this state of things, all compromisers are surely tending to the Democratic party." 2 The Times warned the Tribune that perseverance in criticising Weed and Seward's position would result in splitting the party. 3 The Democratic leaders apparently thought they saw an opportunity of effecting such a result or at least of consolidating on this issue their own party. Their influential men professed to believe and their prin- cipal organs constantly asserted that, if the Crittenden com- promise were but submitted to the people of New York State, it would be ratified there by a huge majority. 4 The 'Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 303; Senate Journal, 1861, p. 190. 2 Tribune, Feb. 9. ' 3 Times, Feb. 5. 'E.g., Letter of Seymour to Crittenden, in Chapman's Life of Crit- tenden, ii, pp. 254-5; Argus, Dec. 27, i860, claiming that the change in New York's vote of November, i860, necessary to reverse the decision then made had "already been made in public opinion; and the Repub- lican party itself is so far modified in character by the responsibilities of power . . . that a large portion of its members would gladly seize jijj POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR H3 example of the Empire State, it was said, would be of tre- mendous influence throughout the country. The Repub- licans, however, blocked the way. In the Senate, a bill for such submission was introduced by a Democrat. An attempt to have it considered was opposed by the Republicans, and it was buried by reference to the committee on federal rela- tions. 1 Thus headed off, and feeling sincerely — very likely from patriotic as much as from political motives — that New York's voice should be heard for compromise, her Demo- cratic leaders took an extraordinary step. On the 18th of January, the Douglas State Committee issued a call for a convention to be held at Albany on the last day of the month. This document asserted that " the alarming condi- tion of our country . . . demands an effort by the Demo- cratic party to avert the threatened destruction of our Na- tional Union." Those who refused to make concessions were declared to be actuated by treasonable designs. " In this emergency, conservative men of all classes call upon our time-honored party ... to cooperate with patriotic citizens elsewhere, and especially with the efforts of the ' Border States ' in putting down the agitations and con- spiracies of the secessionists of the South and the ultra Republicans of the North." The call then went on to point the way for Democratic opposition to measures of defen- the opportunity of compromise. Let such a measure as that said to emanate from the representatives of the Border States be submitted to the electors of New York, and it would have twice the majority that Lincoln obtained. ..." Another sample editorial is that of January 23d, which read: "Will the Republican majority of our Legislature abide this test? The men who bluster about coercion and are inviting civil war, dare not submit to a popular vote." In February, the same paper daily printed at the head of its editorials the demand, " Let the People be Heard." 1 Herald, Jan. 31; Argus, Jan. 31. II 4 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [314 sive preparation by New York. " The honor and interests of our own State," it read, " also call for action on our part to check schemes of corrupt legislation which are already engendered under pretexts of military and coercive pro- jects." 1 Democrats insisted that the convening of such a body was not a political but a patriotic move. 2 The Argus said, " There never was a convention so little partisan, so much ' above party ' ... as this promises to be." It claimed that the call had been issued by the Democracy because it was the only existing organization that could make the appeal, but that the response was made, as it was intended, by the conservative masses regardless of past affil- iations. 3 On the other hand, the Albany Evening Journal said, " . . . very few [were present] not hitherto recog- nized as members of the Democratic party." 4 The convention assembled on the appointed day. The list of delegates included very many of the most distinguished New York Democrats then living. From Albany County came Judge Amasa J. Parker, Lyman Tremain, and Erastus Corning; from Cayuga, ex-Governor Throop; from Dutch- ess, William Kelly, candidate for governor in i860; from Erie, George W. Clinton, son of Governor Clinton; from Genesee, Dean Richmond. New York County had, as usual, two contesting delegations. That sent by Tammany was a truly imposing one. It included " Prince " John Van Buren, Martin Van Buren's son, whom contemporaries described as a witty and brilliant orator; Samuel J. Tilden and Re- corder John T. Hoffman, future governors of the State; James T. Brady, Breckinridge candidate for governor in i860; Charles O'Conor, the distinguished lawyer; Elijah F. Purdy, the "War Horse" of the "soft" Democracy; 1 Herald, Jan. 19. * Argus, Jan. 28, 29. 3 Argus, Jan. 31. 4 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 31. 315] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 115 William M. Tweed, Peter B. Sweeney, and Richard B. Con- nolly, three later " heroes " of New York City's municipal annals; August Belmont, chairman of the National Demo- cratic Committee — " that fastidious millionaire," the Trib- une said, " who has been accorded the distinguished honor of assisting the Fourth Ward porter-house keeper in repre- senting Water Street and the Five Points;" Daniel E. Sickles, already prominent for a rather stormy congres- sional career, and later to make his mark in the war; Colonel Michael Corcoran; William D. Kennedy, who succeeded Fowler as grand sachem of Tammany and who, while colonel of the Tammany regiment, lost his life; General Hiram Walbridge, late member of Congress; Oswald Ot- tendorfer of the Staats Zeitung; John Clancy, editor of the Leader; George Law ; Edward Cooper, later mayor of New York City; Gustavus W. Smith and Mansfield Lovell, both of whom became generals in the Confederate army ; Wilson G. Hunt; John McKeon; and Joshua J. Henry, the mer- chant who was instrumental in bringing about the fusion of i860, or as the Tribune characterized him, " inventor and patentee of Union-Saving Committees, and wholesale and retail dealer in Fusion tickets ". Ben Wood, John Coch- rane, and Gilbert Dean were the only prominent names in Mozart's delegation. Oneida County sent ex-Governor Horatio Seymour; Orleans, former Lieutenant-Governor Sanford E. Church; from Rensselaer came John A. Gris- wold and James S. Thayer; from Suffolk, ex-Speaker Will- iam H. Ludlow; and from Westchester, Edwin Croswell, once editor of the Albany Argus and member of the Re- gency in its palmy days. Two former Whigs of prominence were included in those elected as delegates : ex-President Fillmore and William Duer. Fillmore's presence might have lent color to the claim that the gathering was a non- Il6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [316 partisan one; but he did not attend. 1 Horace Greeley later described the convention as " probably the strongest and most imposing assemblage of delegates ever convened within the State." 2 The Albany Regency ran the convention as usual ; for it was called to order by Peter Cagger, generally managed by Dean Richmond, the temporary chairman was Sanford E. Church, and the president, Judge Parker. No sooner had Church been installed than there occurred what had now come to be a regular feature of New York Democratic con- ventions : a contest between Tammany and Mozart. Some days previous to this, Tammany Hall had instructed its dele- gates to withdraw in case Mozart was recognized/ Mo- zart, too, in its general committee had prepared to assert its claim. It passed resolutions denouncing its rival as a corrupt organization, and appealed to the convention " to discountenance the unfounded and preposterous assump- tion of the bogus delegation " of Tammany. 4 When the convention assembled, the Tammany men insisted that they alone should be seated from New York County. Mozart was willing to divide the vote with Tammany. 5 The Re- gency leaders and the up-state members favored this com- promise; for the votes controlled by Mozart were often nec- essary to Democratic success in the State, while the struggle for recognition; back of which lay a scramble for the pat- ronage of the metropolis, was not of direct concern to any but the two Halls. Accordingly, the delegates resolved ' List of delegates published in the Argus, Jan. 31; Tribune, Jan. 30. Greeley later wrote that " there was a large and most respectable repre- sentation of the old Whig party, with a number who had figured as ' Americans' " {American Conflict, i, p. 388). 2 Greeley's American Conflict, i, p. 388. % Herald, Jan. 29. 4 Herald, Jan. 30. 'Herald, Feb. I. 317] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 117 that not being assembled for partisan purposes, they did not wish to decide which of the rival sets of contestants was the regular one, and that therefore both should be admitted. Thereupon, Tammany withdrew for consul- tation and voted not to return. 1 Such a bolt might have led to a war between Tammany and the Regency. A resolution inviting the Tammany delegation to return was unanimously carried in the convention on the second day; and a committee headed by Seymour was appointed to plead with the seceders. This proved successful. Tammany in the end returned, contenting itself with a formal communi- cation stating the representations made to it that the admis- sion of Mozart was not to be regarded as a decision as to which Hall was the regular organization. 2 Meanwhile, Horatio Seymour on the afternoon of the first day's session delivered a speech filled with sympathy for the South — sentiments to be used later against him. 3 " Revolution," he said, has actually begun. The term " secession " divests it of none of its terrors. . . . All virtue, patriotism, and intelligence seem to have fled from our National Capitol ; it has been well likened to a conflagration of an asylum for madmen — some look on with idiotic imbecility, some in sullen silence, and some scatter the firebrands which consume the fabric above them, and bring upon all a common destruction. Fanaticism, he declared, was to blame for all this evil. "The agitation of the question of slavery has thus far brought 1 Herald, Feb. 1; Argus, Feb. 1; correspondence between August Belmont, chairman of the Tammany delegation and Amasa J. Parker, president of the convention {Herald, Feb. 2). * Argus, Feb. 1; Herald, Feb. 2. s The entire speech is printed in the Argus, Feb. 6. Il8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [318 far greater social, moral and legislative evils upon the peo- ple of the free States than it has upon the institutions against whom [sic] it has been excited." Then he reviewed the subject of controversy, finding that in the acquisition of ter- ritory, the North had obtained the advantage, that the South did not ask to extend slavery, and that the Repub- licans under the cry of " no extension " really were " agi- tating for repeal and restrictions." Reverting to this topic of the inequality of North and South later in the speech, Seymour asserted that the North had gained in population and political power, not merely because of natural causes, but also because of " a policy that favored the commercial interests and immigration from other lands. This policy has ever been upheld loyally by the South. . . . Would it not be base and cowardly to withhold at this day those cour- tesies and that consideration which they showed in the days of their comparative strength ? " The South, Seymour said, was justly alarmed by " their most bitter and unscrupulous assailants." He had no word of condemnation for that section. The alternatives for settling the controversy were, he de- clared, compromise or civil war. " Let us see," he went on, " if successful coercion by the North is less revolutionary than successful secession by the South." He compared the resources, the legislation and the state finances of the South- ern states with those of the Northern states, all to the advan- tage of the former. He asked, how was the war to be con- ducted. He spoke of the " madness of trying to muster armies to occupy their [the Southern states'] territory." For exciting a servile insurrection, we had " cursed the brutal inhumanity " of Great Britain. As for a blockade, Seymour pointed to the immense length of the coast, to the number of harbors in the South, and to the failure of Great 319] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 119 Britain with superior naval forces successfully to block- ade the coast. If such a measure were effective, the North through the loss of the coasting trade would be the chief sufferers. " We can inflict great misery upon the South," Seymour continued, " but could human ingenuity devise a warfare more destructive to all the interests of the Northern States of this Confederacy?" " Upon what field shall this contest be waged ?" he asked. " Upon what spot shall Americans shed American blood?" The question reduced itself to this, he said : Shall we have compromise after war, or compromise without war? Then he pleaded that concession be made to save the border states. If the Crittenden compromise were but sub- mitted to the people of New York, he did not fear the re- sult; but if it was unhappily rejected, the days of the Re- public were numbered. " We may have not only one but many Confederacies. ... In the downfall of our nation and amidst its crumbling ruins," he concluded, we will cling to the fortunes of New York. We will stand together, and so shape the future that its glory and greatness and wonderful advantages shall not be sacrificed to rival in- terests. We will loyally follow its flag through the gloom and perils of the future, and in the saddened hour there will re- main a gleam of hope and we can still hail with pride the motto emblazoned on its shield " Excelsior." At the second day's session, Lyman Tremain and James S. Thayer spoke strongly against coercion. Tremain came to hold different views after the outbreak of the war. On this occasion, he denounced the Republican leaders ; but he was proud to see many honorable exceptions everywhere. " T should do injustice," he said, ... if I did not mention among these Lucius Robinson, . . . 120 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [320 who has not only introduced resolutions for conciliation and peace, but has sufficient manliness about him to stand up in defiance of the iron rule of the caucus and maintain his posi- tion as a patriot and a man. There is another man to whom I wish to do justice. . . . That man is rising above the ob- ligations of party, and is appealing to his political friends to take the view of this crisis which is entertained by the Demo- cratic party. I mean Thurlow Weed. 1 The name of Robinson was greeted with cheers, and Weed's with an even greater outburst 2 — a remarkable tribute from a Democratic convention and one which might well seem to contemporaries prophetic of a new party alignment. While Tremain spoke strongly against secession, he palliated the act by saying that the South had " had the most terrible provocation to which civilized man has ever been subjected,"' and he went on to condemn coercion in the most violent terms. 3 Thayer declared, " When the tie is broken, when fraternal hands are unclasped — never, never, shall they be raised in hostility to each other " — a sentiment which was loudly ap- plauded. He advocated adjustment through the action of the border states; and if this could not be accomplished, " we can at least," he said, " in an authoritative way and a practical mariner arrive at the basis of a peaceful separation (renewed cheers)." He took a firm stand against what he called civil war under the guise of enforcement of the laws. " Against this, under all circumstances, in every phase and form, we must now 'and at all times oppose a resolute and unfaltering resistance. ... if a revolution of force is to 1 Argus, Feb. 16. * Argus, Feb. 2; Tribune, Feb. 2. 3 Tremain 's speech is published in full in the Argus, Feb. 16. 32 1 ] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR i 2 l begin, it shall be inaugurated at home (cheers)." * Even the philosophical Tilden in his address was outspoken against coercion, showing the disastrous consequences of any such attempt against states so strong and resourceful as those of the South, and declaring that " he, for one, would resist under any and all circumstances, the use of force to coerce the South into the Union, . . ." 2 The prevailing opinion among the delegates was also expressed in a speech by Chan- cellor Walworth, justifying by the example of the Revolu- tionary patriots the spirit of the South in resistance to the laws, and urging anything but civil war. 3 In view of these utterances and the favorable manner in which they were received, the resolutions were milder than might have been expected and bore signs of having been toned down by Seymour and other cautious politicians. An attempt on the floor of the convention to carry an amend- ment " imploring the general government to abstain from the use of any force '.' pending the consideration of com- promise measures, was opposed by Mr. Ludlow of the com- mittee on resolutions, as antagonistic to the defence of the national capital should it be attacked. Several delegates argued for the adoption of the amendment, but it was finally withdrawn and the original resolution adopted unani- mously. It was during this debate that George W. Clinton, ripe in years and honor, uttered his patriotic but discord- ant note (which was audibly dissented from) that " there could be no legal secession of a State, but that States which did secede were in a state of rebellion." 4 1 Thayer's speech is published in full in the Argus, Feb. 18, See also Greeley's American Conflict, i, pp. 392-3. 3 Argus, Feb. 2. 5 Argus, Feb. 2; Greeley's American Conflict, i, p. 393. * Argus, Feb. 2; Tribune, Feb. 2. 122 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [322 Though the resolutions were more moderate than some of the delegates preferred, yet the document showed that the Democrats of New York desired compromise — favored it so earnestly that their convention gave approval to some rather remarkable proposals looking toward action in that direction. The opening resolution appealed to all citizens to rise above party. Then came a strong condemnation of coercion, with the assertion that " the worst and the most ineffective argument that can be addressed by the confed- eracy of its adhering members to the seceding States is civil war." Adjustment of pending difficulties by compromise, support of the border states in their efforts to bring about such a result, and the adoption of the Crittenden compro- mise or some other measure acceptable to the border states were favored. It was further determined that a committee of five be appointed to urge the New York Legislature to submit the Crittenden compromise to the voters of the State at the earliest practicable date, that Congress be urged to submit amendments to the constitution for rati- fication by the states, and that if Congress failed to act, " the Legislature of this State be requested to take the initiatory steps under the constitution for summoning a gen- eral convention for proposing amendments. . . ." Another resolution favored the appointment of commissioners to the Peace Convention ; and it was resolved that " should the Legislature not appoint the said commissioners, . . . this Convention hereby appoint Millard Fillmore, Addison Gard- iner. Greene C. Bronson, Erastus Corning, Horatio Sey- mour, Washington Hunt, Amasa J. Parker, Charles O'Conor, and Samuel J. Tilden as such commissioners, on the part of the friends of conciliation in the State of New York." All these except Fillmore and Hunt were Demo- crats, and Hunt was fast drifting into the Democratic ranks. 323] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 123 This was a rather inconsistent ending to a document be- ginning with an appeal to rise above party. On motion of Samuel J. Tilden, a committee to correspond with the Democrats of other states on the project of a general con- vention to amend the constitution was appointed. Other committees to present resolutions to Congress and to me- morialize the Legislature were named, after which the con- vention adjourned. 1 It cannot be said that this extraordinary body accom- plished any good, from either the party or the patriotic point of view. For days thereafter, the Argus printed at the top of its editorial columns an appeal headed, " Let the People be Heard." The Democrats, it said, " demand that the people may be allowed to vote for or against the Crittenden Compromise. The Republicans refuse to submit to the popular test." This was quite true, and the mass of the Republicans were not to be moved by such means from their position. Something must be said of other expressions of the atti- tude of New York Democrats during the first few months of the year. In New York City, the most extreme senti- ments of sympathy for the South were uttered. At the be- ginning of January, Mayor Wood sent to the Common Council his famous message, in which he said : It would seem that a dissolution of the federal Union is in- evitable. . . . If these forebodings shall be realized . . .[it] will not only be necessary for us to settle the relations which we shall hold to other cities and States, but to establish, if we can, new ones with a portion of our own State With our aggrieved brethren of the slave States we have friendly relations and a common sympathy. . . . While other portions 1 Argus, Feb. 2; Tribune, Feb. 2; Herald, Feb. 2. 124 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [324 of our State have, unfortunately, been imbued with the fanat- ical spirit which actuates a portion of the people of New Eng- land, the city of New York has unfalteringly preserved the integrity of its principles in adherence to the compromises of the constitution and the equal rights of the people of all the States. Then, after speaking of the aggressions and usurpations of the state legislature at the expense of the metropolis, Wood continued : "How we shall rid ourselves of this odious and oppressive connection, it is not for me to determine." He virtually confessed that his scheme was impracticable, since he acknowledged that the legislature would not consent to it and that a resort to arms must not be thought of. But he asked nevertheless :".'.. why should not New York City, instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also equally independent? As a free city, with but a nominal duty on imports, her local government could be supported without taxation upon her people. . . ."* What a paradise that would have been for a politician like Wood. A similar idea — New York State becoming independent or else the head of a free-trade confederacy embracing the middle west and western States and excluding New Eng- land — had been broached by the Albany Argus as early as the latter part of November, i860, and had been reverted to more than once. In an editorial entitled " The Sentiment of New York," the Argus said : We have no hesitation in saying that three-fourths of the people of New York would condemn any attempt to treat the States of the South as Rebels, instead of removing their griev- 1 The message is printed in full in the Herald, Jan. 8. 325] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 125 ances .... and would not only condemn but resist such an attempt. . . . When, however, the Southern States become de facto a separate Confederacy, we shall consider the present Union at an end in all its parts. Then New York will seek to gather around her, in mutual relations of friendship, the States which will naturally seek her alliance, and will open her ports and offer her internal lines of communication to their use. She will preserve her own freedom, and give to her sister con- federates and to the world the boon of freedom of trade. 1 On the floor of the House of Representatives, Daniel E. Sickles declared that " in the event of secession in the South, New York City would free herself from the hated Repub- lican ' State ' government of New York and throw open her ports to free commerce." 2 Perhaps, these were not typical utterances. When, however, we find the same or similar treasonable views approved by such rival factors in the New York Democracy as the organ of the Regency, Wood, and a prominent member of Tammany, and when this fact is con- sidered in connection with the Albany convention of Janu- ary, 1 86 1, perhaps it is not unreasonable to suppose — un- pleasant as it may be — that there was a considerable de- gree of like sentiment among the Democrats of New York, which the events of April prevented from coming into fuller 1 Argus, Dec. 15, i860; similar editorials, Dec. 1, 10. Nov. 26 it said: " Separation is dissolution. Once establish a separation, and New York would look for itself." Similar editorials, Nov. 22, 27. 3 Burgess, Civil War and the Constitution, i, p. 147. The Tribune (Dec. 6, i860) quoted the New York Express to the same effect; the same scheme is set forth in the Washington correspondence of the Herald (Dec. 8, i860). See also Rhodes' History of the United States, >»» PP-370-7I, quoting MSS. Confederate Diplomatic Correspondence and William H. Russell's Diary. Also " Diary of a Public Man," North American Review, cxxix, p. 140. Buchanan in a letter of December 22, i860, to Royal Phelps, refers to the existence of the idea (Works, ed. by Moore, xi, p. 74). 126 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [326 view. At any rate, such expressions were mischievous, since, as is well known, they encouraged the secessionists to believe that the North would be divided in case of war. On the 28th of January, two days before the Democratic State Convention, a great " Union-saving " meeting took place at Cooper Institute, in which men of all parties which had fused against Lincoln participated. This meeting was more moderate in tone. The resolutions adopted, endors- ing the Crittenden compromise, were comparatively mild. The principal speaker, James T. Brady, made a plea to the South to be generous and to remain with the Northerners so as to give them a chance to gain a victory for the Demo- cratic party. While he said that he did not believe in the practicability of coercion, he proposed three cheers for Major Anderson, which the audience gave in a hearty manner. The meeting adopted a resolution appointing three commissioners to the conventions of South Carolina, Flor- ida, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. 1 In the latter part of January, Mayor Wood had another opportunity to show his ultra sympathy with the South. The metropolitan police having seized twenty-eight cases of muskets bound for Savannah, Wood sent a dispatch to Toombs saying, " If I had the power, I should summarily punish the authors of this illegal and unjustifiable seizure of private property." 2 Wood's hand was further shown in a series of violent resolutions adopted at a full and enthusiastic meeting of the Mozart Hall General Committee on the 1 Herald, Jan. 29. 7 Herald, Feb. 10. The Albany Argus (Feb. 12) approved Wood's action. In the issue of February 15th it assailed Superintendent of Police Kennedy for seizing rifles intended for the South, declaring that the seizure was illegal, tended "to embroil this State in controversies with Southern States," and was a dangerous, arbitrary precedent. 327] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 127 fourth of April. A week before Sumter was fired on, these resolutions declared that the " causes of complaint of our Southern brethren should be listened to, recognized, and removed;" they condemned the Republican majority in Congress for refusing to concede to the South any of its " reasonable demands ; " they asserted that the rapid developments of the last five months have rendered the existence of the Southern confederacy a historical fact; that, excepting by the free, spontaneous act of the separate members composing it, its independent nationality can only be interfered with by violence ; and that we are opposed to every form of menace, restraint, or coercion, under whatsoever pre- text of enforcing law, collecting revenue, or retaking property, which may lead to a conflict with the seceded States. ... In an age when oppressed nationalities . . . are seeking remedies for injustice and oppression by asserting local independence and vindicating the " right of revolution "... it behooves the central government at Washington and the State authorities at Albany to pause, before they persist in efforts to force even upon a million and a half of Union-loving people either a tariff by which their prosperity is undermined, or a municipal govern- ment which virtually asserts the principle of taxation without representation. 1 Besides the Democratic convention, the political situation in New York during the early months of 1861 was diver- sified by another and more striking incident, the Greeley- Evarts contest for the United States senatorship. Greeley's enemies loved to twit him on the score of his desire for office; and that he really had a hankering for it at various times can scarcely be doubted. But the battle in which the Phil- osopher of Spruce Street engaged on this occasion involved 1 Herald, April 5. 128 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [328 more than mere personal ambition. It was part of a series of operations for the control of the party in the State, and more than that, for an influential position in shaping the policy and the distribution of patronage of the incoming na- tional administration. This struggle began at Springfield soon after the election of Lincoln. Both Weed and Greeley visited the President-elect. 1 William Cullen Bryant had already written to Lincoln in order to counteract any influ- ence which Weed might attempt to exert with regard to patronage, the cabinet, or the compromise policy advocated in Weed's paper. 2 Other anti-Weed men, apparently, sought by personal visits and by telegrams to oppose any efforts of Weed to control New York appointments. 3 As for Weed's plan for a compromise, Lincoln was firmly set against any such surrender, and Greeley announced this with satisfaction in the Tribune. With regard to the offices, Lincoln on ten- dering Seward the secretaryship of state accompanied the offer with a distinct notice that in dispensing the patronage, his maxim would be " Justice to all." 4 To Bryant, Lincoln wrote at the end of December, i860, a reassuring letter, promising " to deal fairly with all men and all shades of opinion among our friends." 5 The same determination was made known to Weed. 6 The warfare over the cabinet started early and continued almost to the inauguration. Bryant immediately after the election urged Lincoln to appoint Chase secretary of state. 7 ' Weed's Autobiography, p. 613; Herald, Dec. 25, i860; Jan. 29, 1861. 'Lincoln's Works (Gettysburg Ed.), vi, p. 89. 3 Weed's Autobiography, p. 613. * Lincoln's Works, vi, p. yy. 5 Lincoln's Works, vi, p. 89. 6 Lincoln's Works, vi, p. 105. 'Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 150. 329] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR l2 g At the end of November, there was held in New York City a conference of prominent New York Republicans, mostly former Barnburners, the objects apparently being to further Chase's chances and to discuss the subject of a New York appointment to the cabinet. Among those present were Lieutenant-Governor Campbell, David Dudley Field, Charles A. Dana, William Curtis Noyes, George Opdyke, Hiram Barney, H. B. Stanton, Parke Godwin, and Thomas B. Carroll. This conference designated a committee to work for the ends mentioned above, and the committee subse- quently held a consultation at Albany. 1 At this time, it was thought that Seward would not accept a cabinet office, and so we find the anti-Weed faction in New York discussing the merits of Greeley, Field, Opdyke, Wadsworth, and Noyes. 2 Greeley, however, was reported as having said that he was " out of the way for any such post." 3 When his name was suggested for the postmaster-generalship, he au- thorized Colfax " to convey to the President-elect his de- cided veto on that selection." 4 Upon being twitted with his supposed ambition for this office by Weed's paper, Greeley replied with a just pride: " Even the Evening Journal will not say that it would have been presumptuous in the Editor aforesaid to have aspired to office at the hands of the new President. The fact [is] that he did not seek any such office. The anti-Weed men received a severe blow when in Janu- ary it was announced that Seward would be secretary of state. They accordingly set about to get a balance to Seward in the shape of Chase. Thus Bryant wrote to Lin- l H. B. Stanton to Chase, in Diary and Correspo?idence of S. P. Chase, American Historical Association Report for 1902, ii, pp. 485, 487. '/did. s Ibid. ' Tribune, Mar. 13. 5 Ibid. I3 o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [330 coin, January 21st, urging the need of Chase's presence in the cabinet " as a counterpoise to the one who joins to com- manding talents a flexible and indulgent temper of mind and unsafe associations." 1 Both Weed and Greeley were active in the struggle which toward the end of February raged around the question of Chase's appointment. 2 Both went to Washington in connection with this matter. Greeley in the Tribune accused Weed of opposing Chase's entrance into the cabinet " with incomparable virulence, declaring that if he was appointed, the Union would certainly be de- stroyed." 3 Friends of Seward informed Lincoln on March 2d, that Seward would not serve with Chase. 4 Weed, if a later report may be believed, came away enraged because he failed to get Lincoln to omit Chase's name, declaring that " Mr. Chase had been placed in the cabinet to control the patronage and appointments in the city and State of New York, to prevent Governor Seward from controlling the ap- pointments, and to deprive him [Weed] of all power and influence." 5 Seward himself wrote to Lincoln desiring to withdraw his acceptance of the state department. 6 What- ever Lincoln's motives in retaining Chase might have been, the contest ended, so far as the rival New York factions were concerned, in a draw. The selection of Seward, however, left a vacancy in the United States Senate from New York, and the senatorship 'Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 151. 2 Herald, Feb. 26, 27 (Washington dispatches); "Diary of a Public Man," North American Review, cxxix, p. 263. 3 Tribune, Mar. 7. 4 Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 42; "Diary of a Public Man," 'North American Review, cxxix, p. 271. "Hart's Chase, pp. 205, 206. •Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 42; Lincoln's Works, vi, p. 185. 331] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 131 would offer a very good vantage-ground both for influencing the policy of the new administration and for getting a share of the patronage. The contest for the speakership of the New York Assembly had shown that Greeley had a numer- ous following in the Legislature, and accordingly a good chance of an election to the United States Senate. As soon, then, as the Albany Evening Journal announced that Seward would be secretary of state, Greeley's friends began to work for his election as Seward's successor. 1 Weed supported from the first William M. Evarts, though Raymond and Webb were mentioned. 2 Evarts was already a leader of the New York bar, although the part of his career which made him a national figure came after the war. But his argu- ment in the celebrated Lemmon case 3 had attracted wide attention. Though better known at this time in his profes- sion than among politicians, he had acquired some promi- nence in the latter field as chairman of the New York dele- gation at the Republican National Convention of i860 and as one of the principal Seward men in that assemblage. A third candidate was Ira Harris, who had served for some thirteen years on the bench. His strength from the begin- ning of the contest consisted in a band of firm adherents, relatively few in number but holding the balance of power. The struggle was in part one which involved principle. Some legislators who ordinarily followed the lead of Weed would not support for the senatorship a candidate who favored compromise on the lines advocated by Weed. Evarts' speech upon the fugitive slave law at Castle Garden was brought up against him; and to counteract this move, his friends found it advisable to circulate pamphlets con- 1 He* aid, Jan. 15. 8 Herald, Jan. 4, 23. 'For this, see Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 323. note. 1^2. NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [332 taining his argument in the Lemmon slave case and his speech at the Broadway Tabernacle. 1 On the other hand, Weed was said to have made much use of Greeley's previous admission of the right of withdrawal from the Union. 2 And yet, personality complicated the situation, producing strange inconsistencies. At one time during the preliminary can- vass, Weed and his followers seemed about to drop Evarts for a stronger candidate, but this plan was given up. 3 A number of legislators were reported as declaring that they would not vote for Greeley either in or out of the caucus. 4 Against him it was urged that his presence in the Senate would so irritate the South as to aid in dissolving the Union. 5 Men who had opposed Weed's conciliatory policy now supported his candidate for senator; and some who had favored the Robinson resolutions now preferred Greeley who was totally opposed to compromise. By the last week in January, the battle became animated. 6 The contest was one of the keenest in the political history of the State. David Dudley Field came up to Albany to work for Greeley. Evarts came in person, while Harris and Weed were already on the scene of action. Weed summoned his followers from all over the State to influence the legislators from their respective districts, and most of the Republican State Committee were at Albany in the interests of Weed's man. Mr. Evarts was surrounded by a band of the most skilful and 1 Herald, Jan. 28; Tribune, Feb. 4. *" Diary of a Public Man," North American Review, cxxix, p. 136; Rhodes' History of the United States, iii, p. 142. 3 Tribune, Feb. 4; Herald, Feb. 1. 5. * Herald, Jan. 23. "Tribune, Feb. 4. * Herald, Jan. 26, 28. 333] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 133 experienced, the most thoroughly drilled and compacted corps of political managers in the country. Mr. Weed, a host in himself, led the cohort, flanked and followed by Comptroller Haws, Moses H. Grinnell, Simeon Draper, Oakey Hall, . . . and other eminent gentlemen from New York City; a large moiety of the State officers at Albany; Hollis White, A. B. Dickinson, E. B. Leavenworth, O. B. Matteson, and a crowd of men of like distinction from the Center, North and West; while a cloud of Harbor-Masters, Loan Commissioners, Canal Collectors, Canal Appraisers and other officials . . . covered the field as light dragoons, skirmishers and zouaves. It is estimated that the whole number of men collected here from all parts of the State by the managers of Mr. Evarts for the purpose of in- fluencing, dragooning, and controlling the members of the Legislature in his behalf during the past week has not been less than one thousand. . . . Never were the halls and parlors of the hotels, or the lobbies of the Legislature, thronged with such a feverish and intense activity. 1 Both sides apparently tried to obtain the assistance of Lin- coln. According to Weed, it was given out that the Presi- dent-elect favored Greeley. Moreover, the editor of the Evening Journal wrote to Lincoln that representations were being made that he favored Greeley and that a certain fol- lower of the latter claimed to be authorized to dispense the New York federal patronage. Lincoln's reply came too* late to be used in the contest. In it, he not only denied abso- lutely any interference, but stated that Weed was accused of doing the same thing of which he complained. Seward, too, was besought by some Evarts men to secure Lincoln's in- 1 Quoted from the Tribune, Feb. 4; confirmed by the Herald account. " The anti- Greeley politicians have been summoned from every part of the State to take care of their members and convince them that they must not vote for Greeley. . . . Most of the State Central Committee are here working against Greeley" (Herald, Jan. 31; also Feb. 5). 134 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [334 terposition in behalf of Evarts; but in a letter to Weed, Seward declined to attempt that. 1 At last, the day of the caucus, February 2d, came. But one Republican legislator was absent. The galleries of the assembly chamber, where the caucus was held, could not hold the crowds of spectators; and despite repeated efforts to clear the floor, they swarmed into that space as well as into the lobbies and retiring rooms. Weed was ensconced in the governor's room. As aids hasten to the general's tent, messengers came thither from time to time with tid- ings of how the battle went. On the first ballot, out of 115 votes, Evarts had 42, Greeley 40, Harris 20. 2 On the second ballot, Evarts lost three, while Greeley and Harris each gained two. And so it continued a neck and neck race with Greeley in the lead, until the eighth ballot resulted in Greeley receiving 47 votes (a gain of five over the preceding ballot), and Evarts 39. From the very first, Harris had been the dark horse. It was predicted that he held the bal- ance of power, and so it turned out. During the voting, Weed in vain tried to induce Harris's managers to withdraw him, but they stood firm. The eighth ballot showed which way the contest was going. Now, it must be anything to beat Greeley. " Littlejohn brought back to the caucus the terrible command;" and so, the Evarts men on the ninth ballot began going over to Harris, with the result that the latter received 49 votes, Greeley 46, and Evarts 12. 3 On the tenth and last, ballot, 60 votes were cast for Harris, sufficient to make him the nominee of the caucus; 49 still 1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, pp. 322-24, including letters of David Davis to Weed, Seward to Weed, and Lincoln to Weed. 'Scattering, 13. * Scattering, 7. >35J POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 135 clung to Greeley, while Evarts had but 2. Thereupon, the nomination was made unanimous. 1 Both sides claimed the victory. For many who had sup- ported Greeley, it was indeed such ; for the Weed slate had been broken. " The one-man power at the State Capital is overthrown," wrote the Tribune correspondent. " It was a conflict which was to determine whether a dynasty was to stand ... or be overthrown or annihilated. Fully appre- ciating the fact, not Richard at Bosworth Field, Charles at Naseby, nor Napoleon at Waterloo, made a more desperate fight for empire than did the one-man power at Albany to retain the sceptre it has wielded for so many years. ... Its downfall here, to-night . . . was most signal and com- plete." ~ On the other hand, the followers of Weed looked with satisfaction at the fact that at any rate Greeley had been defeated. The result was in truth a compromise, in which the two leaders of the respective factions got the worst of it. As for Weed, the contest marked the extent of the de- cline of his power. Greeley failed to receive the rewards that ordinarily make politics an attraction to a high-minded man, and his failure was pathetic. Assuredly if he had been elected to the Senate, he would have been an ornament to that body. However, in view of the embarrassment which he later caused to the Lincoln administration through the columns of the Tribune, it was perhaps well that he did not succeed in attaining a position where he might have done still more mischief. 1 Tribune, Feb. 4; Herald, Feb. 3; Argus, Feb. 4; Barnes' Memoir of Weed, pp. 324-5. In the Democratic caucus, the first ballot resulted in F. B. Spinola receiving 13 votes, Horatio Seymour 14, Lyman Tremain 5, scattering 6. On the second ballot, Seymour was chosen as the nominee, receiving 21 votes to 16 for Spinola and 1 for Samuel Nelson {Argus, Feb. 5). 1 Tribune, Feb. 4. I3 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [336 The election of Senator Harris brought scarcely a truce in the struggle between the New York Republican factions. During the following month, the Albany Evening Journal kept up a continuous attack on the Tribune directed against the latter's stand on national questions, 1 while the Tribune rebuked the Albany Journal for its lack of " decency " and its " acrimonious warfare of personalities." Then, atten- tion was directed to the engrossing subject of the appoint- ments of the incoming administration. The Republican party for the first time in its history was to possess the na- tional patronage, and the share of New York would be no mean one. The chief office in this State at the President's disposal was the collectorship of the port of New York. Soon after his election, Lincoln made known his intention of giving this post to Hiram Barney. 2 This was a personal appointment, but it was a big victory for the anti-Weed wing; for Barney, though not recently engaged in politics, was a radical and a friend of Chase. 3 The New York cus- tom-house had long played an important part in national and state politics. The patronage under Barney's control was very large. He was for days deluged with applica- tions for places, the custom-house was thronged with eager seekers for positions, and many persons visited the rotunda merely to witness this spectacle. 4 Subordinate places to the collectorship were given to two other prominent New York ] E. g., Feb. 5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 23, 25. On some days there wereasmany as three or four editorials or editorial paragraphs directed against the Tribune. > 2 Weed's Autobiography , p. 612. s Schucker's Chase, p. 477; Hart's Chase, p. 217. 4 Herald, April 9, 10, 11. Barney did not make removals fast enough to please some, and his own removal was demanded by both New York City and Brooklyn Republicans {Herald, June 10: Tribune, Sept. 5, Oct. 21). 337] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 137 radicals, Rufus Andrews (appointed surveyor of the port)) and Henry B. Stanton. The possession of the custom-house by their opponents was a thorn in the side of the Seward- Weed faction until the spring of 1864. 1 It was not until the middle and latter part of March that the New York appointments were made; and in the mean- time, the contest was a warm one. Both Weed and Greeley again journeyed to Washington. 2 Aside from the custom- house, the Seward-Weed wing seems to have gotten the better share of the spoils, notwithstanding Lincoln's ex- pressed determination to remain impartial with regard to the two New York factions. 3 The interests of the many friends of Seward in New York State were apparently better protected by the latter than were those of his opponents by Chase. It was not without reason that the anti-Seward men feared in this matter " the superior tact and pertinacity of Mr. Seward and of Mr. Thurlow Weed," Chase's pres- ence notwithstanding. 4 Gideon Welles tells us that Seward was vigilant and tenacious in dispensing the patronage of the ' The number of employees in the custom-house in 1864 was estimated by Surveyor Andrews as 1200. The usual assessment on the employees' salaries for political purposes was two per cent (Testimony of Andrews in Weed-Opdyke suit, Herald, Dec. 30, 1864). ^Herald, Mar. 25, 26. Lincoln's oft-quoted letter regarding the ap- pointment of Christopher Adams shows the intense rivalry between Weed and Greeley in the matter of appointments (Lincoln's Works, vi, p. 268). "... almost every place in New York was hotly contested between the Weed and anti-Weed factions" (Hart's Chase, p. 218). 3 Ante. The Herald, March 15 (Washington dispatch) said: "Mr. Dana of the New York Tribune has had an interview with the Presi- dent, and irritated by the appointment of Mr. Littlejohn as consul to Liverpool, demanded to know about the New York appointments. The President told Mr. Dana very plainly that he should not recognise the existing quarrel in New York State." See also Dana's Recollec- tions of the Civil War, p. 2. 4 Dana's Recollections, p. 2. 738 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [338 State Department, often without consulting others. On this point of selecting officials, or being consulted in regard to ap- pointments which came within the purview of his department, no man was more sensitive than Mr. Seward, though himself not always regardful of what in this respect was due to others. 1 We have the testimony of John A. Kasson, then first as- sistant postmaster-general, that his chief, Montgomery Blair, frequently expressed dissatisfaction with Seward's inter- ference with appointments in the post office department. 2 At the very beginning of the administration, Seward at- tempted to settle in Chase's absence the list of New York appointments and was unwilling that Chase should be con- sulted in the matter. 3 On the other hand, we find Chase in March, 1861, writing to Seward: "The appraisership at New York is vacant. Which of the two applicants do you prefer?" 4 In August, 1862, Chase wrote that he "spent much time with Weed over New York appointments," 5 and he recorded Weed's satisfaction with the decisions in these matters. 6 Moreover, Chase apparently had a high standard which interfered with a merely political use of the pat- ronage. 7 Very likely, he never felt the degree of interest in New York politics which Seward naturally did. 1 Welles' Lincoln and Seward, p. 71. Writing of appointments abroad, C. R. Fish, on the basis of letters in the Chase MSS, says, "Seward's influence was probably felt in most of the more important selections" (American Historical Review, viii, p. 60). 'Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 357. 'Welles' Lincoln and/Seward, pp. 72-3. 'Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 356. 6 Diary and Correspondence of S. P. Chase, American Historical As- sociation Report for 1902, ii, p. 62. ''Ibid., ii, pp. 79, 83. 'Hart's Chase, p. 311; C. R. Fish, " Lincoln and the Patronage" (American Historical Review, viii, p. 61). 339] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 139 The late Democratic convention had given due expres- sion to the sentiments of the party in this State. The leaders had pointed out the path to be taken. The effect was seen in the debates in the Legislature during the first part of February on a bill appropriating five hundred thousand dol- lars to equip the militia of the State. The Democratic con- vention call had indicated such proposed legislation as a proper field for Democratic opposition. The Argus edi- torially said : " The State of New York is not in need of de- fence. It fears no enemies from abroad, is threatened with no invasion. The half-million job, which the Journal and the lobby are getting up, has the invasion of sister States for its object, not the defence of New York." x A month and a half after South Carolina had passed the ordinance of se- cession — an interval during which the South was busily engaged in arming — this most necessary measure was op- posed with all but unanimity by the Democratic members of the Legislature. In the Senate, a number of Democrats assailed the bill. 2 Only one Democrat, J. McLeod Murphy, spoke in its favor, declaring that he did not regard it as a party measure, and that if no other Democrat voted for it, he would. So it turned out. The bill passed, 19 to 6, the ayes being all Republicans except Murphy, and the nays all Democrats. 3 Subsequently, Senator Murphy became a prominent War Democrat and served as colonel at the front. In the Assembly, the line-up on the bill was a strictly party one, the Republicans supporting the measure and the Demo- crats opposing it. Mr. Kernan, the Democratic leader on the floor, asserted that there was no need for so great an expenditure; there was no danger of domestic insurrec- 1 Argus, Jan, 28; similar editorials, Jan. 30, Feb. 8, n, 12. 1 Herald, Jan. 30, Feb. 8; Argus, Jan. 30, Feb. 4, 8. 'Senate Journal, 1861, p. 151. I 4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [340 tion or of invasion, and there would be no use for troops at Washington or anywhere else; the true purpose of the bill was to provide jobs for a few contractors. 1 The Demo- crats succeeded in delaying for the time action on the bill. On the other hand, the Republicans opposed an at- tempt in the Senate to have considered a bill providing for the submission of the Crittenden amendments to the peo- ple, and finally buried the measure by reference to a com- mittee. 2 During the rest of that month and March, the Legisla- ture proceeded with its ordinary business. There were some skirmishes between the Republicans and the Democrats on such topics as the demands of the South, the Governor's mes- sage, the Kansas Relief Bill, and the Chicago platform ; 3 but there was a lull in the secession movement then, a good part of the hundred days' session provided for in the state constitution had been used up, and committees were by that time ready to report. So, for a while, Broadway railroad schemes, canal extensions, and the usual variety of proposed legislation received most of the attention of the members. On the 10th of April, however, the bill appropriating half a million to equip the militia was brought up. With the aid of many Republicans, an amendment offered by Mr. Robinson, providing that no money appropriated should be used unless it became actually necessary to call out the militia of the State, was adopted and the bill recommitted. 4 But two days later, after the arrival of the news of the firing on Fort Sumter, a bill providing for a similar object, 1 Argus, Feb. 9; Herald, Feb. 9. * Argus, Jan. 31; Herald, Jan. 31; Senate Journal, 1861, pp. 77, 115. 5 Argus, Mar. 1, 2, 22; Herald, Mar. 2; Tribune, Feb. 20. * Ayes, 78, noes, 28; Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 904. 341 ] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 141 already passed by the Senate, was reported in the Assembly and passed by a vote of 78 to 25. 1 The days immediately following 1 the 14th of April saw a patriotic rising of the masses, and nowhere was the revolution more remarkable than in New York. A conference of the important state officials and the military and financial committees of both houses of the Legislature was immediately held at the Gov- ernor's mansion. A committee of those present drew up a bill authorizing the Governor to enroll for two years thirty thousand volunteers, appropriating three million dollars, and providing a tax for these purposes. 2 The bill was printed on the night of the 14th ; and on the next day, with a provision establishing a state military board composed of the governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary of state, comptroller, and attorney-general, the measure was intro- duced, put through all stages, and passed in both houses. 8 The attitude of the Democratic members, who but re- cently had opposed with practical unanimity the five hun- dred thousand dollars appropriation, showed how the news of Sumter's fall broke down party lines, shattered the united front of the Democracy, and overthrew the platform formulated by the late Democratic convention. Some of the legislators of that party tried to have a caucus called, so as to decide upon a line of party action in this emergency. But a caucus could not be gotten together. 4 Few on this occasion resisted the tidal wave of patriotism. In the As- 1 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 969. The bill passed the Senate by a strictly party vote. 'Article by J. Meredith Read (Governor Morgan's adjutant-gen- eral) in the Magazine of American History, xiv, p. 50. s Read's article, Magazine of American History, xiv, p. 51 ; Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 1025, 1026; Senate Journal, 1861, pp. 607, 608, 609. * Herald, April 16. I4 2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [342 sembly, one Democrat said that he voted for the bill not as a Democrat but as an individual loving his country; yet, he continued, his vote was not for a moment to be con- strued as an endorsement of the Republican party; to its refusal to compromise was charged the unhappy situation of the country's affairs ; nevertheless, " the national capital was in danger and it was the hour for every true lover of his country to rally to its defence. ..." Another Demo- crat said : " It is not now for me to say whether the na- tional administration be right or wrong." Still another, Fulton of Saratoga County, declared that he should fear to return home if he did not vote for the bill, lest the pa- triots buried there would rise up against him. A Demo- cratic member from Suffolk knew of no party in this issue. Only two Democrats spoke against the measure as being unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unfavorable to concilia- tion. 1 The bill passed 102 to 6, the nays being given by Democrats from New York City. 2 In the Senate, Mr. Spinola charged the Republican party with being respon- sible for the crisis, but said that it was " no time to bandy words " and accordingly he favored the bill. An- other Democrat, Colvin, regretted the utterance of such remarks in view of the subject. " This was no time to talk of party. He should not stop to consider whether this or that party was to blame." In all, three senators of each side spoke for the bill, which was then passed with but two votes against it. 3 On the next day, the bill was signed by 1 Argus, April 16; Herald, April 16; Tribune, April 16. The nays were cast by Cozans, Hardy, Kenny, Varian, Walsh, and Young. 8 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 1026. 'Senate Journal, 1861, p. 609; Herald, April 16; Argus, April 17; article by J. Meredith Read, Magazine of American History , xiv, p. 52 (which erroneously gives the nays as three). The nays were Lawrence (Dem. of Queens) and Gardiner (Dem. of Kings). 343] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR I43 the Governor. 1 Thus within three days, New York gave its official answer — and a significant one too — to South Caro- lina. The action of the state government was sustained by the people. The series of great meetings held throughout the State testified to the fact that, for a while at least, party strife and recrimination were stilled. In the days im- mediately following the firing upon Fort Sumter thous- ands of Democrats, who subsequently refused to lay aside their party, united with the Republicans in a noble demonstration in support of the administration. Perhaps some politicians were insincere and were swept along. The masses, however, were actuated by patriotic motives. In these meetings, Republicans, Douglas Demo- crats, Breckinridge Democrats, Tammany men, Mozart men, and Bell-Everettites all joined. The prevailing sen- timent was expressed by ex-President Fillmore, who said at the Buffalo meeting : " The government calls for aid and we must give it. It is no time now to inquire by whose fault or folly this state of things has been produced." 2 At Albany, Erastus Corning, Regency leader and Demo- cratic congressman, presided over a great meeting called by the Democratic committee. 3 There, Lyman Tremain, who but a few months before had expressed himself in so violent terms against coercion, as well as others pledged the Democratic party to stand by the national government in preserving the Union; and these utterances received the enthusiastic approval of upwards of eight thousand per- sons present. 4 At Oswego, men of all parties united in 1 Tribune, April 17. ^Herald, April 17. * Argus, April 23. * Tribune, April 23. I44 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [344 passing resolutions which approved the action of the Presi- dent and that of the Legislature, denounced the rebellion, and declared for the wiping out of party lines during such critical times. 1 At Kingston, 2 Troy, 3 Auburn, 4 Hudson, 5 Watertown, 6 Canandaigua, 7 Geneva, 8 Dunkirk, 9 and Sche- nectady 10 the citizens, regardless of former political affilia- tions, participated in similar demonstrations. Rochester's meeting of like character resolved to sustain the gov- ernment at any cost. 11 Side by side with Republicans, there took part in these assemblages prominent Demo- crats like Daniel S. Dickinson at the Binghamton meeting, 12 Francis Kernan at Utica, 13 ex-Lieutenant-Gov- ernor Church at Albion, 14 and Heman J. Redfield at Ba- tavia. 15 From all over the State, there were reported great outpourings of men of all parties, exalted non-partisan sen- timents, and tremendous enthusiasm. The most imposing demonstration of all was the great Union meeting in New York City. Before the war, that term meant a pro-slavery, anti-Republican gather- ing. With the firing on Fort Sumter, the significance of the expression changed, thereafter denoting a patriotic assem- blage for the purpose of pledging support to the govern- ment against Southern secessionists. On Monday, the 15th of April, a number of prominent gentlemen held a pre- liminary conference. 16 As a result of this and subsequent ' Herald, April 19. 2 Herald, April 19. 3 Argus, April 16. * Argus, April 20. 5 Argus, April 20. ' 6 Argus, April 26. ''Argus, April 20. 8 Argus, April 24. 9 Argus, April 21. ,0 Argus, April 22. 11 Herald, April 19. n Argus, April 20. "Argus, April 22. " Argus, April 24. 15 Argus, April 27. I6 Herald, April 17. j 45 ] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR i^ consultations, the citizens " without regard to previous political opinions " were called upon to assemble at Union Square on the following Saturday at three o'clock, " to express their sentiment in the present crisis in our national affairs and their determination to uphold the government of their country and maintain the authority of its consti- tution and its laws." It was also recommended that all places of business be closed at two o'clock. The call for this meeting was signed by many of the most distinguished citizens of all parties, including John A. Dix, ex-Governor Hamilton Fish, Peter Cooper, George Opdyke, William F. Havemeyer, William M. Evarts, Alexander T. Stewart, William Earl Dodge, William Curtis Noyes, John Coch- rane, William B. Astor, August Belmont, Elijah F. Purdy, Greene C. Bronson, Samuel Sloan, John J. Cisco, A. A. Low, Moses H. Grinnell, and hundreds of others. 1 The committee on resolutions and speakers, with John A. Dix — a life-long Democrat — at its head, likewise embraced men of all parties. 2 On the appointed day, April 20th, over 50,000 persons were estimated to have packed Union Square and the vicinity. There were four stands, two of which were re- spectively presided over by Dix and Fish. The non-par- tisan character of the demonstration was further shown by the list of vice-presidents. In addition to those who signed the call, the roll of those who thus lent their names to the meeting included James T. Brady, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Orestes A. Brownson, George Law, Henry J. Raymond, Horace Greeley, Richard O'Gorman, Edwin Croswell, H. B. Claflin, Abram S. Hewitt, David Dudley Field, Peter Lorillard, Erastus Brooks, Augustus Schell, John T. Hoff- 1 Herald, April 18 , 19. 1 Herald, April 19. I4 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [346 man, dozens of others prominent in politics, business, or the professions, and even Fernando Wood. The last mentioned made a very patriotic speech, pledging support to the admin- istration. In upholding the constitution, the Union, the government, the laws and the flag, he said, he cared not what past political associations might be severed. He was willing to give up all sympathies, and, if they pleased, all errors of judgment upon all national questions. . . . He knew no party now. He called upon every man, whatever had been his sympathies, to make one grand phalanx in this con- troversy, to proceed ... to conquer a peace. 1 If Wood was sincere on this occasion, it must have been a temporary aberration. It is perhaps more in accord with his other utterances, both before and after this occasion, to attribute his speech at the New York meeting to demagogy. The finance committee appointed at this great demonstra- tion was another evidence of its character, being composed of twelve Republicans and of fourteen of those who had hitherto acted in opposition to that party. 2 The prevailing idea of the speakers was that of ex-Governor Fish who said : " Thank God, I look now upon a multitude that knows no party divisions — no Whigs, no Democrats or Republicans." 3 1 Herald, April 21, 24; Tribune, April 22. The Tribune subsequently gave the following explanation of Wood's speech: "When the great Union meeting in Unipn Square was about to be held, General Dix at the head of a committee, invited Wood to speak, distinctly informing him that no semi-secession sentiments would be allowed to pass his lips, and if he refused to speak at all the fact would be marked against him. For once this bold, bad man cowered before the fiat of an aroused people" {Tribune, Nov. 29, 1861). I have found no evidence to cor- roborate this. 1 Herald, April 21 . • Ibid. 347] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR i^y Meanwhile, on April 19th, the merchants of the City met in the Chamber of Commerce, and resolved unanimously to uphold the national authorities and to urge a strict block- ade of all ports in the seceded states; $21,000 to move troops was raised in ten minutes; and a committee was designated to aid in procuring the immediate subscription of the remaining nine million dollars of the government loan. 1 On the 22d, Mayor Wood recommended and the Board of Aldermen voted a million dollars for the defence of the government. 2 The revolution in sentiment was indeed remarkable. 3 So it seemed to the New Orleans Picayune, which said : We are unwilling to believe the telegraphic reports of the total apostacy of the majority of the citizens of the City of New York, who have ever professed to be the friends of the South, and the opponents of Black Republicanism, as their vote in the late Presidential contest exhibited . . . the change is certainly very extraordinary. What has become of the Union proces- sion of the bone and sinew of New York City, which turned out seven miles in length in opposition to the Wide Awakes? We shall wait for confirmation before we are willing to believe in the apostacy of New York City. 4 That confirmation soon came. In the days when the pa- triotic enthusiasm aroused by the firing on Fort Sumter was still unspent, Tammany Hall, forgetting what its repre- sentatives had stood for in February, 5 adopted resolutions 1 Annual Cyclopcsdia for 1861, p. 531. 2 Annual Cyclopcedia for 1861, p. 532. 'Rhodes' History of the United States, iii, pp. 370-2 and footnote. *New Orleans Picayune, quoted in the Tribune, May 1. 5 At the Democratic State Convention in February, 1861, Tammany's delegates adopted an address to which was appended, among other re- j 4 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [348 worthy of its past glory. These resolutions declared that the Democracy, as one man, were " heartily united to up- hold the constitution, enforce the laws, maintain the Union, defend the flag, and protect the Capital of the United States;" it was further resolved to display upon the front of the old Wigwam, until the war was over, Jackson's in- spiring words : " The Union must and shall be preserved." x Tammany determined moreover to raise a regiment, 2 and it did so, with William D. Kennedy, who not long after was chosen grand sachem, as colonel. So strong was the feel- ing of the people that Mozart Hall could not afford to be behind Tammany in patriotism, and accordingly Mozart too set about raising a regiment. 3 In fact, the people moved more quickly than many of the Democratic politicians. There is evidence that some prominent Democrats in New York State were swept along by the revolutionary tide most unwillingly. Francis Ker- nan, then the Democratic leader in the Assembly, having been absent from the session of April 1 5th, made a speech on the following day, in which he declared that because he be- lieved there was danger of attempts on the national capital, he favored furnishing the federal government with means to repel such an aggression. " But," he continued, I am opposed to, and I trust the National Government will not attempt to carry an aggressive war into the Southern States. Such a war will neither preserve or restore the Union. ... If, solves, this: "That we will, by all proper and legitimate means, oppose, discountenance, and prevent any attempt on the part of the Republicans in power to make any armed aggression under the plea of ' enforcing the laws' or 'preserving the Union' upon the Southern States" (Ad- dress and resolves printed in full in the Argtis, Feb. 2). 1 Tribune, April 27. J Herald, May 3. ' Herald, May 12. 349] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 14 g then, we cannot adjust our differences now by concessions which will make us one people, is it not better to separate peaceably ? x The Argus commended Kernan's speech as discriminat- ing and patriotic. The leading editorial of this paper on April 15th said, "We are two nations henceforth." It further asserted that the war was not for the vindication of the Union but for its dissolution; that the administration merely waited to recognize separation until public opin- ion was ripe for it. Another editorial in the same issue, entitled "A False Alarm — Its Fraudulent Object," de- clared that an attack upon Washington was impossible, and continued : The defense of Washington is a mere pretence for this armament. Do not let us rush into a war against the Southern Confederacy, for the abolition of slavery, un- der the influence of a panic of this kind." And on this same day, the same paper said : The President . . . has issued a requisition for 75,000 troops from the States. Where does he find the power to do this? Congress refused to pass any laws for such a purpose. The existing acts of Congress confer no such authority. . . . Let not our Democratic legislators be decoyed into countenancing any such act of usurpation. Stand by the Constitution and Laws, but resist usurpation ! 2 The New York Express and the Utica Observer pub- lished similar utterances. 3 But on the 19th, the Argus came out strongly for the support of the national government ; 4 and a few days later, it spoke of the Albany meeting as 1 Argus, April 17. ' Argus, April 15. "Quoted in Greeley's American Conflict, i, p. 455. * Argus, April 19. I5 NE W YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [350 composed of " citizens heretofore of all parties, who are proud to unite themselves henceforth to the party of the Union. . . ." * The tide among the masses was too strong to be resisted. Alas that in many the noble impulse to bury party action during the country's crisis so soon spent its force ! 1 Argus, April 23. CHAPTER V The Genesis of the Union Party in New York State The claim subsequently made for partisan purposes that the North was united until Lincoln entered upon an aboli- tion course is erroneous so far as New York State, one of the most important centers of opposition to the adminis- tration, is concerned. Whatever unanimity existed, lasted there at the most only until the defeat at Bull Run. Even before that, the Argus had in editorials at the end of April and the beginning of May denounced any perversion of the war into an emancipation crusade; and in May and the following months, it came out strongly against the " no party" idea, pointing to continued wholesale displacement of Democratic postmasters. " Let the removals go on, if the Administration wishes it," this paper said, " but let this no party pretence be given up, ..." * In this same month, the Argus condemned as a high-handed outrage the govern- ment's seizure of dispatches ; 2 in June, it attacked the arrest of Marshal Kane; 3 and at the end of August, it assailed the Republicans because of the measures directed against the Journal of Commerce and other New York Democratic papers accused of disloyalty. 4 As early as May, Benjamin 1 Argus, May 21. * Argus, May 22. 1 Argus, June 29. For this incident, see the Annual Cyclopcedia for 1861, p. 360. * Argus, Aug. 31. 351] 151 1^2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [352 Wood in his Daily News was abusing the administration and denouncing the war. On the 27th of June, an editorial convention, represent- ing thirteen papers opposed to the war, met at the Astor House. The only prominent member of the convention was Wood, and the principal Democratic organs in the State were not represented. 1 The resolutions adopted declared that the first requisite to a restoration of the Union was peace; that the alarming and deplorable condition of the country was mainly due to the exercise of unconstitutional powers by the President, who had " not hesitated to in- augurate a war, to enlist a large standing army, to increase the navy, to seize private papers, to deny citizens the right to bear arms, and to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, all of which are in direct violation ... of the constitution of the United States." The resolutions further pointed out the burden of the enormous war expenses and the danger of a standing army, denounced the Morrill tariff as " simply a part of the machinery of monarchy to enrich the few at the expense of the many," and concluded by asserting that the Republican party had proved that "all its pretensions of devotion to ' freedom, free speech and free discussion ' were simply cloaks to conceal their [sic] real enmity to liberty, . . . and that the attempt to muzzle the Democratic press by mobs and terrorism . . . deserves the sternest condemnation." 2 From the early summer of 1861, the peace press con- tinued this violent criticism of the administration. The following is a sample from the New York Daily News: 1 Herald, June 28; the Argus (June 24) severely condemned the whole affair. a Herald, June 28. 353] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY ^3 The extra session convened by President Lincoln came together for the avowed object of promptly endorsing the most stu- pendous series of frauds, political villainies, and usurpations of power that have been perpetrated in any civilized country since the days of Henry the Eighth. . . and it has fulfilled its mis- sion, with a reckless disregard of conscience and duty worthy of the satellites of an abolition administration. It has virtually abrogated democratic government, and inaugurated a worse than Mohamedan [sic] despotism. It has set at naught the sol- emn precepts of the fathers of the republic ; treated the consti- tution as a dead letter ; passed laws of the most fundamentally destructive and unconstitutional character ; given its sanction to murders, massacres, illegal imprisonments, robberies of the treasury, and the withdrawal of all security of life and prop- erty to private citizens, and foreshadowed negro insurrections, wholesale confiscations and authorized anarchy as a necessary portion of the immediate future. 1 In the middle of August, the Daily News, the Journal of Commerce, the Day Book, and the Freeman's Journal, all published in New York City, and the Brooklyn Eagle were the subjects of a presentment by a grand jury in the United States Circuit Court, being charged with frequently encour- aging the rebels by expressions of sympathy and agreement with them. 2 Soon after, the use of the mails was forbidden to these papers. 3 In September, the Westchester County 1 Daily News, July 22, quoted in the Herald, July 23. ' Herald, Aug. 17; Annual Cyclopedia for 1861, p. 329. Three very small meetings in favor of peace were held in New York State about this time; one in Nyack {Tribune, July 13); another by the inhabi- tants of Broome, Delaware, and Chenango Counties {Tribune, Aug. 5); and a third in Schoharie County (Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 1). In New York City, a peace petition was seized by Superintendent of Police Kennedy. These meetings were attended by so few persons that they have little significance. 8 Tribune, Aug. 25; Annual Cyclopedia for 1861, p. 329. The Daily !54 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [354 Grand Jury presented a number of New York papers, in- cluding the Yonkers Herald and the New York Staats Zeitung as tending to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the government. 1 Later, the Franklin County Gazette was suppressed and its editor lodged in Fort Lafayette. 2 New York State seems to have had more of these peace papers than other Northern states, 3 and these disloyal sheets were by no means confined to the metropolis and its vicinity but were scattered throughout the State. They kept at- tacking the administration's measures, harping on the con- stitution and personal rights, and advocating peace. They stimulated opposition, and contributed toward' the sub- sidence of the patriotic movement of April, '61 in favor of the laying aside of parties during the war. It would be an error, however, to attribute too much in- fluence to these newspapers, which for the most part had but small circulations. Such guidance, the state Demo- cratic organization steadily refused to follow. But, on the other hand, when the time came in the early days of Au- gust, 1861, for the party leaders to decide on their course in view of the crisis in the country's affairs, the Democrats deliberately rejected an opportunity to continue the una- nimity of sentiment which the fall of Fort Sumter had brought about, and chose to support the war and oppose News soon after suspended publication (resumed in 1863); McMasters, editor of the Freeman's Journal, and Reeves, editor of the Greenpoint Watchman, were sent to Fort Lafayette; and the Journal of Commerce changed editors. 1 Herald, Sept. 10. 2 Annual Cyclopaedia for 1861, p. 330. s In the list of "peace newspapers" published in the Daily News (quoted in the Herald, Aug. 21), New York State leads with twenty- four; Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut come next with thir- teen, seven, and five respectively. To the twenty-four should be added three more in Westchester County, one on Long Island, and two Ger- man papers in New York City — all not included in the list. 355] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 155 the administration — an illogical position which could but lead to a renewal of divisions among the people. On the 6th of August, the Republican State Committee invited the Democratic State Committee to call the Demo- cratic State Convention at the same time and place as the Republican convention, in order that they might unite on a Union ticket pledged to "a vigorous prosecution of the war, for the restoration of the authority of the constitution and the execution of the federal laws in all sections of the coun- try." 1 This move was both patriotic and magnanimous, the offer coming from the stronger to the weaker side. It was also wise politically, since its rejection by the Demo- crats would rightly expose the latter to the charge of foster- ing divisions in the North. Indeed, if the Democrats were in favor of the war to maintain the constitution — as they constantly averred — the platform proffered was one upon which both parties might well have joined without sacrificing the principles of either. Such a result would have strength- ened the administration in its efforts to subdue the rebellion, and very likely would have aided in bringing about similar action in other states. 2 Thus there might have been formed a Union party whose only opponent in the North would have been the peace advocates. That the politicians who con- trolled the organization in New York failed to rise to such an act of statesmanship is not astonishing when one con- siders the force of party ties, the power of the idea of pre- serving the party machinery, the repugnance to the " black 'These resolutions are printed in the Herald, Aug. 7. 2 Apparently, the New York State Republican and Democratic Com- mittees led the way in regard to this matter. By the middle of August, the Republicans of Ohio and Vermont had made similar offers. The New York Democratic State Committee was the first to decline {Tribune, Aug. 10). 156 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [356 Republican " party, and the hope of gaining advantages over it in the future. When the Democratic State Committee met, all of the members except Ben Wood were in favor of coming out for a vigorous prosecution of the war but accompanied by the olive-branch of compromise. It was clear that the mass of the people in this State would give no support at that time to an anti-war party. On the other hand, the Democrats had been preaching compromise for months; and to some this perhaps still seemed the most patriotic course and the one best calculated to end the rebellion. Furthermore such a policy appealed to the politicians who looked forward to the time when a reunited Democracy would again dispense the nation's patronage. The Democratic committee accordingly refused to accept the invitation of the Republicans. The declination hypocritically declared that the Democrats were " ready to unite in political action with every citizen who looks to the preservation of the constitution and the perpetuation of the Union as the great end to be arrived at . .' . ;" they believed that the government should at all times " hold out terms of peace and accommodation to the dissevered States." Above all, they repelled the idea of an irrepressible conflict between the North and the South which could " only terminate in the subjugation of one or the other." While condemning secession, they abhorred " that aggressive and fanatical sectional policy which has so largely contributed to the present danger of the country." They would unite with those who favored honesty in the national and state governments and in the award of con- tracts, and the expulsion of corrupt persons from office. 1 Sufficient condemnation of the committee's action is found 'Reply of the Democratic State Committee, printed in the Herald, Aug. 9. 357] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY ^7 in the call adopted by it for the Democratic State Convention. This document invited the participation of all citizens who believed (among other things) that the crisis demanded the subordination of the interests of party to those of the coun- try. 1 The State Committee of the Constitutional Union party resolved that " If partisan strife . . . [is] still to engross the public mind . . . , there is but little hope for the permanency of the confederacy. May we not, then, hope that party or political distinctions may be obliterated in this State?" 2 We have already noticed the action of the Republicans toward effecting the same result. The fact that the various parties found it advisable to advocate this relinquishment of party shows that the mass of the people would have welcomed a temporary cessation of the custom- ary contention. The responsibility for preventing that which would have greatly strengthened the North in its struggle with rebellion must largely rest upon the Demo- cratic politicians, and not least upon Dean Richmond and his associates on the Democratic State Committee of New York. Light on the policy thus adopted by the Regency leaders is shed by an editorial which appeared about this time in their organ, the Albany Argus. After stating that there were four conceivable ways of treating the war, two of which — separation and emancipation — the Democrats em- phatically opposed, and the third — subjugation — they deemed incapable of restoring the Union, the writer goes on to speak of the fourth possible course, namely restora- tion, as follows: 'Call of the Democratic State Committee, printed in the Hetald, Aug. 10. 1 Resolutions of the State Executive Committee, printed in the Herald, Aug. 18. I5 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [358 Loyalty cannot be restored in a rebellious people except by concessions on the part of the Government ... we think the Union is to be restored by the same spirit of forbearance, con- ciliation, and compromise, which inspired our fathers . . . and that " a vigorous prosecution of the war should be accom- panied by the most liberal proffers of peace." If we are tauntingly asked what terms of compromise we propose, we answer such as Holt, Crittenden, Guthrie, Johnson, and other tried and devoted Union men in the Border States shall say are necessary to build up a Union party and restore loyalty at the South. 1 What was the object of such a policy? The organ of Tam- many, the New York Leader, said : " . . . the Democratic party of the State of New York may wield an all but om- nipotent influence over the final shaping of those events and mutual concessions which must precede a return of the now revolted States to their allegiance." 2 In the middle of August, the Breckinridge State Com- mittee met. They decided to hold no separate convention but to participate in the election of delegates to the Demo- cratic convention already called by their former rivals, the " softs ". And thus, the " hards " disappeared from the political history of the State. Some of them were good material for the future development of Copperheadism. In their resolutions adopted on this occasion, they deplored the " long predicted result of the Northern sectional ag- gressions upon the rights of the Southern States;" re- peated the assertion that " the worst and most ineffectual argument that can be addressed to the seceding States is war ;" they denied that the war was in any sense " a war 1 Quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 16. 'Quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 20. 359] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 159 for the Union " ; they advocated " an armistice between the now contending armies . . . and the immediate convo- cation of delegates from all the States " to adjust all dif- ferences; and they denounced aggressions on free speech and a free press, arbitrary arrests, the denial of the right of petition, the defiance of the courts by the military, " the suppression of newspapers, the deprivation of the militia of their arms, the declaration and enforcement of martial law, and the unauthorized seizures and searches without sanction of legal proofs." x Fortunately this faction was no longer very strong in the State, and the number repre- sented by this committee was small compared to the great mass of Democrats there. Not long after, a letter signed by Gideon J. Tucker, who was prominent in Mozart Hall, and three others announced the formation in New York City of an organization " opposed to the coercion of States, hostile to the arbitrary and unconstitutional acts of the present Federal Administration, and in favor of peace and a restoration of the Union." 2 The presence of such men as these extremists in the ranks of the New York Democ- racy formed a force moving towards disloyalty. When the Democratic State Convention met at Syra- cuse on September 4th, the peace faction was on hand in great strength. In some degree this was due to the fact that the former Breckinridge men participated in the choice of delegates, while, on the other hand, some Democrats who believed in laying aside politics during the war, did not. Prominent among the anti-war delegates were Ben Wood, John A. Green, chairman of the late Breckinridge State Committee : Gideon J. Tucker, and McMasters, editor of the notoriously disloyal sheet, the Freeman's Journal. The 1 Resolutions of the committee, printed in the Herald, Aug. 16. 1 Circular letter printed in the Tribune, Sept. 2. j6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [360 peace men were exceedingly active, working for resolu- tions in accord with their ideas. 1 Indeed, as the delegates gathered, attention was centered on the platform, and but little was said of the ticket to be nominated. 2 The Regency forces were led by Dean Richmond, Peter Cagger, and Sanford E. Church; and through the pos- session of the state committee and thereby of the presiding officer of the convention, they had control of the committees of the convention. Nevertheless, the peace men were strong enough to upset the Regency's plans. From New York City came contesting delegations chosen respectively by Tammany and Mozart. The latter had, previous to the assembling of the convention, offered the olive-branch to Tammany on the basis of an equal division of the seats of New York County; 8 but Tammany refused, and at the same time adopted resolutions expressing its determination to support the government in suppressing treason and main- taining the Union. 4 Immediately after the organization of the convention, the rival claims of Tammany and Mozart came up. Because of the well-founded suspicion that Mo- zart was not heartily in favor of the war, 5 the question in- volved more than mere regularity. 6 The majority of the committee on contested seats reported in favor of seating 1 Herald, Sept. 5; Argus, Sept. 5. 9 Herald, Sept. 5. "Resolutions of the Mozart General Committee, printed in the Herald, Aug. 20. * Resolutions of the,Tammany Hall General Committee, printed in the Herald, Aug. 30. 5 It is not intended to imply that all the followers of Mozart were at this time against the war. The Herald correspondent wrote, "I find that the Mozart delegation is about evenly divided on the war question " {Herald, Sept. 5). 6 Argus, Sept. 6. 361] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 161 the Tammany delegates. A delegate moved as a substitute to admit both Tammany and Mozart, each to have seven- teen votes. The substitute was adopted, no to 98, the fol- lowers of the Regency voting against it. 1 Thereupon, Tam- many withdrew to consult. The Regency had suffered a defeat; but the convention having adjourned to the next day, Richmond and his aids labored for a reconsideration, declaring that the admis- sion of Mozart would be construed as an endorsement of Ben Wood and the anti-war policy of the Daily News. 2 The Tammany delegation in the meantime had adopted and circulated a protest, 3 asserting that their organization was " honestly and earnestly in favor of prosecuting the war and of yielding to the government in all legitimate measures ... a zealous support ;" that " in entertaining these sentiments," Tammany was " widely and irreconcil- ably different in opinion and action from the Mozart Hall organization;" and that Tammany therefore declined to participate further in the convention. Immediately on the reassembling of that body on the second day, however, a motion to reconsider the vote admitting both Tammany and Mozart was made and carried, 114 to 87. Then came the main question. The substitute adopted on the preceding day was now defeated, the majority report of the committee 1 Herald, Sept. 5; report of the chairman of the committee of the Mozart delegation (in the Tribune, Sept. 10) . 1 Herald, Sept. 5, 6. " This result astounded the managers, who ob- tained a ready adjournment, avowing their determination to reverse the proceedings on the next day. ... by threats, fraudulent appliances and the most disgraceful deceptions and misrepresentations, they were successful" (Report of the Mozart delegation, printed in the Tribune, Sept. 10). The report goes on to protest that Mozart is loyal. "It is true the Regency and their Tammany allies alleged that we were of doubtful patriotism . . . ." s Printed in the Herald, Sept. 8. j6 2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL W AR [362 on contested seats was adopted, Mozart withdrew, and Tammany entered into sole possession of New York County's representation. 1 The number of nays in the vote to reconsider showed the strength of the peace advocates. When it came to the adoption of the platform, they won a decided victory. The contest occurred over what was subsequently known during the campaign as the " ninth resolution ". This read : We protest against the doctrine that any power except the representatives of the people, can suspend the writ of habeas corpus for civil offences. We protest against the assumption of the executive power to establish a system of passports ; against the right of the federal government to organize sys- tems of State police; against the assumption of the federal executive to suppress the discussions of a free press, by the refusal of mail facilities, or in any way except the decisions of the civil tribunals ; and that, finally, we protest against the doctrine of President Lincoln's message, that the States derive their authority from the federal government, as subversive of the fundamental doctrine of American liberty. . . . 2 This plank had been adopted by the committee on resolu- tions and then stricken out by it. In the convention, a dele- gate moved that the omitted resolution be restored. After discussion, the motion was carried. 8 The rest of the platform, adopted for the most part with- out debate, asserted that the Democracy's watchword in the crisis should' be, " The Union must and shall be pre- 1 Herald, Sept. 6. * Herald, Sept. 8. The Herald of Sept. 6, which contains the rest of the platform, gives only a summary of the ninth resolution. 3 Herald, Sept. 6. ^6' ] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 163 seried ;" condemned secession as revolution ; declared that thelseizure of the forts and federal property precipitated the War, and that it was " the duty of the government to prosecute the war thus forced upon it with all its power " and of the people " to rally ... to the support of the gov- ernment until the struggle is ended by the triumph of the Constitution and laws, and the restoration of the Union;" blamed the Northern politicians for stirring up between the North and the South an " irrepressible conflict " ; asserted that the loss of the border states was due to the obstinacy of the Republicans in adhering to the Chicago platform; and charged the prolongation of the war by another year, adding millions of dollars and thousands of lives to the cost, to the same cause. Another resolution recommended that Congress offer to the loyal people of the South a convention of all the states to revise and amend the consti- tution. Further, it was declared that the Democracy would regard " any attempt to pervert this conflict for the eman- cipation of the slaves as fatal to all the hopes for the res- toration of the Union ", and that the Democrats would not support such a war; the Republican administration should abandon the Chicago platform, expel the corrupt from office, exclude from its councils advocates of separation and abol- itionists, and reconstruct the cabinet. Then the resolutions thanked the soldiers and promised to protect them from the politicians and contractors, and closed with the assertion that a Democratic victory in New York State would be hardly less auspicious for the cause of the Union than the triumph of the federal arms. 1 The platform was thus of that mixed character so often found in such documents. Even as reported from the com- mittee, it faced both ways, the strong war resolutions with 1 Herald, Sept. 6. !64 new YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [364 which it opened and which alone must have satisfied any supporter of the war being offset by the second half of the resolutions with their flings at the Republicans, their threat not to support the war should an attempt be made to emancipate the slaves, and their general upholding of party lines. But the addition of the ninth resolution gave a disloyal tone to the whole platform, and was so considered by a great majority of the voters, as the election showed. 1 It was reported that Dean Richmond after the close of the convention denounced this resolution in the most bitter terms. 2 Yet, curiously enough, this plank, which was op- posed in the convention by the Regency managers, and the adoption of which was rightfully considered a victory for the peace men, embodied a position not very different; from that of the whole party a year later, when it claimed to be standing on a war platform. The influence of the extremists and the events of the war caused the Democratic organization in 1862 to approve with little dissent that which many Democrats condemned the year before as disloyal and unwise. After the adoption of the platform, the ticket, headed by David R. Floyd Jones for secretary of state, was quickly nominated, some of the places being filled without any contest. 3 The ninth resolution proved a millstone. Two of the nominees, Lyman Tre- main, 4 who had been selected for attorney-general, an office to which he had already been once elected by the Democrats, > 'The Herald (Sept. 8) said editorially that Wood's followers had been turned out by the convention, but his platform adopted. * Herald, Sept. 8. ' Herald, Sept. 6. 4 Letter of Tremain to the Democratic State Committee, printed in the Tribune, Sept. 11. 365] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 165 and Francis C. Brunck, 1 nominated for state treasurer, de- clined because of the platform and the spirit shown by the party; and the disloyal parts of the resolutions were prac- tically repudiated by the remaining candidates. 2 Though the Democratic organization had refused to lay aside party, many who had formerly adhered to it disap-* proved of this action, and the ninth resolution increased the number of those who were ready to throw off the old ties. The Republicans were generally inclined to a union with whoever would join with them in support of the adminis-j tration. 3 Thurlow Weed favored such a movement. The Albany Evening Journal said in its editorials : " It is hu- miliating to find men only thinking of party when the Coun- try is in peril ;" 4 " There is nothing which the traitors so much desire, just now, as partisan contests at the North;" 5 " The popular sentiment seems to demand the nomination of a ticket composed of uncompromising friends of the Union, irrespective of party." 6 A call, issued by some 1 Letter of Brunck to the Democratic State Committee, printed in the Tribune, Sept. 17. 2 See note 2, page 161. 3 Resolutions of the Richmond County Republican Convention {Tribune, Aug. 21); resolutions of the 2nd assembly district convention of Westchester County ( Tribune, Sept. 7) ; letter from a correspondent in Essex County saying that the delegates from that county go to the state convention instructed to favor the nomination of a state ticket composed of men of all parties upon the single basis of sustaining the government in its efforts to suppress the rebellion (Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 6) ; similar letter from a correspondent in Warren County (Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 9); action of the 1st assembly district Republican convention of Cayuga County, instructing delegates in favor of a " Union" ticket (Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 10). 4 Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 2.^. 5 Albany Evening Journal, Aug, 10. * Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 30. r 66 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [366 half dozen men of various political antecedents, summoned a People's convention to meet at Syracuse on September 10th, which was the same place, and one day previous to the time, already fixed for the Republican State Conven- tion. 1 When the People's convention assembled, its member- ship embraced men of all parties, including James Brooks, F. A. Tallmadge, William Duer, Thomas G. Alvord, Noah Davis, and John B. Haskin. There were Democrats, " hard " and " soft ", Constitutional-Unionists, and Re- publicans. 2 Apparently the delegations were chosen by mass meetings or conventions of men of all parties; and these district assemblages were, in some cases at least, denominated " Union " conventions or meetings. 3 The delegations were said to have contained about equal pro- portions of Democrats and Republicans. 4 Some were mem- bers of both the People's and the Republican conventions, 5 and naturally the prospect of an agreement between the two influenced the action of both. Nevertheless, the Peo- ple's convention represented a genuine movement arising 'Herald, Sept. 8. 3 Tribune, Sept. 11: " Every shade of politics participated . . . Prom- inent Democrats, from both wings of the party, played a conspicuous part in its [the convention's] doings, and leading Bell-Everett men were present." "A large number of prominent Democrats are here [i. e., at Syracuse] every one of whom repudiates the platform of their party" {Herald, Sept. 11). 3 Notices of such district meetings in the Argus, Sept. 5, 7, 9; in the Albany Evening Journal , Sept. 9. The Argus of Sept. 7 acknowledged that the call for the Albany meeting was signed by a number of promi- nent Republicans and "by some of our Democratic fellow citizens." * Herald, Sept. 10. Yet a review of the People's convention in the Argus of Sept. 18 claimed that there were probably not twenty-five Democrats present in the convention. This article was, however, ap- parently a partisan effort to decry the convention. '"■Herald, Sept. 11: Argus, Sept. 16. 367] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 167 from the patriotic desire to lay aside party during the crisis and was no mere Republican side-show. Thomas G. Al- vord, ex-speaker of the assembly, for thirty years a Demo- crat, and lately a prominent follower of Breckinridge, was chosen temporary chairman. In his speech he declared that the question before the country must submerge all parties. " I am for giving to the government," he said, " the greatest possible latitude that should be given by a free people in such a crisis." As to the acts of the admin- istration which the Democrats had assailed in their ninth resolution, Alvord declared that had the President " done less than he has done ... he would be more entitled to impeachment than he is now for any violation of the con- stitution," a sentiment greeted with prolonged applause. 1 These were the opinions of a real War Democrat. That term, both during the rebellion and since, has been used in a somewhat confusing way, including several different at- titudes, shading into one another. Horatio Seymour and men of his type were and are sometimes described as War Democrats; but this designation might, perhaps, be more properly limited to those Democrats who either became merged into the Union party or, while retaining their political independence, heartily supported the war meas- ures of the administration. The name ought not to be applied to those who, while supporting the war to some extent, embarrassed the government by a constant unsym- pathetic fire of criticism of its methods. A number of Bell-Everett men, the rump of the once powerful American party, were members of the convention. They endeavored to hasten nominations at the first day's session. The Republicans opposed this and favored as long a recess as possible in order to afford time for consulta- 1 Herald, Sept. 11. X 68 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [368 tions with the Republican convention. After debate, the Constitutional-Unionists were defeated, and the conven- tion adjourned for that day. 1 On the next morning, com- mittees were appointed, and an adjournment to the afternoon was then made to permit the assembling of the Republican convention in the meanwhile. When the latter gathered, neither Weed nor Greeley was among those present; but the anti-Weed men, including Opdyke, Dana, D. D. Field, and Campbell, were there in force. The Republicans ap- pointed a committee on order of business, which conferred with the committee on nominations of the People's con- vention. 2 These two committees, after discussion, agreed on a ticket, including Daniel S. Dickinson for attorney-gen- eral, Horatio Ballard for secretary of state, and Lucius Robinson for comptroller. Dickinson had been a life-long Democrat, a United States senator from New York, and a leader of the " hard shells ". He was the most prominent of those New York Democrats who entered into the Union party movement. Ballard, a lawyer of Cortland County, had been until a month before a member of the regular Democratic State Committee. Robinson, a Republican of Barnburner Democratic origin, later governor of the State, had served in the assembly and had been chairman of the committee on ways and means, making for himself a name for incorruptibility and knowledge of the State's finances. The whole ticket was composed of three Democrats, five Re- publicans, and one Bell-Everett man. 3 Only W. B. Wright, 1 Herald, Sept. 11. 2 Herald, Sept. 12. A committee on nominations was also appointed; yet, it was intended that the committee on order of business should confer on nominations with the committee of the People's convention (See remarks of the temporary chairman of the Republican convention). 3 Herald, Sept. 12; the Tribune (Sept. 12) says four Democrats and four Republicans, but Dickinson, Ballard, and Tappan were, apparently, the only Democrats. 369] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY ^9 who was named for judge of the Court of Appeals, could be called a Weed man/ though Weed subsequently claimed that Ballard was nominated by his influence. 2 Meanwhile, the Republicans adjourned, and the People's convention again took possession of the hall. The com- mittee on resolutions reported a platform which was adopted. This denied any intention of organizing a new party; proclaimed devotion to the constitution and thej Union, and a " fixed determination to defend, maintain, and perpetuate them at every hazard and at whatever cost " and to sustain with all " individual and united power and zeal the constitutionally chosen authorities of the govern- ment." 3 Then the ticket agreed upon by the committee of the two conventions was nominated by acclamation. A proposal to organize county committees, which would have been a step toward the formation of the machinery of a new party, was opposed by the delegates who were Repub- licans. The convention finally contented itself with recom- mending local mass meetings to ratify the ticket and to take such further action as might be found necessary; nor was any state committee appointed. 4 Immediately after the adjournment sine die of the Peo- ple's convention, the Republicans for the second time that day occupied the hall. The committee on nominations re- quested more time. A delegate called for the reading of the ticket adopted by the People's convention. A motion 1 The state treasurer, comptroller, and attorney-general on the Re- publican ticket of 1859 were not renominated, because of the scandals connected with the State Military Board. For complaints and accusa- tions against this board, see Herald, May 16, 19, 23, June 6, Aug. 7; Tribune, May 4, 11, 16, June 28. 2 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 473. 8 Herald, Sept. 12. 4 Herald, Sept. 12; Argus, Sept. 12. iy NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [370 to adjourn to the morrow, which if carried might have led to a different set of nominations from those of the People's convention, was defeated, 93 to 108. The People's con- vention ticket was then read and cheered with the exception of Frederick A. Tallmadge, a Bell-Everett man nominated for canal commissioner. His name was hissed. 1 After an exciting and disorderly debate, Benjamin F. Bruce, a good Weed Republican, was substituted for Tallmadge; this settled, the remaining names as agreed upon by the conference committees were speedily nominated by the Re- publicans too. 2 The ticket nominated by the People's convention and endorsed, with one minor exception, by the Republicans was called the Union ticket. In a large number of counties there were held conventions embracing the same elements as the People's State Convention, for the purpose of mak- ing nominations for local offices and for the legislature. These county assemblages were generally called People's conventions, 3 although in some instances, they were de- nominated Union conventions. 4 In some counties, the Re- publican and People's or Union conventions agreed on nominees ; in a number, there was only a partial fusion ; and in some cases, the local tickets were wholly different. This lack of uniformity brings out the broken state of party lines. What was later the Union party was yet in its initial stages of formation, and in some localities the Republicans showed themselves averse to entering upon such a move- 1 When the commit/tee on credentials of the People's convention had reported that a considerable number were delegates to both conven- tions, Tallmadge had vainly protested against that condition of affairs (Herald, Sept. 12). 2 Herald, Sept. 12. *E. g., in Queens, Washington, Albany, Onondaga, Chautauqua, and Monroe Counties. *E.g., Broome, Westchester, and New York Counties. 3 7 l ] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY T71 ment 1 Even in the strongest Republican counties, as the Tribune pointed out, the effect of this course was to reduce the majority for the Union state ticket by alienating Demo- cratic voters. 2 The situation in New York City was particularly interest- ing. Mozart Hall, having been kicked out of the Demo- cratic State Convention, denied in a series of resolutions that it was tainted with disloyalty, and affirmed that its members were " for maintaining the authority of the gov- ernment ' peaceably if we can but forcibly if we must;' " 3 and it ratified the Union state ticket. 4 Tammany, though victorious in the convention, found the platform adopted by that body and especially the ninth resolution hard to swallow. At this time public sentiment — at any rate so far as it was expressed — was in favor of the war and of* sustaining the administration. Practically all the important metropolitan dailies supported the Union ticket. More- over, the platform was felt to be inconsistent with Tam- many's position from the beginning of hostilities. Ac- cordingly, the Tammany General Committee adopted an address declaring that the candidates nominated by the Democratic State Convention " must plant themselves upon the patriotic platform upon which we stand or they cannot receive our support. . . . The three first resolutions of the Democratic State Convention embrace all the declarations it was called upon to make in regard to national matters. . ." 1 Extract from the Utica Herald (in the Argus, Oct. 24), containing a call to the Republican electors of Oneida County, asking Republicans dissatisfied with the action of the People's convention in that county to meet in mass convention. The Argus said that there was a similar call in the Buffalo Express for a convention in that city. 2 Tribune, Oct. 10. 'Resolutions printed in the Herald, Sept. 10. 4 Herald. Sept. 22. lj 2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [372 . . . ." As for the rest of the resolutions adopted at Syra- cuse, they were well enough as an " expression of abstract doctrines for a time of peace, . . . but if designed as man- acles to shackle and wedges to divide the nation, while engaged in a ' war for its life ' they deserve ... a most decisive repudiation." At the same time the Tammany General Committee adopted a series of resolutions which are worthy of atten- tion as an embodiment of a far more patriotic and politi- cally wiser position than that of the state organization. These resolutions declared it to be " the first and most sacred duty of every man ... to devote his energies and his means, with all his heart and soul, to the earnest and resist- less prosecution of the war, until the rebellion is utterly sup- pressed ... ;" that the President is imperatively required ... to take every step . . . which may be necessary to secure the triumph of our arms . . . and that his measures in this respect will be passed upon by a generous and patriotic people, . . . [who will] judge his ac- tions with liberality and fairness, without party spirit, and with a just appreciation of the difficulties ... by which he is surrounded. Then, after approving Lincoln's disavowal of Fremont's proclamation of emancipation, the resolutions went on to defend the refusal of Tammany to abandon the Democratic state organization and to join in a Union party movement, saying that if the Democrats should merge in a mere temporary party for the war, there is great danger that such a result would be regarded at the South as a prelude to a war of emancipation ... A democratic organization would, under any circumstances, have been maintained in this State, and the real point to be considered is, whether it was [sic] better for the country that democrats in favor of a vigorous 373] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 173 prosecution of the war should remain with their party, and secure its organization in aid of the government, or . . . allow a chance for the democratic party to be controlled by less patriotic influences. 1 All of the candidates on the state ticket replied to the Tam- many General Committee, expressing approval of the reso- lutions. 2 That organization accordingly endorsed the nomi- nations. 3 When it came to a division of the county spoils, Tammany and Mozart managed to agree on every name except that for sheriff. The general dissolution of the old parties, which was thought to be going on, 4 caused the adherents of the Union ticket in New York City to associate in a reform movement for good government. 5 Among the prominent men who participated therein were John Jacob Astor, Peter Cooper, William Allen Butler, Moses Taylor, William F. Havemeyer, and Alexander T. Stewart. 6 A number of Union organizations were formed, each advocating a more honest and economical municipal management. Four of these associations nominated county and judicial tickets of their own, thus threatening through divisions to wreck any prospect of success. 7 Finally, just before the election, an agreement was reached among these various Union organi- zations and also the Republicans. 8 The Tammany-Mozart 1 Herald, Oct. 4. 1 Letters of the different candidates on the Democratic state ticket replying to the Tammany committee, printed in the Herald, Nov. 5. s Herald, Oct. 27. * Herald, Oct. 12; resolutions of the St. Nicholas Hotel Union meet- ing (Tribune, Sept. 19). 6 Herald, Sept. 20, 22, Oct. 4 ; Tribune, Sept. 19. 6 Herald, Sept. 20, Oct. 4. 7 Herald, Oct. 12, 27 ; Tribune, Oct. 17. 8 Tribune, Oct. 21 ; Herald, Oct. 27. I7 4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [374 coalition, however, was victorious, and the notorious ring — then in its early stage — secured a great triumph. Henry W. Genet, who at that time was the leading spirit of the ring, was elected county clerk; and A. Oakey Hall, later mayor at the time of the Tweed expose, was chosen district attorney. It is significant of the methods and power of this corrupt gang that, being unable wholly to control Tammany on this occasion and to prevent the nomination of Nelson J. Waterbury for district attorney, the ring was able to bring about the naming of Oakey Hall for that office by the Re- publicans and his endorsement by Mozart. Though the third of the ring candidates, William M. Tweed, was de- feated for the office of sheriff, the good government move- ment associated with the Union campaign in New York City was a failure. The state canvass was, on the whole, very quiet. 1 The attention of the people was absorbed in the war, this was not a gubernatorial election, and the legislature to be chosen would select no United States senator. So the politicians were busied rather with the spoils of local offices. The declinations of Tremain and Brunck, the practical repudia- tion of the ninth resolution by all of the Democratic state candidates, its positive rejection by Tammany, and the en- dorsement of the Union state ticket by Mozart all pointed to 1 " . . . the prospects are that it will prove the tamest [election] that has been known for many years. . . . There is, in fact, outside of this city and county, no contest" (Herald, Nov. 2). "We doubt if there has been a general State election for the last ten years where there has been so little noise attending the preparations. Bonfires, processions and target excursions have been almost unknown, and public meetings few and far between" (Herald, Nov. 4). The Rochester correspon- dent of the Herald (Oct. 24) wrote: "While the electors of this city and many other localities are intently absorbed in the question of county candidates, very little attention seems to be paid to the State nominations." 375] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY ^5 the probability of the success of the Union ticket. 1 The candidates for state offices on both tickets claimed to stand on a platform favoring the vigorous prosecution of the war ; in the City of New York there was substantial agree- ment on national questions by all parties and organizations ; matters of state policy played absolutely no part in the cam- paign; and thus the Democrats had no issue on which to make an aggressive fight. They were on the defensive, and the ninth resolution was their vulnerable point. A note- worthy feature of the contest was the able and stirring speeches of Daniel S. Dickinson, strongly in support of the national administration. The result of the election was the success of the Union state ticket — except the nominee for canal commissioner 2 — by a hitherto unprecedented ma- jority in this State of 107,000; and those elected on Repub- lican and on Union or People's tickets together would con- trol both branches of the legislature. At the same time, there was a tremendous falling-off in the Democratic vote as compared with that of i860. 3 Of more than local interest was the New York City charter election in December, 1861, when a successor to Fernando Wood was chosen. The Taxpayers Union and the Rentpayers Association were again in the field to bring about a reform in the city government. 4 This element com- bined with the Republicans in the support of George Op- 1 The Argus (Nov. 7) in an editorial on the election said that "if the Democracy had not been chilled in the outset by the declination of one of its candidates, and betrayed by shameful compromises and combinations in the Metropolis," the result would have been different. 2 Through the failure of the People's and the Republican conventions to agree on the nominee for this office, Wright, a Democrat, was elected. 3 Albany Evening Journal Almanac for 1862. 4 Herald, Nov. 17. Messrs. Stokes, Minturn, and Astor were suc- cessively nominated and all in turn declined. lyS NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [376 dyke. The latter had risen from a journeyman tailor in New Orleans 1 to be one of New York's wealthy mer- chants. He had served in the legislature, where he had shown a knowledge of commerce and finance, and in 1859 had been the Republican candidate for mayor. He was a radical and a leader of the anti-Weed faction of his party. Tammany nominated C. Godfrey Gunther, a fur merchant. Wood was backed for reelection by his own organization, Mozart Hall. Significantly, the attitude of the candidates toward the war was the chief issue of the campaign. Wood declared that the contest was one of conservative nationalism against abolitionism; and claiming that he was the representative of the former, he devoted his speeches largely to denuncia- tion of the latter. 2 At a mass meeting of Germans, he was reported to have said : They [the abolitionists] will prosecute it [the war] so long as there is a drop of Southern blood to be shed, provided they are removed from the scene of danger. They will get Irish and Germans to fill their regiments to " defend the country " under the idea that they themselves will remain at home, and divide the plunder . . . They have conquered all the strongholds of the North, and they are now battling against the citadel of the Empire City . . . 3 This was a sample of Wood's demagogism. His former connections with the Southern fire-eaters, his message sug- gesting the establishment of a free city at New York, and his action in the Georgia rifle seizure caused him to be sus- pected, with some justice, of sympathizing with the rebels; 1 Herald, Nov. 26. 2 E. g. speeches of Nov. 27, 29. * Tribune, Nov. 28. j 77 J THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 177 and these incidents furnished campaign material for both Republicans and Tammany speakers, who accused him of disloyalty. Wood, it is true, had changed his tone when Sumter fell. But in the early months of the war, a loyal attitude was a necessity for any politician in New York City who desired to retain his power. On the other hand, Op- dyke, because of his well-known views on slavery, was as- sailed by Tammany and Mozart as an abolitionist. The Herald said : " The two principal features of the canvass were the anti-Wood cry and anti-abolition." 1 In general, the supporters of Opdyke and of Gunther at- tacked the candidates of each other but sparingly, and turned their fire rather against the crafty Mozart chief. Whether to vote for Opdyke or for Gunther, was with many simply a question of which had the better chance of defeating Wood. Neither of the Democratic factions could afford to be beaten by the other. It was the closest triangu- lar contest thus far fought in the City ; 2 the vote was very heavy, from fifteen to twenty thousand above that cast in the state election a month previous, and after making allow- ance for the number absent in the army, rivaling the presi- dential vote of i860. Because of the overwhelming senti- ment in favor of supporting the administration, there had been apathy, especially in the Democratic ranks, during the state canvass ; while this local contest aroused more interest. Opdyke led with 25,380 votes to 24,767 for Gunther and 24,167 for Wood. 3 This was at the best only a partial check to the corrupt elements. Both branches of the muni- 1 Herald, Dec. 8. " He [Opdyke] lost a good many Republican votes — some because he was deemed an abolitionist — some because he was not an abolitionist ..." (Tribune, Dec. 4). 2 Tribune, Dec. 4. 3 Tribune Almanac for 1862. I7 8 W£^ YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [378 cipal law-making body were politically opposed to the new mayor, and it was there that the ring had already gained a firm hold. Though Opdyke steadily opposed dishonesty and extravagance, New York City had to wait until condi- tions became still worse before relief came at the beginning of the next decade. CHAPTER VI The Legislature of 1862 A noteworthy feature of New York politics during 1862 was the contrast between the comparative calm which pre- vailed during the first half of the year, including the months when the Legislature was in session, and the fierce partisan spirit which was evident after August. In other years, the Legislature was usually a party battle ground. 1 But the session of 1862 was remarkable for a paucity of party mani- festations. 2 Then, too, the intestine dissensions in which the Democracy of New York City had long been involved because of the rivalries of Tammany and Mozart, died down after the charter election of 1861. Even the war of edi- torials between Greeley and Weed entered upon a period of 1 A. Lawrence Lowell in a paper entitled " The Influence of Party upon Legislation" (American Historical Association Report, 1901, i> P- 338) says : " In New York alone among the States considered is the amount of party voting considerable. Here the proportion of party votes is about 25 or 30 per cent in the senate and 45 or 50 per cent in the assembly; and there is no great difference in this respect between the sessions of 1894 and 1899. . . . Party politics in New York have always run high, and the people have always been divided evenly enough to keep party strife keen. At the same time great size has made more possible than elsewhere a real party division upon State issues instead of upon national ones alone; ..." 2 Senator Bell, on taking the chair in the absence of the Lieutenant- Governor, said : " History does not record, or my memory fails to re- call, a period so free from party feeling and party strife." This, however, was perhaps an exaggeration. Certainly, the Argus from time to time stirred up the partisan waters. 379] 1/9 i8o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [380 truce. This cessation in great part of the old spirit was a natural result of the gigantic contest in which the best energy of the country was absorbed and of the overwhelm- ing victory of the Union ticket in 1861. The Legislature of 1862 was ranked high for the ability and honesty of its members. The Assembly contained a dis- tinguished group of administration supporters, which em- braced Messrs. Stetson and Pringle who had served in Con- gress, Messrs. Hulburd, Ogden, and Alvord who had been members of previous legislatures, and Henry J. Raymond who had been speaker of the assembly and later, as lieuten- ant-governor, had presided over the upper house. In the state Senate of 1862, ten of the members had been elected as straight Republicans, twelve as Union Republicans, three as Union Democrats, and seven as Democrats. Thus, fifteen were chosen on Union tickets; twenty-two had been Re- publicans, and ten had been Democrats. In the Assembly, there were twenty-seven straight Republicans, thirty-eight Union Republicans, twenty-nine Union Democrats, and thirty-three straight Democrats. Of one hundred and twenty-seven members (there being one vacancy), sixty- seven were elected on Union tickets ; sixty-five were of Re- publican antecedents, and sixty-two Democratic. 1 Thus, the majority in both houses was composed of men whose affili- ations had been with the Republicans. Yet that party was then young and its component elements were still traceable. Hence there were some interesting combinations possible. Would the straight Republicans continue to act with all the Union members; or would the Republicans, straight and Union, combine and repel the Union Democrats? The Re- publicans at the preceding election had advocated drop- ping party questions and standing upon the single issue 1 Herald, Jan. 6. 3 8i] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 181 of supporting the administration. The Union Democrats had been chosen on the same platform. 1 Would the move- ment for a Union party continue, or would the old lines of division reappear? The question came to a head with the calling of a caucus to select a candidate for speaker. The prominent names mentioned for the place were Raymond of New York, Calvin T. Hulburd of St. Lawrence, and Thomas G. Alvord of Onondaga. The first was a Weed Republican, the sec- ond a Republican of Barnburner Democratic origin, and the last a Union Democrat. Personality and considerations of future policy, however, quite broke down factional lines. 2 It is curious to note that Raymond, in spite of Seward's and Weed's attitude on radical measures and his connection with them, attracted members favoring emancipation. But in general, Raymond's strength came from the followers of Weed. 3 The anti-Raymond men issued a caucus call invit- ing all members of the Assembly who favored sustaining the government in a vigorous prosecution of the war to put down the rebellion and maintain the Union, and who were opposed to partial and unjust legislation and to corruption in high places. 4 This would not only permit all Union mem- bers, Republicans or Democrats, to take part; it was broad enough to let in the straight Democrats who might have joined in bringing about the nomination of a man like Alvord. That such an occurrence was a possibility, was shown not only by the facts that no Democratic caucus had yet been called and that party feeling was relatively low, but also by 1 Herald, Jan. 6. * Tribune, Jan. 6. 3 Herald, Jan. 5. 4 Printed in the Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 4. The Journal ques- tioned the authority of this call because the document was anonymous and because so few members had as yet arrived. iS 2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [382 the resolution of Mr. Ogden referred to below. Raymond's followers in reply issued a call worded the same as the previous one except that only those who supported the Union ticket of 1861 were invited. Both documents named the assembly chamber and the 6th of January as the place and time, but the Raymond men were to meet two hours before their opponents. 1 Thereupon, the friends of Alvord and Hulburd gath- ered in a preliminary meeting at four o'clock, three hours be- fore the time set for their caucus and one hour before that of Raymond's adherents was to meet. There were thus two caucuses, one at four and the other at five o'clock. The Raymond call had but thirty-one names, far less than was necessary for an election; nor were the Alvord-Hul- burd men, even if united upon one of their number, sufficient to elect. Though Raymond's chances seemed at the start the best, 2 there was a fair prospect that neither caucus would represent a majority of the House, unless some straight Democrats were induced to answer one of the calls, 3 and that the matter would have to be settled by a contest in the Assembly itself. 4 But the anti-Raymond men accomplished nothing, and at the hour set for the Raymond caucus ad- journed. They did not, however, withdraw, perhaps think- ing to beat Raymond among his own friends. 5 Thus the two caucuses blended into one composed of Republicans, Union Republicans and Union Democrats. 6 The question 1 The Raymond call is printed in the Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 6. 2 Herald, Jan. 6 ; Tribune, Jan. 6. 3 Tribune, Jan. 6. * Herald, Jan. 6; Argus, Jan. 8. 5 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 7 ; Herald, Jan. 7, 8. 6 Tribune, Jan. 7; Herald, Jan. 7. 383] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 ^3 as to who might vote was at once brought up. Mr. Ogden, a Union Democrat, offered a resolution that " all members elected to the legislature who favor sustaining the govern- ment in a vigorous prosecution of the war to put down the rebellion and save the Union, and who are opposed to un- just, partial legislation and corruption in high or low places, be invited to take seats." Ogden and Stetson, an- other Union Democrat, spoke for the resolution; Raymond and Pierce against it, arguing that support of the Union state ticket as well as of the national administration be made the test. After a lengthy debate, the resolution was lost, 16 to 61. * The balloting for speaker then followed with this result : Raymond (Republican) 29, Hulburd (Republican) 17, Rice (Republican) 12, Alvord (Union Democrat) 8, Pierce (Union Republican) 7, Ogden (Union Democrat) 5, scat- tering or blank 4. Ogden, Alvord, and Rice then withdrew their names. On the second ballot, Raymond had 47 votes to 37 for Hulburd. Raymond's nomination was then made unanimous. 2 The Union Democrats were consoled with the clerkship. 3 On the next day the straight Democrats, who seemed to have been waiting for an advantageous offer, went through the formality of making caucus nominations. 4 When the Assembly met on January 7th to organize, Ray- mond was chosen speaker, receiving 88 votes to 36 for Horatio Seymour of Erie (not the former governor). All the members of Republican antecedents, whether elected on straight or Union tickets, and nearly all of the Union Demo- 1 Herald, Jan. 7 ; Tribune, Jan. 7. 2 Herald, Jan. 7; Tribune, Jan. 7. s Herald, Jan. 8. * Tribune, Jan. 7 ; Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 7. j8 4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [384 crats voted for Raymond. 1 In the Senate, all of the Union members acted with the Republicans in caucus. 2 Thus, the session began with harmony between the Republicans and the Union men. Even in this exceptionally peaceful session, the irrepres- sible question caused some party debates. Soon after the organization of the House, a Democratic caucus decided to support the President and to uphold his conservative policy against abolitionist generals. A committee of five to draft resolutions was appointed, but nothing came of this. 3 In the Assembly a resolution, favoring the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia brought on a partisan skirmish. 4 The Democrats opposed the resolution on the ground that the Legislature had little enough time to attend to its own business without meddling with that of Congress. One Union Democrat, desiring to put the abolitionists on record, moved an amendment in favor of the abolition of slavery south 5 of Mason and Dixon's line. A Democrat moved the previous question. The Republicans were able to de- feat this, and on motion of one of them, the resolution was referred to the committee on federal relations, not to be heard of again. 6 In the Senate, the straight Democratic minority was small; but it failed to show even its full strength or to attract any of the Union Democrats in op- posing a resolution approving the President's message 1 Assembly Journal 1862, p. 6. 2 Herald, Jan. 7. s Herald, Jan. 15. * Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 480. 5 The Assembly Journal, p. 481, says " north " ; but this is evidently a misprint. This supposition is confirmed by the reports in the Herald and Tribune (Mar. 18). 6 Herald, Mar. 18; Argus, Mar. 19; Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 481. 385] THB LEGISLATURE OF 1862 185 recommending compensated emancipation. 1 Senator Pruyn, a Democrat, declared the message ill-timed and injudicious, and wished to have the resolution sent to a special com- mittee. But the greatest number of votes the Democrats could muster against the resolution was three; and on the final passage, it was adopted by a vote of twenty-six to one — all the Union Democrats and five straight Democrats voting aye. 2 A joint resolution instructing the United States senators from New York to vote for the expulsion of Mr. Bright of Indiana 3 developed something like a party alignment. Sen- ator Harris, to the disgust of some New York Republicans, had taken a stand against expulsion. Hence the resolu- tions in the Legislature. The Republicans, however, were not unanimous on this question. Some joined with the Democrats in maintaining that the Bright affair was a purely judicial matter, about which the members of the Legislature knew nothing but rumors. 4 Substitute resolu- tions merely expressing the opinion that Bright was a traitor and ought to be expelled were adopted in the Senate by a party vote. 5 Before the Assembly took action, Bright on the 5th of February was expelled. One of New York's senators, Preston King, voted for expulsion ; while the other, Ira Harris, voted against it. Some days later, the resolu- tions were called up in the Assembly and amended to fit the circumstances. The pleasure of the New York Legislature at Bright's expulsion was expressed, and Senator King was 1 For this, see Rhodes, History of the United States, iii, pp. 631-3 ; Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vi, pp. 68, 69. 1 Tribune, April 4; Argus, April 4; Senate Journal, 1862, p. 433. 3 For this affair, see the Annual Cyclopedia for 1862, pp. 331-2. 4 Herald, Jan. 31 ; Argus, Feb. 1. 5 Senate Journal, 1862, p. 121. t86 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [386 thanked. In the debate which followed, the Democrats were aided by some of the Republicans, who thought the resolu- tions useless and an implied censure on Senator Harris. Indeed so many of the majority acted on this occasion with the Democrats that only the Speaker's casting vote pre- vented the matter from being laid on the table, and finally the House adjourned without taking any action on the sub- ject. 1 We may conclude that the session of 1862 was notable for a lack of partisan debates and divisions. Hence, the Tribune correspondent wrote: "It is a difficult question to classify members politically now, as some seem to have no politics at all and others ' none to speak of.' " 2 The Her- ald correspondent wrote at the close of the session : The Legislature proceeded quite harmoniously in its business throughout the session. There has been no great question upon which the leaders on each side arrayed themselves and sounded the party call for their followers. Everything that has approximated [to] a party movement has been simply a struggle between the two great wings of the Republican party. 3 It is to be noted that the Democrats made no opposition to what might be called war measures ; 4 military bills, including 1 Assembly Journal, 1862, pp. 279, 280; Herald, Feb. 16; Argus, Feb. 19. In the Assembly, an amendment to the state constitution pro- hibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors was defeated by a vote of 38 to 73. While nearly all the Democrats voted against the amendment, the division was not a party one; for nearly all the New York City and Brooklyn Republicans voted nay. It was rather a case of city against country (Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 516). 2 Tribune, Jan. 16. 8 Herald, April 2J; similar editorial in the Albany Evening Journal, April 23, which said, "... party spirit was seldom exhibited, and mere party discussions were commendably rare." * " . . . whatever measures were deemed necessary to strengthen the 387] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 187 one for the reorganization of the militia, went through smoothly; 1 and there was evinced a disposition on the part of the opposition freely to give New York's share to the financial support of the war. 2 This general calm was, however, somewhat -disturbed by the personal rivalries which developed within the majority of the Assembly. Their first appearance we have seen in the contest for the speakership. They came up again dur- ing an exciting debate on the question of taxation, and re- sulted in a verbal duel between Raymond on the one hand and Hulburd, Pierce, and Alvord on the other. Congress \vas still considering the subject, and it was though: by some that the voice of New York in favor of taxation would have a decided influence upon the lawmakers at Washington. So the Assembly committee on ways and means reported resolutions favoring the apportionment among the states of a direct tax sufficient for and pledged to the payment of the interest on the entire debt of the national government; further, they urged that ten million dollars of the amount to be derived from the income tax be set aside and pledged as a sinking fund to the payment of the principal of the debt ; the resolutions also condemned the unrestricted emission of paper money " vainly bolstered up by making it a legal ten- der between debtor and creditor, and without proper and hands of the State or of the General Government in the present crisis were cordially concurred in. Intense loyalty predominated; and not a whisper has been heard through the entire session, of sympathy with treason or traitors" (Albany Evening Journal, April 23). 1 Herald, April 27; Assembly Journal, 1862, pp. 528, 733, 1074; Senate Journal, 1862, pp. 623, 640. * Herald, April 28; Argus, Jan. 27. A concurrent resolution in favor of the State assuming the collection of its quota of the national land tax of twenty million dollars was adopted unanimously and with no de- bate (Assembly Journal, 1862, pp. 79, 80; Senate Journal, 1862, p. 59). t88 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [388 adequate provision for the redemption of the same." 1 The ideas set forth in these resolutions were in accord with the financial maxims of those Republicans who had once been Barnburner Democrats. Messrs. Stetson, Pierce, and Hulburd were conspicuous representatives of this class in the Assembly. Mr. Hulburd, the chairman of the ways and means committee, delivered an able speech in support of the policy advocated by the resolutions. Raymond, in a two-hour speech, supported an issue of legal tender treasury notes, arguing that the plan of pay- as-you-go was impracticable for the federal government in its then existing circumstances; and he charged those who opposed this policy with blocking the administration and with tending to disloyalty. In reply, Hulburd, Pierce, and Alvord took issue with Raymond and assailed him se- verely. 2 Raymond's substitute resolutions finally received but 43 votes to 69 against them. 3 The resolutions of the com- mittee on ways and means were then passed by a vote of 79 to 28.* They failed, however, to get through the Senate. 6 During the debate the straight Democrats merely looked on, giving room for any possible schism to develop in the majority. 8 1 Printed in the Argus, Jan. 25. 2 Herald, Jan. 30 ; Argus, Jan. 30. 3 Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 173. Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 175. Referred to the finance committee, Senate Journal, 1862, p. 119; no further reference. 6 " It was pleasant to see every member of the Assembly who had ever belonged to the Democratic party (with hardly an exception — not more than one or two we believe) come up boldly to the support of the resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means. . . . We say it was a pleasant sight, the reunion of legislators upon an old and honored platform of principle ... in favor of a great principle of government, long ago baptized and matured by the old Democratic party" (Argus, Feb. 3). According to the Herald (Feb. 1), forty- 389] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 189 The contest for personal supremacy broke out again when the bill for harbor defenses was being considered. Such a measure was reported from the committee on the militia, of which Mr. Pierce was chairman; and Hulburd made the first speech in favor of it. Alvord argued against its constitu- tionality, and prepared a substitute providing for harbor defense, but under the national government's direction. This was acceded to by Hulburd and Pierce. Raymond then made a speech against the bill, and succeeded in tem- porarily burying it. Two weeks later, he offered a substi- tute of his own. This renewed the personal battle between Raymond and the other leaders of the majority. 1 The Tribune correspondent wrote that there was " a contest for supremacy in the Assembly, which is the real issue dis- guised by the several defence projects;" and that the ques- tion " has been a hobby on which several parties have striven to ride into position here and elsewhere." The Herald cor- respondent pronounced it " a contest as to whose bill should pass — a personal affair altogether." Raymond's bill finally passed the Assembly, 2 but died in the Senate — not however through Democratic opposition, but through jealousy among the majority over the patronage involved. 3 eight of those who up to this point had acted with the majority, voted against Raymond's substitute; twenty of the forty-eight were classed as one time Barnburners and an equal number as former Hunkers. 1 Assembly Journal, 1862, pp. 214 506; Herald, Mar. 22; Tribune, Mar. 22, 26; Argus, Mar. 1, 4 6, 7, 21, 28. (Raymond's substitute provided for a commission authorized to purchase cannon, etc., and to take such other measures as might be deemed necessary to aid the general government in protecting the harbor and City of New York, and ap- propriated one million dollars therefor. 2 Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 651. 8 Motion to order the bill to a third reading defeated, Senate Journal, 1862, p. 686. Raymond's bill made the commission consist of the Gov- ernor, Major Delafield, and Mr. Craven; but when, in the Senate, it igo NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [390 There was trouble brewing within the Republican ranks in another direction also, but tending toward the same end — preparing the way for future struggles between the Greeley and the Weed-Seward wings. Mayor Opdyke of New York City, who belonged to the former faction, wanted certain bills passed. In brief, he desired more power. In order to hit Fernando Wood, the mayor of the metropolis had been reduced almost to a figurehead. But many thought that there was no longer any reason for this, now that Wood was out of office. Despite the fact that Ray- mond had been supported by Opdyke in the speakership con- test, the former, it was said, had arranged the committee on cities so that all the Republicans on it belonged to the Weed wing. Opdyke went up to Albany to oppose the metro- politan health bill. Thereupon, the Times, Raymond's paper, came out with the remark, " The public will hear with amazement that Mr. Opdyke has been at Albany op- posing this bill." The Tribune took up the cudgels in Op- dyke's behalf. 1 The Times then turned its guns upon the Tribune. " The Tribune/' it said, " betrays its own motive. ... Its determination is to defeat this bill unless it can secure for the Mayor and his immediate friends, the political power which it attributes to the bill. We regard this . . . as sacrificing every consideration of the public good to the was proposed to make the Governor, the Lieutenant-Governor, and the Comptroller (the latter two being strongly anti-Weed men) con- stitute the commission, the original friends of the bill abandoned it, and it was lost (Argus, April 24; Herald, April 27). 1 Tribune, April 15. The Argus, whether to stir up trouble or not, practically confirmed the Tribune's charge that the original bill was so drawn as to fill the city offices as far as possible with men animated by hostility to the Mayor and his friends, and said that Opdyke was therefore justified in opposing the measure (Argus, April 15). 39 1 ] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 I9I base malignity of a faction." 1 In the end, Opdyke, the Tribune, and their adherents succeeded in partially accom- plishing their purpose, for the Senate so changed the con- trol of the patronage involved in the bill, that the original supporters of the measure dropped it. 2 But on the other hand, no amendment to the charter of New York City was passed and Opdyke obtained no increase of power. 3 Meanwhile, the Democrats watched the development of these rivalries and waited for the threatened split between the Republicans and those elected on Union tickets, par- ticularly the Union Democrats. The Regency organ, the Albany Argus, emphasized the differences among the members of the majority, and dwelt upon the dissatis- faction of the Weed men and the prospect of a rupture between the latter and those Republicans who favored the Union movement. 4 The New York World had a similar article. 5 The hopes of the Democrats, however, were not realized. We have seen that, in general, those elected to the Legislature on Union tickets acted quite stead- ily with the Republicans. Yet, during the winter, traces of a determination to run a straight ticket and to " go it alone " were evident among the members of the Seward-Weed faction. Weed, who had favored the Union movement, was in Europe. In his ab- sence, George Dawson, for the time the principal editor of 1 New York Times, April 16. 2 Argus, April 24. The bill passed the Assembly (Journal, p. 765). In the Senate, the last heard of the measure was a committee report in favor of the passage of the Assembly bill with amendments (Senate Journal, 1862, p. 593). 3 Herald, April 24. 4 Argus, Feb. 21, 24, 28, Mar. 6, 8, 10, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28. 5 World, Mar. 31. The World became in 1862 a Democratic paper. Ig2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [392 the Albany Evening Journal, came out in February in favor of the preservation of the Republican organization and with an implied aversion to a renewal of the fusion of 1861. 1 The Buffalo Express, 2 the Oswego Times, 3 the Syracuse 1 "... no true Republican will censure the true men of Onondaga or of any other county, because they present straight tickets. ... If, by the overwhelming expression of public sentiment secured by that union [*. e. the fusion of '61], limping patriots have been brought into line, all that was desired was accomplished, and no detriment will accrue to the country if, hereafter, parties assume their original position." — Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 19. " Now, as last fall, the Democracy want to come in under the Union dodge in strong Republi- can towns, while they keep up their own organization where they have numerical strength. The best way is to preserve the Republican organization intact by nominating Republican tickets wherever there are Republicans enough to hold a caucus " — Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 20. In April, however, this paper, while insisting that the Re- publican organization should be preserved, was willing to act during the war with those who thought alike on the latter subject. — Albany Evening Journal, April 9. 2 " In the so-called Union which characterized the last State election, the Republican party was made to suffer severely from disorganiza- tion and consequent impaired strength. The ' Union ' as it was called, was not as potent as the Republican organization would have been, if left to assert its power distinctly in the contest . . . the ef- fect of that so-called Union was nevertheless a local disaster, in a majority of instances where it was depended upon . . . the partner- ship worked very well for the Democratic side. They furnished the candidates, while the Republicans furnished the votes. . . . The im- mediate effect was disaster, and the more remote consequence, a dis- organization and paralysis, from which the Republican party must recover soon, or never ... it is the imperative duty of those who desire to sustain a Republican administration of the government to rally under the banner of that party which took power in the govern- ment from Democratic 'hands, . . . Those who are not for the Republican organization are against it." — Buffalo Express, quoted in the Albany Argus, Mar. 17. 3 " We beg leave to say that if any fusion is got up on the model of last Fall (which lost us a Canal Commissioner and filled the Assembly with an uncertain and unreliable element), those who concoct it must count Oswego out of the bargain. We have had quite enough of 393] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 193 Journal, 1 the Livingston Republican, 2 and the Rochester Express 3 bitterly denounced fusion, and insisted on main- taining the Republican party organization and waging the forthcoming battle under its banner. The Republican State Committee was in the control of the Seward-Weed men. 4 Toward the end of March, the executive committee of that body, at whose head was a stanch Weed adherent, Simeon Draper, adopted resolutions 5 which included the following : " That the Republican party recognize in the cooperation of the pure and patriotic men who have united with it in sharing the burdens and defending the principles of the administration of the national government, a disinterested love of country outweighing the trammels of party organi- zation ... ;" and that the executive committee " earnestly request early action for the organization of the republican party for the protection of its principles, the efficiency of its labor, and its future success in maintaining the dearest principles that belong to an American citizen. ..." The first quoted resolution, standing alone, might have been interpreted as an invitation to repeat the experiment of the previous year ; but the other resolution destroyed this effect, and taken in connection with the sentiments published in a portion of the Republican press, certainly gave color to the fusion. . . . We have done with this business of hiring men to be loyal with gifts of office. — Stand by the Republican banner !" — Oswego Times, quoted in the Albany Argus, Mar. 28. Another similar extract from the same paper is in the Albany Argus, Feb. 24 1 Quoted in the Albany Argus, Mar. 8, 28. * Quoted in the Argus, Mar. 10. * Quoted in the Argus, Feb. 28, Mar. 8. 4 Argus, April II, confirmed by Thurlow Weed's bitter objections to the committee chosen in 1862 (see infra). 6 Printed in the Albany Evening Journal, Mar. 22. I94 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [394 interpretation of the resolutions given by the Democrats * — that they pointed to the revival of the Republican organi- zation and to a repudiation of the People's or Union move- ment. There were others, however, both in and out of the Legis- lature, who wished to continue the union of all supporters of the administration. The maintenance of such an ar- rangement during the war, upon the same broad basis as that of 1861, was unanimously endorsed at a consultation held by a number of legislators about the end of March or the beginning of April. Daniel S. Dickinson was re- quested to draw up an address to be signed by the law- makers. Such a document, containing the ideas set forth by the People's Convention of 1861, inviting the coopera- tion of " all Union men, irrespective of former or pres- ent political designation or shades of opinion," and call- ing a caucus on April 10th, was written by Dickinson, and circulated among some of the legislators. 2 The organiza- tion Republicans thereupon took steps to control any action that might be taken, by calling a caucus on April 3d, invit- ing only those who had supported the Union ticket of 1861. When this caucus met, the Union Democrats showed dis- trust by not answering the roll ; and Messrs. Alvord, Stet- 1 Argus, Mar. 24; New York World, Mz.r. 31. Daniel S. Dickinson put the same interpretation upon the resolutions — that they recom- mended " strict Republican organization, action, etc." (Letter of Dick- inson to the Albany Evening Journal, printed in the issue of May 6). 2 Letter of Dickinson to the editors of the Albany Evening Journal, printed in the issue of May 6. Dickinson's address is printed in the same. Letter signed "A Republican member of the Assembly," in the Albany Evening Journal, April 28. The Journal editorially vouched for the account given in this letter as " written truthfully and im- partially " and as presenting " all the leading facts precisely as they occurred." Also, Herald, April 4. 395] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 195 son, Ogden and others expressed suspicions as to the objects of the gathering. They did not wish to be committed on political issues of the past. Finally, a committee, satisfac- tory to the Union Democrats, was appointed to draft reso- lutions and an address. At the next meeting of the caucus on the 10th, 1 the resolutions and address were discussed and recommitted. Raymond then proposed that a state conven- tion should be called by the members of the Legislature who were acting together, and that provision should be made at the same time for the cooperation of other organizations that could rightfully be consulted in such a movement. In debate, Raymond explained that this proposal meant con- sultation with the Republican State Committee only. Their principles, he said, were the same as those of the suggested resolutions and address, and their aid was essential to suc- cess. With the Democratic State Committee, he had no de- sire to confer. Alvord, on the other hand, wished to act independently of the Republican State Committee. During the following week, drafts of the address by Raymond and by Senator Low as well as amendments by Alvord were worked over by a sub-committee consisting of Raymond and Low. At Raymond's suggestion, a recommendation for merely a convention was made without designating a time or place, this being left to a committee which was to consult with and unite with the Republican State Committee in call- ing the convention. This plan avoided the embarrassment which might have arisen had a definite date and locality been set, in which case the Republicans would have had the choice of following the lead of the convention thus called or of acting alone. 1 As the Union Democrats participated in the caucus of April 3d, the caucus proposed in the Dickinson call was not held. The caucus which did occur on the 10th arose from that of the 3d. I9 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [396 At the caucus of April 18th, the address and resolutions met with the approval of all. The only debate which arose concerned the call to be issued — whether it should invite co- operation with any other political organization or with the Republicans alone. Alvord maintained the former, Senator Cook and others the latter. It was said that the Repub- lican organization should not be ignored even by implica- tion. Some of the straight Republicans wanted the proposed committee instructed to confer with the Republican State Committee. To express this openly, however, it was claimed, would weaken the movement and give it a partisan appearance. Finally, the matter was compromised by in- structing the new committee to consult with " the committee of any organization whose cooperation we hope to obtain," thus avoiding the use of the word " Republican " and at the same time preventing the calling of an anti-Republican Union convention. The caucus then unanimously adopted the address and the resolutions. The new state committee appointed on this occasion consisted of E. J. Brown, Moses H. Grinnell, E. M. Madden, J. S. T. Stranahan, C. E. R. Lud- dington, Lyman Tremain, Edward Dodd, R. W. Andrews, Alonzo Wood, Alexander Campbell, William H. Lucien, D. L. Follett, J. C. Smith, William Bowdoin, H. C. Rodgers, and Thomas T. Flagler. 1 A majority of these were said to be anti-Weed men, 2 and it was claimed that the surrender of 1 All of the above particulars relating to these caucuses are based on the following: Letter , of "A Republican member of the Assembly," ante; letter to the editors of the Albany Evening Journal, signed " A Union Democratic Member of the Assembly," in the Albany Evening Journal, May 1; Herald, April 11, 19; Tribune, April 21. 5 Argus, April 21 ; Rochester Daily Union, quoted in the Argus, April ^5- 397] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 igy the Weed-Seward adherents was due to Raymond. 1 When it came to signing the address, some of the Republicans showed hesitation. A straight Republican caucus was there- fore called immediately after the adjournment of the Legis- lature ; and as a result, nearly all of the Republican members signed. 2 The two state committees, that of the Republicans and that appointed by the legislative caucus, thenceforth co- operated in arranging for the meeting of a state convention. We have now to consider the Union legislative address and the appended resolutions. The address opened with a strong plea for the repression of party and for a united support of the administration. Referring to the events of 1861, it said: In this State, as elsewhere, the popular impulse demanded that patriotic men of all parties should lay aside, for the time, all differences of political sentiment . . . The great body of peo- ple were ready for such a union, and nothing but the obstinate resistance of a powerful organization claiming to represent the Democratic party and controlling all its organized means of action stood in the way of its consummation. The address then dwelt on the example of the previous year, when Republicans and Union Democrats united in many districts in choosing legislative candidates. Those elected thus had " acted together as Union men, ignoring past dif- ferences and discarding political distinctions. They or- 1 Argus, April 21. In the letter signed "A Republican member of the Assembly" (referred to above), Raymond appears as a harmonizer. 3 Herald, April 23; Argus, April 25. The Tribune in an editorial of April 29th said : " We regret that a few firm and true Republicans, including several leading Senators, have not yet signed the Address, deeming their hesitation required by fidelity to their party." The Argus of April 29th gave a list of ten senators and eleven assembly- men, belonging to the majority, who had not yet signed the address. I9 8 ^W 7 YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [398 ganized the Assembly on this basis and their proceedings have been characterized by harmonious cooperation. . . . The heart-burnings and bickerings of party have been ban- ished." The emergency was not yet past. Many great problems arising out of the war were still to be solved, and they would " require the united efforts . . . for years to come, of all true, loyal and patriotic men to carry us in safety through the storm." Arbitrary arrests, suppressions of treasonable newspapers, etc., were indirectly defended, the address speaking of the acts of the national administration " which under the pres- sure of imperative necessity, it had been compelled to adopt for the successful prosecution of the war and the arrest of measures in progress within the limits of our own State to afford aid and comfort to the rebellion." The patriotism of the people in not only sacrificing men and money but also surrendering temporarily their dearly valued personal rights such as freedom of speech and habeas corpus, was praised. " When the war is closed, we demand freedom of speech and of the press in every State and in every section of the Union." As for slavery, the address took a stand fully as advanced as that of the Republican party at that time. " Slavery," it read, " if not the primary cause, was the pretext and powerful agent of the present rebellion." The endeavor to reverse the verdict of the ballot-box so as to make the gen- eral government subservient to the slaveholding interest had failed, " and the permanent welfare and settled sentiment of the country forbid any attempt to soften this failure or qualify in any degree its disastrous effects upon slavery itself." That institution, the address declared, had been shaken to the foundations by the war. Not only was it affirmed that " slavery must never again be permitted to invade free ter- 399] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 L gg ritory " or " bring new slave States into the Union " and that " it must cease to exist in the District of Columbia; " but it was also declared that " the Constitution must here- after be administered in the spirit of Freedom . . . and not for the perpetuation of slavery." The confiscation act as applied to slavery was approved of, as was the President's message recommending federal aid to states adopting an emancipation policy. That the Union Democrats acceded to such advanced ground is noteworthy. On the subject of the war, the address opposed any settle- ment which should " leave in doubt the power of the Gen- eral Government to maintain its rightful authority " or " leave the material ability of this treason but partially broken and subdued," or which should " recognize any di- vision of the Union, or any concession to the political de- mands of the slaveholding interests. . . ." The adminis- tration of Lincoln was praised, its difficulties mentioned, and the Democratic opposition scored for its hostility. ... in everything it [the government] has hitherto done, and in everything it proposes to do for the preservation of the Union and the restoration ... of the Constitution, it encoun- ters the settled hostility of men who claim to be Democrats . . . who seek ... by the control of the organized machinery of that party to defeat its policy and destroy its influence. The address concluded with an appeal to Republicans, Union Democrats, and all other loyal men who supported the administration and who assented to the principles stated above, " to waive all questions of mere form and usage in political actions" and to unite in electing three delegates from each assembly district to meet in convention for the nomi- nation of state officers. Then followed the resolutions, to the same effect as the address, but in addition condemning 200 NEiV YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [400 corruption in the government, calling for " strict economy, scrupulous honesty, and punishment of dishonesty, extrava- gance, and fraud," and appointing a Union state committee. 1 The document was, on the whole, an able and patriotic paper. The action of the legislative caucus attracted con- siderable attention outside of New York. Colonel Forney wrote to the Philadelphia Press: " I feel authorized to state that the President and every member of his Cabinet are anx- ious that the good example of New York shall be followed up in every other State." 2 Administration newspapers commended the address and resolutions. 3 It does not seem an exaggeration to conclude that the action of New York on this occasion was of influence in the formation of a Union party in the North generally. 1 The Tribune, April 29, contains the address and resolutions printed in full. 2 Extract from the Philadelphia Press quoted in the Albany Even- ing Journal, April 26. 3 Approving notices from the Newark Mercury , Philadelphia Press, Newark Daily Advertiser (in Albany Evening Journal, May 2), Spring- field Republican, Sandusky Register (in Albany Evening Journal, May 3), Detroit Daily Tribune, Boston Journal, Pittsburg Gazette (in Al- bany Evening Journal, May 6). CHAPTER VII The Revival of Party Politics From the adjournment of the Legislature to the end of July, 1862, might be called formative months in the history of the politics of this State. We have seen how quiet that field was from January to May; but by the end of July, there was great activity. There were a number of causes at work producing this change. These included, of course, deeply-rooted forces, not the product of this particular time, such as the effects of party affiliation of many years. War or no war, the offices still had to be distributed ; and the Re- gency, Tammany, and Mozart were alike hungry. But there were three other influences sufficiently traceable and con- nected more especially with the spring and summer of 1862, which contributed to renewed partisan intensity in New York State. These factors were the reentrance of Thurlow Weed on the political stage, the gradual drift of the Repub- licans toward emancipation, and the reverses experienced by the Union armies during the summer. We miss Weed from the last days of 1861 to the summer of 1862. During that interval he was in Europe on a quasi- diplomatic errand. 1 Perhaps, there was some connection between his change of occupation and the serious checks which, during the few years preceding this trip, had been administered to his long career as dispenser of patronage and controller of conventions. At any rate, the Republicans 1 For an account of this, see Weed's Autobiography, p. 634 et seq. 401] 201 202 NEIV YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [402 went through the first part of 1862 without his management or direct influence. On the 5th of June, however, Weed landed in New York City, 1 ready once more to pull the political wires. On his arrival, he was tendered a public reception by the aldermen and councilmen of the metro- polis, 2 though the majority of both boards were Democrats; but he declined, and left for Albany. The Tribune seized the opportunity to exhibit the corrupt motives of the alder- men and incidentally to make a sly dig at Weed. It said : We indignantly repel the suggestion that irony lurks under the ostentatious zeal of Messrs Boole, Genet & Co. to give Mr. Weed a benefit . . . They are simply intent on having a good time at the public cost . . . But they will be disappointed. . . . Mr. Weed has traveled and knows the ropes . . . He can bear a crowd when its focus is someone else than himself ; but he hates to be stared at, and he has a perfect horror of being called on for a speech. 3 Soon after, Weed held a private reception at the Astor House. The politicians of almost every stripe were pres- ent. The Herald gave an interesting description of Weed as he then looked. It said: [He] has not to all appearances benefited much by his trip to Europe. His florid complexion is replaced by a grayish sallow tinge, . . . His clothes appear to hang loosely . . . , while the stoop of his shoulders is becoming more apparent every day. His eye ... is, however, still bright and pene- trating, and although he has aged considerably during the last few months, his energy of mind and body is still unimpaired. 1 1 Herald, June 6. 2 Albany Evening Journal, June 3. s Tribune, June 5. 4 Herald, June n. 403] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 203 To the reentrance of Weed into New York politics can be traced, I think, the direction which the differences in the ranks of the administration supporters in this State took. Not that there surely would have been complete harmony had Weed remained abroad. Perhaps the personal rival- ries, some evidences of which we have noted in the Legis- lature of 1862, would have reappeared in the fall con- vention, even though Weed had not been there. But no division on the question of slavery or on the attitude toward the seceded states had appeared in the Republican ranks during that session. Weed, however, was inclined to be a conservative. He had not been able to carry with him his followers of 1861 ; but his presence in 1862 served to di- vide the Republicans rather sharply on the question of whether the nominee for governor should be a radical or a conservative. As soon as Weed returned, the New York Herald began to advocate an alliance between the Weed Re- publicans and the Democrats, on the basis of support of the President and the restoration of the Union as it was and of the constitution unchanged; and it stated that steps toward such a coalition were being taken. Weed's own words in his Albany Evening Journal gave color to such rumors. It seemed as though a combination by Weed and the Regency against the radicals was a possibility when the Regency mouthpiece, the Albany Argus, came out with a hearty ap- proval of the sentiments of its former rival, saying: It is gratifying to find an organ of the position and influence of the Evening Journal giving utterance to truths against which too many of his [Weed's] party close their eyes, and boldly denouncing that evil spirit at the North which would play into the hands of treason and shiver the Union into fragments rather than fail in the design to abolitionize the country. The 204 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [404 return of the veteran editor of the Journal will be hailed with satisfaction, if it is to establish in its columns the consistent advocacy of such sentiments. 1 Once again, the tocsin was sounded by Greeley. A Tribune editorial read: The Albany Evening Journal has furnished very few useful and welcome quotations to the Pro-Slavery organs for months, but the return of the veteran editor from Europe has been signalized by a revival of the characteristics of 1860-61. . . . If the Journal will only keep straight on in this path, there is no reason why it and the Argus should squabble for the State printing . . . . 2 Such talk continued through the summer, until, when the convention met, radicalism and conservatism clashed in the contest for the gubernatorial nomination. We come now to the second influence which has been mentioned as having given a strong impulse to the partisan revival, namely, the progress of the Republican party toward abolition. One of the resolutions adopted by the Democratic State Convention of September, 1861, declared that the Democracy would " regard any attempt to pervert this conflict for the emancipation of the slaves as fatal to all hopes of the restoration of the Union ; " and it was further declared that the Democrats of New York would not sup- port such a war. 3 Governor Morgan, in his annual mes- sage of 1862, omitted any direct reference to the slavery question * and so far as national affairs were concerned, 1 Argus, June 21. 3 Tribune, June 27. 3 Herald, Sept. 6, 1861. 4 Except a brief mention of " the spirit of nullification " reviving " under the form of slavery agitation." 4 5 ] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 205 contented himself with a review of the crisis caused by se- cession, the emergency which had confronted the state au- thorities at the outbreak of the war, and the manner in which the call had been met. 1 This message deserves to be contrasted with that of Seymour in the following year. In the Legislature of 1862, almost the only important oppo- sition which the Democrats showed was connected with the policy of the national administration on slavery; though that opposition was, as we have noticed, very weak. The Democratic press in this State generally disapproved Lincoln's message recommending cooperation with states adopting gradual emancipation. The Albany Argils said: " The impulsiveness and want of consideration in the Ex- ecutive gives a sense of insecurity. . . . Let us hope that this proposition — which only shows how far we are drifting from Constitutional duty — will share the fate of the Presi- dential scheme for colonization, and be considered only to be dismissed." 2 The Buffalo Courier said: "What good is to come of it ? Why introduce a disturbing element into national affairs . . . ? We regret that the President has taken time to say anything about slavery." 3 Others pro- nounced the message a sop to abolition clamor. New York was a center from which were radiating contrary sentiments. The Tribune, the Post, and the Independent, were powerful forces in moulding Re- publican opinion toward emancipation. On March 6th, an anti-slavery mass meeting was held in New York City. Among the vice-presidents and secretaries were George Bancroft, Rev. Dr. Tyng, Professor Francis Lieber, David Dudley Field, William Cullen Bryant, President 1 Lincoln Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 357-411. 1 Quoted in the Tribune, Mar. 12. 3 Ibid. 206 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4 q6 Charles King of Columbia College, and Charles A. Dana, The principal speech was made by 'Carl Schurz. 1 A few months later, an Emancipation League was organized in New York City. The Herald reported that arrangements were being made to spread the League's work throughout the North. 2 William Cullen Bryant became president of the organization. 3 At the same time, anti-abolition sentiment was becoming active. The Argus, roused by General Hunter's order, 4 raged at the dangers which threatened the country from revolutionists. 5 In June, some twenty-five men met at the Everett House in New York City, in response to an invita- tion signed by William C. Prime of the Journal of Com- merce, James Brooks of the Express, Benjamin Ray, chair- man of the Mozart Hall General Committee, and Elijah F. Purdy, chairman of the Tammany Hall General Committee. The object was to consult on the sinking of past differences so as to unite against the radicals. Among those present, besides Prime, Brooks, and Ray, were the following promi- nent New York politicians: Augustus Schell, Fernando Wood, Gideon J. Tucker, F. A. Tallmadge, and John A. Green. A permanent organization was formed. Those present were reported as favoring sustaining the President in support of the war but opposing abolition. This meet- ing took place six days before the caucus of conservative members of Congress, held in Washington and presided over by Crittenden. 1 Tribune, Mar. 7. 2 Herald, June 7. 8 Herald, June 22. * For Hunter's order, see Rhodes, History of the United States, iv, p. 65. 5 Argus, May 21. * Herald, June 22. 4 07] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 2 OJ The next step of the New York City conservatives was a resort to the tactics used previous to the opening of the war — a Union mass meeting; Union in the sense of the demon- strations of 1859-60, not those of 1861. This occurred on July 1st, at the Academy of Music, and was under the aus- pices of the Young Men's Democratic Association. 1 The Leader, the organ of Tammany, announced the affair as " a grand gathering of the National men of the Empire City ; " it said that the call was signed by Democrats, Old Line Whigs, and converted Republicans, and invited all op- posed to further agitation of the negro question and in favor of the constitution as it was, to attend. 2 The meeting was a large one. Letters were read from Crittenden, John S. Carlile, and Reverdy Johnson ; and speeches were made by Charles A. Wyckliffe of Kentucky, William Duer of Oswego, who had long been a leading New York Whig, James Brooks, and Fernando Wood. The last mentioned denounced Con- gress as an abolition concern that must be gotten rid of. He said: It is to be done as Oliver Cromwell sent home the Rump Par- liament, by walking into Parliament and scattering it to the winds. Let your voice be heard in the capital of the country, and if your armies are not successful at once, I for one raise the standard, — a change of measures or a change of men. 3 The resolutions adopted, after declaring that it was the duty of all citizens to devote everything, if necessary, to the pre- servation of the Union, denounced secession and abolition, reaffirmed the Crittenden resolution of 1861 as to the pur- 1 Herald, July 2. a Quoted in the Tribune, June 30. * Tribune, July 7. 208 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [408 poses of the war, denounced the plans of the New York Emancipation League as an attack upon the American Union, expressed approval of the President's action in re- voking the proclamations of abolition generals, thanked McClellan and Halleck, condemned governmental extrava- gance and plundering by contractors, and asserted that "this is a government of white men . . . [that it] was estab- lished exclusively for the white race ; that the negro race are not entitled and ought not to be admitted to political or social equality." 1 The annual Fourth of July celebration of Tammany was a similar demonstration. 2 Taking up now the influence of the Union reverses in the summer of 1862, it should first be noted that the armies of the North were quite successful during the first part of the year. One Union victory — large or small — followed an- other in rapid succession. No doubt, this in part accounts for the calm in the New York political situation during that time. The retreat from the Peninsula came as a tremendous disappointment. There is nothing like unsuccessful war to stir up opposition to an administration. So it was in New York. At the same time, however, there immediately followed a series of Union war meetings throughout the State, in favor of sustaining the government, raising boun- ties, and encouraging enlistments. These assemblages were addressed by men of all parties. The natural effect of such enthusiasm was to weaken the opposition to the adminis- tration, and in a way to offset the influence of the reverses. Some of these war meetings steered clear of the slavery question, while others did not. A Queens County demon- stration favored the adoption of every means known to 1 Herald, July 2. 1 Herald, July 6. 4 G9] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 209 civilized warfare to subdue the rebellion. 1 A Brooklyn war meeting adopted a similar resolution. 2 At another Union meeting in Queens County, a prominent speaker said : " We meet to declare that political ambition and corruption, trea- son, slavery, abolitionism, or any wild fanaticism, shall never separate or divide our country." 3 The New York City war meeting in Union Square on July 15th was of a mixed character. At stand number five, the abolitionists were in force and listened to their favorite, General Fre- mont ; while at stand number four, the crowd sang, " We'll hang Horace Greeley on a sour apple tree." 4 However much public opinion was rallied to the support of the government by such meetings, the excitement over the proposed state draft must have been a counterbalancing in- fluence. Despite the war meetings, despite liberal bounties, despite the enthusiasm aroused by the visits of Generals Sickles and Meagher and other officers from the front, re- cruiting in New York was rather slow during July and August, 1862. Again and again, it was said that a draft was contemplated or it was actually announced for such and such a day. The draft was not held in New York in 1862, but all preparations for it were made. 5 Accounts of these ar- rangements, appointments of enrolling officers, details as to who were and who were not exempt, notices of the flight of those seeking to escape the service, etc., appeared almost daily in the newspapers. Though this draft was not pub- licly attacked by the Democrats, the prolonged agitation 1 Herald, July 27. 2 Herald, Aug. 20. 3 Thomas Addis Emmet at Newtown, Herald, Aug. n. 4 Herald, July 16. 5 This was a state draft — not a national draft like those of the fol- lowing years. See Annual Cyclopaedia for 1862, p. 659. 2io NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4IO over it doubtless had a great effect in arousing dissatisfac- tion with the ruling party. 1 By midsummer, then, there had been dissipated any pros- pect of averting a spirited political battle in this State. In the election of 1861, the New York Democrats had suffered under the imputation of being opposed to the government at Washington. Acordingly, we find that each party in 1862 tried to make the other appear as the one in factious opposition to the national administration. The Union State Committee not only acted with the Republican State Com- mittee in preparing for the fall campaign, but also invited the Democratic and Constitutional Union State Committees to join in calling a convention for the nomination of state officers, on the basis of approval of the legislative caucus address and resolutions of April. The Constitutional Union Committee, while asserting that " it was the highest duty of all citizens, at the present time, to lay aside partisan controversy," declined the invitation, declaring that the address embodied sentiments tending to continue such discussion, and did not discriminate " against that numerous class in their [the Republicans'] ranks who seek to override the constitution." 2 The Democratic State Committee took a similar position. It asserted that the legislative address signally misrepresented the acts and motives of the Democratic party, that the latter's patriotism and loyalty to the constitution needed no defence, that the war had shown the devotion of Democrats to the country rising above all considerations of partisan prejudice or in- 1 This general impression from the newspapers is confirmed by the remark by state Senator Truman at a Republican caucus in February 1863, wherein he assailed Governor Morgan as having " been the prin- cipal means of defeating the Union party last fall by holding back the draft and carrying it into the election" (Argus, Feb. 4, 1863). 2 Herald, July 1. 4II ] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 21 1 terest, that " the Democracy of New York stand ready to unite with all patriotic citizens, without reference to former party combinations, who agree in sustaining the govern- ment in the prosecution of the . . . war . . . for the pur- pose of restoring the Union as it was and maintaining the Constitution as it is ;" but that they " repel all idea of politi- cal association with that class of fanatics who are raising unnecessary and factious issues." x Thereupon, the Republican and Union State Committees issued a call for a Union State Convention, and invited all Republicans, all Democrats, and all loyal citizens, sup- porters of the administration and sympathizers with the principles of the legislative address, to unite in choosing delegates. 2 At the same time, the Democratic press insisted that it was the Democrats who had laid aside party while the Republicans divided the North by zeal for abolition. 3 " The platform of the Democratic State Committee," said the Buffalo Courier, is simple and comprehensive, so terse that it requires no ex- planation, so broad that every Union-loving man can stand upon it. . . . Under this call no man is required to endorse the action of any previous caucus or convention ; he is not asked to adopt any theory in regard to the war ; . . . every man that loves this . . . government, . . . and who wishes to pre- serve its integrity, is cordially invited to unite with the only national political organization now existing; and these assertions were concluded with a warm demand 1 Answer of the Democratic State Committee printed in the Herald, July 10. 2 Herald, July 24. 3 E. g. Argus, Aug. 13, 23; Buffalo Courier, quoted by the Argus, Aug. 20; Kingston Argus, quoted in the Albany Argus, Aug. 21. The same sentiment was contained in the addresses of the temporary chairman (Hon. Alonzo C. Paige) and the president (Wm. C Murphy) of the Democratic State Convention in September. 212 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4I2 for the instant reinforcement of the army. 1 Thus, each party made a bid for the " war vote." The Constitutional Union convention assembled at Troy on the 9th of September, and the Democratic convention a day later at the neighboring city of Albany. This prox- imity of time and place was not without a purpose. The idea was to gain for the Democratic ticket the support of the old gentlemen who had once been Silver Gray Whigs. 2 Then too, it permitted the claim to be made that the Demo- crats had risen above party in accepting as their principal candidate the nominee of another convention. The Tribune in an editorial characterized this ally of the Democrats thus : The "Constitutional Union Convention," which met . . . last Tuesday, to secure good places on the fusion ticket for certain aspirants of its own faith, was a body respectable in the past positions of its leading members. Messrs. F. A. Tallmadge, James Brooks, and George Briggs have been in Congress ; Mr. B. Davis Noxon has tried to be ; and these men present or those represented might officer a quite respectable party. But when you look for the rank and file of this seedy organiza- tion, your eye discerns but an aching void. Briefly, it has no rank and file — not ten thousand in our whole State — and the whole concern is liable to an indictment as a device for ob- taining votes under false pretences. . . . The " Constitutional Union Party " is an unmitigated humbug — . . . . 3 There were not a hundred present at the convention. The temporary chairman, B. Davis Noxon, made a remarkable 1 Buffalo Courier, quoted by the Argus, Aug. 20. 2 James Brooks and ex-Governor Hunt, both prominent former Whigs, received congressional nominations from the Democrats. 8 Tribune, Sept. 13. 413] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 213 speech, in which, while uttering no word of condemnation for the states which had seceded, he said : We have had enough of this war; blood enough has been spilt; the country has suffered enough, and we have an abundance of expenses. Let us stop this war without any further expenses than are absolutely necessary. . . . The crisis of this hour is appalling. It is not alone that our armies are defeated. The painful truth is manifest that the President of the United States and our generals in the field are embarrassed and threat- ened by the leaders of a party whose object is not the restora- tion of this Union, but the abolition of slavery. 1 James Brooks, a former Whig who had, as we have seen, recently acted with sundry Democratic politicians, moved that a committee of conference be appointed to consult with a similar committee of the Democratic convention. The motion was withdrawn to allow an informal ballot for gov- ernor and lieutenant-governor to be taken. For the former office, Horatio Seymour received 32 votes, John A. Dix 20, Millard Fillmore 6, and scattering 3. For the lieuten- ant-governorship, W. C. Hasbrouck received 29 votes, while four distinguished representatives of dough-faced Whiggism — ex-Governor Washington Hunt, William Duer, Lorenzo Burrows, and James Brooks — divided the rest. The motion to appoint a conference committee was then adopted, and the committee, with James Brooks at its head, was duly named. 2 When the Democratic convention met, the nomination of Horatio Seymour was almost a foregone conclusion. The newspaper correspondents, the day previous to the open- ing of the convention, reported the unanimity of feeling 1 Tribune, Sept. 10; Herald, Sept. 10. 3 Herald, Sept. 10. 2i 4 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4I4 for Seymour. 1 The latter was present as a delegate from Oneida County. Other prominent men in attendance were August Belmont, William Kelly, Dean Richmond, Peter Cagger, Sanford E. Church, Elijah F. Purdy, Benjamin Wood, and Fernando Wood. The remarkable feature about this convention was its harmony. New York County did not present the rival delegations from Tammany and Mo- zart, which had distracted Democratic convention after con- vention. Fernando Wood and Elijah F. Purdy had laid aside differences. Their followers had begun to feel the fact that most of the federal, state and municipal patronage was in the hands of the Republicans. So we find Purdy and Wood joining in calling the conservative meeting in June, referred to above. In July Purdy, at a meeting of the Tam- many Hall General Committee, introduced a resolution fav- oring cooperation with other Democratic organizations so as to avoid division at the fall election. 2 Mozart like- wise resolved to have no contest at the coming state con- vention " in view of the exigencies of the country " and the necessity of the Democracy of New York City being thor- oughly united " to secure a return of democratic supremacy in the administration of the State government." 3 Accord- ingly, Tammany and Mozart made a deal by which the former had the delegates from four districts and the latter those from the remaining three districts.* On the floor of 1 Tribune, Sept. 10, containing both Associated Press and Tribune special despatches. 2 Tribune, July n. , s Advertisement of Mozart Hall, Herald, Sept. 5. 4 Advertisements of the Tammany and Mozart Hall General Com- mittees, giving the facts of the conference and the terms of the fusion, Herald, Oct. n; Tribune, Sept. 6. In the charter election in the fol- lowing December, Tammany and Mozart united on a municipal ticket (Herald, Nov. 2i). 415] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 215 Ijhe convention, Purdy and Wood walked arm in arm and sat together. When the roll was called, Purdy arose, and expressing his gratification that New York City presented a united front for the first time in many years, moved that the names of the delegation headed by the Honorable Fer- nando Wood be called with those of the Tammany delega- tion — a proposal greeted with cheers * and accepted. A letter from the committee on conference of the Con- stitutional Union convention suggesting that the Democrats appoint a similar committee was laid before the convention, and the proposal was acceded to. 2 Later, after the perma- nent organization had been effected, the Constitutional Union committee were invited to take seats in the conven- tion, which they did amid great applause. But this enthu- siasm was nothing compared to what followed when Elijah F. Purdy moved that Horatio Seymour be unanimously nominated for governor by acclamation. The delegates rose to their feet, and cheer after cheer rent the hall. The motion was carried amid thunderous applause. Deafening calls for Seymour ensued. The candidate soon appeared, and when the delegates had quieted down pro- ceeded to address them, interrupted from time to time by enthusiastic approval. He spoke of the efforts of the Dem- ocracy of New York to avert the war, criticised Congress for its violation of the Crittenden resolution, showed how the course of Congress tended to unite the South and divide the North, and held up the Republican press as attacking a Republican administration. Then, he asserted that the Republicans were not fitted to carry on the government. Though not intentionally dishonest and though the party 1 Herald, Sept. 11; Argus, Sept. 11. 2 The letter is printed in the Tribune, Sept. 11. 2i6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4 i6 contained loyal men, its leaders were dangerous and unwise. The men in power could not save the country. The Demo- cratic party would continue loyally to support the President and give him all the men he called for to uphold the gov- ernment, execute the laws, put down the rebellion, and gain an honorable and lasting peace. But that party would not submit to terrorism. The President had been less em- barrassed by Democrats than by Republicans. 1 When Sey- mour had finished, there was another scene of tremendous enthusiasm. Within the narrow partisan position which the New York Democrats had taken, the speech evinced good political leadership, since its criticism of the administra- tion was not tainted by Copperheadism. The Tribune owned that the utterance was guarded and cautious, and could only say that Seymour " had done his best to shoot so as to hit it if it is a deer and miss it if it is a calf." 2 When the applause following Seymour's speech had died down, there were loud cries for Fernando Wood. The latter briefly endorsed Seymour's sentiments, and pledged that New York City would give the candidate 30,000 ma- jority — a promise subsequently made good. A motion to print 200,000 copies of Seymour's address was then adopted. Meanwhile, the two conference committees had labored in vain to reach an agreement. The chairman of the Demo- cratic conference committee so reported to the convention, and also that the Constitutional Unionists wanted the nomi- nations for lieutenant-governor and clerk of the Court of Appeals, and that ,they offered for the former office the names of T. B. St. John, ex-Governor Hunt, and William C. Hasbrouck. After debate, the convention took a vote 1 Argus, Sept. 11; Herald, Sept. II, ^Tribune, Sept. II. 417] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 2 \J resulting in David R. Floyd Jones receiving 72 votes to 47 for T. B. St. John. The ticket was soon completed without trouble. A bone was thrown to the Constitutional Unionists in the nomination of F. A. Tallmadge for clerk of the Court of Appeals, which concession, though not satisfactory to the rump of the Bell-Everettites, resulted in their endorse- ment of the entire ticket. 1 The resolutions adopted dealt only with questions arising out of the war. The restoration of the Union as it had been and the maintenance of the constitution as it was were coupled with the use of legitimate means for the suppression of the rebellion, as conditions upon which the Democrats of New York would support the government; the Crittenden resolution was reaffirmed and its violation was declared to be a breach of public faith ; liberty of speech and of the press was demanded; and illegal and unconstitutional arrests and imprisonments of citizens of the State of New York were denounced. 2 From the mere party point of view, Seymour's nomina- tion was, perhaps, the strongest that could have been made then. His character, bearing, and antecedents were well suited to harmonize the various elements of the party, his veto of the Maine liquor bill during his previous term as governor brought to him the support of a most powerful interest, he was one of the most effective Democratic orators in the State, and he had the strength which naturally comes to a strict partisan with some political accomplishments. The Albany Evening Journal acknowledged that Seymour's personal character was untarnished, and that the other 1 Resolutions of the Constitutional Union conference committee, Argus, Sept. 29. 3 All the above details of the convention are based upon the Herald, Sept. 12, and the Argus, Sept. 12. 2i8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4I 8 Democratic candidates were personally unexceptional, hav- ing been hitherto in the public service without any serious fault being found with them. 1 Thus, the Democrats en- tered upon the campaign with good prospects of success. The Republican-Union convention assembled at Syracuse on September 24th. It was a large body, having between 350 and 400 members. 2 In the previous year, the movement in favor of a single party to support the war and the admin- istration carrying it on, had taken the form of two assem- blages, forming a People's convention and a Republican convention, meeting simultaneously and adopting practi- cally the same ticket. In 1862, there was but one conven- tion, and the membership included both Republicans and Union or War Democrats. 3 Thus, by 1862, there was a more complete fusion of the two elements into one Union party. Two days before the opening session, Horace Greeley arrived at the scene of action, to work for the nomination of General Wadsworth and the adoption of an emancipation platform. 4 James S. Wadsworth was a gentleman highly respected for his ability, philanthropy, independence, and public spirit. He was very wealthy, having inherited from his father a large estate in the Genesee River valley. He had been educated at Harvard and Yale, and had studied law at Albany and in Daniel Webster's office, though he did not practice. In the days of Martin Van Buren, Wads- 1 Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 11. 2 "A large proportion [of the members] had always been Democrats till the bombardment of Fort Sumter." — Tribune, Sept. 26. " On the front seats appeared many new faces to a republican convention." — Herald, Sept. 25. 3 Tribune, Sept. 22. " One of the strongest in numbers . . . ever convened in the State." — Herald, Sept. 24. 4 Herald. Sept. 24. 4 ! 9 ] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 219 worth had zealously supported free soil. He had voted in the Democratic State Convention of 1847 for the resolution against the extension of slavery, and had acted from 1847 to 1856 with the wing of his party which upheld that prin- ciple. In 1856 he presided at a convention of Free-soil Democrats which ratified the nominations of Fremont and Dayton, and thus passed over to the Republican party. Wadsworth had never as yet run for any office, though he had been prominently mentioned for the United States sen- atorship in 1857 1 and had been urged to allow the presen- tation of his name for the gubernatorial nomination in i860. 2 In 1861, he was chosen by the Legislature a dele- gate to the Peace Conference. When communications with the Capital were cut off in April of that year, Wadsworth freighted a vessel at his own expense and accompanied it to Annapolis. 3 Upon the outbreak of hostilities, he en- tered the volunteer army, and was made aid to McDowell, participating in the battle of Bull Run. Then he had been appointed a brigadier-general, and during the winter of 1861-62 had advocated an advance of the Union forces, condemning McClellan for his inactivity. In April, 1862, Wadsworth was made military governor of the city of Washington, in which capacity he earned by his attitude toward the recovery of runaway slaves encomiums from the Tribune and expressions of disgust from the Herald. Thus, the radicals in the Republican ranks early turned to Wads- worth as suitable for the head of the ticket. 4 Just at this 1 Weed, Autobiography, pp. 472-3. 2 Tribune, Sept. 26. 3 Albany Evening Journal, May 9, 1864. * The above particulars, except where otherwise noted, are drawn from the Annual Cyclopcedia for 1864, 810-11, and from the speech of 220 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [420 time, there came opportunely for Greeley and his followers Lincoln's preliminary emancipation proclamation. They accordingly claimed that Wadsworth's nomination and a resolution in favor of emancipation were necessary to evince support of the President by the party. 1 On the other hand, Weed advocated the nomination of General Dix and favored a less radical platform. 2 John A. Dix was a Democrat who already had had a most dis- tinguished political career in both the state and the na- tional governments. He had been an officer in the War of 1812, remaining in the army until 1826. He then studied law, entered politics, and became one of the Albany Re- gency in its best days when it included Silas Wright and Martin Van Buren. In 1833, Dix became secretary of state of New York, and in 1845, United States senator. In 1859, he was made postmaster of New York City to restore order after the defalcation of Isaac V. Fowler. Ap- pointed secretary of the treasury in the last days of Buchanan's administration, Dix by his patriotic conduct of that office had gained enduring fame. At the beginning of hostilities, he was commissioned a major-general of vol- unteers, and was in command of Fortress Monroe when the New York Republican-Union convention of 1862 assembled. Dix was one of the best examples of a War Democrat. David Dudley Field in the convention of 1862 (Tribune, Oct. 3). Later Wadsworth fought gallantly at Fredericksburg, Chancellors- ville, and Gettysburg; was advanced to the command of a division in 1864; died in May of that year from a wound received in the battle of the Wilderness. 1 Herald, Sept. 24. " The President's Proclamation of Emancipation comes just in time to receive this enthusiastic recognition and sanc- tion " — Tribune, Sept. 25. 2 Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 25. 4 2l ] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 2 2I Governor Morgan was mentioned for a second renomina- tion. He had been an able, honest, and patriotic official; and his untiring labors in raising and equipping troops as- suredly entitled him to such a reward. It was questioned at the time whether the Governor would consent to run again. This abnegation on his part was, perhaps, the recognition of a necessity. It was later said that Weed would have been glad to have had Morgan renominated but that the opposition to the -Governor had grown so during the summer, that when the convention assembled it was found that he could get but one-third of the votes. 1 If such oppo- sition existed, it was perhaps due to Morgan's conservative views, which had recently been manifested in his refusal to participate in the Altoona Conference. 2 Another man fre- quently spoken of for the nomination was Reuben E. Fen- ton, then a member of Congress from the Chautauqua dis- trict since 1857. His friends hoped that he would be the " dark horse " receiving the prize, as Ira Harris had been in the Evarts-Greeley contest of the previous year. 3 Finally, there was some talk of heading the ticket with James M. Cook, formerly banking superintendent and state senator. At the opening of the convention, almost the first oc- currence was an outbreak of the rivalry which had char- acterized the session of the Legislature of 1862. This time there was a spicy discussion between Thomas G. Alvord and Henry J. Raymond as to the method to be followed in choos- ing the committees, in which contest Raymond's motion 1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 424. 2 The Albany Argus declared that the refusal of Morgan to be present at Altoona was "made the subject of barroom attacks upon him at Syracuse " — Argus, Oct. 6. For the Altoona Conference, see Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln, vi, pp. 164-166. 8 Dispatch of Horace Greeley to the Tribune, Sept. 23. 222 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 422 prevailed. 1 A long, able and patriotic speech by Lyman Tremain filled the afternoon session. He first spoke of the history and justification of the Union party movement in this State, and of its broad basis, including men of all past affiliations who sank previous differences for the one object of supporting the President in carrying on the war. There was the same necessity for a Union movement this year as the last. The recent Democratic convention was strongly and intensely partisan. It was necessary to post- pone every collateral question intended to divert attention from the great duty of prosecuting the war. " The highest dictates of patriotism," said Tremain, the true interests of the nation, and the . . . success of . . . the Government would be promoted ... if the people of this great State could all cooperate in their political action, and present an undivided front upon the single platform of a vigorous prosecution of the war . . . the moral effect of such a sublime spectacle, both at home and abroad, could scarcely be estimated. Then Tremain went on to review Seymour's attack upon the policy of abandoning party organizations during the war. Tremain declared rightly that the effect of Seymour's speech could hardly fail to be mischievous at that time. " Partisan discussions," he said, beget crimination and recrimination. They lead to bitter de- nunciations of those in power by speakers and presses. They tend to divert attention from the all-absorbing issue of the war. Jefferson Davis rejoices to see the formation of these parties. He has been deluded with the hope of dividing the people of the North. . . . The supposed benefits of party or- 1 Herald, Sept. 25. 423] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 223 ganizations, alluded to by Mr. Seymour, have little force in a crisis like the present. . . . The wolf howling at our doors is the Rebellion. Then Tremain attacked Seymour for the latter's asser- tion that the Republican administration could never succeed in crushing the rebellion. Tremain said : Under the Constitution, the sole power of conducting this war devolves upon the General Government. ... A State Government . . . would have no power to engage in war, . . . to . . . control their movements one moment after the militia passed beyond the State's lines. . . . The General Govern- ment will continue in the hands of a " Republican Organiza- tion " until the 4th .of March, 1865. If, then, the Republican party cannot save the country . . . and ... [if it] must hold power for nearly three years, why should I waste my efforts in a vain attempt to sustain such a government. . . . Can vol- unteers be raised upon such a platform? Tremain also criticised, as contrary to history and truth, Seymour's contention that the responsibility for the war rested with the North. If the people desired to take the first step toward separation by an amendment to the con- stitution, they would by their votes express approval of Seymour's views. But if they were determined to continue fighting until unconditional surrender was obtained, they would vote for the party which was most heartily and thor- oughly in favor of carrying the war forward, and which would cooperate most effectually with the national adminis- tration for that purpose. 1 Following the example of the Democratic convention, a motion to print 200,000 copies of Tremain's speech, of which 50,000 should be in German, was carried. 1 Tribune, Oct. 1, contains the speech in full. 224 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [424 The permanent organization was then effected with Henry J. Raymond as president. His speech on taking the chair, like that of the temporary chairman, ex-Judge Johnson, was an argument designed to prove that the Democratic organization of New York was disloyal, and a plea to the convention to avert by wise action the attempt " to tear this State away from the side of the Government." " Treason," said Raymond, lurks at our doors ... it seeks to clutch the political power of this great State, and throw it virtually and practically into the scale of the rebellion. I deny that the contest waged here at the present moment is a political contest, or that the democracy of the State in any just and proper sense of the word can be held responsible for it. 1 After this, William Curtis Noyes, an eminent lawyer of New York City, and one of the leading men in the Republi- can party of this State, made an address, emphasizing the idea that the assemblage was not a party convention. 2 At the evening session, Noyes read a letter from Morgan declining a renomination, and then presented the name of General Wadsworth. General Dix and Lyman Tremain were also nominated. Fenton, passing through Syracuse on the day of the convention, had requested his friends to withdraw his name from consideration. 3 The first ballot resulted in Wadsworth receiving 234 votes, Dix no, Tre- main 34, Dickinson 2; necessary to a choice, 191. Tremain thereupon moved that Wadsworth's nomination be made unanimous, which motion was carried. 4 The first place having gone to a Republican, the second naturally was given 1 Herald, Sept. 25. 2 Ibid. 8 Tribune, Sept. 25. * Tribune, Sept. 25. The Herald, Sept. 25, gives Tremain's vote as 33. 425] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 2 2$ to a War Democrat. Tremain was accordingly named for lieutenant-governor by acclamation. 1 This was a further blow to Thurlow Weed, since neither of the two principal nominees came from that wing of the party which was com- posed mainly of former Whigs, despite the fact that several names of men of such antecedents were put forth by Weed. 2 The rest of the ticket having been settled, Parke God- win, a writer of note and one of the editors of the New York Post, reported the platform. This document urged the most vigorous prosecution of the war, hailed with pro- found satisfaction the President's preliminary emancipation proclamation, expressed gratitude to the army and navy, promised to labor for the relief of their distresses, and favored an immediate enrolment, arming, and disciplining of the state militia. 3 Raymond closed the convention with congratulatory remarks, yet ominously reminded his audi- tors that the victory was not to be won easily. 4 The new state committee contained a majority of anti-Weed men. 5 1 Herald, Sept. 25. 2 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 425 ; Albany Evening Journal, Dec. 9, 15. 3 Herald, Sept. 25. 4 Ibid. 5 The committee consisted of James Kelly, Isaac Sherman, Abram Wakeman, Chas. Jones, J. C. Ferguson, R. C. Mc.Cormick, Hamilton Harris, Chas. R. Richards, Henry R. Low, E. M. Merriam, Edward Dodd, Henry Churchill, P. V. Rogers, Frank Hiscock, M. S. Cushman, N. S. Lincoln, Wm. Gleason, Frederick Julian, D. D. S. Brown, Jas. C. Jackson, Isaac Fuller, Walter L. Sessions, Ben Field, and Wilkes Angel. The statement that the majority of these were anti-Weed men is based upon the following: Argus, Sept. 26, Oct. 6; Albany Evening Journal, Nov. 10, which said : " When that Committee [*. e. the state committee] met to organize, a majority, as was designed, were found to be in sympathy with those who were disposed to carry the State without the cooperation of Governor Morgan, William M. Evarts, Simeon Draper, the Evening Journal, etc., etc." ; Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 425, which says : " So as to drive the nail home, the convention concluded its labors by appointing a state committee from which 226 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL IV AR [ 42 6 Seventeen of the twenty-four were new members. 1 Simeon Draper was succeeded as chairman by a radical, state Sen- ator Low. Later, the party headquarters were removed from Albany to New York City. 2 As between the two wings of the party, the labors of the convention, both as to platform and as to candidates, resulted in a complete vic- tory for the Greeley faction and a correspondingly severe defeat for Weed and conservative Republicans. Weed, however, was to be avenged, if not by his own power, at least by the course of events. At the time, however, he came out heartily for the ticket ; 3 and right through the cam- paign his paper showed not a sign of treachery. 'Weed men' were caiefully excluded." This is an exaggeration, since Sherman, Harris, Wakeman, and Jones at least were Weed men. Kelly later was certainly a Weed follower, though Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 425 records how Weed was snubbed by Kelly in 1862. 1 Cf. list of those appointed by the convention of 1862 (as given above) with the names of the Republican State Committee appointed in 1861 (Appended to call for convention, Albany Evening Journal, July 24, 1862). 2 Albany Evening Journal, Nov. 8, Dec. 9; Barnes' Memoir of Weed, P- 425- 8 Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 25. After the conventions had met, Dix was nominated as an independent candidate by a New York City assemblage calling itself the Federal Union party {Herald, Oct. 19). The General, however, declined to run (Herald, Oct. 25). CHAPTER VIII The Triumph of the Opposition Some idea of the arguments advanced during the cam- paign in New York has already been given in discussing the legislative address, the rise of party spirit during the sum- mer, and the proceedings of the conventions. Nevertheless, an orderly consideration of the issues in this State may be thought justifiable, even though they were not, perhaps, very different here from what they were elsewhere. For New York was one of the principal regions where anti- administration strength developed. Its political history at this period merits consideration not only because it was typi- cal but also because the State was a source of Democratic opposition through the North. The importance of the election was dwelt upon by both sides, and especially by the Republican-Unionists. Thus Wadsworth said : " . . . it is my deliberate and solemn con- viction, that here in this city of New York, more even than on the Shenandoah or in the valleys of Kentucky, is the battle field to be fought, which is to preserve our liberties and perpetuate our country." * Tremain rather exaggerated when he declared that the choice of Seymour would mean that the people of New York were prepared to submit to the disintegration of the Union. 2 A very common assertion was that the election of Seymour would cause the rebels to re- joice. David Dudley Field, in a speech at Geneva, said: 1 Herald, Oct. 31. 2 Tribune, Nov. 1. 427] 227 22 8 NE W YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 42 8 " The election is to have a significance far beyond the choice between the candidates. It is a solemn expression of the opinion of the people respecting public affairs in this most dreadful exigency . . . and that expression will have im- mense influence upon the future of the Rebellion." x George Bancroft, then a resident of the metropolis and a War Demo- crat, wrote: " The voice of the State of New York as pro- nounced in the elections, will ring through the civilized world. Shall we not do our part to make that voice clear for the Union?" 2 Practically the only issues discussed were national ones arising out of or relating to the war. The main fire of Republican-Unionist speakers was directed toward showing that the Democratic organization in this State was disloyal, or at least likely, if successful, to hamper or embarrass the national administration in the prosecution of the war, and that Wadsworth's election would strengthen the general government because he would act in harmony with it. At a speech in Brooklyn, Cassius M. Clay said, "... the hang- ing of such men as Seymour and Wood would have saved thousands of honest lives." 3 A Republican ward meeting, at which Dana and Raymond were present, resolved that every vote given for Horatio Seymour was a vote for trea- son; and one of the speakers called Seymour " the traitor's candidate." 4 William Curtis Noyes said that when the Democratic party had been shattered at Charleston into fragments, the latter had formed into three groups, which 1 Tribune, Oct. 23. ' 2 Tribune, Oct. 21. That these expressions were not mere election talk is indicated by the sentiment in a private letter of William Cullen Bryant to Lincoln, stating that the " election of Seymour as Governor of the State of New York would be a public calamity" (Godwin's Bryant, p. ii, 176). 3 Herald, Oct. 9. * Ibid. 429] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 229 he characterized as good, worse, and worst. The good were those Democrats who had joined the Union party move- ment, the worst were the rebels. " The worse are those," he went on, who . . . were cold, indifferent, doubting of success, taking no share in the patriotic excitement which prevailed a year ago last April, . . . recently crystallizing into a party opposed to the Administration — opposed to the war in substance. . . . Not indeed that they are all traitors. . . . But I say they are in sympathy with them ; that they are willing to submit to their demands. . . . The designs of the leaders are base, dis- loyal. . . . * Raymond declared that Seymour's election would give aid and comfort to the enemy, and he desired " to see the sym- pathizers with treason and rebellion left where the War of 18 1 2 left the Federalists, and where the Revolution left the Tories." 2 Henry B. Stanton said: Disguise it as you will, ... it is the government and its sup- porters on the one side^, and the Rebels and their sympa- thizers on the other . . . whatever they may intend, the scope and drift of the policy maintained by Horatio Seymour and Fernando Wood is to give aid and comfort to the Rebels and to cripple the Administration in a vigorous prosecution of the war. 3 Said the Tribune: Every voter in this State whose sympathies are . . . [with 1 Herald, Oct. 9. 2 Tribune, Oct. 7 ; similar sentiments were expressed by Raymond at Syracuse (Tribune, Oct. 21) and at Malone (Tribune, Oct. 25). 8 Tribune, Oct. 9. 230 MEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [430 the] Slaveholders' Rebellion is a supporter of Seymour. Every voter that asserts that the Southern Rebellion was pro- voked and all but justified by Northern Aggression is for Seymour. . . . Every voter who, while more or less openly discouraging volunteering, has proclaimed the impracticabil- ity of drafting men to fight in this war, is for Seymour. 1 Dickinson contrasted Wadsworth's course with Sey- mour's. The former gave his three sons to the cause, and himself volunteered in any capacity. " About the same time," Dickinson continued, Seymour left his family, . . . but not for the seat of the war. He hied himself away ... in the opposite direction, and for nearly a half a year hid himself among the lakes and rivers and romantic woodlands and inland towns of Wisconsin, and his tongue was . . . silent on the subject of denouncing the Rebellion. . . . There we may suppose he basked and balanced and watched and waited and turned and twisted until Autumn, when a small knot of defunct, defeated, desperate and despic- able politicians . . . came to his relief. 2 Seymour's past utterances were used against him by his op- ponents. They quoted from the address made by him at the Albany convention of January, 1861, as well as from his speeches made during the campaign of that year. They reminded him that he had then said : " If it is true that slavery must be abolished to save this Union, then the 1 Tribune, Oct. 8. 'The Albany Evening Journal contained similar editorials and editorial paragraphs, e. g, Oct. 9, 25. 2 Herald, Oct. 9. Seymour was also accused of having failed to contribute toward raising and equipping volunteers {Tribune, Oct. 8) ; though he had a military education, it was said, he had not like Wads- worth offered his services to the government (William Curtis Noyes' speech, Tribune, Nov. 4). 43 1 ] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 23 1 people of the South should be allowed to withdraw them- selves from that government which cannot give them the protection guaranteed by its terms." x Tremain affirmed that after the war had broken out Seymour had publicly spoken at Utica against the right of coercion ; and that upon returning to Albany, he had declared that the Western states would never pay the great war debt and that they were considering a Southern proposition of free navigation of the Mississippi on condition of neutrality. 2 Seymour's assertions that he was loyal and that he fav- ored the war were, Republican-Unionists averred, but sham protestations or at best " impelled by the exigencies of the candidate, not by the feelings of the man." 3 He was called a trickster, 4 and his party a " bogus war party." 5 Greeley, in a characteristic editorial entitled " Brand the Deceivers," opened with this vigorous denunciation of the Democrats: " They lie — consciously, wickedly lie, — who tell you that to support Seymour, Wood and Co., is the true way to invig- orate the prosecution of the war . . . " 6 Dickinson said : " This party with its proposition of peace having been ex- posed, abashed and ingloriously overthrown last year, has covered its framework this year with a veneering of a differ- ent shade, but quite too flimsy to deceive." 7 David Dudley Field declared : " General Wadsworth believes that the only road to peace leads through war — fierce, resolute, unflinch- ing war . . . Mr. Seymour . . . would have half war and half accommodation. He is for peace on any terms, so that ^remain at Brooklyn (Tribune, Nov. 1) ; Tribune editorial, Oct. 16; Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 27; Dickinson at New York City {Tribune, Oct. 9). 2 Herald, Oct. 31. 8 Tribune, Oct. 8. 4 Tribune, Oct. 15. 5 Ibid. 6 Tribune, Oct. 30. 7 Herald, Oct. 9. 232 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [432 he and his party may have the power." * In this connection, some of the Republican-Unionists asserted that if Seymour was elected, not another New York regiment would leave for the war and that no more soldiers would be enlisted or drafted in this State to recruit the forces already raised by it. 2 David Dudley Field said : " Mr. Seymour and his sup- porters do not propose to send more troops into the field. They have done little towards the last two levies." 3 Lyman Tremain prophesied that Seymour's election would bring the power of the State into collision with the national gov- ernment. 4 As a matter of fact, however, Copperheadism was very weak at that time in New York State. The great mass of the voters were, in 1862 at least, heartily in favor of sup- porting the war. During the summer of that year there was a wave of meetings through the State, the purpose of which was to encourage enlistments, raise money to pay bounties, and expiess determination to uphold the national administration in a vigorous prosecution of the war. Among the speakers on these occasions, the committeemen ap- pointed in each congressional district to aid the movement, and those who in other ways engaged in this labor, were the following prominent Democrats who refused to give up their party: Horatio Seymour, Francis Kernan, William Kelly, Martin Kalbfleisch, Gilbert Dean, Henry C. Murphy, Emanuel B. Hart, Sanford E. Church, Dean Richmond, Richard O'Gorman, Erastus Corning, and John Ganson. 5 In January, 1863, the Albany Evening Journal said that it 1 Tribune, Oct. 3. 2 E. g. Tribune, Oct. 30. 3 Tribune, Oct. 27; also Field's speech at New York City (Tribune, Oct. 3) for the same accusation. 4 Herald, Oct. 31. 5 Argus, Oct. 20, 1863, confirmed in part by various notices in the Herald and Tribune during the summer of 1862. 433] THB TRIUMPH 0F THE OPPOSITION 233 was misinformed if Corning as a member of the committee of ways and means of the House of Representatives had not " gone cheerfully and heartily with the Republican ma- jority, in favor of every Administration measure designed to carry on the War with energy and vigor;" while Rich- mond, this same paper said, had freely given his services and money in organizing and equipping troops. 1 That which gave some foundation to the accusations of the Re- publican-Unionists was the disloyal utterances of such Democrats as the two Woods, the vagueness of the plans of the Democrats for attaining peace, 2 and the very fact that they persisted in maintaining a partisan opposition in the midst of so great a contest, when parties meant division at the North and a consequent weakening of the efforts to suppress the rebellion. This last point was fully brought out by Republican- Unionists during the campaign of 1862. They made much of the necessity of laying aside party and of the lack of patriotism in not doing so. Here the accusers seem to have had more justice on their side, from the standpoint of the country's needs if not from the mere political point of view. Dickinson and Tremain, both for many years leaders in the Democratic organization, were especially fitted to press home this charge, and they did so. Dickinson was a man of elo- quence, and it must have been thrilling to hear this white- haired statesman, who had received at the hands of the Democracy the lieutenant-governorship and the United States senatorship, and who had been prominently men- tioned in its councils for the presidential nomination, de- nounce his former associates for keeping up party spirit in such a crisis. In one speech he said : 1 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 15, 1863. 2 John Van Buren in particular kept on advocating some very pecu- liar views on the subject of a peace convention. 234 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [434 These two men [Wadsworth and Seymour] have been placed in nomination by opposing organizations . . . the one by the loyal masses acting as a Union organization, regardless and independent of former political opinion, . . . the other brought forward by political guerrillas, who have crawled from be- neath the popular avalanche of last year to repeat their efforts at imposition under new and improved disguises — the peace party patriots of 1861, the apologists of rebellion and the villifiers of the administration. . . . All loyal men are alike interested in putting down the rebellion, . . . and why should they not act together? The Republican party ... in theory and practice lays aside for the occasion, as it did last year, its distinctive action as a party, and its members unite in com- mon with all loyal Democrats, and others who are so disposed, upon a platform inculcating no party ends. ... I defy and scorn all ringing of party gongs to gather the hungry and alarm the timid. 1 The Democrats replied that it was the Republicans who refused to abandon their political organization and asserted that the course of the administration and its subordinates had been from the very beginning proscriptive of non-Re- publicans. 2 Seymour, as in the convention, defended the propriety of maintaining at such a juncture an opposition. Its retention, he declared, was justified by the radical char- acter of the ticket nominated at Syracuse. 3 John B. Haskin, once an anti-Lecompton member of Congress from New York, charged that the Syracuse convention was nothing but a radical Republican affair, controlled by Greeley and his friends; and he appealed to the Union Democrats who 1 Herald, Oct. 9. See also another War Democrat's utterance on the same subject — General John Cochrane at Olean {Tribune, Oct. 30). 2 Argus, Sept. 11; Rochester Daily Union, quoted by the Argus, Sept. 18. 3 Herald, Oct. 23. 435] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 235 had a year ago supported the ticket headed by Dickinson, to leave the Republican party. " It has now thrown off the cloak," he said. " It is the pure abolition party of the country . . . The Union movement in this State has been turned by the abolition contractors into a pure abolition movement." x The charges of the Republican-Unionists evidently told and put the Democrats on the defensive. Seymour de- voted quite some attention to refuting such accusations. He affirmed that he was earnestly for the war. At the great Cooper Institute ratification meeting on October 13th, he asked why " those who supported their country's cause were branded as traitors?" He then defended his own record, saying that " he had addressed more meetings in support of the war than he would address in support of the ticket on which his name stood." The allegation that he had not given pecuniary aid to the war, he pronounced false. He asserted that the President would not be embarrassed if the Democrats won in New York. 2 In Brooklyn Seymour said: I recognize the fact now that it is the duty of every man who would stand by its [i. e. the country's] institutions, to see that the whole measure of his influence and all the weight of his power are thrown in that battlefield on the side of the flag of our Union; and he referred to his efforts to " invoke our young men to rally around the standard of our country." Again he de- clared : " We say then to this government, you have our firm reliance, our confidence, our unconditional loyalty ... ;" and he maintained that this had ever been the posi- 1 Herald, Oct. 31. 8 Herald, Oct. 14. With regard to this speech, see Reminiscences of Richard Lathers, p. 180. 236 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [436 tion of the Democrats, " not now alone, . . . [but] one year ago, when many of our Republican friends were de- nouncing the Administration." Had the loyalty of the Republicans been unconditional, he asked. And he con- cluded with this noble sentiment : Now let me say this to the higher law men of the North, and to the higher law men of the South, and to the whole world . . . that this Union never shall be severed, no, never. Would that my voice could be heard through every Southern State, and I would tell them their mistake. 1 The Democrats replied to their opponents by assailing the alleged revolutionary proceedings of the Republicans, claim- ing that the latter were the real adversaries of the President. The New York Herald expressed a common opinion when it said : The conservatives are not opposed to the Administration so long as the Administration is not opposed to the constitu- tion. On the contrary, the conservatives have supported the Administration and the constitution by liberal supplies of men and money. The abolitionists are opposed to the Administra- tion; for they have refused to enlist. ... As Greeley con- fesses, the abolitionists have never yet smelt powder during the war. . . . 2 Seymour from the platform censured as pernicious prac- tices the acts of insubordinate radical generals, the fusion of the spheres of the three governmental departments, the Al- toona convention of governors, and the work of the National 1 Herald, Oct. 23. Cf. Tilden's Letters, i, p. 166. 2 Herald, Nov. 4 ; similar editorial, entitled " Who are the Traitors ?" in the Argus, Sept. 20; another entitled "Abolition Disloyalty," Argus, Sept. 15 ; another, "Abolition Disorganization," Argus, Sept. 22. 437] THE TRIUMPH 0F THE OPPOSITION 237 War Committee of New York City, which he pronounced " one of the most dangerous and revolutionary features of the day." 1 In another speech, Seymour said : Who among the journalists .... endeavored to force their views and policy upon the government, without respect to the embarrassments they might occasion? . . . the men who de- nounce you and me as being untrue to the institutions of the country ... I charge against them . . . that they have been foremost in every measure calculated to embarrass the gov- ernment, and to hinder and retard the successful prosecution of the war. . . . 2 The Albany Argus printed daily two or three columns of quotations from the Tribune, the Times, and the Post attacking the administration. 3 Speaking of the " Little Villain " Raymond, the Argus said : " Behold the record of treason to the government, spiced by abuse of President Lincoln, slanders of our armies, and assaults upon our gen- erals, furnished by his own pen." Then followed two columns of extracts from the Times labeled thus : " Ray- mond Predicts and Justifies a Usurpation," " Raymond Dis- courages Enlistments," " Raymond Assails the Government as Imbecile," " Raymond Demands the Removal of Mc- Clellan," " Raymond Calls for a Change of Generals, Cabinet and President," etc. 4 The effect of these mutual recriminations was to add bitterness to the campaign. Each side arrogated to itself the merit of patriotism and de- nounced the other as disloyal. Threats were made that 1 Herald, Oct. 14. For a similar utterance by James T. Brady, see Herald, Oct. 28. The Argus too denounced the Altoona meeting and the New York War Committee (Argus, Sept. 15, 20, 26). 2 Herald, Oct. 23. 3 Argus, Oct. 23 to 31 inclusive. * Argus, Oct. 21. 238 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [4.38 Republicans would be assaulted in the streets unless they ceased from calling Seymour's followers traitors. 1 Abolition and the President's proclamation 2 naturally oc- cupied a large share of attention during the campaign. The Republicans showed no hesitation in defending Lincoln's course — not even in New York City and Brooklyn where it might have been expected to prove unpopular ; though Weed, after the election, asserted that he had endeavored to pre- vent the bringing of Wadsworth to New York City to speak there, because it would emphasize too much the anti- slavery issue. Wadsworth's views and past actions stamped him as preeminently an abolition candidate. Immediately after his nomination he was serenaded at Washington and his remarks on this occasion were published in the New York papers. He said : It would be criminal folly in the government if it had over- looked one great element of Southern society which may be, and will be, as we use it, an element of strength or weakness — to have overlooked . . . that we are fighting against an aris- tocracy supported by slavery; and it would have been worse than folly to suppose that we could suppress the Rebellion and yet save that aristocracy. . . . Gentlemen, secession and war . . . have changed our relation to that institution which is the cause and source of the war. . . . 8 In his letter of acceptance, Wadsworth declared that he en- tirely approved of the Emancipation Proclamation, and com- mended it to the voters of New York as an effectual, speedy, and humane way of subduing the rebellion. He asserted 1 These threats are referred to in Tribune editorials of Oct. 1 and 24, and in a Herald editorial of Oct. 14. 2 This was the preliminary proclamation of September, 1862. 3 Herald, Sept. 28. 439] THE TRI UMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 239 that the war had proved that the fears of black insurrec- tions were without foundation, and that emancipation once accomplished, the North would be relieved from any danger of a great influx of African laborers to compete with the whites, while the negro population already in the North would " drift to the South where it will find a congenial climate and vast tracts of land . . . " 1 The resolutions and speakers at the Republican-Unionist meetings generally endorsed the proclamation on the grounds of expediency and necessity, maintained the constitutionality of the measure, denounced slavery as the force upholding the rebellion, and affirmed that, aside from these considerations, it was the duty of every loyal citizen to sustain the government in the course which it had decided to adopt. Even the War Demo- crats defended the proclamation as a military necessity. Dickinson, who had upheld Southern rights for so many years, now said that " he was no political abolitionist, but in the exercise of the war power, he was for taking that thing [i. e. slavery] out by the roots." 2 The adherents of Seymour on the other hand denounced the Emancipation Proclamation as unconstitutional, as threatening white labor at the North, as likely to lead to a servile war, as consolidating Southern sentiment against the Union while at the same time dividing the North, and as de- priving loyal innocent men of their property for the crimes of the guilty. 3 Richard O'Gorman, a prominent New York City Democrat, declared that the proclamation was a " barbarous, disgraceful, hideous violation of the morality 1 Printed in the Herald, Oct. 6. 2 Herald, Oct. 25. General John Cochrane's attitude was similar (see his speech at Olean, Tribune, Nov. 1). 3 E. g. Seymour's speech, Herald, Oct. 14 ; resolutions of Brooklyn meeting, Tribune, Oct. 24. 240 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 44 q of Christendom," a sentiment which was greeted with great cheering. 1 The Democrats liked to quote the President's re- ply to a Chicago delegation in September, 1862, wherein he declared that an emancipation proclamation " must be neces- sarily inoperative " and that " no possible good can result from such a proclamation." 2 In this connection, it was very common to quote the Crittenden resolution as to the purpose of the war. 3 Another issue emphasized during the campaign in New York was that of the arbitrary acts of the administration. Here the Republican-Unionists were on the defensive. An especially bitter assault on the government was that con- tained in a speech of Richard O'Gorman, in which he said : Two years ago we were governed according to the terms of a written constitution, by which we fondly thought freedom of person, of speech, of the press, were forever guaranteed, for- ever secured. . . . To-day, the personal liberty of every one of us here in this city . . . depends, not on the constitution or the law, but on the good pleasure of one man and his dele- gates. By sudden, secret, and lawless arrests, the exercise of free criticism of the conduct of public affairs has been pun- ished, and as far as possible suppressed. While the adherents of one political party seem to revel in unlimited license, all others are condemned to silence, or if they speak at all, with " bated breath and whispering humbleness." . . . While one set of men can freely, boldly, insolently criticise and threaten the government, express their contempt for its constitution, 1 Herald, Oct. 9. > 2 Brooklyn meeting ( Tribune, Oct. 24) ; New York City meeting (Herald, Oct. 14) ; Haskin at Tarrytown meeting (Herald, Oct. 31) ; "Abraham Lincoln's View of the President's Proclamation " — Argus, Sept. 27. 3 For this resolution, see Rhodes, History of the United States, iii, p. 464. 44!] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 241 make and unmake generals, plan campaigns, alter policy, knock down, appoint, supersede, — to all others is allotted the part of passive obedience; on their lips, remonstrance is disloyalty. 1 Seymour condemned the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by the President, and attacked the doctrine that free- dom of speech in the loyal states was to be restrained be- cause there were disloyal states in the South. 2 Another Democratic speaker asserted that the people of Vienna and St. Petersburg were free, while the Americans were slaves. 3 General Wadsworth was accused of participating in these arbitrary actions by the apprehension of the editors and pro- prietors of two Harrisburg (Pennsylvania) papers. 4 Dickinson gave what now appears the most sensible and patriotic reply to this line of attack. He said : This rebellion cannot well be sued by summons and complaint ; nor brought to trial before a justice of the peace or referees under the code, nor silenced by a grand jury. . . . Among the first rights and privileges and highest and holiest duties and obligations of tlte government is the preservation of its own existence. A war of rebellion is a fearful and alarming real- ity, and is neither to be run away from nor quieted by reciting boarding-school homilies. . . . The course of the President in arresting spies and the apologists of rebellion — in suppressing treasonable presses — in suspending the writ of habeas corpus .... entitles him to the admiration and thanks of every good citizen. Let assassins whet their knives — let spies and traitors and pimps and informers scowl and gibber and whisper dis- content because the " freedom of speech " is abridged — let con- spiracy and treason plot at their infernal conferences — let poli- ticians scheme and elongate and contract their gum-elastic 1 Herald, Oct. 9. 2 Herald, Oct. 14. 3 Herald, Oct. 29. *■ Argus, Oct. 28. 242 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [442 platforms to suit emergencies, and when all this has been done the action of the President in these measures, though probably not free from mistakes and errors, will be approved by honest men and in the sight of Heaven, and will, when rebellion shall only be remembered for the blood it has shed and the wrongs it has perpetrated, " stand the test of talents and of time." * The Democrats also assailed their opponents because of the faults of the administration at Washington and its al- leged corruption. Nothing was said about the state gov- ernment, because since the shoddy frauds at the opening of the war, nothing had come to light which would have served as grounds for an attack in that quarter. Over and over again, taking their cue from Seymour's speech in the state convention, the Democratic orators declared that the Re- publicans were not able to manage successfully the na- tional government. Van Buren said : It is our purpose to overthrow this Republican party and the political sharks that follow in their [sic] wake, to devour what they throw overboard ... it is my deliberate judgment that the most contemptible failure in the shape of government is the government of the republican States of North America. . . . We propose to stop stealing for ninety days (laughter) and have the money raised by taxation applied to pay the soldiers, to feed and clothe them. . . . 2 Seymour maintained that it was vain to send troops to the field while there was lacking an honest administration to sustain them there in the necessities of life. " I tell you," he said, "that the government which conceals frauds committed 1 Herald, Oct. 9. 2 Herald, Oct. 14. In another speech, Van Buren asserted that the government was the most corrupt one on the face of the earth (Herald, Oct. 23). 443] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 243 against itself, and which considers it unpatriotic to leave them bare is on the road to destruction." And he cited the reports of various congressional committees which had re- vealed the existence of corruption. 1 Fernando Wood de- clared that the administration had been " imbecile, venal, and corrupt," else it would have suppressed the rebellion long ago. He accused the Republicans either of continuing the war for their own purposes or of lacking " the heart or the brains to succeed " in making peace. " Be they weak or be they wicked," he went on, they cannot succeed. I am going to Washington, and when I reach there I will go to the President of the United States, in my sovereign capacity as your representative, ... I will tell him that without we have a change of measures, that so help me God ! we will have a change of men. 2 In reply to the charge of corruption, the Republican- Unionists acknowledged its presence but pleaded in ex- tenuation the circumstances. " The service couldn't wait," said the Tribune. " Sharpers ... of course, took advan- tage of this . . . Congress (Republican all over) at once went after these robbers with a sharp stick." And it went on to argue that men occupying offices where dishonesty had been brought to light, e. g. the Secretary of War, the Com- missary-General, and the Quartermaster-General, were not Republicans. 3 Grant that the administration has made mis- takes, said the Albany Evening Journal, should support be therefore refused ? " It is doing its best. ... It is setting to work with such light as it has to guide its footsteps to sub- due the insurgent States. . . . And it needs to have its 1 Herald, Oct. 23. 2 Tribune, Oct. 25. 8 Tribune, Oct. 15, 24. 244 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [444 hands sustained all the more because, in some respects, it has faltered and failed." 1 Moreover, Unionists argued that the President must hold office until March 4th, 1865, and that therefore, if the country was to be saved, it must be by his administration. 2 The Tribune, drawing- the logical conclusion from this consideration and such speeches as Wood's, came out with an editorial entitled "A Conspiracy to Overthrow the Government," in which it said : "This sud- den, bold and confident rush for power in this State . . . is nothing but a conspiracy to overthrow the Federal Gov- ernment with the help of Rebel arms . . . The votes cast for Seymour may add a Revolution in the North to our war in the South." It branded Fernando Wood as Catiline, and elsewhere said : " We need not dwell upon the details of the terror. . . . There will be blood enough ... to satisfy the sanguinary thirst even of old Marat . . . " 3 It recalled the dreadful days when, during the Nenv York City police riots, Mayor Wood with eight hundred stalwart men barricaded the City Hall and set at defiance the law until overawed by the Seventh Regiment. The Democrats when criticising the administration claimed that their party could end the war. John Van Buren's plan, repeatedly advocated by him during the cam- paign, was to capture Richmond, call a convention and in- vite the Southerners to enter it under the constitution as it was ; and if they refused, to let them go in peace. 4 Seymour was more cautious, even if more vague. He expressed his 1 Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 25 ; similar arguments, Tremain at Brooklyn (Tribune, Nov. 1) and Wadsworth at New York City (Herald, Oct. 31). 2 Tribune, Oct. 3; Wadsworth's speech in New York City (Herald, Oct. 31). 3 Tribune, Oct. 30. * Herald, Oct. 14; Argus, Oct. 28. 445] THB TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 245 program thus : " We propose to bring this war to a speedy and successful conclusion because, my friends, we have a definite and determinate object, and that is, to restore the Union as it was." x How this was to be done, Seymour did not say. James T. Brady, hiding the indefiniteness of his scheme behind metaphor, said : So if we leave the Republican party to conduct these sisters of ours — erring, if you please — back into our ranks, if it looks back upon them in the hour of republican triumph, each of these sisters will disappear like Eurydice. We do not propose that any such result shall occur. We propose that the Demo- cratic party shall be the Orpheus of this era, and that we shall imitate his example by employing the harmonious measures which we have the power to exert so as to move every stone of our fabric back into its own position. . . . 2 These men were not disloyal. They simply imagined that the old party ties exercised as potent a spell over the South- erners as over themselves. Van Buren and Brady were disillusioned in the following year. Immediately after the Union State Convention, an Argus editorial referring to Wadsworth said : " We mistake the temper of the people of this State, if they will not eagerly seize the first opportunity to punish one of the assassins of McClellan." 3 The Buffalo Courier declared that the issue was fairly presented by the nomination of Wadsworth, an " abolitionist and special calumniator of McClellan." 4 John Van Buren was particularly severe in his criticism of 1 Herald, Oct. 23. 2 Herald, Oct. 28. Same idea expressed less poetically by O'Gorman {Herald, Oct. 9), and by Wood {Tribune, Oct. 25). 3 Argus, Sept. 26; similar editorials, Sept. 29, 30, Oct. 15, 16, 22, 28, Nov. 4. 4 Quoted by the Argus, Sept. 27. 246 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 44 6 Wadsworth as the enemy of McClellan. He and other Democrats persistently reiterated the charge, asserted that Wadsworth had been guilty of gross insubordination to his commander, and harped on the idea of rank injustice to a military hero because of the latter's Democratic views and connections. Van Buren denounced Wads- worth as a militia major who had never been on the battle-field except once as an aid-de-camp. " He is an open, notorious, bitter enemy of George B. McClellan . . . Wadsworth is his [McClellan's] open, malignant, bitter persecutor, ... It is our purpose to stand by Mr. Lincoln so far as he will let us, and to stand by General McClellan whether he will let us or not." * Brady said that Fremont was the " darling of a certain portion of the Republican party, at the same time that in the most dastardly and assassin-like manner they sought to injure that gallant young man McClellan." 2 Haskin affirmed that " when- ever a Democratic general wins a victory, they [the admin- istration] are afraid he will get up further on the ladder of fame and they pull him down," and he declared that to his certain knowledge, Wadsworth had taken every occasion to detract from the merit of McClellan. 3 The Unionists apparently felt this charge, for they found it advisable dur- ing the course of the campaign to deny that their candidate was unfriendly to McClellan and to aver that Wadsworth had simply been anxious for the Union army to make a for- ward movement during the preceding winter when Mc- Clellan persisted in ^remaining inactive. 4 1 Herald, Oct. 14. 2 Herald, Oct. 28. 3 Herald, Oct. 31. 4 £. g. H. B. Stanton at Brooklyn {Tribune, Oct. 8) ; W. C. Noyes at New York City {Tribune, Nov. 4) ; letter of Gen. Benjamin Welch {Tribune, Oct. 25) ; Tribune, Nov. I, referring to the letter of United States Senator Harris on the subject, published in the Albany Statesman ; Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 6 ; denial of a similar charge by the Times, Oct. 21, 25, and by the Evening Post, Oct. 21. 44 7 ] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 247 Of course, the Democrats made much of standing for the constitution and of representing the great conservative masses. Then, too, something, though compared to the following years not much, was said against heavy taxes, de- preciated currency, and the alleged failure of Chase's finan- cial policy. 1 Wadsworth, being military governor of Washington, made but two speeches in New York during the campaign. Just before the election, he came to New York City, and addressed two large meetings at Cooper Institute, the latter being a gathering of German citizens. Weed is said to have urged Wadsworth to avoid the slavery question, but Wads- worth disregarded the advice. This, according to Weed, lost him the election. 2 Seymour, accompanied by John Van Buren, was very active, touring the State from one end to the other. They were the most prominent speakers on the Democratic side during the contest. Others of note were Richard O'Gorman, James T. Brady, John B. Haskin, Amasa J. Parker, and Fernando Wood. On the Repub- lican-Unionist side, there was an imposing array, including George William Curtis, Horace Greeley, General Cochrane, William Allen Butler, H. B. Stanton, Tremain, Noyes, Dickinson, Raymond, Alvord, and Field. A feature of the Republican-Unionist meetings was the speeches made by Southern refugees, ex-slaveholders but Union men. Most conspicuous of these was A. J. Hamilton, of Texas, later provisional governor of that commonwealth. Even the choice of state senators and assemblymen had a national significance in 1862, because an anti-administration 1 E. g. Argus, Oct. 17, 18, 22, 27 ; Seymour at Brooklyn (Herald, Oct. 23) ; Haskin at Tarrytown (Herald, Oct. 31) ; William D. Murphy at Schenectady (Argus, Nov. 1) ; Herald, Oct. 26. 2 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 425. 248 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [448 legislature might refuse to support war measures and because a United States senator was to be elected in the ensuing year. But second in importance to the gubernatorial con- test only were the congressional elections. The Tribune advocated the nomination of a War Democrat in every dis- trict which had given an anti-Lincoln majority in i860. 1 This plan was largely carried out, particularly in the Demo- cratic strongholds in the southern part of the State. Thus, in New York City the Republicans supported War Demo- crats for member of Congress in the fourth, fifth, and ninth districts. 2 In the eighth, the Union nomination was offered to George Bancroft, who was a War Democrat; but he de- clined. 8 In the tenth district, the Republican-Unionists named Edward Haight, who had been elected as a Democrat in i860, but since the outbreak of the war had supported the administration. 4 Through a deal between Tammany and Mozart, those organizations made a peaceful division of the congressional and legislative nominations on the Democratic ticket in the metropolis. 5 Accordingly, one found there an interesting trio of congressional can- didates : the two Woods and James Brooks. The battle was waged vigorously against them because of their well known Copperhead views. 6 That the campaign was an acrimonious one has already been mentioned. The excitement reached a climax in connec- tion with the proposed draft. During the enrolment, a great many — 17,000 in New York City alone. 7 — had claimed exemption on the ground of being aliens. Some of these doubtless had voted in previous years. It was made known, 1 Tribune, Oct. 2. 2 Tribune, Nov. 3. s Tribune, Oct. 21. * Ibid. 5 Herald, Oct. 7. 6 E. g. Tribune, Nov. 4. 7 Tribune, Nov. 4. 449] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 249 shortly before the election, that in New York City watchers of Police Superintendent Kennedy provided with lists of the exempted aliens would be at the polls, ready to arrest on a charge of perjury or illegal voting any such persons who should attempt to cast a ballot. 1 Tammany and Mozart probably lost many votes. 2 The Seymour papers set up a howl about intimidation, and a handbill signed by promi- nent local politicians denounced these very proper measures. 3 Nevertheless, the election passed off quietly. The result was the choice of the entire Democratic state ticket by about 10,700 majority. 4 The congressional dele- gation and the legislature showed large Democratic gains. Fernando Wood, Benjamin Wood, and James Brooks were all elected. In the face of the adverse majority of 107,000 in the previous year, the Democratic victory of 1862 might seem like a revolution in the sentiment of the people, and was so interpreted by the victors. They pronounced it a sweeping condemnation of the administration's anti-slavery policy. Such an explanation, however, was probably in- correct. There is no evidence that the Union Democratic vote became disaffected because of emancipation. Union Democrats in the Legislature, in the state convention, and on the platform appeared little if any behind the Republicans in accepting Lincoln's proclamation, at least as a justifiable war measure. While Weed doubted the expediency of the President's action, his followers did not endorse his view; 1 Tribune, Oct. 31, Nov. 4. 2 The Tribune (Nov. 5) estimated this loss at "several thousand;" the New York Express, which supported Seymour, declared that the " Democratic majority in this city is 5,000 less than it would have been if the Metropolitan Police were a real Police, and not a mere Republican Club" (quoted in the Albany Evening Journal, Nov. 7). 3 Tribune, Nov. 4. 4 Albany Evening Journal Almanac for 1863. 250 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [450 and it does not appear from the speeches at campaign meet- ings, from the resolutions of such gatherings, from the pro- ceedings of the state convention, or from the press edi- torials that the Republicans of New York were at all divided on this question. Many in the convention favored Dix's nomination, not however because they were opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation, but simply, as Greeley said on the day following, "because they believed they could thus dis- arm the partisan prejudices of thousands," or else, as we may add, because of dislike of Greeley himself and of his faction. Weed was charged with treachery to the ticket. Just before the election, he publicly denied this accusation in a letter to the editor of the New York Commercial Ad- vertiser. He said : The " friends of Governor Seward," generally, are cordially supporting the Union State ticket. . . . While it is true that I urged upon the Union State Convention the nomination of General Dix, I have, from the moment General Wadsworth was nominated, given him and our whole State ticket my steady and earnest support. 1 Weed tells in his autobiography that, soon after the election, he retired from the editorship of the Evening Journal and went to his old home, Rochester, intending to purchase a farm on the Genesee River on which to pass the remainder of his life. " My arrival in Rochester," he wrote, was announced in the Republican journal of which I had been the first editor, in a paragraph charging me with having treach- erously defeated the election of General Wadsworth, ... A ' Printed in the Tribune. Nov. 4. 45 1 ] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 25 1 welcome so different from that which I had anticipated affected me so profoundly that a plan of life which I had long fondly looked forward to was abandoned. 1 The truth of the matter will probably never be known, but that Weed's disaffected followers might have influenced the result is not unlikely. They had been beaten too thoroughly in the state convention. But this betrayal, if indeed it occurred, is not sufficient to account for so great a reversal. James Ford Rhodes, speak- ing of the state elections of 1862 in general, says that the results are to be attributed to the lack of success in prosecut- ing the war. This is true to a great degree of New York. The danger was realized before the election. Bryant wrote to Lincoln that Seymour would be successful if the army was kept idle, while a victory or two would carry Wadsworth to triumph. 2 On October 27th the Tribune said : " Do you know that if General McClellan had crushed the Rebel army ... at Antietam and General Buell had bagged that of the West at Perryville . . . Seymour would have stood no chance of an election?" Later, the Tribune enumer- ated as one of the chief causes of the Unionist defeat, "gen- eral dissatisfaction with the slow progress or no progress of our Armies, and a wide-spread feeling that, through the in- 1 Weed's Autobiography, pp. 360-1. The Tribune immediately after the election said: "If many of his [Weed's] most intimate and devoted friends have not by positive action or determined inaction contrib- uted to verify his predictions, then they are grossly belied." — Tribune, Nov. 7. Daniel S. Dickinson wrote to Colonel Paine, January 7, 1863 : " I was so shocked and humiliated by the perfidy which the re- sult of the election showed existed in the Union organization, betray- ing it to death, that I did not feel like saying anything to any one" (Dickinson's Speeches and Correspondence, ii, p. 599). Both of these, however, are prejudiced witnesses. 2 Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 176. 252 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [452 capacity of our military leaders, the blood and treasure of the loyal Millions are being sacrificed in vain." * And again, it estimated that 20,000 Republicans had voted the Demo- cratic ticket because they were " sick and discouraged at the mismanagement and inefficiency, through imbecility or treachery, of the conduct of the war." 2 The Evening Post gave as the principal cause of the defeat " the depression, amounting almost to despair, which the inactive and ex- pectant policy of the Administration has produced . . . [The opposition's] most powerful assistant has been the discouragement and apathy diffused everywhere by our military failure." 3 What effect is to be attributed to the absence of so many men in the army? In 1862, 100,000 citizens of New York in the army were on that account temporarily disfranchised. 4 Mr. Rhodes, after mentioning that the Republicans generally laid to this cause primarily the adverse results throughout the Central states in 1862, rejects the explanation. So far as New York is concerned, however, there is some ground for believing that Wadsworth would have carried the State had it not been for the volunteers losing their votes. Wads- worth received about 66,000 less than Lincoln ; Seymour ob- tained within less than 6,000 of the number cast for the fusion electoral ticket of i860. Either there were more New York Republicans than Democrats in the federal military service or if the strength of both parties was equally decreased through this cause, the Democrats must have been largely compensated for such loss by defections from the Republicans. To adopt the latter supposition is to ignore these considerations : ( 1 ) recruiting in the Democratic strongholds of New York City and Brooklyn was so slack 1 Tribune, Nov. 5. 2 Tribune, Nov. 6. 3 New York Evening Post, Nov. 5. * Tribune, Dec. 5. 453] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 253 that the draft was repeatedly threatened, 1 while many of the strong Republican counties easily raised their quotas; 2 (2) the Democrats later interposed obstacles in the way of grant- ing to soldiers the right to vote; (3) the volunteer vote in other states where the figures were kept separate from the or- dinary vote uniformly supported the administration. Other factors which influenced the result were the harmony in the ranks of the Democrats of both New York City and Brook- lyn, 3 the October elections in other states, Seymour's veto of a prohibition bill during his first administration which gained for him the endorsement of a state convention of liquor dealers, 4 and the fear of the draft, which was re- 1 The Herald (Aug. 2), discussing the prospect of a draft, said, " There is no mincing the matter that the city is not doing its whole duty in furnishing volunteers." Burt's Memoirs of the Military History of the State of New York, p. 133, says of the third levy of troops, i. e. from April, 1862 to December, 1862 : "A remarkable fea- ture of this levy was the slackness of recruiting in the great cities included in the first seven districts (New York, Kings, Queens, Suf- folk, and Richmond counties). Of the 39,787 enlisted men eent to the field before October 1st, the proper quota of these counties would be 12,547, but they furnished only 3,043 men." See on the same sub- ject letter of August Belmont to Weed, dated July 20, 1862, in Belmont's Letters, p. 80. 2 See table in the Tribune, Sept. 30, quoted from the New York Sunday Mercury, showing that of the fifteen counties which had al- ready raised their quotas, all but two had given Lincoln majorities in i860, many of them very large ones. " Besides these," the Tribune continued, " nearly all the Republican strongholds have so nearly com- pleted their quotas, that they are morally certain to do so without a draft." 3 After numerous conferences, committees from Tammany and Mozart agreed on a division of local nominations, though the pro- jected consolidation of the two general committees fell through {Tribune, Oct. 3, Dec. 16, 17; Herald, Oct. 7). In Brooklyn, the two Democratic organizations joined hands on the basis of a division of local spoils {Tribune, Oct. 1). 4 Herald, Oct. 1. 254 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [454 peatedly rumored and even officially announced only to be postponed, thus keeping up the excitement. The effects of the Democratic triumph in New York State were far-reaching. It was the most important of those victories which made the opposition party throughout the North far stronger, bolder, and more virulent. It placed at the head of the most important source of men and money which were essential for the prosecution of the war, an executive who was out of sympathy with the national administration. It temporarily at least restored the Weed faction to the control of the party, and proved a corres- pondingly great set-back both for Greeley and for the wing which he tried to lead. CHAPTER IX The Partisan Revival in the Legislature When Horatio Seymour for the second time became Gov- ernor of New York, he was the most conspicuous Demo- cratic leader in the North. For some years he had been a figure of national importance in the councils of his party. His election was the chief triumph in a series of victories achieved by the Democracy in the central states in 1862. He and Parker of New Jersey were the only Democratic governors north of Mason and Dixon's line and the Ohio; but as New York was far more important than New Jersey politically and materially, so did Seymour bulk larger than Parker in the public eye. A contemporary and one opposed to Seymour in politics described him as " a gentleman of commanding talents, high culture, ... of bland and win- ning manners, admired social and domestic life." * Indeed his private virtues were universally admitted; and his pa- triotism, however impugned by his opponents, is to-day ac- knowledged by all. But it was a patriotism blinded by strong partisan sympathies and mental habits. Occupying a chair which before and after has served as a stepping-stone to the presidency, Seymour's inaugural address and his mes- sage to the Legislature were naturally awaited with interest, not only in New York but also without. 2 Would he render 1 Letter of Gerrit Smith, printed in the Tribune, Jan. 23, 1863. a Some evidence of this interest in the message on the part of those outside New York is afforded by the commendatory newspaper extracts 455] 255 256 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [456 a hearty support to the war ? Would he bring the State into conflict with the national administration? What extreme men in his party hoped for was seen in the utterances of Fernando Wood and James Brooks shortly after the elec- tion. Brooks, who about this time was advocating peace resolutions, 1 asserted that New York " would soon have a governor who would call out, if necessary, the whole militia of our State as a posse to enforce the writ of habeas corpus." 2 Said Wood: " I do not understand the character and the calibre of the Governor elect, if he is not the man to stand erect on the majesty of a sovereign power, and stand up for the rights of his State against any federal usurpation." 3 Lincoln appreciated how important it was that the Em- pire State should sustain the federal authorities in the same hearty and zealous manner that Governor Morgan did, and accordingly wrote in March, 1863, a kindly letter to Seymour, expressing a desire for a good understand- ing with the Governor and inviting a frank correspon- dence. But Seymour's answer, long delayed, was not such as to result in that strong patriotic bond of cooperation which Lincoln aimed at. The Governor said he would give to those charged with the national administration a " just and generous support" — with a proviso: " in all measures they on the message, quoted in the Albany Argus. These included the Detroit Free Press {Argus, Jan. 15) ; Boston Post, Boston Courier, {Argus, Jan. 14) ; Providence Daily Post {Argus, Jan. 13) ; Milwau- kee News, Pittsfield Sun, Hartford Times, Trenton American {Argus, Jan. 20). The Indiana, House adopted resolutions of thanks and en- dorsement {Argus, Jan. 29). The Democrats of Chicago also en- dorsed the message {Argus, Jan. 28). 1 Herald, Jan. 3. 2 Speech of Brooks before the Democratic Union Association, Herald, Nov. II, 1862. 3 Speech of Wood, ibid. 457] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 257 may adopt within the scope of their constitutional powers." Thus ended the well-intentioned effort of Lincoln to bring Seymour into harmony with those who must carry on the war. 1 Seymour, however, was bound by his campaign pledges to support the war; but he was extremely hostile to the measures of the government and particularly to eman- cipation. His was the difficult task of guiding an opposi- tion without falling into the errors of the extremists of his party. Even if he had been inclined to oppose the admin- istration openly, he would have found an obstacle in the fact that the Republican-Unionists still possessed nearly all of the principal state offices; the state senate had a large majority of the same party; and the lower house, when it was finally organized, was likewise in the control of Seymour's opponents. The Governor recognized that his role was not an easy one. " Now that you and others have got me into this scrape," he wrote to Tilden, a few days after the election, " I wish you would tell me what to do. Give me your suggestions. I shall need all the help my friends can furnish." 2 The only influence which Seymour, while in opposition, could exert on the government at Washington was the indi- rect one of hostile criticism ; and he himself, in his brief in- augural, asserted his practical powerlessness over the course of national affairs. Nevertheless, he took a firm stand on this occasion in behalf of state rights. He had sworn, he said, to support the constitution of the United States with all its grants, restrictions, and guarantees, and he had also sworn to support the constitution of the State of New York ; and he would uphold both. " The first law I find recorded 1 Nicolay and Hay's Life of Lincoln, vii, pp. 10-11, quoting MS. letters. 2 Tilden's Letters, i, p. 168. 258 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [458 for my observance," he said, " is that which declares that ' it shall be the duty of the Governor to maintain and defend the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the State.' The most marked injunction of the constitution to the Executive is that he ' shall take care that the laws are faithfully exe- cuted.' " * Such language must have seemed promising to the Woods and the Brookses of the party. This idea of the equal sacredness of the national and the state constitutions introduced the Governor's message. Little more than a quarter of the document was devoted to affairs relating to this State. 2 The rest formed a complete manifesto for the Democratic party. If the Governor recog- nized that he could have but little direct influence on the policy pursued at Washington, he nevertheless thought his message a fitting vehicle to convey his ideas in full even upon subjects which did not directly touch New York. Of that part of the message dealing with the State, the most in- teresting passage, in view of subsequent events, was that re- lating to the draft. The Governor stated that New York still owed almost 31,000 men to fill its quota, unless the national authorities would give the State credit for the excess sent before July, 1862. He urged that the Legis- lature give its " immediate attention to the inequality and injustice of the laws under which it is proposed to draft soldiers." He objected especially to the exemption of offi- cials and other classes who were " usually in a better condi- tion to give an equivalent than the mass of those upon whom these liabilities now fall." What the Legislature might do to avert the measure providing for a conscription, then under consideration by Congress, the Governor did not say. 1 Argus, Jan. 3. 2 More than five-sixths of Governor Morgan's annual message of 1861 was devoted to New York State affairs, and a still greater pro- portion of his annual message of 1862. 459] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 2 $g Turning to national affairs, he declared that there " must be no attempt to put down the full expression of public opinion." Drawing a rather fine distinction, he asserted that slavery was merely the subject of the war, while the causes were a prevailing disregard of legal and constitu- tional obligations and local prejudices. Seymour's criti- cism on the extravagance and corruption of the Washington government was rather moderate; for, while insisting upon the necessity of economy and integrity, he admitted the ex- istence of the opportunities which war gives to unprincipled men as well as the difficulties of checking their schemes, and he acknowledged that such difficulties should shield the administration from harsh judgment. On this subject, the tone of the Governor was not incompatible with true pa- triotism. But he was more partisan in speaking of the encroachments of the departments of the government upon each other and upon the states. He said : While the War Department sets aside the authority of the Judiciary and overrides the laws of States, the Governors of States meet to shape the policy of the General Government, the National Legislature appoints committees to interfere with the military conduct of the war, and Senators combine to dic- tate the Executive choice of constitutional advisers. The nat- ural results of meddling and intrigue have followed . . . the heroic valor of our soldiers and the skill of our generals are thwarted and paralyzed. The message then condemned arbitrary arrests and as- saults on the freedom of the press. It read : The suppression of journals and the imprisonment of persons have been glaringly partisan, allowing to some the utmost licentiousness of criticism, and punishing others for a fair ex- ercise of the right of discussion. Conscious of these gross 2 6o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [460 abuses, an attempt has been made to shield the violators of law and suppress enquiry into their motives and conduct. The Governor denied that the rebellion could suspend a single right of the citizens of loyal states. Then he boldly asserted : It is a high crime to abduct a citizen of this State. It is made my duty by the Constitution to see that the laws are enforced. I shall investigate every alleged violation of our statutes, and see that offenders are brought to justice. Sheriffs and district attorneys are admonished that it is their duty to take care that no person within their respective counties is imprisoned, or carried by force beyond their limits, without due process or legal authority. Then followed a lengthy historical and constitutional essay on the nature of martial law and the doctrine that the presi- dent could declare it within peaceful states, concluding with a severe condemnation of that idea. Discussing the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gov- ernor said that its sole effect was to confiscate the slaves of those not in rebellion. He observed that it was " an extraordinary deduction from the alleged war power, that the forfeiture of the right of loyal citizens ... is calculated to advance the success of the war, . . . and restore the Union." The consequence of forcible emancipa- tion would be to convert the government into a military des- potism. Then Seymour rebuked the administration for not holding to the original declared purpose of the war, and the leaders of the Republican party for rejecting compromise in 1 86 1 and for attempting to " govern and control an agitated and convulsed country strictly by the opinions and sentiments of a minority." The Union must be restored as it was, and by accompanying force with conciliation. " Let 4 6l] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 26 1 no one think," said Seymour, " that the people who have refused to yield this Union to rebellion at the South will permit its restoration to be prevented by fanaticism at the North." However, the conclusion of the message was more reassuring to those who believed in supporting the national authorities in their tremendous burden. " At this moment," the message read, " the fortunes of our country are influ- enced by the results of battles. Our armies in the field must be supported; all constitutional demands of our Gen- eral Government must be promptly responded to. . . . Under no circumstances can the division of the Union be conceded." 1 The Tribune spoke of the message as exhibiting " the dexterous dishonesty, the impudent though adroit sophistry of the demagogue." 2 But Seymour was neither dishonest nor a demagogue, even though he may have been an adroit and dexterous politician. Though the manifesto seemed to portend a collision with the government at Washington and thus was encouraging to certain disloyal elements of the party, yet the fact that Seymour came out in favor of sus- taining the prosecution of the war, even though he did not do it in a very zealous manner, was creditable to him. His message embodied the views of a man who considered aboli- tionist agitators equally guilty with Southern extremists in bringing on the war, of a man who disliked New England and sympathized with the South up to the point of secession, but who was firm for the Union. Partisanship was too strong in Seymour to enable him to rise wholly above it, but no more could patriotism be entirely subdued in him. Even before the message was sent to the Legislature, in fact as his very first official act after being sworn in, Sey- 1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v. pp. 445-484. 2 Tribune, Jan. 8. 262 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [462 mour had taken a step calculated to show that his oft-re- peated condemnation of arbitrary arrests was not mere idle talk. Since 1857 the metropolitan police had been freed from the baneful political influences which had formerly controlled it. It had rendered to the citizens an efficient pro- tection never attained under the regime of Fernando Wood, and from 1861 had cooperated with the national authorities in suppressing all disloyal attempts of Southern sympa- thizers. It had raised five regiments of infantry and several companies of cavalry, and within little more than a year had arrested nearly four thousand deserters. 1 Now, with unseemly haste, the Commissioners of the metropolitan police were notified on January first to appear for trial on the afternoon of the third. 2 They were charged with per- mitting the police to make arbitrary arrests of citizens in violation of the national and state constitutions, with allow- ing the prisons to be used for illegal incarceration of per- sons against whom no charge had been preferred and who were guiltless of any legal offence, with merely reprimand- ing instead of removing Superintendent Kennedy for the arbitrary detention of a Mrs. Brinsmaid, and with causing or permitting Kennedy to publish, for the purpose of intimi- dating voters, the order threatening the arrest of such aliens as offered to vote at the election of 1862 after claiming ex- emption from the draft. 3 Whether acting from honest indignation, or whether spurred on by pressure from Democratic politicians who 1 Tribune, Jan. 6. Oh the efficiency of the metropolitan police since its establishment by the act of 1857, see Governor Morgan's annual messages of i860 (Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, p. 181) and 1861 (Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, p. 282). 2 Herald, Jan. 2 ; Tribune, Jan. 3. s The charges are printed in full in the Herald, Jan. 3. 463] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 263 wished to secure not only possession of desirable positions x but also control of the machinery which they had long coveted for party purposes, Seymour's action on this occa- sion produced a profound stir in political circles. The Herald declared that the anticipated removals would prob- ably be of high importance to this State and to the whole country. It will be likely to inaugurate a new era, in which the outraged constitution will be vindicated, . . . Henceforth we expect that the rights and liberties of the citizens . . . will be respected, and that the laws of the land will be held paramount to all arbitrary edicts issued from Washington. . . . 2 Horatio Seymour, however, was not a bold enough man. A part that Fernando Wood might well have essayed simply brought out the Governor's weakness. The latter cited the Commissioners to appear for trial in the county of Albany. But when they failed to present themselves and transmitted a protest that, according to the statute, the charges ought to be sent to the District Attorney of New York County, who should examine witnesses before the Court of Common Pleas and certify to the Governor the evidence taken, 3 Sey- mour yielded. 4 And so the matter drifted on for a long time. 1 " Upwards of two dozen applicants for these positions were early on the ground, demanding their [i. e. the Police Commissioners'] immediate removal without a hearing or anything else " (Herald, Jan. 6). "Long before Seymour took the oath of office he was im- portuned for the removal of the Police Commissioners" (Herald, Jan. 7). "It appears that he [Seymour] had yielded to a tremendous pressure brought to bear upon him by the Fernando Wood Demo- cracy" (Tribune, Jan. 6). 2 Herald, Jan. 3. 3 Herald, Jan. 6 ; Tribune, Jan. 6. * Tribune, Jan. 6, including letter of Seymour in answer to the Commissioners' protest. 264 NEW yORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [464 When the Legislature met, it was a question which party- would control the lower house. This was a matter of more than local interest, as a United States senator was to be chosen at this session. The supporters of the na- tional administration were sure of a majority on a joint ballot, provided they were not deserted by the Union Demo- crats. Yet the regular Democrats, if possessed of the or- ganization of the Assembly, might refuse to go into a joint convention and thus prevent the election of a senator dur- ing the session of 1863, in the hope that they might have a majority on joint ballot in the following year. The same result might have been brought about by merely delaying the organization of the Assembly until after the day fixed by law for the election of a senator. 1 The House was com- posed of sixty-three Democrats, eight Union Democrats, forty-six Republicans, twelve Union Republicans, and one member — Cutler of Albany — who had received the support of both parties, but who, as the event turned out, voted with the Democrats. 2 In the Senate, there were twenty-three Unionists and nine Democrats. 3 1 In order to proceed to an election in such a case, the statute relat- ing to the subject would have necessitated the passage of special acts. ". . . . if the assembly is not organized .... upon the 3rd of Feb- ruary, the force of the statute will be expended, and it will cease to be obligatory" — Argus, Jan. 15; confirmed by the Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 2. Such special acts could probably have been blocked by the Democrats, even without possessing the organization of the Assembly. This policy of delaying the organization to avert the send- ing of an "abolitionist" at least to the United States Senate was advocated by the Argus {Argus, Jan. 15). 2 Herald, Dec. 17, 1862. The Tribune claimed that Cutler had pre- viously been known as a Republican, but had had intimate business relations with the New York Central Railroad (the inference, of course, being that because of these connections, Cutler was amenable to Dean Richmond's influence) ; and it was also claimed that Cutler was elected in what had been hitherto a Republican district (Tribune, 465] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 265 When the House assembled, ex-Judge Gilbert Dean, the Democratic caucus nominee and a friend of Fernando Wood, received sixty-three votes for speaker, as did Lorenzo) Sherwood, the Union nominee. 4 Day after day, the re- sult was a tie. This showed that the Union Democrats held fast to the choice of the Union caucus, a fact signifi- cant of the growth of a Union party, and also indicative of the final results in the election of a senator should a joint session be entered into. For seventy-eight ballots, the pro- ceedings were, on the whole, calm and good-tempered, the monotony being relieved by various motions partly humor- ous and partly designed to kill time. 5 But now began one of the most exciting and disgraceful contests in the legislative annals of the State. 6 The Union members dropped Sherwood, and after a vain attempt to get for Mr. Depew the one vote — Mr. Cutler's — necessary to elect, they took as their candidate a Democrat, Theophilus C. Callicot of Kings County. It was agreed that in return for support for the speakership, Callicot would not vote against any measure to sustain the administration in a vigor- ous prosecution of the war, that he would give to each side Jan. 19, 29). The Argus, on the other hand, asserted that Cutler "re- ceived the nomination of the Democrats which was concurred in by a Republican convention; but which did not prevent the regular pre- sentation of a Republican stump candidate . . . who received 448 votes" (Argus, Jan. 12). Yet, Mr. Cutler was absent from the Democratic caucus when a candidate for the speakership was named (Argus, Jan. 7). In neither caucus was there any factional contest. 8 Herald, Jan. 5. 4 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 6. 5 Herald, Jan. 8, 9, io, 11, 14, 15, 16; Argus, Jan. 8, 9, 12, 15, 16. 6 " The dead calm of the Assembly Chamber has this morning been succeeded by a genuine and furious storm" (Tribune, Jan. 17). "The monotony of the contest for speaker has now changed to intense ex- citement " (Herald, Jan. 17). 2 66 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4 66 an equal share in the committees, that the Unionists should have the other elected officials of the House, and the Demo- crats the appointed ones. 1 The anger of the Democrats when Sherwood and Depew at the session of January 16th successively withdrew in favor of Callicot was intense. Led by Mr. Fields, a Tammany orator of large lung capacity, who later at the downfall of Tweed " left his country for his country's good and died in exile," 2 the Democrats resorted to filibustering of every sort to prevent a vote. The worst passions were aroused. Finally, after Fields had spoken for about five hours, the Union members consented to an ad- journment on condition that a ballot without debate should be taken at twelve o'clock on the next day. 3 Nevertheless, at the appointed time, Fields and his fol- lowers, under pretext of correcting the journal, prevented any ballot, 4 and a scandalous scene ensued. The Clerk, having no power to enforce the customary rules, was unable to maintain order. The galleries were filled with a disor- derly crowd, many (it was said) being bullies imported from New York City and Brooklyn. 6 These spectators ap- 1 Herald, Jan. 17; letter of Callicot to Hon. Martin Kalbneisch, dated Jan. 17 (printed in the Herald, Jan. 20) ; Callicot's speech in his own defense (Herald, April 21). Callicot denied making any agreement that he should vote for any particular candidate for senator ; and the majority of the investigating committee reported that there was no evidence to show such a bargain (Callicot's speech, Herald, April 21 ; report of the majority of the investigating committee, Herald, April 17). 2 Autobiography of Andrew D. White, i, p. 104. 3 Herald, Jan. 17; Tribune, Jan. 17; Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 68, 69, 70. 4 Herald, Jan. 18; Argus, Jan. 20; Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 70. 71. 5 Herald, Jan. 18; the correspondent described the spectators as " one of the hardest looking crowds ever gathered together in Albany." The Tribune of January 19th spoke of the crowd as being " of the 467] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 267 plauded in no doubtful manner the Democrats, and hissed and yelled at Unionists. 1 One of the latter, it was reported, was struck by a piece of decayed fruit. 2 Meanwhile, the Democrats denounced Callicot in the most abusive words. 3 One said that if Callicot was elected, he would never be allowed to take the chair; 4 and Fields declared that if Calli- cot was seated as speaker, it would be amid scenes that the members would regret forever 5 — sentiments that delighted the galleries. The effect of such tactics was a determination by the Unionists in caucus to adhere firmly to Callicot. The Democrats in his constituency held a meeting which cen- most brutal aspect . . . this squalid mass of ruffianism; . . . here and there could be seen . . . well known political bullies of New York and Brooklyn, the heroes who had led many a desperate primary meeting struggle, ..." 1 Herald, Jan. 18 ; Tribune, Jan. 19. 2 Tribune, Jan. 19. 3 Herald, Jan. 18; Argus, Jan. 20. As a sample, the following, part of the remarks of Mr. Hughes of Kings, is given as reported in the Argus: "If Mr. Callicot is elected Speaker, it will be the result of a political coalition, the most infernal in its demoralizing elements that ever disgraced a civilized community. Take him — there he stands — polluted with foul dishonor, loathed by honest men, despised by his seducers, left alone to revel in the spoils of his infamy and dishonor. ... I give him notice that it would be better for him that he was not elected Speaker — he might as well sit on the crater of Mt. Vesuvius this winter as in the Speaker's chair. ... I here call on the brave men of Kings County to spit this renegade from their mouths, to drive this reptile from their soil, which he has dishonored by the slime of corruption . . . He has hovered around this house for the last six days like a political prostitute, plying his trade, exposing his person, performing his lascivious gestures, until at length the Republi- can party enter into an illicit connection with him, and his election will be the bastard offspring of their embrace (Cheers in the galleries)" — Argus, Jan. 17. 4 Herald, Jan. 18; the Argus version is, "he might never be inau- gurated" (Argus, Jan. 20). 5 Herald, Jan. 18; Tribune, Jan. 19. 268 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [468 sured him in bitter terms, and sent a committee to bring pressure upon him, but to no purpose. 1 At the session of the 2 1 st, the lobbies, stairways, and passages of the Capitol and even the floor of the Chamber were so jammed, that an ad- journment was soon carried. 2 On the following day, Dean withdrew, and Eliphaz J. Trimmer of Monroe was substi- tuted. 3 On the 23d, a number of ballots were at last per- mitted to be taken; but as a couple of Sherwood's former supporters were as yet unwilling to accept a Democrat and persisted in voting for Depew, no choice was made. 4 <• On the 24th, another exciting session occurred. Fields, seeing that Callicot was about to be elected, began to fili- buster. Points of order being raised, Fields declared that he would not be called to order and defied the other side to enforce any rule, inasmuch as the Clerk presided merely by sufferance. His remarks were received with approval by the galleries. 5 A Democrat, disgusted at such a scene, moved that a committee be appointed to ask protection for the House from the Governor. 6 Amid confusion and uproar, the Clerk put the question and announced that it was carried. The Senate had already made a similar request, 7 but the Governor replied that interference on his part, except upon the initiative of the house requiring protection, would be improper. 8 To the Assembly committee, Seymour now promised that he would see that an adequate force should 1 Herald, Jan. 20, 22 ; Tribune, Jan. 20, 21. 2 Herald, Jan. 22; Tribune, Jan. 23; Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 71. 3 Herald, Jan. 23 ; Tribune, Jan. 23. * Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 72-79. 5 Herald, Jan. 25 ; Tribune, Jan. 26 ; Assembly, Journal, 1863, pp. 79-80. 6 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 81. 7 Senate Journal, 1863, p. 53. 8 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 485-6. 469] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 269 be provided, and the committee so reported. For the time being, however, the disorder continued. The Clerk hav- ing left the chair for a while, some one nominated Murphy of Erie for temporary speaker. Mr. Murphy himself put the question, and although no one could tell whether it was carried or not, he sprang into the speaker's chair. At once members rushed up and surrounded Murphy. It looked as if a fight was imminent ; but the return of the Clerk fortun- ately averted this. " The scene while Mr. Murphy was in the chair," wrote the Herald correspondent, " would have disgraced a barroom caucus." However, by this time, there were many Democrats to whom the tactics of such men as Fields and Murphy were offensive ; and so, a resolution that a ballot for speaker should be taken at the next session, immediately after the roll call and before the reading of the journal, without interruption by debate or explanations upon any point of any kind, was finally adopted. 1 On the appointed day, January 26th, after the obstreperous Fields had made one more effort to prevent a vote, and, having been called to order, had been defeated on appeal by the aid of Democrats, Mr. Callicot was finally on the ninety-second ballot elected speaker by a vote of 61 to 59 for Trimmer. 2 The struggle thus ended brought to mind the contest for the speakership of the Thirty-sixth Congress. Because of the attitude of many of his former party as- sociates, Callicot had a most difficult position to fill. Never- theless, he proved to be an efficient and impartial presiding officer. 3 But the bad feeling and the intense partisan spirit already engendered kept recurring throughout the session. 1 Herald, Jan. 25; Tribune, Jan. 26; Assembly Journal, 1863, P- 82. 2 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 83, 84. 3 Herald, Feb. 5, April 26 ; Tribune, Jan. 29. 270 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [470 While the event was still undecided, the Democrats had re- peatedly raised against Callicot the old cry of having made a corrupt bargain with the Republicans; and immediately after the Assembly was at last organized, Fields offered a resolution for the appointment of a committee to investigate these charges and also the acts of Callicot in the Assembly of i860. 1 This proposal gave rise to warm debates. The Union members succeeded in getting through the House a resolution requiring specific charges in writing before any investigating committee should be named. 2 Such a docu- ment was presented by Fields in March. Callicot was ac- cused of having entered into a corrupt agreement with the Chairman of the Republican-Union State Committee and another member of that body, by which Callicot was to vote with that party in effecting an organization of the House and in the election of a United States senator in return for his own election as speaker and for an amount of money sufficient to enable him to pay certain private debts ; further, he was accused of having solicited while a member of the Assembly of i860 money for his vote on a certain bill. 8 The composition of the committee to investigate these charges occasioned further controversy. Each side claimed that justice required that it should have the majority of the members. 4 By a strict party vote, three Unionists and two Democrats were chosen and the inquiry was limited to 1 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 108. 2 Herald, Feb. 6; Argus, Feb. 7; Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 169-172. 3 There was also other charges. Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. Z7°~2>77- 4 Herald, Mar. 5, 6, 12; Argus, Mar. 5, 13, 14. The refusal of the majority of the committee to receive certain testimony led to further spirited and embittered party debates {Argus, April 7, 9, 10), as did a bill to give to the clerk during the organization of the house the powers and duties of the speaker in keeping order and enforcing the rules {Argus, April 3; Tribune, April 3). 471 ] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 2 yi charges relating to the official conduct of Callicot as a mem- ber of the Assembly of 1863 only. 1 After a number of meetings, two reports were presented in April, the Union majority exonerating Callicot, and the Democratic minority finding true the accusation that he had received money which had controlled his official action and offering a resolution for his expulsion. 2 The final consideration of the subject on the evening of April 20th gave rise to a dis- orderly debate like those of the beginning of the session. Mr. Callicot made a long speech in his own defense. Fields and Murphy led in the attack. The former became involved in a warm controversy, and accusations of lying were bandied from one side to the other. The confusion and noise increased as the session wore on into the early morn- ing hours. Finally, the Union members succeeded in carry- ing the previous question, whereupon the Democrats in a body started for the doors. The majority report was then adopted, and the House immediately adjourned at half past two in the morning. 3 While the Assembly was still unorganized, four weeks had elapsed and no legislation had been even considered. 4 The Senate had meanwhile met and adjourned from time to time, having acted merely upon a few unimportant bills. Now, at the end of January, both houses were able to begin their proper work. On the 28th, despite attempts of the Democrats to filibuster, a resolution to go into joint con- 1 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 449. 1 Herald, April 17, 18; Argus, April 17, 20. 3 Herald, April 21; Tribune, April 22; Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 1 136- 1 140. 4 Except that, at the session of Jan. 15th, the House adopted a resolution for the appointment of a joint committee to draft a bill for the erection of a hospital for disabled soldiers (Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 66). 272 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [472 vention was passed in the Assembly by a party vote, Callicot voting with the Unionists. 1 While the speakership was yet at stake, the necessity on both sides of avoiding the introduction of dissensions had prevented discussion of candidates for the senatorship. Now interest was focused on the Union caucus. Greeley, Opdyke, Raymond, and David Dudley Field went up to Albany, the latter two being themselves candidates. From the very first, however, ex-Governor Morgan was in the lead. 2 He was not a radical ; but he was not obnoxious to that wing of the party though backed by Weed. In the ex- ecutive chair he had earned praise by vetoing lobby projects, by his services at the outbreak of the war, and by his labors and care during his administration in raising soldiers for the defense of the Union. 3 The radicals now charged Morgan with being untrue to the principles of the party, and with having aided in defeating the Union ticket in 1862. How- ever, these accusations were met by a letter from Morgan, handed around in the caucus, in which he declared himself strongly in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation and denied any failure cordially to support Wads worth. 4 The radicals were unable to concentrate their strength. When the caucus met on the 2nd of February, an informal ballot resulted in Morgan receiving 25 votes to 15 for Daniel S. Dickinson, 11 for C. B. Sedgwick, 16 for Preston King, 7 for D. D. Field, 6 for Henry J. Raymond, and 6 scattering. 1 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 129-131. 2 Herald, Jan. 10, 29; Tribune, Jan. 30. s See tribute of the Albany Argus (the organ of the Democrats) in the issue of Jan. 1, 1863 ; also the letter inviting Morgan to a public dinner in recognition of his services, signed by the most prominent citizens of Albany, including among Democrats Erastus Corning, Calvert Comstock, William Cassidy, Peter Cagger, and Amasa J. Parker {Tribune, Jan. 17). 4 Herald, Feb. 1 ; Tribune, Feb. 4 ; also Herald, Feb. 3 and Argus, Feb. 4 for Senator Truman's repetition of these charges. 473] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 273 On the first formal ballot, Morgan had 39 votes, only five short of the number necessary to nominate. The second formal ballot gave him more than enough, resulting as fol- lows: Morgan 50, Dickinson 13, King 11, Raymond 9, Field 2, and Sedgwick I. 1 Meanwhile, in the Democratic caucus, the empty honor of a nomination had been the cause of contention. The am- bitious chieftain of Mozart Hall desired to be named, and he himself together with several lieutenants came up to Albany to manage his campaign. 2 Very many of the up-State legislators, however, distrusted Wood; and of course, the Regency leaders were against him. His sup- porters were unable to prevent the adoption of a resolution declaring it inexpedient for the caucus to nominate any one and leaving each member to vote for such person as he thought proper. 8 At a meeting on the following morning, however, this resolution was reconsidered, and an informal ballot taken. This resulted in Erastus Corning receiving 28 votes, Fernando Wood 20, scattering 16. Coming's nomin- ation was then made unanimous. 4 Wood, through the alli- ance with Tammany in the preceding election, had gotten a sort of hold on that organization; but the Regency stood as a bar to his further advance toward the control of the forces of the state Democracy. Back of this oppo- sition was not only rivalry between New York City and the rest of the State, but a dislike for Wood and his methods. On the 3rd of February, each house of the Legislature 1 Herald, Feb. 3 ; Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 3. 2 Herald, Feb. 4 ; Tribune, Feb. 4. 3 Herald, Feb. 3; Tribune, Feb. 3. 4 Argus, Feb. 5; Herald, Feb. 4. The latter gives the vote slightly different. 274 NEW Y ORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [474 proceeded to ballot for United States senator. In the Senate, 23 votes were cast for Morgan and 7 for Corning. 1 In the Assembly the result was: Morgan 64, Corning 62, Wood 1, and John A. Dix 1, the last being Speaker Cal- licot's vote. There was thus no choice. A second ballot being taken, all the Union members and Callicot voted for Dix, who received 65 votes to 63 for Corning. Dix was accordingly the Assembly's nominee. 2 The two houses having disagreed, they entered into joint session, and Mor- gan was elected on the first ballot by a vote of 86 to 70 for Corning, 1 for Dix, and 1 for Dickinson. 3 The significance of the contest lay in the victory of the conservative wing of the Union party. Just before the nomination of Morgan by the caucus, Weed announced his retirement from the editorship of the Albany Evening Journal — to the intense satisfaction of the radicals; but this battle showed that he was still a power in the politics of the State. The high water mark of the anti-Weed wing during the war was probably attained at the state convention which nominated Wadsworth. By the following spring, the adherents of Weed seem to have been again on top, though not because of any growth of liking for his conservative views. In the number and intensity of partisan discussions, the legislative session of 1863 contrasted greatly with that of the preceding year. That part of Governor Seymour's annual message which expressed his ideas on the war and on the questions arising out of it, occasioned in both houses resolu- tions, debates, and many set speeches on those subjects. Night after night the Senate and the Assembly sat in com- 1 Senate Journal, 1863, pp. 95, 96. 2 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 151, 152. 3 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 154. 475] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 275 mittee of the whole on the Governor's message. 1 In the matter of arbitrary arrests, the Democrats had an issue where they could safely venture from mere talk to action. Accordingly, as soon as the Assembly was organized, Mr. Dean, the Democratic leader in the House, introduced a re- solution reciting that since July, 1861, several citizens of the State of New York had been arrested without process of law and imprisoned without warrant within the State; that oth- ers had been so apprehended and taken, in violation of the statutes, beyond the limits of the State; that it was alleged that state officials had aided in such actions; that the public prisons of the State had been used for the confinement of prisoners thus illegally held; and that state judges were ac- cused of having refused writs of habeas corpus in such cases. The resolution further provided for the appointment of a select committee of investigation. 2 This proposal was, of course, opposed by the Union members, who openly de- fended the arbitrary arrests. After being debated at length, 3 the resolution was finally defeated by a majority of one vote — that of the Speaker — the division being other- wise a strictly party one. 4 Resolutions extravagantly praising General McClellan and requesting him to visit the capital as the guest of the State 5 were introduced and strenuously pressed by the Democrats, arousing thereby much partisan feeling. The Unionists op- 1 Argus, Jan. 30, 31, Feb. 14, 20, 27, Mar. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12; Herald, Jan. 29, 30, Feb. 13, 19, 27, 28, Mar. 6, 11. 2 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 115, 116. 3 Herald, Jan. 30, 31, Feb. II, 18, Mar. 6, 21; Argus, Jan. 31, Feb. 12, 18, Mar. 7, 21. 4 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 546. 5 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 188. 276 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [476 posed such an invitation as a political move. 1 Certainly the resolutions, if adopted, would have been generally con- strued as not merely an honor to McClellan but also a re- buke to the administration at Washington. Yet because of the widespread popularity of McClellan, it was a delicate subject for the Union legislators. One member of the Assembly wished to amend by striking out the eulogy of McClellan's services, extending the courtesy to him merely as an officer of high rank; another by inserting the names of Burnside, Hooker, and other generals. 2 The next day, after the recital that McClellan had " three times secured the national capital from the hands of the rebels " had been stricken out, the resolutions passed by an almost unanimous vote, all but a few of the Union members probably deeming it indiscreet wholly to oppose the proceeding. 3 But in the Senate, on the motion of a Unionist, the resolutions were tabled by a party vote, and that too, directly after honoring General Corcoran by extending to him during his stay in Albany the privileges of the floor. 4 The emancipation policy of the administration was an- other subject of partisan discussion in both houses. 5 In the Senate, the Union members were able to pass resolutions approving the President's proclamation. 6 But although a similar resolution was introduced in the Assembly, 7 the Democrats were too numerous there to allow of its adoption. Three matters concerned more directly with New York 1 Herald, Feb. 12; Tribune, Feb. 12. * Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 210. s Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 220. * Senate Journal, 1863, p. 152. Five Unionists voted with the Democrats. 5 Herald, Feb. 14; Argus, Feb. 14. * Senate Journal, 1863, p. 136. T Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 232. 477] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 277 and yet growing out of the war occasioned warm partisan debates. One of these subjects was whether the State should pay the interest on its debt in specie or in greenbacks. Most of the Union members opposed the former as a blow at the greenback and at the financial policy of the national admin- istration. The greater number of the Democrats and a few Unionists maintained that the credit of the State should be upheld, and that therefore payment should be made in coin. The banks of New York City made urgent representations in favor of such a course ; x and Seymour sent a message to both houses, recommending the same. 2 A resolution to pay interest in coin to foreign creditors only was adopted in the Senate, the debate and division being on party lines.* In the Assembly, a resolution providing for payment in coin to all creditors except incorporated banks, banking associations, and other corporations existing by virtue of the statutes of this State, passed unanimously ; 4 for there was a feeling that the banks had wronged the public by violating the pledge printed on their bills, to exchange the latter for specie. 5 But the Senate refused to recede from its position, and the Assembly yielded. 6 Another party measure of this session was a bill author- Herald, April 1 ; Argus, April 1. 2 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 490-493. 3 Senate Journal, 1863, pp. 384, 388; Herald, April 1. The vote was not a strictly party one, inasmuch as in the Senate four Unionists voted with the Democrats to pay the entire interest in specie; on the other hand, seventeen Democrats in the Assembly voted against an amendment to pay all creditors their interest in gold (Argus, April 3). 4 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 708. 5 Referring to the Assembly debate of April 1st, the Herald (April 2) said : " Nearly every one who spoke . . . was strongly opposed to paying any of the banks, which have suspended specie payment, in specie . . . [There was] a bitter feeling against the banks." 6 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 718. 278 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [478 izing the formation of national banks and allowing state banks to become national banks. 1 This proposed legislation was strongly opposed by the Democrats who claimed that it was a surrender of the rights of the State and a scheme of consolidation. 2 Nor were all the Unionists in favor of the bill. Though it was passed in the Senate, 3 the Assembly struck out all but two sections providing that two-thirds of the required deposit with the banking department might be United States securities instead of those of New York; and the upper house concurred in the amendment. 4 Thus, for the time being, the state institutions were denied permission to organize under the national banking law. The belief that Wadsworth had lost the election of 1862 because of the absence of so many administration support- ers in the army stimulated an effort b)^ the Unionists to give the ballot to those in the federal military service. Penn- sylvania, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Connecticut had already passed such laws. 5 From the beginning of the year the Tribune kept up an incessant campaign in favor of a similar measure for New York. The state constitution provided that a properly qualified citizen who had been an inhabitant of the State one year and a resi- dent of the county where he might offer his vote for four 1 Senate Journal, 1863, p. 516. ' Argus, April 10, 21 : Democratic legislative address, printed in the Herald, April 29. s Senate Journal, 1863, pp. 516, 517. Two Unionists voted with the Democrats against the bill. 4 Argus, April 27. From the entry in the Assembly Journal (p. 1269) the contents of the sections retained cannot be told. Even against the amended measure, twenty-six Democrats voted nay. For the con- currence of the Senate, see Senate Journal, 1863, p. 791. 5 Tribune editorial, Jan. 13. The Connecticut law had been declared unconstitutional by the highest court of that State. 479 ] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 279 months next preceding an election, should be entitled to vote in the election district of which he was at the time a resident, and not elsewhere. But another section provided that no person should be deemed to have lost a residence by reason of his absence in the service of the United States. The latter clause fitted the needs of the Unionists, but the former was an obstacle around which a way must be found. In the end, the Union members sought to avoid the constitutional objections to a soldiers' voting bill by a measure authoriz- ing volunteers in the army and navy to vote by proxy. In brief, the bill provided that a legal voter in the service might empower any voter and freeholder of his election district to cast a ballot for him by transmitting to such citizen a written certificate, duly attested by a witness and acknowledged before a commanding officer; suitable pro- visions to guard against dishonesty were included. 1 The Democrats steadily opposed such a measure as unconstitu- tional and as liable to fraudulent abuses. 2 The bill, how- ever, was passed in the Senate by a party vote. 3 The Democrats perceived that while they might safely fight this bill, it would be politically unwise to resist ab- solutely the giving of the ballot to the soldiers. Accord- ingly, when the Senate bill came up in the Assembly, Mr. Dean offered concurrent resolutions to amend the constitu- tion so as to allow those in the federal military service to vote. 4 Of course, such an amendment, requiring favorable action by two successive legislatures and ratification by the 1 Tribune, May 6. 2 Herald, Mar. 29, April 18; Tribune, Mar. 23, April 2; Argus, Mar. 21, 29, April 20. 3 All voting aye were Unionists ; all except one nay, Democrats. Senate Journal, 1863, p. 395. * Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 871. 280 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [480 people, would not permit the soldiers to vote until 1864, and then only if a special election should be held to ascertain the will of the people on the proposition. If no submission was made until the regular election day, the soldiers could not vote until 1865, and thus they would have no voice in choos- ing the next president. It was argued with plausibility that in two years there would be either no Union or no war, and that to postpone the matter for so long a time would practically amount to a denial of the franchise to those in the field. 1 Moreover, as the Tribune truly urged, such a special election would itself be contrary to the spirit of the con- stitution, which intended " that two General Elections should intervene between the inception and the perfection " of an amendment. Then too, a special election would entail heavy expense. 2 The Unionists, of course, wanted the sol- diers to vote in 1863, and so they declared the constitutional scruples of the Democrats to be a politic cloak to hide op- position to granting the privilege to soldiers at all and a sign of anxiety lest the great majority of them should support the Union ticket. While the bill was pending in the Assembly, Seymour sent a message to both houses protesting against it. 3 This was a rather extraordinary step, 4 in view of the fact that the measure was then in course of consideration by the Legis- lature. In his communication, the Governor fittingly repre- sented the consequences of giving the soldier the franchise by a law of doubtful constitutionality. He said : 1 Albany Evening Journal, April 14. 2 Tribune, April 16. 3 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 508-512. * The Governor was assailed on this account by the Union members of the Senate, and defended by the Democrats (Argus, April 14; Tribune, April 15). 4 8i] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 2 8l It is possible that the next Presidential election may be de- cided by the vote of a single State, and if votes by proxy are authorized, it is not impossible that such votes would, in such State, decide the election. ... It surely cannot be necessary to impress . . . the fearful danger which would attend the com- plication of the disastrous civil war . , . by the interposition of a well founded doubt as to the person rightfully entitled to the Presidential office. He then recommended the adoption of a constitutional amendment, and after that, the passage of suitable legisla- tion to obtain for those absent in the service perfect inde- pendence in exercising the franchise. Here the Governor launched into a rather uncalled-for assault on the national administration. " The conduct and policy of high officials," the message read, have caused great distrust in relation to the freedom from re- straint and coercion which should be accorded to the absentees in the exercise of this right [i. e. of voting]. ... It would be worse than a mockery to allow those secluded in camps or upon ships to vote, if they are not permitted to receive letters and papers from their friends, or if they have not the same free- dom in reading public journals, accorded to their brethren at home, to aid them in the formation of their opinions in respect to the conduct of those in power, the issues to be decided at the election, and the character of the opposing candidates. If the expression of their opinions by the votes they give, or by customary political action, is to subject officers to dismissal from service, and soldiers to increased privation, hardship and exposure, the flames of civil war will be kindled at the North. I have noticed, with deep regret, attempts on the part of some of the officers of the National Government, to interfere with the free enjoyment of their political opinions by persons in the army. . . . These inexcusable acts of official tyranny are ren- dered more objectionable by the language used in their execu- 282 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [482 tion, which is at once opprobrious in terms and a wanton and unjust attack upon one-half of the people of sovereign and loyal States. While subordinate officers are thus punished for doing their duty as citizens at their homes, those of high rank have been employed to interfere in the election of States in which they are not residents. No reasonable man can suppose that the people of this country will permit the noble army . . . to be used for electioneering purposes by those who are charged with the temporary administration of that government, or who are seeking an additional term of power. The Attorney-General, Daniel S. Dickinson, now gave an opinion that the bill was constitutional. 1 Despite strenu- ous Democratic opposition, 2 the measure passed in the As- sembly, by a vote of 65 to 59, every Union member and the Speaker voting aye, and every other Democrat who voted, nay. 3 The Governor promptly sent in a veto message, de- claring the bill not only unconstitutional but also defective in that it afforded opportunities for wholesale frauds. 4 Again he devoted a large part of the message to an attack on the administration at Washington. Then he quoted in full the order of Adjutant General Thomas, dismissing from the service Lieutenant Edgerly of the Fourth New Hampshire Volunteers for " circulating Copperhead tickets — doing all in his power to promote the success of the rebel cause in 1 Printed in the Tribune, April 17. 2 Herald, April 23 ; Tribune, April 23. 3 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 1185-1187. 4 Some of the objections of Seymour seem frivolous or dictated by partisan spirit, e. g. : " It [the bill] does not require the proxy of the soldier to be proven before the representative of the State, but gives the power only to field officers of regiments, ... ; it does not permit the soldier to choose the friend in whom he would most confide as his proxy, but requires him to select one from the class of free- holders ..." etc. 483] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 283 his state; " and Seymour waxed indignant as he concluded with a protest in the name of the people of New York against such wrongs. 1 The Senate passed the bill over the veto ; 2 but of course the Governor could not be overridden in the Assembly, as that house was too evenly divided. 3 On the principle of taking half a loaf rather than none, the Unionists now accepted the proposal of the Democrats for the passage of concurrent resolutions to amend the constitu- tion; and later Seymour gave his approval. 4 The Senate likewise adopted by a vote of 16 to 10 resolutions declaring the Governor's first message on the soldiers' voting bill extra-official as well as a breach of the privileges of the Senate and laying the communication on the table without action thereon. 5 It was at this time that the Legislatures of Illinois and Indiana were showing such strong Copperhead sympathies. Of course the New York Democrats could not have gotten peace resolutions through either house. A resolution in- structing New York's senators and representatives in Con- gress, in cooperation with those of other states, to use all 1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 513-516. 2 Senate Journal, 1863, p. 794. 3 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 1278. * The concurrent resolutions were passed in the Assembly imme- diately after the passage of the soldiers' proxy bill and before the veto of the latter — probably in anticipation of such a veto (Assembly Journal, 1863, P- 1278). The Senate had previously tabled such con- current resolutions by a vote of 16 to 8 (Senate Journal, 1863, p. 740) . They were now passed 19 to 10 (Senate Journal, 1863, p. 797)- All the nays were Unionists. Their ground for this attitude, as stated by one of them, was that by voting for the resolution they would practically admit the unconstitutionality of the bill previously passed. 5 Senate Journal, 1863, p. 799. While the measure was familiarly spoken of as the soldiers' proxy bill, its title was, "An act to secure the elective franchise to the qualified voters of the army and navy," etc 284 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [484 proper means to facilitate the return of the seceded states to the Union or, if that could not be successfully consum- mated, to adopt such measures as would secure an early, honorable, and permanent peace, was introduced by one Democrat, 1 and a petition praying for such action by the Legislature as would induce the national government to end the war, was presented by another. 2 It is rather noteworthy that beyond this no demonstration in favor of peace was made by the Democrats of either house during the session. This fact was significant of the comparative weakness of the peace element in the ranks of the New York Democracy at that time, and also of the dislike and jealousy on the part of the Regency and its up-State followers toward the prin- cipal peace advocate in New York, Fernando Wood. On the other hand, a bill to confirm the acts of Governor Morgan in borrowing money to pay state bounties, and to make an appropriation therefor, was passed in the Assembly on motion of the Democratic leader on the floor, and gave rise to no party opposition. 3 So, too, a general bounty bill, legalizing taxation of towns to defray such expenses, was passed almost unanimously. 4 This Legislature, perhaps the most disorderly in the his- tory of the State, 5 ended with the arrest of one member for Assembly lournal, 1863, p. 116. 1 Herald, Jan. 31; Assembly lournal, 1863, p. 141 (which does not fully describe the nature of the petition). 3 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 272 ; Senate Journal, 1863, p. 131. 4 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 272 ; Senate Journal, 1863, p. 144. Four Democrats in the Assembly voted nay. 5 " The most scandalous legislative session in the annals of the State of New York" — Herald, April 26. "It is in vain to deny that no Legislature, except possibly that of i860, has won for itself so evil a reputation as that of '6$ and the curtain falls with criminal proceedings actually pending against one Assemblyman and threatened against others" — Tribune, April 27. 485] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 285 corruption l and with great excitement among the rest over the passage of a Broadway and other New York City rail- road bills. These enactments, which as the divisions show were the work of no particular party, brought to mind the scandalous " gridiron " Legislature of i860. An address 2 of the Democratic members of the Legisla- ture, issued at the close of the session, assailed their oppo- nents on many of the subjects mentioned above and dwelt upon the nefarious schemes of consolidation which it was alleged were being executed at Washington and assisted by the Republicans 3 in the New York Legislature — schemes denounced as usurpations detrimental to the rights and interests of the State of New York.* Taking their cue from Seymour's annual message, the legislators openly condemned the federal government for resorting to a draft. The party in the majority, the address read, had been reluctant to take measures for the defense of the State, and had refused to perfect the organization of the militia, while the administration at Washington at the same time proposed " to substitute a forced conscription for the old reliance of the republic, a citizen militia and a volunteer army." Despite the patriotism of New York, the address continued, the administration refused any longer to rely upon the militia and the volunteers of the states and, 1 Herald, April 25; Argus, April 25. 2 Printed in the Herald, April 29. The New York World, April 28, spoke of the address as a revival of " a former time-honored practice." 3 The Democrats almost always persisted in calling their opponents Republicans. 4 " But that the Senate and Assembly of the State should volunteer to become accomplices in this usurpation and outrage would be alto- gether incredible if it were not found recorded in the journals . . . by the votes of the republican majority" — Democratic legislative address. 286 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [486 setting aside the executive and legislative authorities there- of, proposed " to absorb their functions and to organize an army by forced conscription, placing money above life, and allowing those owing allegiance to the government to es- cape service upon the payment of a pecuniary consideration." The strangest part of this document was the corollary drawn from the alleged incapacity of the administration, — that the Republicans would make peace upon the basis of a permanent separation of the North and the South. " It is notorious," declared the address, that the abolition leaders boldly hold out this as the probable alternative of war. The men who have dictated with most authority and influence the policy of the administration, hardly affect to conceal that they will be content with this consumma- tion. The conduct of the war leads directly to such an end. In the name of the Democracy, they protested against such a termination to the contest, and asserted that the only ac- ceptable peace would be one made through restoring the Union upon the basis of the constitution, with the rights of every state strengthened and guaranteed; and that the con- stitution provided the means for effecting this end in the shape of a convention to amend and reaffirm the federal compact. They further declared that every Democratic victory in the North was a step toward such a goal. In conclusion, the address pronounced it the duty of the Demo- cracy of New York to furnish to the national administra- tion all constitutional means for the prosecution of the war until the armed force of the South should be broken, and to struggle persistently against disunion ; and it stated inciden- tally that the New York Democracy condemned heartily the objects and aims of the rebellion. Greeley, perhaps, was to some extent responsible for giv- 487] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 287 ing a little plausibility to the claims of the address that the administration was about to negotiate with the South upon the basis of separation. He had spread in his powerful jour- nal a most foolish idea. " If three months more of earnest fighting," he wrote, " shall not serve to make a serious impression on the Rebels — if the end of that term shall find us no further advanced than its beginning — . . . let us bow to our destiny, and make the best attainable peace." x A little later he had, in the editorials of the Tribune, pre- dicted foreign mediation, and had contemplated it with equanimity as an alternative to successful war. 2 He avowed that Switzerland would be acceptable as a mediator, and that he would be " willing to submit every point in dispute between the Unionists and the Confederates unqualifiedly to her arbitration, and abide without flinching the result." 3 Greeley, however, was not the whole Union party, not even in New York State. The Albany Evening Journal attacked the first editorial quoted above, calling it treason. 4 The Times at once challenged the Tribune editor's ideas on the subject of mediation. 5 Plainly, Greeley's proposals on this occasion formed another instance of his embarrassing aber- rations. The sweeping condemnation of the draft and the de- scription of the three-hundred-dollar exemption clause as an invidious discrimination against the poor, which have been noticed as prominent features of the Democratic legis- lative address, together with similar utterances of a later date, were to bear fruit in New York before many months 1 Tribune, Jan. 22. 2 E. g., Jan. 14, 30. 3 Tribune, Feb. 13. Of course, the opposition at once took advan- tage of Greeley's blunder, e. g., Argus, Feb. 16, and succeeding days. 4 Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 2. 5 New York Times, Jan. 29, Feb. 5, 7. / 288 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [488 had elapsed. The New York Democrats, in their blindly partisan feeling against the national administration, over- looked the fact that their own State had come very near re- sorting to a draft in the previous year, that volunteering had almost ceased, and that the Confederacy was filling its armies by a most tyrannical conscription. Even the con- clusion of the address, obviously carefully worded so as to enable the party to claim that it was thoroughly loyal and in favor of the war, was vitiated by the qualifying word " constitutional " in the promise of means to prosecute the war. At a time when in Indiana and Illinois, the Copper- heads were waxing, the New York Democrats — until then for the most part earnestly striving to be loyal while at the same time in opposition, — came out with an address " cal- culated to stir up dissensions and divisions among the peo- ple of the loyal States, [and] acts of resistance to the con- scription and other measures intended to strengthen our army and navy and to bring the war to a successful issue." * The address of the Union members of the legislature 2 defended, of course, the administration at Washington and its measures, and claimed that depreciation of the govern- ment and carping at it were equivalent to aiding the re- bellion. This was but another, if milder, version of the old charge of disloyalty made against the Democrats in 1861 and 1862. Yet, in this form, the accusation was not wholly without some basis of truth; and that fact constituted the justification of a Union party. The address replied to the preposterous assertion of the Democrats that there was cause for apprehension lest the administration conclude a dis- honorable peace. The document read: Dark shall be the day and bitter the wail that shall herald the 1 Herald, April 29. 'Printed in the Tribune, April 29. 489] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 289 triumph of this Rebellion, which shall roll back the civilization of the age and shroud in gloom the fairest and freest portion of the earth, which shall blast the hopes of the down-trodden millions in every land, and leave us to drain to the dregs the bitter cup of national humiliation and disgrace — to hang our heads in shame at the mention of our birthplace and our name, and earn for us the melancholy reflection that we have lost by our cowardice and faithlessness what our heroic fathers gained through suffering and blood. . . . No, fellow-citizens, there can be no termination to this conflict which shall not concede the triumph of the Republic. However fondly we may wish for the better day, ... we should still remember that the price of this return must never be the loss of liberty or the sacrifice of honor. With regard to the draft, the Union legislators earnestly seconded the demand for the faithful enforcement of the law. The address concluded with a calm condemnation of Seymour for vetoing the soldiers' proxy bill. CHAPTER X Movements Within the Unionist Ranks Outside of the Legislature, politics in New York were very active during the spring of 1863. At the beginning of the year, parties there were somewhat unsettled. Once more there was talk of a new conservative alliance between the adherents of Weed and the Democrats. 1 The gentle- ness with which the Albany Evening Journal handled Seymour at the beginning of his administration was appar- ent. Weed's paper actually commended the Governor's an- nual message of 1863, including the passages relating to the draft, and expressed dissent only with that part of the document entitled " Limitations of Power, State Right and Martial Law." 2 The Wadsworth campaign with its mu- tual recrimination as to who was to blame for the defeat, 8 besides current newspaper rumors, e. g. Tribune, Feb. 7, Argus, Feb. 16, the following occurs in the "Diary of Gideon Welles" under date of January, 1863 : " He [Weed] has professedly left his old friends, but he is to carry as many as possible with him into a new combination where he and Seward will have Dix, whom they have captured and whom they are using ..." {Atlantic Monthly, April, 1009, p. 483)- 2 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 7. 3 Frequent repetitions of the charge of treachery on Weed's part are found in the Tribune about the time referred to above. On the other hand, Weed assailed the Tribune, Sumner, Phillips, Gerrit Smith, and Greeley (Albany Evening Journal, Dec. 15, Jan. 15) ; he also charged Greeley with squandering the huge majority for the Union ticket of 1861 by pressing the abolition issue for selfish reasons (Albany Evening Journal, Dec. 9, 1862). 290 [490 49 1 ] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 29 1 had left no good feeling in the Republican-Union ranks. In January, A. Oakey Hall, then a prominent follower of Weed and the district attorney of New York County, went over to the Democrats. He was a witty lawyer and a popu- lar speaker, but he had earned a reputation as a lobbyist and was afterwards a principal figure in the infamous Tweed ring. Hall signalized his conversion by an address before a Democratic association on " The Political Crimes Against the National Crisis, Committed by Horace Greeley and his Abolition Associates." x A large audience greeted with laughter every coarse allusion to the Tribune's editor. This villification of Greeley was so characteristic a feature of New York politics at that time that it must be noted. 3 On the other hand, the Democrats took hardly less satisfac- tion in the election of Morgan to the Senate than did Weed and his adherents. About the same time, when the Canal Board met to make the annual appointments, the State Treasurer and the Secretary of State — both elected on the Republican and People's tickets of 1861 — voted with the three Democrats on the Board, and this coalition selected none but Weed men or Democrats. 3 In the State the conservative wing of the Republican- Union party was getting the upper hand; but the policies advocated by the radical faction were gradually being adopted by the administration at Washington. In an edi- torial of January 23rd, Weed, after assailing " Phillips, Greeley, Sumner & Co." asked: "Where are we? and whence are we drifting?" Finally, he became so disgusted that, after thirty-three years' service, he resigned the editor- 1 Herald, Jan. 21. 2 A striking example of such abuse of Greeley is contained in a Herald editorial of Jan. 23; see also on this subject, Ogden's Life of Godkin, i, p. 257. 3 Tribune, Feb. 6; Herald, Feb. 5; Argus, Feb. 5, 9. 292 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [492 ship of the Albany Evening Journal and disposed of his interest in that paper, giving as reasons for his retire- ment the radical and irreconcilable differences between him and his party as to the best means of crushing the re- bellion. 1 This step, however, did not mean that Weed aban- doned his activity in politics. Moreover, the columns of the Albany Evening Journal were still open to him, and in long letters he fired hot shot at Greeley and the radicals. Indeed, scarcely had Weed announced his withdrawal when he renewed the. war with a frank declaration that the cause of his retirement was his dislike of " the incendiary prin- ciples of the New York Tribune, the Independent, the extreme views of Messrs. Sumner, Phillips, Gerrit Smith and their followers." Then came an attack on Greeley and his paper because of his " Let the Cotton States Go in Peace " and " On to Richmond " editorials, and because of his dabbling with foreign mediation. 2 Of course, Greeley replied. Weed had drawn upon himself another adversary also by writing to the Journal that the government, instead of being satisfied with suppressing a disloyal newspaper at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, " should have suppressed the vastly more dangerous and incendiary Independent of New York." 3 This, indeed, was exactly the talk of the Demo- crats during the campaign of 1862, and they constantly harped on this theme in their press. In reply the Inde- pendent told at great length what the radicals thought of Weed and his methods. It said, in part : 1 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 27. In a later letter to the editors of the Evening Journal (Mar. 27), Weed speaks of himself as having been " read out of the Republican Party, and driven out of the Evening Journal ..." 2 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 31. 3 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 7. 493] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 293 Mr. Weed belongs to a school of politicians . . . who erect politics into a department outside of Christian ethics or relig- ious principles . . . the school to which he belongs is a school of politicians and not of statesmen. ... A statesman must be a man of comprehensive principles. A politician has unlimited faith in mere management. . . . There can be neither moral principle nor even patriotism in men who have learned to put party above country, ... So long as his [i. e. Weed's] sphere was New York, ... he has been reasonably successful. But the moment he attempted, in these great days of revolution, to transfer to national affairs the petite arts and snug shrewd- ness of a lower sphere, he found himself impotent. 1 It was rather unfair to Weed to accuse him of being without patriotism and of putting party above country. One can scarcely doubt that Weed was a genuine lover of his country and on various occasions labored sincerely for it. No wonder that Weed replied in the Albany Jour- nal by declaring that " No man's zeal, in favor of a vig- orous prosecution of the war, exceeds my own; nor has solicitude for the welfare of my country occasioned in others more anxious days or more sleepless nights; . . . " 2 To which the Tribune rejoined : Mr. Weed's troubles " are understood to have been not without their compensations. While most of us have grown poor during its [the war's] progress, he is understood to have become rich . . . " 3 Greeley also spoke of " Certain active, unprincipled specu- lators in politics, who choose to be regarded as ' Seward men,' but whose card and rule is to take care of No. 1, and who, to that end, act under the personal guidance of Mr. Thurlow Weed." 4 Under such castigation, Weed grew 1 Extract from the Independent, quoted in the Tribune, Feb. 13. 2 Albany Evening lournal, Feb. 14. 8 Tribune, Feb. 16. 4 Tribune, Mar. 7. 294 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [494 more bitter. In another letter to the Albany Evening Journal, he said : The day is coming when an insolent journal will not indulge its licentious tongue or apply its indiscriminate lash with impun- ity; when an editor who intrigues secretly with a foreign min- ister and a disloyal member of Congress for " peace upon the best attainable terms," may not shower his foul accusations upon better and truer men; when those who do not wear the Tribune stripe and support Mr. Greeley for Governor, Sen- ator and President, will not submit to be anathematized in its columns; and above all, when a fanatic, dazed, muddle-headed aspirant for office may not arrogantly lecture the President, defame his Cabinet, instruct Congress, depose generals and assume to command the army, . . . Half a million of men will not again " go to their graves like beds " under the threats of political hyenas who remain at home howling. This, by the way, is a peculiarity of abolition fanaticism. . . . a Such were the amenities of politics in those days. To an able and impartial observer at the time, it seemed that hatred of Greeley had " become almost a monomania " in Weed and colored his views of the situation. 2 That 1 Letter of Thurlow Weed to the editors of the Albany Evening lournal, Mar. 9. Weed again broke out at the beginning of the cam- paign. He accused Theodore Tilton, editor of the Independent, of shirking his duty when drafted and exclaimed : " Shame on such a sneak !" Weed also assailed Opdyke, alleging that the latter's son when drafted had sent a substitute. " The Mayor is filled with pa- triotism at conventions and in proclamations; he is gorged with gov- ernment contracts ; he leans heavily upon the government to make good his lost profits; but his son when drafted is not strong enough to be a soldier ! . . . Out upon such false pretences — such cheap loyalty — such bogus patriotism" (Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 17). In a subsequent letter, Weed reiterated these charges against Opdyke's son (Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 19). 2 Life of Godkin, i, p. 257. 495 ] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 295 the ranks of the Union party in New York State, thus torn, were not hopelessly disrupted, was remarkable. Scarcely less troubled was the Democracy of New York. By this time it was apparent to many, and should have been to all, that in the face of the repeated expression by the Southern leaders of their determination to accept nothing short of independence, the remedy so often urged by the Northern Democrats, a restoration of the Union by means of a convention of all the states, was impracticable. Two lead- ing New York Democrats, John Van Buren and James T. Brady, had the courage to acknowledge this, and, in the early part of 1863, to go over avowedly to the support of the administration. Van Buren, both during and after the campaign of 1862, had repeatedly advocated a convention as the proper means of saving the Union. But now, in a speech at the Washington's birthday banquet of the City of New York, he declared that it was useless to talk of negotia- tion with the South in view of the latter's refusal to treat. 1 Following the period of depression after Burnside's de- feat, 2 there came another outburst of patriotic feeling in New York, which was not without effect upon politics. On the 6th of March a mammoth war meeting was held at Cooper Institute, for the purpose of organizing a Loyal Union League. There, on the same platform where Wil- liam Cullen Bryant presided and such strong anti-slavery men as Mayor Opdyke and David Dudley Field spoke, Van Buren, Brady, and Judge Daly, all three of whom had hitherto refused to abandon the Democratic organization, came out in favor of support of the national administration by a united North. As to the responsibility for the war, 1 Herald, Feb. 24. 2 At Fredericksburg, Dec. 13, 1862. 296 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [496 a favorite theme with Seymour and other Democratic ora- tors, Van Buren took a position directly opposed to that of his former political associates, saying : This is a rightful contest forced upon the non-slaveholding and the loyal slaveholding States by those who are endeavoring to establish a republic within the republic, based upon slavery. And to prostrate this rebellion, I am willing to devote any means, any time, any exertion within my power during the rest of my natural life. While still disapproving of the Emancipation Proclama- tions, he saw nothing in them which should hinder a vigor- ous prosecution of the war. He " bowed in silence " to the recent laws giving to the President increased military and financial resources whether he favored his acts or not; nor did he consider it wrong, under the circumstances, to put such immense powers into the executive's hands. 1 Not long after, a similar meeting was held in Brooklyn, at which Van Buren and Brady again spoke. Van Buren said that inasmuch as the South had refused all compro- mise, there was no alternative save to fight out the ques- tion of the country's existence. He saw no reason why men of all parties should not fully cooperate in support of the administration, for none of its actions then called for serious opposition. He further defended the conscription law as by no means novel in our history, and he asserted that the slaves must be freed by the advance of the Union armies. 2 So complete a change by so prominent a leader as Van Buren was, created a sensation in New York 1 Herald, Mar. 7; Tribune, Mar. 7; the Argus charged that Forney of Pennsylvania was the originator of the loyal league movement and that his purpose was to control the presidential election of 1864 (Argus, Mar. 27). 2 Herald, Mar. 17. 497] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 297 politics. The Democratic press warmly assailed Van Buren, Brady, and Daly for joining in a meeting with notorious anti-slavery advocates ; x and the possible extent of the defection might well have caused alarm. There was talk that the disintegration of the Democratic organization in the State was imminent. Seymour and the Regency lead- ers, however, were unable to rise to the level of Van Buren, and continued in their illogical position of attempting at once to oppose and to sustain the government. It was about this time that there appeared in the news- papers a letter from Lord Lyons 2 to Earl Russell, stating that several Democratic leaders of New York had sought in the previous November interviews with his lordship on the subject of foreign mediation; these politicians were de- scribed as favoring peace with the South and as chiefly ap- prehensive lest a premature offer of mediation should prove " a means of reviving the violent war spirit," thus defeat- ing the peace plans of the conservatives. 3 New York was aroused by this and other signs of growing Copperheadism. Accordingly, a number of demonstrations were held to dis- prove any suspicions of New York City's loyalty and to stir anew the patriotism of the people to meet the back fire. 1 New York World, Mar. 7, 9 ; New York Express, and New York Journal of Commerce (quoted in the Herald, Mar. 11) ; attack by the Albany Argus referred to by John Van Buren in his speech at Madison Square {Herald, April 21) ; Van Buren alluded to attempts to dis- suade him from going into the loyal league movement; Voorhees of Indiana, in a speech at New York City on Mar. 10, attacked Van Buren for keeping such company; Wood assailed Van Buren and Brady in his speech at Mozart Hall (see infra) ; other leading Demo- cratic organs of the State which assailed the loyal leagues were the Utica Observer, the Buffalo Courier, and the Troy Times {Argus, Mar. 27). 2 British envoy to the United States. 8 This letter was published in the Herald, Mar. 30. 298 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [49S At the end of March a great mass-meeting resulted in the formation of a second organization of patriotic citizens, the Loyal National League. 1 Its council included Francis Lieber, William Cullen Bryant, President King of Columbia College, A. T. Stewart, Mayor Opdyke, William Earl Dodge, William Curtis Noyes, George Bancroft, and John J. Cisco; while on its executive committee were General John Cochrane, John Jay, Parke Godwin, and Sidney How- ard Gay. Ward associations were formed throughout the City ; badges, certificates of membership, and loyal literature were distributed; and a pledge was signed. 2 Under the auspices of the League, the second anniversary commemor- ation of the attack upon Fort Sumter was held in Union Square in the presence of a vast assemblage, gathered " to renew to the government their solemn pledge and fixed re- solution to maintain unimpaired the national unity." 3 The multitude was addressed by an array of prominent men which in itself would have served to make the occasion not- able, the list including Postmaster-General Blair, Governor Morton of Indiana, Schuyler Colfax, Governor Peirpoint of Virginia, General Fremont, Roscoe Conkling, George W. Julian, General Sigel, Daniel S. Dickinson, Henry Wilson, George William Curtis, and Theodore Tilton. 4 A week later, the Loyal Union League held a monster mass-meeting at Madison Square, with General Scott pre- siding — a circumstance sufficient to arouse enthusiasm. The principal part of the speaking was left to War Democrats : 1 Herald, Mar. 21. 2 Advertisement of the Loyal National League in the Herald, Mar. 24; a different advertisement of the same, in the Tribune, April 3. 3 Advertisement of the Loyal National League in the Tribune, April 4, * Herald, April 12 ; Tribune, April 13. The address adopted on this occasion was prepared by Dr. Lieber. 499] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 299 George Bancroft, John Van Buren, Daniel S. Dickinson, and Lyman Tremain. Van Buren declared that " the time had come when party considerations must cease to operate, and when the people of this country with entire unanimity must uphold the government of the country irrespective of party considerations." He attacked Mozart Hall's peace resolutions, and said : " Now, there is but one thing to do — that is to fight. ... It is impossible that it [the war] can be protracted for any length of time if we are a united people, and to be a united people we must discard political considerations." 1 This was precisely the fundamental principle on which the Union party had been founded. That Wood and Dean Richmond, who were mere politicians, were unable, after the first outburst of patriotism which swept the North in 1861, to rise to such a height is not as- tonishing. But that Horatio Seymour clung to his narrow partisan views ought to lessen our estimate of his states- manship. Had Seymour now acted with Van Buren, his companion in the campaign of 1862, the loyal masses in this State and perhaps in others would very likely have been undistracted by political differences — for a time at least; and conditions approximating those of April and May, 1 86 1, might have once more prevailed in New York State at a period when the administration at Washington was in dire need of the solid support of the North. Among the resolutions adopted at the Madison Square meeting was one providing for the holding of a state mass-meeting at Utica. The committee appointed to issue the call was significantly headed by a War Democrat, General John A. Dix. From New York City, the loyal league movement spread over the State. 2 The opposition 1 Herald, April 21 ; Tribune, April 21. s The call issued by the Loyal National League speaks of the or- 3 oo NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [500 papers declared that the leagues, despite their, profession of non-partisanship and of having for their objects the dis- semination of sentiments of loyalty, the denunciation of treason, and the upholding of the government in its de- termination to suppress the rebellion, 1 were masked party organizations. 2 The Argus denounced the movement day after day. The charge of being secret bodies was frequently raised against the leagues, and there was apparently some basis of truth for this accusation. 8 One leading paper went further, and affirmed that the Loyal National League was gotten up to help Chase to get the presidency and that the Loyal Union League was a machine in the interests of Seward. 4 Indeed, Thurlow Weed warned Seward that the ganization as established in every county of the State, and it is signed by secretaries, etc., of a great number of different county leagues (Advertisement of the Loyal National League in the Tribune, May 19). 1 Circular of the Loyal Union League printed in the Tribune, Mar. 20. 2 E. g. the Argus of Mar. 25th said: "It was idle to have expected that the foolish game of a year ago, of rushing Democrats into pre- tended ' No Party ' organizations could be repeated at this time, . . . the ' Loyal Union Leagues ' of a week ago have sunk into mere ' Wide Awake Clubs,' — governed by partisans, and organized upon the narrowest basis of abolition principles. . . . The ' Loyal Union Leagues ' are to re-elect President Lincoln and perpetrate the reign of Shoddy for another four years after 1865." The Argus of May 26th said : " What then mean the denunciations of Democrats at all the gatherings of these so called 'Loyal Leagues?' Why, at the re- cent Albany meeting to appoint delegates to the great Utica gather- ing, did Dickinson, and Townsend, and Nye, declaim and foam and rage against Governor Seymour, and the Democratic party generally? 'These Leagues ignore party and partisans,' do they? Attend one of their gatherings and listen to the speeches, and see whether that can be so — whether the staple of the speeches will not consist of Republican and Abolition abuse of the men and measures of the Democracy ..." 3 At least, their conventions held secret sessions. * Herald, May 26, 28, 31. 5 oi] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 301 loyal leagues were being - used to further Chase's presidential chances, 1 and Seward evidently had some apprehensions of this. 2 Certainly there were two rival leagues and pos- sibly Seward men were in control of one and Chase ad- herents of the other. But the existence of the two organi- zations seems to have been due partly to accidental and partly to personal reasons, and the allegation that the leagues were respectively Chase and Seward machines was probably untrue. 3 Far from being political bodies, they appear to have been the outgrowth of a genuine patriotic uprising. Nevertheless, every such movement, no matter how much it kept within its professed objects of supporting a vigorous prosecution of the war and to that end, the lay- ing aside of party, indirectly maintained the fundamental principles of the Union party, indirectly strengthened it, and therefore was not without a political effect. On the 26th of May, the Loyal National League held a state convention at Utica, with every county but two rep- resented. General John Cochrane, a War Democrat, pre- sided; and among those present were Greeley, Alvord, Roscoe Conkling, and Gerrit Smith. The resolutions adopted showed that the loyal league movement stood for 1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, viii, p. 315, quoting MS. letter of Weed to Seward. 2 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, viii, p. 315. 3 " They have no more relation to Chase or Seward than to the man in the moon " — Tribune, May 29. Nicolay and Hay, speaking of the Union League generally (apparently they use the term "Union League " as synonymous with loyal league), and not of that in New York State, say that an effort was made to commit the organization " to some measure hostile to Mr. Lincoln," but that such attempts failed (Abraham Lincoln, p. 315). Further on, they speak of the anxiety of Lincoln's friends lest the Union Leagues should fall into the hands of the President's opponents and of the groundlessness of these apprehensions (Abraham Lincoln, ix, pp. 56-7). 302 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [502 the same basic ideas as the Union party. They denounced party organizations in time of war, pledged earnest sup- port to the government, declared that the success of the rebellion would mean the overthrow of republican institu- tions, and favored allowing soldiers, wherever stationed, the right to vote. The speakers generally gave full approval to the arrest of Vallandigham, and a resolution to that ef- fect was only side-tracked as a matter of policy. The con- vention also adopted an address, appointed a state execu- tive committee, and instructed the latter to confer with other loyal leagues. 1 On the following day, the Loyal Union League held its convention in the same city, with Preston King, ex-United States Senator Henry J. Foster, 2 Lyman Tremain, Gerrit Smith, and E. G. Spaulding among the notables present. A procession of returned soldiers lent interest to the occasion. The speakers unequivocally en- dorsed the action of the administration in the Vallandig- ham case, and the attitude of Governor Seymour in that connection was freely condemned. Resolutions similar to those of the Loyal National League were adopted and a committee of correspondence appointed. 3 A few days later, the Democratic State Committee met and denounced the loyal leagues with great severity, comparing their un- conditional support of the administration to that given by the Tories of the Revolution to the King of England, and further charging that many of the active agents in getting up the Utica meetings were " influenced by pecuniary and personal interests in contracts, offices and stocks." 4 1 Herald, May 27 ; Tribune, May 28. 2 He was " a life long Democrat " (Albany Evening Journal, May 28). 3 Herald, May 28. * Resolutions printed in the Argus, May 28. CHAPTER XI COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK During the early months of 1863, the peace faction — until then very weak in New York State — began to grow. The rise of Copperheadism here was marked by disloyal utterances at Democratic mass-meetings and in Democratic newspapers. In March Vallandigham addressed a rather sparsely attended gathering in New York City. After as- sailing the recent financial and military legislation of Con- gress 1 on the ground that it gave to the President autocratic power " as inexorable in its character as that of the worst despotism of the Old World, of ancient or modern times," he said : " When an attempt is made to deprive us of free speech and a free press, the hour shall then have come when it shall be the duty of freemen to find some other efficient mode of redress." 2 Important consultations of Vallandig- ham and other Democratic chiefs with Seymour and the Regency leaders in Albany followed. Doubtless, they dis- cussed the recent acts of Congress, and the attitude which the Democrats, as the opposition party, should take. Seymour had, as we have seen, condemned the national draft while yet the measure providing for it was being con- sidered. When the bill passed through Congress, the Re- gency organ severely denounced it. 3 Furthermore, the 1 For this legislation, see Rhodes, History of the United States, iv, p. 236 et seq. 2 Herald, Mar. 8 ; Tribune, Mar. 9. 3 Argus, Feb. 27, 28. 503] 303 304 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [504 draft and the three-hundred-dollar exemption clause had been scored in the Democratic legislative address. If, however, violent resistance to the law was considered at the Albany conference, the temperament of Seymour and the views of Dean Richmond were sufficiently averse to such a course to prevent its adoption by the party in this State. Consequently it was given out through the press that the policy settled upon would include no opposition to a vigorous prosecution of the war. 1 In Fernando Wood and his organization, the Western Copperheads had more sympathetic brethren. The crisis in the affairs of the nation, which had roused the loyal masses to activity and had given rise to monster war meet- ings, had a different effect upon the politicians of Mozart Hall and their followers. Toward the end of March, the Mozart Hall General Committee unanimously passed reso- lutions declaring the conscription bill recently passed through Congress, and which is claimed by the federal government to be a law . . . grossly and palpably unconstitutional in its provisions; . . . that it is subversive of the rights of State governments and designed to make them mere dependencies and provinces, to be ruled by military satraps, under a great, consolidating, usurping, central despotism ; that the people everywhere should be awakened to the infamous distinction which it makes between rich and poor, whereby the former is allowed to buy his freedom for the sum of three hundred dollars, while the latter, unable to command that sum, is to be torn away from his employment, his home, and his family, and forced at the point of the bay- onet into the ranks of the army ; that we call upon the author- ities of this State, in view of the intolerable outrages of this conscription law, to advise the Executive of the United States 1 Tribune, Mar. 1 1 ; Herald, Mar. 10. 505] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 305 against the enforcement of this act here, until its constitutional- ity has been determined. . . . * At this meeting, Fernando Wood declared that the adop- tion of resolutions of such a character at so great a crisis was a significant commentary on the allegations, based upon the action of a few " recreant " leaders, that the Democratic party of New York had changed front. He further said: " We are for making men in power conform to all the laws of the constitution before we are required to conform to statutes that are no law and which are inconsistent with the constitution." Referring to the Loyal Union League, he asserted that there was no such word as loyalty in a re- publican dictionary. " Loyalty," he said, " is a monarchi- cal derivative. What means it? The King can do no wrong. No loyalty for me." He too contended that there were in the land only two parties, but his classification was different from that of the Unionists. According to Wood, there was first the party for the government right or wrong ; and secondly, the party against it. " There is no such thing as a war democrat," he declared. There cannot be war democrats, because that involves the necessity of supporting the policy of the war; . . . any man who supports the policy of this administration cannot be a democrat. The moment democrats endorse the policy of the administration, they at once drop the characteristics of the democratic party and merge into the abolition party. 2 This man, who as a representative at Washington had played the double role of publicly opposing and privately 1 These resolutions are contained in full in a letter written by- Fernando Wood to Hon. Henry Wilson, published in the Herald, April 3. 2 Herald, Mar. 25. 3 o6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [506 courting the administration, shortly before delivering the speech quoted above wrote to Mr. Lincoln denying that he (Wood) was hostile to the administration and in sym- pathy with the South, and begging the President " to rely upon his support in his efforts to maintain the integrity of the Union." x A grand mass-meeting, arranged by Wood's committee, took place on the 7th of April. The call invited, among others, all " opposed to the conscript act, opposed to war for the negro, . . . [and] in favor of the rights of the poor." 2 When the resolutions were read, loud applause was given to the declaration " that the war, as conducted by this ad- ministration, has been a failure ;" and great cheering greeted another resolution that said : " Under these circumstances, we declare for peace. This administration cannot conquer the South if they would — and would not if they could . . . we favor peace and conciliation as the only mode left to us to restore the Union." The resolutions further called upon the judiciary of the State of New York " to sustain and vindicate the right of the people to the sacred and im- prescriptible writ of habeas corpus, and to preserve the free- dom of speech and of the press;" entreated the Republican majority in the state Legislature not to sanction the estab- lishment of scores of United States banks and " the plunder of the people by the issue of hundreds of millions more of irredeemable and valueless paper money ;" and denounced the loyal league movement as a " base invention of the enemy." Fernando Wood was the principal speaker. He asserted that the country was in the midst of two revolutions : one at the South, with the sword, and the other at the North 1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, pp. 365-6. 2 Herald, April 5. 507] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 307 by executive and legislative usurpations. . . . This latter enemy is unfortunately in possession of the government. . . . Taking advantage of the popular enthusiasm in behalf of the Union, it has, under the pretext of furthering this holy object, gradually fastened the chains of slavery upon the people. He enumerated eleven classes as supporters of the war. These were : first, the banking interests ; second, New Eng- land, which having lost a valuable customer in the South, found a profitable substitute in army contracts; third, the railroad interests; fourth, the debtor class, which in the " intoxication " consequent upon the inflation caused by the war, hoped to liquidate their debts ; fifth, the " abolition fanatics;" sixth, the office-holders, contractors, and govern- ment employees ; seventh, " the members of the administra- tion themselves who hope ... to perpetuate their author- ity for another term, if not for life;" eighth, the Republican partisans; ninth, the War Democrats, whose attitude Wood attributed to the base desire to share in the spoils; tenth, " some honest and patriotic men, who really believe that by fighting we can restore the Union ;" and eleventh, the army. " Is it not a terrific combination to confront?" asked Wood. A Democratic successor of Lincoln, he went on, if an independent man, with nerve and brain and the principles of peace in his heart . . . would restore the Union without further loss of blood, if such a blessing were within the range of possibilities. . . . He should cease hostilities and take a step towards ascertaining whether a conference could be obtained. This could be done either openly and officially, or privately and unofficially, . . . What shape or form the procedure should assume would be a matter of argument after the conference had been agreed upon. 1 1 Herald, April 8 ; Tribune, April 8. 3 o8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [508 Here was the whole peace program of the Chicago platform of 1864 anticipated, boldly enunciated, and ad- vocated. It is after reading such utterances as those of Wood that one sees how completely the action of the Democratic National Convention was a victory for Wood and his Western allies. It is noteworthy that the Mozart chieftain did not say what a Democratic president would do if a bloodless restoration of the Union was found not to be " within the range of possibilities." But, since he main- tained that war could not accomplish the desired end, the in- ference was plain, despite all his protestations of devotion to the Union, that the alternative to a successful execution of his plan was separation. Such was the situation in New York when the Vallandig- ham affair * occurred in Ohio. The seizure, incarceration, and sentence of so prominent a leader stirred the Demo- crats once more to angry denunciations. Even adminis- tration newspapers in New York disapproved or deplored the action of the officials concerned, the Evening Post — a staunch supporter of the government — going so far as, to ask whether, if Vallandigham's peace nonsense was treasonable. Greeley's might not be equally so. 2 The Democrats gath- ered in mass-meetings to express their indignation, cheer every mention of Vallandigham's name, and give evidences of their sympathy for the martyr. Of these demonstra- tions, those at Albany, New York City, Buffalo, and Brook- lyn deserve mention. 3 1 For the Vallandigham affair, see Rhodes, History of the United iv, p. 247 et seq. 7 New York Evening Post, May 14. 3 Besides these, I have found in the Argus notices of meetings of protest at Syracuse, Rome, Utica, Troy, Waterloo, in Schoharie County, and in Dutchess County. So far as the resolutions were published, they were not of a Copperhead character but approved Seymour's letter. 509] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 309 The Albany meeting on the 16th of May was presided over by Erastus Corning; Amasa J. Parker and Repre- sentative Francis Kernan made addresses; and Governor Seymour sent a letter. It is noteworthy that both Parker and Kernan warned their hearers against violence. Neither did they or any of the resolutions undertake to defend Vallandigham's principles. 1 The Governor sounded a bold note. He pronounced the arrest of Vallandigham an act which dishonored the country, an exercise of power danger- ous to the persons and homes of his listeners, and a con- scious violation of law and justice. " If this proceeding," he wrote, " is approved by the government and sanctioned by the people, it is not merely a step towards revolution — it is revolution. It will not only lead to military despotism — it establishes military despotism." The people awaited with the deepest anxiety the administration's decision in the matter. " We pause to see," he went on, what kind of government it is for which we are asked to pour out our blood and our treasure. The action of the administra- tion will determine in the minds of more than one-half of the people of the loyal States whether this war is waged to put down rebellion at the South or to destroy free institutions at the North. 2 This letter met with general commendation in anti-adminis- tration circles, while the supporters of the government con- demned the document warmly, the Tribune speaking of it as " full of provocation to lawlessness, riot and devasta- tion." s 1 Argus, May 18. 2 Printed in the Herald, May 19. 3 Tribune, May 18. 310 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [510 The meeting further transmitted a series of resolutions to Lincoln, requesting his earnest consideration of them. 1 These resolutions, after pointing to the alacrity with which Democrats of New York had filled the ranks of the army and supported the war, and after reiterating their determin- ation to continue in this patriotic course and " to devote all . . . [their] . . . energies to sustain [ing] the cause of the Union to secure peace through victory," demanded that the administration be true to the constitution, recognize and maintain the rights of the states and the liberties of the citizen, and outside of the lines of necessary military occu- pation uphold the supremacy of the civil over martial law. They denounced the arrest of Vallandigham and the action of the military tribunal. Such proceedings, they declared, not only abrogated the right of the people to assemble and discuss the affairs of the government, liberty of speech and of the press, trial by jury, the law of evidence, and the privilege of habeas corpus, but also struck a fatal blow at the supremacy of the law and of the state and federal consti- tutions. While aiming to be courteous and temperate in discussing public measures and men, they would when the right itself was questioned " bid defiance to any arm that would move " them from their ground. The first two of these resolutions are worthy of note because they show that the Regency leaders still wished to be considered War Democrats. The Buffalo meeting gave a hearty approval to Seymour's letter and adopted the same resolutions as the Albany meeting. 2 The tone of the speakers was not that of the 1 The letter of transmission together with the resolutions are printed in the Herald, June 15. For the subsequent correspondence between Lincoln and the committee, see Argus, July 4. 2 Argus, June 4. 5 1 1 ] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 3 1 1 Copperheads. Said one : " We stand . . . where we have always stood, ready at all times to furnish men and money to put down the rebellion, ..." Congressman John Ganson declared : You are not here to manifest sympathy for any individual, nor to approve of the sentiments of Mr. Vallandigham, or to en- dorse his action. You are here, however, to avow your decided disapproval of the manner of his " taking off." . . . We are in favor of furnishing those in authority the men and means necessary for the prosecution of the pending war, until the armed force of the rebellion is broken, and till those who are engaged in it sue for peace. We . . . continue to give a cheer- ful and cordial support to all proper efforts of the Administra- tion to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws on every foot of our soil. This speech was reported to have been received with en- thusiastic applause. 1 Sanford E. Church, former lieutenant- governor and later chief justice of the Court of Appeals, uttered similar sentiments/ and so did those who spoke at the Brooklyn meeting on June nth. 8 Far different was the spirit of the great demonstration at Union Square in New York City. It was noticeable that here, the prominent Democrats of the City were not among the numerous speakers. Those who addressed the gathering, however, made up for their comparative obscur- ity by the revolutionary character of their talk. Not only were the administration and its measures — especially eman- cipation — attacked in the most violent terms; not only was every mention of Lincoln greeted with groans; not only were the sentiments of Vallandigham repeatedly endorsed 1 Argus, June 5. 2 Argus, June 5. 3 Herald, June 12 ; Argus, June 15. 3 i2 NEW YORK STATE D URING THE CIVIL WAR [512 by the speakers and applauded by the crowd ; but the most disloyal exhortations were received with cheering. Eli P. Norton, for instance, said: If an issue were to come between the federal authorities and the law, he wished to stand by the law, to stand where the Governor of New York, his commander-in-chief . . . stood. . . . There might soon be a time when the people of the State of New York would be called upon to defend their rights. J. A. McMasters, the editor of the disloyal Freeman's Journal and an ex-inmate of Fort Lafayette, went still further. The time for deliberation, he said, had gone, and the time for action had come. So far as he knew or had read of Mr. Vallandigham, he re- spected and loved him for his virtues, and he knew of no man living with whose sentiments he more cordially agreed . . . Vallandigham knew, as he knew, that there was but one way of bringing back the Union, and that was to stop this accursed war (cheers) . . . Vallandigham had called for peace in order to try the last hope of restoring the Union. It had been tried by a war in violation of the constitution and it had failed and always would fail . . . the South never could be conquered (cheers). . . . Under their gallant Governor Seymour, the four millions of New York would be able to guard and keep their State against the world ; and could it be believed that eight millions of people in the South, as brave and resolute, could be defeated? The question at issue now was, not the independence of the South but the liberty of the people of the North. How could that be maintained ? " By fighting," McMasters an- swered, but not by street fighting, not by disorganized opposition. 513] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 313 They should organize by tens and hundreds, by companies and regiments, and they should send to their Governor and ask him for commissions as soon as they had their regiments formed (cheers). . . . They should keep their arms, and if they had not them, they should get them, and be ready, under their gal- lant Governor, to defend the liberties of their State (cheers). Judge McCunn, one of the prominent men in Mozart Hall, thanked God that New York had a Governor who would not let the people be deprived of their liberties with- out his solemn protest. There was but one course for freemen, he said, — liberty or death. Another speaker, Edmund Blankman, reminded the George III of the present day that he too may have his Cromwell or his Brutus (cheers). The mechanic who had not three hundred dollars in his pocket would have to go to the war, but that mechanic's employer, who had three hundred dollars . . . would not have to go. . . . They all said " no," but just let them wait till . . . July came, and then the provost marshals commenced their work. Mr. John Mullaly declared that while we had such a Governor as Horatio Seymour, . . . there was not a man there need be afraid of being carried off as Vallandigham had been . . . there was one State out of which Vallandigham could not have been taken, except over the bodies of thousands of armed citizens (great applause). . . . Gover- nor Seymour knew the spirit of the people of the Empire State when he wrote the letter to the Albany meeting and . . . that the people would stand by him, with guns and bayonets in their hands, at all hazards. Then the speaker inquired where the laborer would get three hundred dollars and whether he would consent to be 314 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [5^ drafted. The conscription act would never be carried out in the State of New York. He also declared that we " had fought enough with our fellow-countrymen of the South." Daniel C. Birdsall said : They seized Vallandigham at night because they loved dark- ness more than light, for their deeds were evil. Such things must not happen in New York. For if such things were done, they would rise as one man, and rescue . . . [the one seized] from the grasp of power. . . . He would not ask them to take up arms against the Conscript law now, but a time may come when their rights must be asserted. Another speaker asked: "Are we prepared to rally round Governor Seymour as a posse comitatus to carry out the laws? Seymour is slow but he is sure. . . . We may yet have to shed our blood in the streets for the maintainence of our liberties." The resolutions adopted denounced the arrest of Val- landigham as " a startling outrage upon the hitherto sacred rights of American citizenship," expressed attachment for the Union — incendiary revolutionists of a copper hue gen- erally did that — endorsed Governor Seymour's letter to the Albany meeting, called upon " the Governor of the State of New York and all others in authority ... to save us from the humiliation and peril of . . . arrest and trial before military commission," and promised to do all in the power of those present to sustain Seymour " in his deter- mination to preserve inviolate the sovereignty of our State and the rights of its' people against federal encroachments and usurpations." * The New York Herald truly re- marked that all that Vallandigham had ever uttered was cast into the shade by the speeches at this meeting, and 1 Herald, May 19; Tribune, May 20. 515] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 315 that if Secretary Stanton intended to carry out the prin- ciple on which the Vallandigham arrest was based, he would have plenty to do thereafter. 1 There can be little doubt of the connection between this incident in New York's political history and the draft riot of the following July. The worst elements of the City's population had been aroused. The Copperhead demonstrations occasioned by the Val- landigham affair had another significance. It marked a renewal of the struggle within the Democratic ranks in New York State between Fernando Wood and the Regency. The speeches and resolutions of the New York City meet- ing compared with those of the Albany or Buffalo meetings showed the difference between the factions. While Wood and his followers came out for peace, the Regency and their adherents declared themselves still in favor of a vigorous prosecution of the war for constitutional ends. The Re- gency press contrasted the recent defeat of the Democrats on Copperhead platforms in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island with the Democratic victories on a war platform in the middle states in 1862. " The result of departing from the New York standard," said the New York Atlas, an offshoot of the Albany organ of the Re- gency, " was a signal defeat of the democracy in those States [i. e. New England]. . . The 'copperhead' experi- ment was an egregious blunder. . . ." If New York was to be carried at the coming presidential election, the article went on, the Democracy must not stand upon the anti-war plank of Vallandigham. And it proposed for the presiden- tial nomination in 1864 Horatio Seymour as the favorite candidate of the conservative men of the nation. 2 1 Herald, May 22. 2 New York Atlas, May 4, quoted in the Herald, May 26. 316 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [516 At a meeting of the Democratic State Committee, which was controlled by the Regency, resolutions were unani- mously adopted which declared a lack of confidence in the administration's ability to bring about a peace bene- ficial to the whole Union, and endorsed Seymour's Albany letter. Yet they reaffirmed the resolutions of the preceding Democratic State Convention that the Democrats would continue to sustain the government " in the use of all legiti- mate means to suppress the rebellion and to restore the Union as it was and maintain the Constitution as it is." While they earnestly desired a cessation of the war, the committee's resolutions protested against negotiations with the South by the administration except on the basis of the preservation of the Union, and they expressed disapproval of the peace movement on the ground that those in power might use such agitation as a pretext for concluding a dis- honorable treaty. 1 Tammany ranged itself beside the Re- gency. The Wigwam prided itself upon its patriotic record, and therefore could not afford to endorse the peace idea, even if that program had not had as its foremost advocate Tammany's bitter rival. Accordingly, at a meeting on June 4th, the Tammany General Committee unanimously passed resolutions similar to those of the Democratic State Committee. 2 Meanwhile Wood was spreading his agitation through the State. 3 About the same time the Daily News was revived as the organ of the Copperheads. Not long after the defeat at Chancellorsville, a call for a mass state 1 Resolutions printed in the Argus, May 28. 2 Advertisement of Tammany Hall, printed in the Herald, June 6. 3 " Wood has been sending circulars into every county of the State for the purpose of getting up a State mass meeting ..." (Albany dispatch in the Herald, April 15). 517] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 317 convention for " Peace and Reunion " was issued, signed by two persons from each senatorial district, the most prominent being Wood and his immediate followers of Mozart Hall. The signers declared that they loved the Union and would never willingly relinquish it, but that they believed that the efforts to maintain it by arms had proved a failure and that the administration could not restore it by brute force. They favored a vigorous prosecution of peace. While they would " submit to no national dismem- berment and no terms not justified by every principle of honor," they would " go very far in the spirit of con- ciliation and concession to restore the Union." They there- fore summoned those holding like views to meet in New York City on the 3rd of June, to take measures for a speedy settlement of the war. 1 The convention took place on the appointed date. Cooper Institute and the surrounding streets were jammed, the Herald estimating the crowd at thirty thousand. 2 Ap- prehension of bloodshed as a result of the demonstration 3 proved groundless; for no attempt was made to interfere with the utmost license of speech against the national gov- ernment. The assemblage was enthusiastic and cheered for peace, Wood, Seymour, McClellan, Governor Parker of New Jersey, and especially for Vallandigham. At the head of the committee on the address and the resolutions was Wood, 4 and he delivered himself in full. The address de- clared that the sovereignty of the states was the corner- stone of the Democracy; argued that the general govern- ment could not coerce states; that even if it had such a 1 Printed in the Herald, May 14. 2 Herald, June 4. 3 Herald, June 1, 4. * Herald, May 21. 3 i8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [518 power, the exercise thereof was inconsistent with union; and that the Democratic party could not sustain such a war. Attacking the Regency leaders without naming them, the address said : The professed democrat . . . who is deliberately for the war, is not a democrat in fact, but an abolitionist of the most rad- ical, violent and destructive kind. . . . The war is the curse of the age in which we live, . . . The continuance of the war will be fatal to our liberties. . . . The only road to democratic victory is through peace. Why should politicians fear that a peace party may prove unpopular? If the war has damned the republican party, is it not logical to suppose that a peace policy might prosper the opposition? But this matter is be- yond the control of the politicians. The great body of the people are tired of the war and demand peace. . . . the war cannot succeed. We have been beaten. We cannot conquer the South. ... In this connection we must refer to the ludi- crous attempts that are made upon every military reverse to attribute the result to every other than the true cause. When a battle is fought it is generally lost, and then come the reasons. . . . We never hear the truth. And the position taken by the Democratic members of the Legislature in declaring for the prosecution of the war according to the constitution, was assailed as illogical. The belief was expressed that all love for the Union had not been " obliterated from the Southern heart," and that the call for peace would find a response. 1 The resolutions reiterated briefly the sentiments of the address and protested " against the cowardly, despotic, in- human and accursed act which has consigned to banishment the noble tribune of the people — the Honorable Clement L. Vallandigham." Moreover, they recommended the suspen- 1 Printed in the Herald, June 4. 519] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 319 sion of hostilities and the holding of two conventions — one of the Confederate states and the other of the states still in the Union — to settle the manner of reconciliation. A state committee with authority to call any future conven- tions of the peace Democracy was appointed. At the same time they disclaimed any intention of distracting the Demo- cratic organization of New York. Letters from distin- guished peace advocates of other states, including ex- Governor Thomas H. Seymour of Connecticut, James W. Wall of New Jersey, and George H. Pendleton of Ohio, were then read. The principal speaker was, of course, Fernando Wood; while among the lesser attractions were George Francis Train, two former martyrs in Fort Lafay- ette, and some of those who had spoken at the Vallandig- ham meeting. The leading men of the party were again conspicuous by their absence. The speeches were a mix- ture of denunciation of the war, disrespectful attacks upon the President and upon the measures of the administration, incitement to resist violently any encroachment upon the liberties of the people, and thinly veiled hints of forcible opposition to the impending draft. 1 Thus, in the discon- tent of a certain element, Wood found a club to use against Tammany and the Regency. 2 1 Herald, June 4 ; Tribune, June 4. 2 The Daily News openly threatened that unless " Cagger, Richmond & Co's State Convention distinctly adopt the platform of Peace," the committee appointed in New York City on the 3rd of June would call a separate state convention (quoted by the Argus, June 9). CHAPTER XII Seymour on Trial With the invasion of Pennsylvania and the bringing of the war nearer to New York, the peace advocates received a setback. 1 To his credit, Governor Seymour responded promptly to the telegram from Washington calling for twenty thousand militia to help repel Lee. 2 The withdrawal of the militia from New York City was followed by the Draft Riot on the 13th of July and the succeeding days. The direct connection of this outbreak with the denuncia- tions of the so-called conscription act 3 by Democratic lead- ers, including Seymour himself, and with the revolutionary remarks at the peace demonstrations engineered by Fer- nando Wood, is apparent. The mischief of those seditious speeches had borne fruit. Seymour's actions during the disturbance and his correspondence with the Washington authorities in regard to the draft became later a subject of political controversy. The drafting in New York City began on a Saturday; on Monday the mob broke out into violence; and on Tuesday Seymour, who had been at Long 1 Herald, June 18, for effect of the invasion upon the peace movement. ! Herald, June 16. 3 The correct title of the law authorizing the draft was : "An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces." Dix objected to the Democratic habit of speaking of the draft as a conscription ; but as Fry, the provost marshal general, and other administration supporters used the term, it is adopted here as a less cumbersome designa- tion of the law than the real title. ' 320 [520 52 1 ] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 321 Branch, New Jersey, arrived on the scene. He found wide- spread consternation. The radicals wanted energetic repres- sion. The leaders of Mozart Hall, it was said, urged the Governor to make a stand for the State against the national government. 1 Seymour at once assumed command, and did, according to his light, what he could to reestablish order. He followed, however, the method of conciliation rather than that of repression, urging the rioters to cease their un- lawful actions. He issued two proclamations. 2 One re- minded those who had resorted to violence " under an appre- hension of injustice " that the only permissible opposition to the draft was an appeal to the courts. " Riotous proceed- ings," he proclaimed, " must and shall be put down. The laws of the State of New York must be enforced, its peace and order maintained, and the lives and property of all its citizens protected at any and every hazard." And the Gover- nor threatened that unless the rioters retired to their homes and employments, he would use all the power necessary to restore tranquillity to the City. The second proclamation declared the City to be in a state of insurrection — an act of wisdom, since it permitted the complete and legal use of the military, the only power capable of suppressing the dis- turbance. Of course, the Unionist press did not fail to point out that the Governor had not announced that the laws of the United States must and would be enforced. Ap- pended to one of the proclamations was a request that loyal citizens should enroll at designated places to aid in preserv- ing peace. This idea was carried out. In the City Hall Park, the Governor addressed an excited crowd, composed in part of riotous elements, as " my 1 Herald, July 24, 28. 2 Printed in the Tribune, July 15. 322 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [522 friends;" and this rather harmless method of gaining the good-will of the mob was seized upon by the radical press, interpreted in the most literal sense, and for months made the basis for such assertions as that " the State authorities, in the person of Governor Seymour, assumed the leadership of the riot at first." 1 In truth, the weakness of the military forces at hand justified temporizing until reinforcements ar- rived. But if these words of salutation did not make Sey- mour the traitorous governor that some of the newspapers described, his sympathetic attitude toward the alleged griev- ances of the rioters deserves condemnation. It appears very probable that the Governor's mildness did little good. 2 His course was perfectly consistent with his character; by no means disloyal, but showing gentleness where vigor and determination were requisite; censuring unlawful deeds, but haggling over constitutional rights at a most inoppor- tune time. The radicals later accused the Governor of hav- ing purposely denuded the City of militia so as to give an opportunity for the riot which in turn was to lead to revolu- tion, and of having backed down when the moment to strike came. 3 Lincoln received letters setting forth this theory of a Democratic conspiracy and implicating Seymour. But Lincoln did not believe the absurd story, and his biogra- phers admit that there was in fact no foundation for it. 4 1 Tribune, July 18. 2 Seymour in his annual message of 1864 said: "On the third day it [the riot] became one of the most destructive riots ever known in the history of our country. . . . The return of some of the New York militia regiments secured peace to the city" (Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 547, 549). 3 E. g. Tribune, July 18, 24, Aug. 29 ; Independent, quoted by the Argus, July 25. 4 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, p. 26. 523] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 323 Such a course was irreconcilable with Seymour's disposi- tion and official actions. On the other hand, the radical press was accused of foment- ing an incendiary condition of affairs to increase the disturb- ance and by forcing a collision between the state and federal authorities to procure a declaration of marital law and a mili- tary governor who would control future elections. 1 Imme- diately after the outbreak of the riot, the metropolitan press became engaged in a controversy as to who had provoked the affair. The Tribune, the Times, and the Post were arrayed against the World, the News, and the Express, while the Herald berated both sides. The administration papers rightly attributed blame for the riot to the Copper- heads, and also accused the Democratic papers of encour- aging the rioters. 2 The World retorted : " We charge it, therefore, plainly against the radical journals of this city that they, and chiefly they, have educated the people of New York to the pitch of passion and the extremes of desperate feeling which have gleamed out so luridly ... in these last sad days." 3 In the very midst of the riot, the World and the News assailed the conscription act and its execution.* The more moderate of these, the World, said of the law: "A measure which could not have been ventured upon in England even in those dark days when the press-gang filled the English ships of war with slaves . . . was thrust into the statute book as one might say almost by force." With the exception of a small outbreak at Troy, good or- der prevailed up the State during the drafting. 5 In some 1 Argus, July 25 ; Herald, July 28. 2 Editorials quoted in the Herald, July 16. 3 New York World, July 15. 4 New York World, July 13 ; New York News, quoted in the Tribune, July 15. 5 Tribune, July 17; Albany Evening Journal, July 16. The letters of 324 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [524 cases, those upon whom the lot fell paraded the streets and cheered for the Union. The riot suppressed and General Dix in command at New York City, the question whether the draft would be en- forced became all engrossing. The disloyal journals kept demanding that the law should not be executed and that Seymour should redeem his promises. The Express de- clared that the Governor was pledged to call forth the entire militia of the State to resist the kidnaping of its citizens. 1 The News endorsed this, saying :" Governor Seymour has pledged his sacred word and honor, . . . that not one single drafted citizen shall be forced away from the State until the constitutionality of the Conscription Act shall have been decided upon by our Courts." 2 Again it said: . . . the masses must rely upon themselves and their State magistrates for protection. While the Judiciary remains firm and honest, and the Gubernatorial authority sustains the Judi- ciary, the 500,000 bayonets of despotism will not prevail. But there must be no wild exhibitions of passion, no rioting, no wasting of precious strength. Opposition to central tyranny will be most effective when conducted according to legal formula, and under the direction of the constituted State authorities. . . . There is ample provision in our Constitu- tion and our Statutes to clothe with legality resistance to op- pression. If Governor Seymour will use the powers where- with he is invested, they will be found sufficient for either moral or physical protection of State Government and indi- the provost marshals (Offi.cial Records, ser. iii, vol. iii, pp. 516, 528), speak of opposition in Albany and Utica; yet the Albany Evening Journal (July 20) said that Albany had seldom been more quiet and orderly than during that week and that there were no signs of disturbance. 1 New York Express, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 7. s New York News, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 7. 525] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 325 vidual liberty. The only danger then exists in a possible weak- ness and infirmity of purpose in our Governor. 1 The Metropolitan Record published a still more inflamma- tory article entitled, " What the People of New York Ex- pect of Governor Seymour." 2 The World used a very thin disguise, saying: It is now at length evident to all but the wilfully blind, that the rescue of the constitution from the hands of its official vio- lators requires a vigorous and determined struggle. The pre- cise measures to be adopted for this purpose must depend, in part, upon future contingencies; and there is needed the greatest wisdom and caution, as well as pluck and resolution, that the effort may not miscarry by irretrievable false steps and precipitate action. 8 On the other hand, when, upon the arrival of troops, Seymour ordered that the weapons lent to citizens who had volunteered to aid in preserving peace should be returned, the Tribune was indignant, and advised them to pur- chase arms. 4 Again it said: "Well, if Civil War must come, let it come! If the Copperhead chiefs in the North envy the fame or the fortunes of their Southern brethren, we have no choice but to meet the issue they force upon us." 5 The administration papers kept urging the govern- ment to proceed with the draft. The Democrats advocated abandoning conscription and renewed resort to volunteering. Democratic common councils and boards of super- 1 New York News, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 14. 2 Metropolitan Record, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 14. 3 New York World, Aug. II. * Tribune, July 21. 5 Tribune, Aug. 12. 326 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [526 visors showed a tendency to get around the law by appro- priating money to pay the commutation fee of those drafted, on the ground that the three-hundred-dollar clause was the part of the act obnoxious to the poorer classes who felt it to be partial and unjust, and that by purchasing such exemptions future disturbances would be averted. Of course, such a proceeding, since it would furnish no men for the army, was contrary to the intent of the law. New York City had a Republican-Unionist mayor, Opdyke; and he promptly vetoed an ordinance providing for such pay- ments, which had been introduced and adopted by the Com- mon Council during the outbreak. Opdyke rightly declared that the measure was " calculated to nullify the law against which riotous resistance was made " and that it was " a price offered to a lawless mob to desist from further as- saults upon the lives and property of our citizens." x Fin- ally, the matter was compromised by the appropriation of money to procure substitutes for drafted firemen, policemen, active members of the militia, and indigent citizens having dependent families. In this way, for every one drafted, some one was mustered into service. 2 In Brooklyn, the ef- forts of the Democrats to pass an ordinance appropriating money to purchase exemptions was balked by the banks, which, controlled by administration supporters, declined to take the loan wherewith the necessary funds were to be ob- tained. 3 In Westchester County, attempts were made under the lead of John B. Haskin to get through the Board of 1 Herald, July 21, 28, Aug. 20. 5 Herald, Aug. 29; but it was provided that in case such substitutes or any of them could not be procured within the required time, the three hundred dollars for the classes enumerated was to be paid to the government. 3 Herald, Sept. 3. 527] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 327 Supervisors such an appropriation, 1 and some up-State localities passed acts for that purpose. 2 Meanwhile, the President had been appealed to by the Governor to suspend the draft until a letter on which he was working should reach Washington. 8 Under date of August 3rd, Seymour sent the promised epistle to Lincoln. 4 In the first place, he declared that the enrolment was decidedly unfair and partisan. " Justice and prudence alike," the Governor wrote, " demand that this lottery for life shall be conducted with the utmost fairness and open- ness." A draft ought not, he said, to be executed " in any spirit of resentment." He claimed that the amount of credit allowed by the Provost Marshal General for troops in ex- cess already raised by New York was far too small. The quotas apportioned to the congressional districts in New York City and Kings County were " glaringly unjust," either because of a padded enrolment in those districts or because of a grossly deficient enrolment in the rest of the State. Seymour cited the Fourth Congressional District, which with a population of 131,854 had a quota of 5,881, while the Fifteenth Congressional District with 132,232 inhabitants was called upon for only 2,260 men. 5 From these and other figures, the Governor concluded that the 1 Herald, July 24. 2 The Common Council of Rochester passed such an ordinance {Tribune, July 22) ; so did that of Troy {Argus, Sept. 8). See also the chapter on the Legislative Session of 1864, infra. 3 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, p. 32. * Printed in full in the Herald, Aug. 10. 5 In a later letter of August 8th, printed in the Herald, Aug. II, he asserted that nine Democratic districts in i860 whose total vote in that year was 151,243 were to furnish 33,729 men, while nineteen Repub- lican districts, whose vote in i860 was 457,257, were to supply but 39,626. 328 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [528 " inequalities fall most heavily upon those districts which have been opposed to its [the administration's] political views." The abandonment of voluntary enlistment for conscription would prove, the Governor thought, " unfor- tunate as a policy, nor would it secure either so many or so effective men " as the volunteer system. He therefore asked that the execution of the draft in New York State be suspended until the results of recruiting there should be learned. Then Seymour made a more preposterous re- quest — that the law providing for the draft be not executed until its constitutionality could be judicially determined. " It is believed by at least one-half of the people of the loyal States," he said, that the Conscription act, which they are called upon to obey because it stands upon the statute book, is in itself a violation of the supreme constitutional law. ... In the minds of the American people the duty of obedience and the right of pro- tection are inseparable. . . . This government and our peopie have more to fear from an acquiescence in the disorganizing teachings that war suspends their legal rights or destroys their legal remedy than they have to fear from resistance to the doctrine that measures can be enforced without regard to the decisions of judicial tribunals. . . . The successful execution of the Conscription act depends upon the settlement by judicial tribunals of its constitutionality. ... A refusal to submit it to this test will be regarded as evidence that it wants legality and binding force. ... It would be a cruei mockery to withhold such decision until after the irremediable injury of its execution upon those who are unable to pay the sum demanded in lieu of their persons. ... I do not dwell upon what I believe would be the consequence of a violent, harsh policy before the constitutionality of the act is tested. You can scan the immediate future as well as I. The temper of the people you can readily learn by consulting, as I have 529] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 329 done, with men of all political parties and of every profession and occupation. This constitutional homily was thoroughly characteristic of Seymour. Denouncing in the beginning of his letter vio- lence, his legal subtilties had brought him at the end to what amounted to an apology for resistance to the law. In reply, the President temporarily reduced the quotas in the districts complained of to the average required from the remainder of the State. Further, he promised to have the first mentioned districts " carefully reenrolled — and, if you please, agents of yours may witness every step of that process." Any deficiency shown by the new enrol- ment was to be made good by a special draft, and due credit would be given for volunteers. But of course the Presi- dent, pointing out the urgent need of obtaining recruits im- mediately, refused to suspend the draft as requested. 1 Seymour's letters to the President constituted in some respects a more partisan performance than anything of which complaint was made; and coming as they did when the riot was barely suppressed, they deserve severe con- demnation. It might be thought that the sincerity of the Governor and the great pressure upon him from a certain element of the Democratic party and press to ward off in some manner the draft should excuse him from this judg- ment. A letter, however, written by him to Tilden, under date of August 6th, affords a key to his actions. He re- cognizes therein that forcible resistance would aid rather than embarrass the national government. But he thinks that " the conscription will make the administration odious and contemptible." He states that he has just sent to the President a communication objecting to the draft, and 1 Lincoln's Works (Gettysburg Edition), ix, pp. 58-61; 69-70. 330 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [530 adds regarding this letter, " It will do no good, except mak- ing up a record." x This, then, was the aim of Seymour's lengthy correspondence with Lincoln — to make a record. The Governor's main contentions were: first, that the quota allotted to New York State should be reduced by about forty-two thousand because of excess troops furnished on previous calls; second, that within the State the quotas as- signed to the different congressional districts were dispro- portionate, that the inequalities were partisan, to the dis- advantage of Democratic districts, and that the cities of New York and Brooklyn, far from being deficient in pre- vious calls, had furnished more than their share; third, that in the cities, where the Democratic party was the stronger, men had been enrolled more than once; fourth, that the execution of the law providing for a draft should be post- poned until a judicial decision as to its constitutionality could be obtained; and fifth, that the volunteer system should again be relied upon since it furnished more troops than drafting. Perhaps the first contention had some foundation. By the subsequent adjudication of a commission appointed by the President, New York State was credited with more than thirteen thousand men. 2 For this, Seymour received the unanimous thanks of the Assembly of 1864, a majority of whom were politically opposed to him. 3 He certainly saved the State and also the local districts a large sum which other- wise would have been spent in bounties. But it should be 1 Bigelow's Letters and Literary Memorials of Samuel J. Tilden, i, p. 184. 2 Message of Seymour to the Legislature, (Lincoln's Messages from the Governor, v, pp. 571-4). According to a subsequent report of the Assembly committee on federal relations, the reduction numbered but 12,500 {Herald, April 18). 3 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1148. 53 1 ] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 33 1 noted that two of the three members of the commission were Democrats, one being William F. Allen, his party's nominee for judge of the Court of Appeals in this very year and for lieutenant-governor in i860, and an intimate friend of Sey- mour. Moreover, in arriving at the decision, the terms of the law as to the adjustment of quotas were absolutely ignored. 1 The reduction was made upon the theory that population (for which the census of i860 had to be used) should be the basis of the quotas. This not merely disre- garded the shifting of population since i860 but laid a lesser burden upon districts which had been slack in fur- nishing recruits than on those which by raising large num- bers of volunteers had reduced the proportion of their adult males of drafting age. 2 The days following the riot were, at any rate, not the most suitable time for pressing this claim. As to the second and third contentions, the enrolment was far from perfect, as was shown later. This, however, was to be expected under the circumstances. The reputation of Provost Marshal General Fry for honesty and ability was high. His assistants in New York were chosen with care and were directed to cooperate with the state and local authorities. 3 According to Fry's report, 4 the work was done very carefully, all possible precautions were taken, and the enrolling officers were sworn to execute their duties faithfully. 5 Moreover, Seymour had never expressed any 1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, pp. 40, 41 ; Fry's New York and the Conscription of 1863, p. 51. 2 Fry's New York and the Conscription, pp. 40, 55. 3 Fry's New York and the Conscription, pp. 13-17. * Printed in the Tribune, Aug. 17. 5 The commission subsequently appointed to examine and correct the inequalities exonerated the enrolling officers from any impeachment of their integrity and stated that the errors could not possibly have 332 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [532 objection to the enrolment until after the riot. 1 Then too, it was shown that the enrolment in the congressional district most complained of by the Governor — the Fourth — differed little from that made by the State in the previous year. 2 While Seymour's statistics at first glance are somewhat con- vincing, and probably were very much so to the anti-adminis- tration reader of war days, the Governor ignored the facts that large numbers of adult males were constantly coming from the country districts to the metropolis, that the popula- tion of New York City and Brooklyn was rapidly increasing from immigration, and that a great many of the troops sent from these localities were nine months men whereas the up- State districts had mostly sent two and three years men. Even such of the long-term regiments as were raised in New York City were largely filled with men from the interior counties. 3 He overlooked that districts which had been been avoided ; nor could the commission suggest a better method of enrolment {Herald, April 18; Fry's New York and the Conscription, P- 50). 1 Fry's New York and the Conscription, p. 32. 2 Report of Fry, Tribune, Aug. 17. s One three years man was counted by the government as equivalent to four nine months men. As for regiments nominally raised in New York City but filled with recruits from up- State, see the figures given in the Tribune, Aug. 15. According to that journal, these facts were ignored by the Governor, by his adjutant-general, Sprague (Report of Sprague printed in the Tribune, Aug. 20), and by the judge-advocate general, Waterbury (Report printed in the Herald, Aug. 13). Waterbury, by crediting New York City with the entire regiments whose headquarters during enlistment had been there or in the vicinity, produced figures showing that New York City had fur- nished thousands in excess of its quotas. While Sprague admitted that this was not correct, he balanced however the men drawn from up- State by enlistments made by the New England States and New Jersey in New York City. Sprague's figures of the men raised by New York City under the third and fourth calls differ from those 533] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 333 foremost in volunteering would naturally show a smaller number of men of military age in proportion to the popula- tion in i860 or the vote in that year than districts which had been backward. Previous to the next draft, a circular of November, 1863, directed that the boards of enrolment display in at least five places in each district printed alphabetical lists of those enrolled, with their residences, and that any one on the lists might appear before a board up to the 20th of Decem- ber to show that on account of alienage, non-residence, age or disability he was not liable to military duty. 1 If this circular seems to justify to some extent the complaints of Seymour, it likewise shows a disposition on the part of the Washington authorities to satisfy the Governor where prac- ticable. The difficulty of avoiding double enrolment was shown by the indifference of those most interested in having their names stricken from the rolls when an opportunity to do so was given. 2 Seymour, apparently, never made the slightest use of Lincoln's offer that the Governor's agents might witness every step in the process of making another enrolment in the disputed districts. The enrolment, then, was probably very faulty, but not intentionally so for partisan purposes, and perhaps not to the degree insisted upon by Seymour. furnished by Waterbury; and both are greatly in excess of those given by the report of Adjutant-General Hillhouse {Tribune, Aug. 20). In a subsequent statement, Sprague admitted that a large number of the excess which he had credited to New York City must be deducted for men drawn from other parts of the State ; thereby, he reduced New York City's alleged excess by about one-half {Tribune, Aug. 29). 1 Herald, Nov. 28. 2 See Seymour's proclamation of Nov. 21, 1864 (printed in the Tribune, Nov. 25, 1864) and the appeal of the New York County Com- mittee on Volunteering of Dec. 1, 1864 {Tribune, Dec. 29, 1864). 334 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [534 The delaying of the draft until its constitutionality could be judicially determined was not only highly inexpedient, but also wholly without legal warrant. The Supreme Court would not meet until the following December, and more time must necessarily elapse before a decision was rendered. In the meanwhile, where would the much needed reinforcements be obtained? By volunteering, urged Sey- mour; by conscription, the government would not get many men besides substitutes who were really, he claimed, volunteers. But this argument was in total disregard of facts. It was notorious that volunteering had almost ceased. 1 In reality, nothing but an impending draft stimulated both volunteering and substituting. It was then that the cities and counties bestirred themselves and offered large bounties. The armies must be recruited if the war was to be brought to a successful conclusion, drafting was the only method of getting sufficient men at that stage of the struggle, and therefore Seymour can hardly be ac- quitted either of being blind to the most patent facts or else of disregarding them for partisan reasons. He certainly did not have the sagacity to rise above the mass of his party by recognizing in the law for drafting a necessary experi- ment whose imperfections might be corrected, but which be- cause of the exigency must be tried without delay. His atti- tude was captious and seriously embarrassing to the govern- 1 This fact was admitted by the Argus in April : " Their [the peo- ple's] practical answer to these questions is to be found in the total ab- sence of all offers of volunteers or recruits . . ." {Argus, April 3, 1864). See also on this point of the cessation of volunteering in New York the report of the Adjutant-General of New York, dated Dec. 31, 1862 (quoted in Fry's New York and the Conscription, p. 4) ; letter of August Belmont to Weed printed in Barnes's Memoir of Weed, p. 421 ; Burt's My Memoirs of the Military History of the State of New York, pp. 118, 133; and many statements in the press at the time. 535] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 335 ment. He showed anything but a disposition to ensure har- mony with the authorities at Washington for the sake of the common cause; and his correspondence, published in the newspapers, justified in their own minds the disloyal ele- ments who were striving to bring about a collision between the state and federal governments. Lincoln's answers to Seymour on the other hand were eminently tactful, conced- ing all that could justly be asked. Despite the Governor's wordy appeals, the draft took place in due time. On July 30th, General Dix, in command of the national forces at New York, wrote to Seymour to in- quire whether the aid of the state militia might be relied on in enforcing the law. Seymour answered that he had just written to the President, and that he believed that the lat- ter's reply would relieve them both from " the painful ques- tions growing out of an armed enforcement of the Con- scription law in this patriotic State." On August 8th, Dix again wrote to the Governor, requesting the earliest prac- ticable assurance that the militia would, in case of need, assist in carrying out the draft; otherwise the General would call upon the authorities at Washington for an ade- quate force. Dix also included in his letter a brief but dignified defense of the law. Seymour's reply, inexcusably delayed, was utterly unworthy, considering the circum- stances. He stated that he had received the President's an- swer apprising him of the government's determination to proceed with the draft; as to the position of the state officials in case of popular resistance, the Governor said : Of course, under no circumstance, can they perform duties expressly to relieve others from their proper responsibilities. But there can be no violations of good order, no riotous pro- ceedings, no disturbances of public peace, which are not in- fractions of the laws of the State, and these laws will be en- 336 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [536 forced under all circumstances ... if need be the military power will be called into requisition. . . . 1 In other words, Seymour said that if a riot should break out, he would, if necessary, use the militia to suppress it; but that they should not be used to execute the draft, and that the national government would have to depend upon its own agencies for that purpose. That meant the withdrawal of United States troops from the front at a most critical period. This was done, and General Dix was able to reply to the Governor that he would be ready to meet all opposition to the draft. But it was at the cost of retarding army operations. 2 How differently these two men, Dix and Seymour, both Democrats, appear in this cor- respondence ! On August 1 8th, the Governor issued a proclamation warning all persons against violent resistance to the laws, again declaring as in his previous proclamation that the only opposition to the conscription which could be allowed was " an appeal to the courts," and admonishing all judicial and executive officers " to take vigorous and effective measures to put down any riotous or unlawful assemblages," if neces- sary calling upon the militia. 3 Even here, however, the Gov- ernor did not refrain from reiterating his belief in the im- policy of drafting before securing a judicial decision on the constitutionality of the law, and he comforted the ill- disposed by declaring that the constitution and the statutes of the State and the nation contained ample remedies for any real or imaginary wrong. He continued by mail and 1 Correspondence between Dix and Seymour, printed in the Herald, Aug. 29. 2 Order of Halleck to Meade ; letter of Meade to Halleck, quoted in Fry's New York and the Conscription, pp. 83, 84. * Printed in the Tribune, Aug. 19. 537] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 337 telegraph his protests to the Washington government, and so long as he remained in office ceased not in his warfare against the draft. 1 Seymour's conduct in the whole matter was justly made a subject of attack by his political opponents. When the Union State Convention met at Utica on September 2nd, Weed was absent, and his followers were accordingly led by Raymond. Greeley was present, while Opdyke marshalled the radical forces on the convention floor. The Weed-Sew- ard men were more numerous than a year ago when the rad- ical faction had had its way. 2 There was, however, a deter- mined effort to prevent any outbreak of differences between the two wings of the party. 3 Accordingly, as soon as the convention was called to order, Opdyke moved that a recess be taken to afford time for further conferences that harmon- ious action might be brought about. Raymond seconded the motion, and it was carried with the support of both sides. As a result, when the convention again met, the organiza- tion was effected without any contest, the temporary chair- manship going to a radical, Ward Hunt, and the presidency to Abram Wakeman, a Weed adherent. The ticket like- wise was arranged by an informal committee of both fac- tions. This attempt to preserve concord was on the whole successful. Colonel Peter A. Porter was nominated for secretary of state, Thomas W. Olcott for controller, George W. Schuyler for state treasurer, and Henry R. Selden for judge of the Court of Appeals. It was felt that a War Democrat ought to have the nomination for attorney- general, following the precedent of two years before; and 1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, pp. 38, 43. 2 Herald, Sept. 1. 3 Herald, Sept. 2 ; Tribune, Sept. 3, dispatch signed " H. G." (Greeley). 338 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [538 accordingly General John Cochrane was given the place. But the slate was broken when Benjamin F. Bruce was named for canal commissioner, W. B. Taylor for state engineer, and James K. Bates for inspector of state prisons. 1 Of course, no overtures such as had been made to the Demo- crats in 1 86 1 and 1862 were attempted now. The resolutions, as reported by the committee headed by Raymond, recognized the supreme duty of laying aside party differences and cordially supporting the government in its efforts to suppress the rebellion. They favored a prompt and effective reenforcement of the Union armies. They condemned as unpatriotic and unfaithful to the loyal sentiment of the State . . . the action of its present Governor, and of those who have acted with him in embarrassing the efforts of the gov- ernment to increase its military force, in stimulating a spirit of violent resistance to the laws of the land, and in encour- aging the horrible outrages upon the peace and order of society, and upon the persons and property of unoffending citizens, which recently have disgraced the city of New York. Further, the resolutions pronounced against any proffer of peace to the states in rebellion other than such as was " em- bodied in the constitution of the United States, under which they can at any time resume their place in the American Union, subject only to such pains and penalties as they may have incurred by a violation of its laws ; . . . ' The ad- ministration of Lincoln, and particularly its financial policy, its diplomatic achievements, and its victories in war were commended. Along with the customary thanks to those in the army and navy, the action of Governor Seymour and his supporters in the late Legislature in regard to the sol- diers' voting bill was branded as unpatriotic, invidious, and 1 Herald, Sept. 3 ; Tribune, Sept. 3. 539] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 339 unjust. These resolutions were unanimously adopted, but some of the radical delegates were not satisfied. One of them offered an additional resolution declaring that the Emancipation Proclamation demanded " from all loyal men a cordial endorsement, and from this Convention an em- phatic approval." This proposal met with opposition. Mr. Raymond said that the assemblage was a Union and not a Republican convention, and that many loyal men doubted the propriety of endorsing the proclamation. A motion to lay on the table the suggested resolution was lost. Finally, the matter was compromised by an amend- ment inserting the words, " and as a war measure thor- oughly legal and justifiable," after which the resolution was adopted. 1 In the new Union State Committee, anti-Weed members were in several instances displaced by Weed men, and the organization of the committee passed into the latter's hands. 2 Subsequently, Porter and Olcott declined to run, greatly to the joy of the Democrats. 8 The Union State Committee filled the vacancies with Chauncey M. Depew, who as chairman of the committee of ways and means had distinguished himself in the last assembly and had been Porter's rival in the convention, and Lucius Robinson, whose renomination was a sop to the anti-Weed men. 4 The day 1 Herald, Sept. 3. 2 Herald, Sept. 9; Argus, Sept. 4; a partial confirmation is given by the insistence of the Albany Statesman (strongly anti-Weed) that the state committee could not fill any vacancies in the ticket. Henry R. Low, who belonged to the anti-Weed faction, was displaced as chairman, being succeeded by Charles Jones. 3 The Argus kept gloating over these declinations, e. g. editorial of Sept. 10. * Herald, Sept. 9 ; partly confirmed by an editorial of the Albany Statesman (anti-Weed) in which the passing over of Dickinson and Robinson is bitterly assailed (quoted in the Argus, Sept. 5). 340 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [540 after the convention, in accordance with the recommenda- tion of the Union State Committee, 1 a mass ratification meeting of loyal young men took place. The gathering was large and enthusiastic, and endorsed the sentiments and candidates of the Union State Convention. 2 The Democratic State Convention assembled at Albany on September 9th. The question of New York County's representation was complicated this year by the fact that to the usual delegations from Tammany and Mozart was added a third one sent by a new organization led by John McKeon. That the up-State men would have been glad to seat all of these contestants 3 was shown by the passage of a resolution, despite Tammany's opposition, requesting the delegations from New York City to withdraw for consultation with a view to uniting. 4 Tammany, in the face of a new revolt of threatening proportions, quietly divided power with Mozart. It was agreed that each of the two delegations should cast eight votes and alternately a ninth. Tammany so reported to the convention, and also that in this matter she could not recognize any other organization than Mozart ; and the latter announced that she could recognize none other than Tammany. The previous question being ordered, this arrangement was ratified by the convention, leaving McKeon and his followers in the cold; and they accord- ingly withdrew. 5 At the evening session, Governor Seymour, upon invita- tion, addressed the convention. After he had spoken of the 1 Call of the Union State Committee, Tribune, July 25. 2 Herald, Sept. 4. 3 Confirmed by a Herald dispatch on the eve of the convention (Herald, Sept. 9) and by the Tribune, Sept. 9. * Herald, Sept. 10; Argus, Sept. 10. 5 Herald, Sept. 10; Argus, Sept. 10. 541 ] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 341 duty of maintaining the constitution as the lesson of the war and had predicted the inevitable failure of the attempt to centralize power to the detriment of the rights of the states, he proceeded to discuss the draft and his own connection with that event. He reiterated his oft-expressed views against the conscription act and in favor of volunteering. " Many harsh words and unjust charges," he said, have been indulged in by our opponents towards myself; . . . I owe it to you to say that I have never sought to embarrass the government. Traduced by its friends as I have been, I have seen in its many mistakes reason to uphold it, and I have sought to direct it in that course, which its own honor, as well as the honor of the country, clearly dictates. I have appealed with no selfish or partisan object in view to its friends and its agents, whenever an opportunity was presented, to avoid the errors into which it has fallen. Was it unfriendly to warn it of those unfair provisions in this conscription which were so plainly calculated to render it objectionable and odious to the people ? . . . Whose interest was it that the law should be enforced in the fairest and most unobjectionable manner? ... In all this I have been guided simply and solely by a desire to save the government from this great and fatal error. Further on, the Governor declared that he had at all times sought to sustain the army and that he had neglected no opportunity to send succor to New York's men. Passing from a defense of his own actions to a consider- ation of the future, he stated that while heretofore, in view of the military situation, there had been reasons why he could not seek peace, now our successes enable us to seek it with honor to ourselves and satisfaction to the people. . . . The war has reached an- other stage in its progress ; and a policy, different from that which has been pursued, must be marked out. Shall it be a 342 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [542 policy of subjugation — a policy that will strip the States of all their rights? Such a policy implies a long and bloody war, and an incalculable waste of life and treasure. It . . . must result in national bankruptcy and ruin. ... I am not disposed to criticise the President's recent letter x unkindly. . . . He does not in that letter contemplate an early termina- tion of the war, nor does he propose any time when it will cease. We, however, are ready to mark out a policy now, and that a conciliatory policy, that the States shall return with all their rights as marked down in the Constitution. ... To the dissolution of the Union I will never consent. I would put forth every power, I would exhaust every measure of con- ciliation, I would appeal to the interests, the hopes and fears of citizens of the South and urge every suggestion which it becomes a man to make to bring back the revolted States — but as to disunion, I will never consent to that. 2 But what if all these measures of conciliation failed? The question, as usual, was conveniently neither stated nor answered. On the second day came the adoption of the platform and the nominations. Although Fernando Wood was a mem- ber of the committee on resolutions, it was headed by a sup- porter of the war, Henry C. Murphy; and Wood was un- able to prevent the reaffirmation of the resolutions of the previous year, including that in favor of the prosecution of the war. 3 However, the resolutions of 1863 also de- clared in favor of a policy of conciliation and expressed regret for the President's late letter, " which, while reiter- ating the visionary and unconstitutional emancipation policy, 1 Lincoln's letter addressed " To Whom it may Concern," setting forth conditions of peace; this letter was occasioned by Greeley's efforts at Niagara; see Rhodes, History of the United States, iv, p. 514. * Seymour's speech is printed in full in the Argus, Sept. 11. s Herald, Sept. 10; Argus, Sept. II. 543] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 343 contemplating no measure for the restoration of the Union, but looking to an indefinite protraction of the war for abolition purposes, points to no future but national bank- ruptcy and the subversion of our institutions." Touching upon reconstruction, they condemned the doctrine " put for- ward by the administration — that no seceded State return- ing to its allegiance shall be permitted to resume its place in the Union until it has conformed to the will of the party in power." They further declared that the constitution was obligatory upon the government and upon the people in time of war as well as in peace. Vallandigham, however, was not endorsed. While denouncing all mob violence and favoring its suppression at all hazards, the resolutions declared that the " abortive results of the recent Conscrip- tion act . . . not less unjust, vexatious and oppressive, both in its character and manner of execution . . . should ad- monish the administration how much wiser it would be to place its reliance on the voluntary action of a gallant and patriotic people, ..." Finally, the resolutions approved the administration of Governor Seymour, and commended " his devotion to the interests and dignity of the State, his fearless assertion of the rights of the citizen, his fidelity to the constitution, . . . [his] energy in promptly sending the militia to repel the invasion of . . . Pennsylvania, . . . and the vigor which he displayed in putting down a lawless and reckless mob." These resolutions went through with- out debate and with only one vote against them. 1 The ticket apparently was a strong one. The nomination of D. B. St. John for secretary of state was intended as a recognition of the former Bell-Everett men. 2 William F. 1 Herald, Sept. n. 2 About fifty persons calling themselves a convention of the Con- stitutional Union party met at Albany the day before the assembling of the Democratic State Convention, and tried to strike up a bargain 344 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [544 Allen, who had been for years on the state Supreme Court bench and who had voluntarily relinquished his party's nomination for lieutenant-governor in i860 in order to make room for one more acceptable to the supporters of Breckinridge, was named for judge of the Court of Appeals. Sanford E. Church, who had already served as controller and lieutenant-governor was now nominated for the former office again. Marshall B. Champlain, the nominee for attorney-general, had been honored with the same place on the Democratic ticket of two years previous. William B. Lewis, who though elected by the Unionists had acted with the Democrats, was renominated for state treasurer. These and the remaining candidates were chosen without any in- terruption of the prevailing harmony, after which the con- vention adjourned with cheers for McClellan and Seymour. 1 The campaign was fought in great part upon the same issues as that of the previous year. The Democrats again pleaded for the constitution, personal liberty, a free press, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the constitu- tional guarantees of private property; they condemned cen- tralization and upheld states' rights; they talked of the per- version of the war for abolition purposes, of its conversion into a war of subjugation, and of the administration's failure to bring it to an end ; they assailed the corruption and the with the latter for two places on the ticket. By this time, however, it was generally acknowledged that these men had no following. The Democratic Convention tabled the request for the endorsement of the two names put forth by the Constitutional Union party. In the end, however, it was deemed wise to give to the former supporters of Bell some recognition? and so St. John was nominated. The Con- stitutional Union State Committee accepted this bone ; the two gentle- men already nominated by their convention kindly withdrew, and the whole Democratic ticket was endorsed (Herald, Sept, 9, 10, 25; Argus, Sept. 10, 11, 25). 1 Herald, Sept. 11; Argus, Sept. 11. 545] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 345 incompetency of the government and its generals, the enor- mous waste of treasure and blood, the depreciated currency, and the national banks. On the other hand, the Unionists made the same appeals as before, that patriotic men should join in sustaining the administration. They put forth the same claims that the Union party was a non-partisan move- ment, accused the Democratic leaders of disloyalty or of disloyal tendencies, contrasted the attacks of the Democrats upon the administration with their tender treatment of the rebels, and emphasized the effect which a Democratic vic- tory in this State would have in Europe and in the South. They defended the administration and its measures — includ- ing the Emancipation Proclamation — avowed their inten- tion of upholding the government in whatever it did to suppress the rebellion, and urged the voters to let the Presi- dent feel that the Empire State was behind him. The fact that the Democratic platform contained a plank favoring peace through conciliation, following a reiteration of the resolutions in favor of prosecuting the war adopted in 1862, scarcely satisfied the peace extremists, whose lead- ing organ, the New York Daily News, openly repudiated the platform. This paper noted with satisfaction that at the great Democratic mass-meeting in New York City on the Saturday before election, no war resolution was passed, and said that the peace men could therefore conscientiously vote for the Democratic nominees without endorsing a war policy. 1 But the World of the same date declared that the Democrats of the State had never faltered in their support of the war for the restoration of the Union, and that the question of peace or war was not involved in the election at hand. 2 The speech of Seymour at this same meeting 1 New York News, quoted by the Tribune, Nov. 3. 2 New York World, Nov. 2. Replying to the News, the Argus also declared that " Seymour was never the candidate of a ' Peace Party ' " (Argus, Sept. 19). 346 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [546 showed him in the ambiguous role with which his party was rightly charged by its opponents. He affirmed that the Union must be saved and that he was in favor of prosecut- ing the war. But he also said : When we obtained such signal victories at Vicksburg and Port Hudson all the world thought that this contest was to be terminated. . . . We called upon the government ... at this moment when every motive of magnanimity, honor and patriot- ism demanded it, that they should come forth and offer terms to the other party ; . . . Why is it that this war is so strangely prolonged ? And he answered, to bring about centralization at Wash- ington. 1 In truth, the Democrats were attempting to carry water on both shoulders; opposing the administra- tion yet sustaining its principal undertaking; in favor of ending the war, yet claiming that they were for its vigorous prosecution; and Seymour's speech only reflected the diffi- cult position of the party. The Unionists flatly opposed this peace-through-conciliation idea with declarations in favor of war to exhaustion. There could be no compromise with slavery and with traitors, said one. 2 " Such a peace as is worth anything," another averred, " can only be obtained by discarding all thoughts of ' conciliation ' and crushing the rebellion until it is dead ... we have no alternative but to fight it out to the bitter end. We cannot afford to ' pause ' or to ' conciliate.' " 3 As new issues, there were the indemnity clause of the act for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus* the 1 Herald, Nov. I. Similar sentiments are embodied in his speech at Buffalo, printed in full in the Argus, Oct. 29. 2 H. B. Stanton, Herald, Sept. 23. 8 Lyman Tremain, Herald, Oct. 24. 4 For this see the Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, p. 256. 547] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 347 draft, and the alleged interference of the military in elec- tions, all of which were sweepingly condemned by the Democrats, while the Unionists defended the first two. But above all, the voters were called upon to pass judgment upon Seymour's record as governor. Unionist newspapers and speakers assailed him for vetoing the soldiers' voting bill. They asserted that, after having been elevated to power by a pretense of devotion to the war, he had em- barrassed the national government; that his actions had tended to weaken it and defeat its efforts to suppress the rebellion; and that he had prevented the reenforcement of the army. They declared that he and other leading Demo- crats had misrepresented the conscription act and par- ticularly the three-hundred-dollar exemption clause, which latter was defended as a provision mitigating the severity of the law. They condemned the efforts of Democratic local authorities to procure the release of all drafted men by paying exemption fees out of public funds. Seymour's course toward the rioters was denounced in no mild terms. Lyman Tremain, descanting upon the Governor's speech to the crowd in City Hall Park, said : Here was a scene for the painter! The Governor of this powerful State standing before a mob whose hands were red with the blood of their murdered victims, alarmed at the storm which had been raised, promising to do what he could to give them the victory over law — sanctioning by implication the miserable notion that the law discriminated between the rich and the poor, and pledging himself to raise money to relieve them from the effects of the law ! * Further, the Unionists made much of Seymour's refusal to 1 Herald, Oct. 24. The Albany Evening Journal published long edi- torials on "Governor Seymour's Friends" (Oct. 9) and "Democracy and Mob Law" (Oct. 17). 348 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [548 cooperate with General Dix in enforcing the law, and de- clared that the Governor's course, by necessitating the with- drawal of thousands of men from Meade's army, had en- abled Lee to detach reinforcements to Bragg, resulting in Rosecrans being driven back. The Democrats in reply pointed to the Governor's ready response to Lincoln's pro- clamation calling for more troops in the middle of October, 1 to the 16,000 volunteers raised in New York State during Seymour's year of office, 2 and to the militia which he had sent to the rescue of Pennsylvania. " The head of the War Department," said Judge Amasa Parker, " cannot so soon have forgotten the fervent appeals he made to the demo- cratic Governor of this State for aid . . . nor the prompt- ness with which it was furnished, nor the profusion of his thankfulness expressed to Governor Seymour upon that occasion." s A noteworthy fact about the campaign was the general substitution of the name " Union " for the old party ap- pellation " Republican." The state convention was sum- moned under the name " Union," and was so denomi- nated by the party orators. Administration supporters called their ratification meetings " Union " meetings, their county conventions " Union " conventions, their party jour- 1 Under date of Oct. 20, Seymour issued a proclamation supporting the President's call and appealing to the people of New York to give " prompt and voluntary assistance " so as to avoid a draft (Printed in the Herald, Oct. 21). 2 The Tribune (Oct. 9) claimed that of the troops raised by New York State during the first six months of Seymour's administration, less than 3,000 had been raised by him, the rest being obtained with- out his intervention by United States officers. 3 Herald, Oct. 22. See also Seymour's Buffalo speech (Argus, Oct. 29) and his Syracuse speech (Argus, Oct. 30) for the same defense ; also various Argus editorials, e. g. Oct. 15, 20. 549] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 349 nals the " Union " press, and their candidates the " Union " nominees. Moreover, the Republican Central Committee of New York City in September formally changed its name to the Union Central Committee, and the various ward asso- ciations followed suit. 1 In the spring of 1862, the Albany Evening Journal classified the results of the town elec- tions for the most part under the headings " Republican " and " Democrat;" only in a few cases, did it use the desig- nation " Union." In February and March, 1863, however, this paper adopted for the same purpose the terms "Republi- can-Union " and " Democrat." In 1864, it used only the names " Union " and " Democrat." Similar changes took place in the vocabulary of its editorials. The Democrats, nevertheless, generally persisted in calling their adversaries Republicans. 1863 was an off year in New York State. No gov- ernor was to be voted for, nor would the legislature then chosen elect in the ordinary course of events a United States senator. But the campaign was felt to be a sort of preparatory test for the presidential struggle of the next year. The Democrats apparently imported no dis- tinguished men from without the State, their stump speak- ers being mainly New Yorkers — Seymour, ex-Governor Hunt, Judge Parker, Oakey Hall, James Brooks, James S. Thayer, Darius A. Ogden, Eli P. Norton, and Gilbert Dean. The Unionists, on the other hand, brought into requisition the most prominent men of their party, not only from this State but from the North generally. Thus Unionist meetings were addressed by Vice-President Ham- lin; Governors Yates, Curtin, and Andrew; ex-Governors Lane of Indiana, Boutwell of Massachusetts, and Randall of 1 Various advertisements of the different ward associations in the Tribune, Oct. 5. 350 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [550 Wisconsin; Senators Wilson, Chandler, Hale, and Howard; Galusha A. Grow, late speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives ; Schuyler Colfax, Ashley and Bingham of Ohio, Washburne of Illinois, Henry Winter Davis, John W. For- ney, Green Clay Smith, and General Sigel; while of New York men, the Unionists included among their speakers Lyman Tremain, Daniel S. Dickinson, George William Curtis, Chauncey M. Depew, United States Senators Mor- gan and Harris, Henry J. Raymond and H. B. Stanton. 1 Just before the election, Seward addressed his neighbors at Auburn. Many of the Unionists mentioned above spoke daily for several weeks, so that a determined effort was made by supporters of the administration to reverse the verdict of the previous year. The adherents of that party were greatly encouraged by the results of the October elections in Ohio and Pennsyl- vania. 2 Then came a new call by the President for 300,000 men, with the prospect of another draft. The Argus pub- lished numerous editorials on the latter subject. That of October 23rd said : The Proclamation of the President, calling for another levy of troops, sounds upon the ears of the people " like a fire bell in the night." Worse still, like one of those alarms at night, which on the apparent close of a great conflagration, gives signal that the fire has broken out anew, and in a fresh place. . . . The impression which the Presidential Proclamation has given in the interior of the State, we learn, is one of de- spondency. ... It closes the prospect of easy victory, which 1 The names of the Democrats are taken from lists of speakers in the Argus and from accounts of Democratic meetings; the Unionist speakers for the most part from the lists of Union meetings published in the Tribune from day to day. 2 See Herald of Oct. 15 and 23 for rejoicings in Buffalo, Oswego, and New York City. 55 1 ] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 35 1 a while ago had loomed up before our eyes. It shows us the Army of Virginia retreating back over the ground it has thrice passed on its way from Bull Run. It shows us the Army of the Southwest paralyzed, and its general removed. It shows Charleston, Mobile, and the blockaded ports of the South, still intact. If the war is to be protracted indefinitely, . . . what is to be the end? An editorial of November 3rd in the same paper, entitled " The Draft from New York — 108,000 More Men," said : No question of greater moment was ever presented to a people. ... If this number do not volunteer, they must be forced into the army even at the point of the bayonet. It is a question that involves the happiness of every family; and the prosperity of the whole people. . . . Let every patriotic citizen turn out to vote them [the Republicans] down. A circular was issued by the Democratic State Committee, claiming that those who had paid the three-hundred-dollar exemption fee were liable to be immediately drafted again ; but this was at once contradicted from Washington. 1 Such utterances as those of the Argus, copied as they prob- ably were by the whole up-State Democratic press, very likely had a political effect beneficial to the Democrats. In New York City and Brooklyn, however, the prospect of another draft hurt the Democrats, owing to the great de- crease caused thereby in the issuance of naturalization papers — usually very brisk before election. 2 In the first week in November many soldiers were fur- loughed, permitting them to go home and vote. The num- ber of those who left Washington for middle and central New York was estimated at from 16,000 to i8,ooo. 3 The 1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, pp. 39-4°- 2 Herald, Oct. 9. 3 Herald, Nov. 1, Washington dispatch. 352 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [552 Democrats denounced this. 1 The Tribune, in reply, de- fended it, saying that those furloughed were nearly all sick or wounded men, that the leaves of absence had been given without regard to party affiliations, and that the allegations that conditions of a political nature were attached to the furloughs were false. 2 Seward likewise declared that in view of Seymour's refusal to sign the soldiers' voting bill, the action of the authorities in this matter was entirely jus- tifiable and that the objection was " disloyal as well as un- grateful." 3 Another fact to be considered was the muster- ing out during the previous May and June of thirty-eight two-year New York regiments. 4 So that despite the Gov- ernor's veto, a portion of the " soldier vote " was cast. These men must have been an important factor in the elec- tion. Then too, the military situation was far more favor- able to supporters of the administration than a year before. The result was the success of the Union ticket by about 30,000 majority. 5 Seymour's majority of 1862 was more than wiped out by Democratic losses in New York City alone. Kings County also showed a heavy decrease in the same direction, while among the counties that went over to the Unionists was Rensselaer, which contained the city of Troy where the draft had caused a disturbance. These facts perhaps indicate that the riots had a large share in producing the result. The State as a whole, compared 1 Argus, Nov. 2, 3; New York Express, quoted in the Tribune, Nov. 5. 2 Tribune, Nov. 3; similar defense, Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 31. The Argus (Nov. 3) asserted that furloughs were granted only after ascertaining the politics of the applicants ; and that the latter were dis- tinctly pledged to vote against the Democrats or refused transportation. s Herald, Nov. 6. 4 Herald, April 27 ; Tribune, April 26. Some men, however, prob- ably re-enlisted as large bounties were offered. 5 Albany Evening Journal Almanac, 1864. 553] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 353 with 1862, showed a Democratic loss of over 21,000, and a Unionist gain of over 18,000. These figures might be inter- preted as showing that thousands of those who had voted for Seymour in 1862 voted for the Union ticket in 1863, thus condemning his course. Or if the diminution in the Democratic vote be taken as a natural decrease in an off year, the fact that the Unionists actually gained 18,000 instead of suffering a loss of approximately the same size as their opponents, may be ascribed to the furloughed and mustered-out soldiers, plus Weed followers who had in 1862 either voted for Seymour or remained away from the polls. Probably, all of these factors influenced the outcome. That the total vote fell off but three thousand compared with the year before, shows the great interest taken in the subject. In the metropolis, however, more attention was given to the contest for the mayoralty which occurred in December. Some 5,000 votes in excess of the number cast at the state election were polled. In October Tammany and Mozart, despite the boasted war character of the former and the peace doctrines of the latter, made a formal agreement for a fu- sion. 1 In accordance with this compact, the assembly, sena- torial, and judicial nominations had been divided. 2 Judges Bosworth, Hilton, and McCarthy were all refused renomin- ations by the allied Halls ; 8 and two of these places were given respectively to McCunn, who was noted for his dis- loyal sentiments, and Cardozo, who later became involved in the Tweed scandal. The Tammany-Mozart ticket was 1 This agreement was printed in the Herald of Oct. 13. It was signed by Peter B. Sweeney on the part of Tammany, and by Fernando Wood and John K. Hackett on the part of Mozart. 2 Herald, Oct. 15. 3 Herald, Oct. 25 ; Tribune, Oct. 9. 354 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [554, successful in November. A great surprise, however, came at the charter election in the following month. Many Democrats were highly dissatisfied with such bargaining. 1 Determined efforts were made to nominate General Dix for mayor, but he refused to allow his name to be used in that connection. 2 The Unionists then selected Orison Blunt for their candidate. The McKeon Democracy had already put forth C. Godfrey Gunther, who had been the Tammany nominee for the same office two years before. Tammany and Mozart united on Francis I. A. Boole, a leading figure in the aldermanic ring. The campaign was in contrast with others of this period in that national issues once more were subordinated to local matters. Although the McKeonites had been shut out from the last state convention and had polled only about four thousand votes in November, Gun- ther was elected by about 6,500 plurality. The result was interpreted as a repudiation of the Tammany and Mozart machines and as a vote against government by bargain and in favor of an honest judiciary. 1 Herald, Oct. 15 ; article on " City Politics," Herald, Oct. 25 ; the World, Nov. 2, condemned " the disgraceful huckstering . . . which foisted into the Tammany- Mozart ticket the name of John F. Mc- Cunn ;" see also speeches at the mass-meeting of the " Representative Democracy," Herald, Oct. 28. 2 A committee, including John Jacob Astor and R. B. Roosevelt, visted Washington to interview Lincoln on the subject of Dix's nomination (Herald, Nov. n, 13). The President, it seems, declined to interfere ; soon after, a meeting of Democrats " desirous of effect- ing a reform in the Democratic party in this city" was held and a public meeting to nominate Dix determined on (Herald, advertise- ment, Nov. 17). ' CHAPTER XIII The Legislative Session of 1864 Governor Seymour's annual message of 1864 was of the same character as that of the previous year. Again the greater portion of the document * was devoted to national affairs, and this part was largely made up of hostile criticism of the administration at Washington and of Congress; nor did Seymour refrain from discussing at length topics which did not directly concern the government of the State of New York. The national banking law was briefly con- demned, and legislation to protect the state banks was ad- vised. On the subjects of the enrolment and the draft, the Governor expressed the views to which he had already given utterance. He included statistics designed to show that, while the average ratio of enrolment to male population was higher in New York than elsewhere, it was lowest in New England, — a section for which he, like other Democrats, dis- played a marked aversion. Overlooking the fact that volun- teering and substituting were promoted by drafting, the Governor contrasted the aggregate of conscripts obtained from New York State, 2,557, with tne volunteers raised within its borders during the year — a number which by the inclusion of substitutes and reenlistments in the field, was in- creased to over 56,000. Seymour concluded from these figures that the attempt to fill our armies by drafting was abortive. While it 1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v. pp. 520-561. 555] 355 356 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [556 gave no useful result, it disturbed the public mind, it carried anxiety and perplexity into the workshops, the fields, and the homes of our citizens ... it produces discontent in the ser- vice; it is opposed to the genius of our political system; it alienates our people from the Government; it is injurious to the industrial pursuits of the country. All this, however, was not the worst. The Governor imagined that some sort of a military dictatorship would be the result of the continued use of conscription. " If soldiers are to be raised by coercion," he said, in a little time the mass of our armies will be made up of con- scripts. . . . [This] will tell directly upon the policy of the Government, as by the laws of several States they [the sol- diers] are invited to vote in local and general elections in distant fields, in ways adapted to their organized and military condition there. A new influence, acting in an unusual form, is thus created in the conduct of affairs. . . . While the President, as Commander-in-Chief, controls the army, the unanimous political action of the army will make the Presi- dent. Then the Governor made a plea for strengthening the militia of the states as the constitutional force of the country. In reviewing the measures of Congress and of the Presi- dent during the year past, Seymour correctly diagnosed the situation when he asserted that their acts went " far toward destroying the rights of the States and centralizing all power at the National capital ;" and he quite justly remarked that " These proceedings of Congress and the action of the Executive and military officials have wrought a revolution. ... At this time, then, we are living under a military gov- ernment, which claims that its highest prerogatives spring from martial law and military necessities." The Ameri- 557] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 357 can people must decide in calmer hours whether this revolution should be permanent. Meanwhile, the country was threatened with national bankruptcy and national ruin, and the time must come when the averting of these calamities would have to be considered. The Governor advanced as the proper solution of the impending difficulties, " wise statesmanship " and a " conciliatory policy " so that the war might be ended in accordance with the principles laid down in the Crittenden resolution; and here he entered into a lengthy condemnation of the radical plan of reconstruction so far as it was then developed. Lincoln's ten per cent plan 1 met with even more severe criticism at Seymour's hands. "A demand is made," said the message, that the people of the South shall swear to abide by a proc- lamation put forth with reluctance, and which is objected to by a large share of Northern people. . . . They [the Southern people] are to take an oath to which no reputable citizen of the North of any party will subscribe: that they will uphold any future proclamations relating to slavery. They are to sub- mit themselves to uttered and unuttered opinions and decrees. The ten per cent would maintain themselves in power by the arms and treasure of the North. The nine States thus controlled would balance in the House of Representatives in the choice of the President and at all times in the Senate, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky and Wisconsin, with a united population of 16,533,383. . . . The one-tenth who would accept the Proclamation for the price of power, would not only govern the States made by Executive decrees, 1 For this plan, see Rhodes, History of the United States, iv, p. 484. 358 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [558 but they would also govern the North. . . . Less than 70,000 ... in the nine States . . . would wield a power sufficient to weigh down that of the nine most populous States in the Union. We should thus have ... a system of rotten bor- oughs. This, Seymour continued, would destroy the representative nature of our government and enable an administration to perpetuate itself. Moreover, said he, every measure to convert the war against armed rebellion into one against private property and personal rights at the South, has been accompanied by claims to exercise military power in the loyal States of the North. . . . new and more extreme claims to arbitrary power are put forth when it is declared that the strength of the rebellion is broken. The conclusion was drawn that the doctrine of " Southern disorganization and revolution " would result in national bankruptcy and ruin, " lasting military despotism over one- third of our country, which will be the basis for military despotism over the whole land," no return of the soldiers, crushing burdens upon labor and industry, an opening of a " wide and lasting field for peculation and fraud," the per- petuation of " power by making and unmaking States," and the production of " internal disorder " and " national weak- ness in our external relations." This condensation may give an idea of the Governor's extended criticism, the whole forming a document which deserves to be ranked as a leading expression of the op- position during the war. One looks in vain for any re- cognition of the vast difficulties which confronted those governing and legislating at Washington. Governor Sey- mour was a conscientious man, and he doubtless intended that his message should be a solemn warning to those in 559] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 359 power. Instead, it served as a text for many partisan speeches in the Legislature, 1 and whatever influence the document had in moulding public opinion among the mass of Democrats was not in the direction of holding them firm in the support of the war. Thus, Seymour's attitude as shown in the message approached that of Fernando Wood. There was, however, a practical difference between the posi- tion of Seymour and that of the peace faction. The form- er's hostile~~views of the administration, his complaints at the way in which the war was being carried on, and his declaration in favor of bringing the struggle to a termina- tion by means of "wise statesmanship" did not prevent him from issuing a circular letter 2 to the various local officials urging them to " enter immediately upon the duty of raising by voluntary enlistments the quota " of their respective districts, and from tendering to the war department the use of the militia to garrison the forts around New York City. 3 Probably the circular was prompted by a desire to avoid another draft, and the offer of the state troops by a wish to bring them to greater efficiency. Nevertheless, such acts entitle Seymour to a place in history distinct from that of the peace faction. The Legislature of 1864 was a notable improvement upon the preceding one, and on the whole, made a good record. 4 The Senate consisted of twenty-one Union members and eleven Democrats; the Assembly, of eighty-two Unionists and forty-six Democrats. 5 The Unionists having an over- whelming majority, the lower house was quietly organized 1 Argus, Jan. 22, 23, 28, 29; Feb. 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 18; Mar. 4, 11, 18, 25; pril 8, 13, 15. 2 Printed in the Herald, Dec. 9, 1863. 3 Tribune, April 23; Argus, April 23. A. TT IJ A _ _!1 .1 A — . April 8, 13, 15 2 Printed in 3 Tribune, A 4 Herald, April 29. 5 Argus, Jan. 4 360 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [560 by the election of Thomas G. Alvord as speaker, 1 an office which he had already held. The Unionists immediately took up the matter of the soldiers' vote; for it was realized that dispatch was neces- sary if the volunteers were to vote at the ensuing- presidential election. As the Democrats were committed to the con- stitutional amendment already passed by the previous legis- lature, and as any direct attempt on their part to block action on this subject would have merely created party capital for their opponents, there was no opposition to the second passage of the amendment; and thus it had gone through both houses without a dissenting vote before the session was a fortnight old. 2 By the middle of February, a bill providing for a special election on March 8th, at which the amendment should be submitted to the people, was passed unanimously and signed. 3 The result was 258,795 votes for the proposed change to 48,079 against it. 4 The Union members at once pressed on with a bill to give effect to the new provision of the constitution. While some of the Democrats preferred the appointment of commis- sioners by the Governor and the Comptroller to visit the camps, fleets, and hospitals and collect the soldiers' and 1 Alvord, 77, Jacob L. Smith 42; George M. Curtis 1 (Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 6). 2 Assembly Journal, 1864, P- A 2 ', Senate Journal, 1864, p. 54. 3 The Democrats in the Senate tried in vain to have submitted at the same time another amendment providing for the appointment of commissioners to assist the Court of Appeals. The Unionists voted this down. The Democrats charged that the reason therefor was that submission then would give Seymour an opportunity to appoint Demo- cratic commissioners. Other than this, there was apparently no party debate (Herald, Feb. 6; Argus, Feb. 6; Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 242; Senate Journal, 1864, pp. 135, 136, 144). 4 Herald, Mar. 26. 5 6l] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 361 sailors' proxies, 1 whereas the Unionists generally favored the plan of the bill vetoed by Seymour in 1863, the debates showed little partisan feeling. There was apparently on both sides a disposition to enact a measure which would leave no loopholes for frauds. 2 In April, a bill providing that quali- fied voters in the service might transmit by mail their proxies to a friend or to the inspectors of election was passed, though with fifteen Democrats in the Assembly vot- ing against it. 3 There was some doubt whether Seymour would give his approval and whether he would not at least ask ior changes. The Governor, however, finally signed the bill as passed, 4 notwithstanding the fact that it was similar to the measure vetoed by him in 1863. 5 More party spirit was manifested on the question of militia appropriations. An act of 1862 provided for a reorganiza- tion of the state military forces, which then numbered about 25,000, and for the creation, under the governor's direction, of a huge national guard. During 1863, eighteen regiments had been organized and completed by Seymour and his staff, while officers for fifty-six more had been appointed. 6 When an appropriation for $200,000 for the militia came up in the Legislature of 1864, the Unionists vigorously assailed the proposition. They asserted that the new organizations were political machines, and that Copperheads and disloyal men had been preferred in the distribution of commissions. 1 Senate Journal, 1864, p. 614. This proposition was not, however, endorsed by all the Democrats nor by the Argus, which stated that it preferred the proxy system properly guarded {Argus, April 1). 2 Herald, April 1, 6, 13; Tribune, April 1; Argus, April 2, 5, 13. 3 Herald, April 6, 14; Argus, April 6, 15; Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 868; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 615. * Herald, April 22 ; Argus, April 22. 5 Lincoln's Constitutional History of New York, ii, p. 239. 6 Report of Adj. Gen. Sprague, printed in the Argus, Feb. 5. 362 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [562 Speaker Alvord probably expressed a common feeling when, in committee of the whole, he declared that " he would not say that the Executive in yonder chamber would array the militia against the general government . . . ; but he did not believe it policy for this Legislature to give him power to do it." * Then too, the operation of the law had proved expensive, 2 and a certain element in the Union ranks there- fore favored no further appropriations. The Democrats denied the charges against Seymour, and affirmed that the animus of the other side was really due to the fact that a Democrat was governor, whereas the act of 1862 was passed in the expectation of its being executed by a Republi- can. The debates were quite bitter. 3 In view, however, of the prospect that the state troops would be called into active service, the Unionists finally passed a bill 4 which, while de- priving Seymour of the selection of officers by restoring the elective system and omitting all items for a further in- crease, appropriated for the existing forces more than the sum originally named. 5 A subject which aroused many partisan discussions and occupied much attention throughout this session was the matter of legalizing the debts contracted by counties in con- nection with the draft. Practically no opposition was evinced to a general bounty bill, 6 which sanctioned the acts 1 Argus, Feb. 15. 2 It was intended that, by a fine of one dollar upon all enrolled citi- zens who neglected the parades ordered, the law should pay for the ex- penses incurred by it; but a subsequent law relieved the delinquents of the fine (Report of the Adjutant General, Argus, Feb. 5). 8 Tribune, Feb. 19, Mar. 3 ; Argus, Feb. 15, 18, Mar. 2, 3, 12, April 6, 7, 18. 4 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1248; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 825. 5 Herald, April 23 ; Argus, April 25. 6 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 229; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 119. 563] T HE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 363 of boards of supervisors in raising money for bounties in 1863, authorized the levying of a tax by each county to pay such debts, and made lawful bounties for filling future quotas. 1 The Unionists, however, frowned on all attempts to legalize debts incurred by counties which paid the three-hundred-dollar commutation fee of those drafted, except where such fee had been paid only for fire- men and policemen. 2 The supervisors of Richmond County, for instance, were said to have issued bonds with whose proceeds were paid the exemption fees of every per- son drafted in that county, thus producing no recruits. The Unionists claimed that to give validity to such an act was disloyal. The Democrats retorted by charging the other side with repudiation. 3 A number of such bills for various counties were defeated by the Unionist majority or held up and only passed after the removal of the objectionable features. 4 The Governor's suggestion to protect the state banks from the operation of the national banking law was not without friends among his political adversaries. 5 The ma- jority of the Assembly committee on banks was captured for such a policy through the defection of three of the four 1 Herald, Feb. 7; Argus, Feb. 8. Such opposition as appeared was directed against the provision excluding from the benefits of the bill cities and towns which offered additional bounties of their own, but this opposition was apparently not of a party character. 3 Tribune, Feb. 2, 5, Mar. 14, 17, 21 ; Argus, Feb. 2, 5, Mar. 14, 15, 17, 19, 21. 3 Besides references given in note 1, Argus editorials, e. g. Mar. 21, 23. * Tribune, Mar. 21, 31 ; Argus, Mar. 19, 21, 30, April 21. 5 Comptroller Robinson and Thomas W. Olcott wrote letters (printed in the Argus, April 12) virtually endorsing the views of the Assembly majority report. 364 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [564 Union members ; and accordingly, there was rendered a ma- jority report which enlivened legislative proceedings dur- ing April. This report 1 might well have been a campaign document for the Democrats. It declared that the coun- try was suffering from a redundant irredeemable paper currency, and insinuated that the excess was chiefly due to the government's issues of paper money to an un- necessary extent. Secretary Chase was assailed in no mild terms. " During the pending of the six per cent loan," the report read, the receipts of the government from conversions into stock were quite equal to the daily expenditures. . . . There are cogent reasons for believing that this absorption might have been continued to the present time had the Secretary of the Treasury not been bitten with a rage canine for borrowing at less than six per cent. . . . What matters it that the price of all commodities should be enhanced and the government and people lose ten times in cost what they save in interest? Is such a consideration to be weighed in comparison with the financial renown which must inure to him who borrows at less and less interest the deeper the country is plunged in debt? The exemption of United States securities from state and local taxation was strongly condemned ; 2 and the belief was expressed that the people of New York would not patiently submit to the shifting of taxation from the hun- dreds of millions invested in banks, insurance companies, and other moneyed corporations to property in other forms, nor permit rival corporations enjoying the same privileges 1 Printed in the Herald, April 2. 2 According to the report, the state banks held such securities to the value of one hundred and nine million dollars. 565] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 365 as the state banks " to coolly repudiate the obligation which the law imposes upon their fellow citizens." The con- clusion was drawn that " interest, sound policy, and strict justice alike demand that the Legislature should assert its sovereign prerogative in bringing all classes of persons within its scope of taxing powers." When this report was read, it caused a commotion among the Union members. After the clerk had gone through about a third of it, a motion to dispense with the further reading of the document was made and carried. Its views were denounced as disloyal, and an effort was made to prevent it being printed. 1 A few days later a report of the minority of the banking committee was presented, in favor of a bill authorizing the state banks to organize under the national banking law. 2 Two warm debates ensued, party lines being tightly d^rawn except for the few Unionists who had been won over by the state banking interests. 3 The committee on printing recom- mended the striking off of four thousand extra copies of the report of the minority of the banking committee, but only so many copies of the majority report — the language of which was characterized as semi-disloyal and criminal — as the rules called for. After heated argument, the first proposal was carried, but the House refused to have any copies of the majority report printed. 4 Amid much excitement, 5 the bill favored by the minority of the banking 1 Herald, April 2, 4; Tribune, April 2; Assembly Journal, 1864, pp. 827-8. 2 Assembly Journal, i864 f p. 921. The Argus daily attacked this bill, e. g. April 16, 21. 3 Herald, April 1 1 ; Tribune, April 12. 4 Assembly Journal, 1864, pp. 1133, 1134, 1135. For the debate, Herald, April 16; Tribune, April 18. 5 Tribune, April 24; Herald, April 21. 366 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [566 committee was passed at a later session by a party vote. 1 In the Senate, pressure was apparently needed to bring three Union members into line, the measure at first being rejected upon its final reading. 2 In the afternoon, however, the bill was reconsidered by a strictly party vote, and in the same manner passed on the following day. 3 The subject of the payment of the interest on the state debt again occupied the attention of the lawmakers. In the previous legislature the Unionists, in the face of Demo- cratic opposition, had passed a resolution providing for the payment of interest in coin to foreign bondholders only. In 1864, some Unionists desired that all be paid in green- backs. Concurrent resolutions were introduced in the Sen- ate providing that in paying principal and interest of state securities no discrimination as to the currency used should be made between foreign and domestic owners. This gave rise to party debates. The expense of premiums paid for gold, the inducement to bondholders to transfer the securities to foreigners, and the fact that much of the debt held abroad was in the hands of the British, whose government was charged with having openly arrayed itself 1 Three Unionists, two of whom were among the signers of the majority report, voted with the Democrats. Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1246. 2 Senate Journal, 1864, p. 755. 3 Senate Journal, 1864, pp. 779, 808. The bill failed to receive Gov- ernor Seymour's approval, but was again passed in 1865 and became a law then (Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, p. 588 footnote). In the session of 1864, a resolution introduced by a Democratic senator, requesting New York';s representatives in Congress to vote for the repeal of the act exempting federal securities from state taxation was buried by a party vote (Senate Journal, 1864, p. 826) ; also a bill compelling all holders of U. S. securities to pay a five per cent tax on income derived therefrom, although passed in the Assembly, was side-tracked by a strictly party vote in the Senate (Senate Journal, 1864, p. 867; Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1393). 567] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 ' 367 against the United States, were advanced as reasons for passing- the resolutions. On the other hand, the Democrats argued that such a policy would be immoral, dishonorable, and inexpedient. They made efforts to have all bondhold- ers paid in gold, but this proposal was solidly opposed by the Unionists. The resolutions were then passed by both houses, despite some insurgent Union members voting with the Democrats. 1 Thereupon, the Governor sent in a special message advocating the payment in coin of all interest on the state debt or of that due the residents of other countries at least. 2 In the Senate, the message was tabled by a party vote; 3 and in the Assembly, objection having been made to a motion embodying the recommendation and the session coming to a close, no action on the message was taken. 4 Subsequently Seymour appealed to capitalists, bankers, and public-spirited men to make voluntary subscriptions wherewith gold might be obtained to pay the interest in specie to foreign bondholders at least. 5 The New York City Chamber of Commerce appointed a committee to collect such contributions, and adopted a resolution declaring that the welfare of New York State demanded that both prin- cipal and interest of the public debt should be punctually paid in coin. 6 Thus the Governor's position was endorsed by the highest commercial interests. Senate Journal, 1864, pp. 285-6; Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1145. One Democrat in the Senate and two in the Assembly voted with the Unionists. 2 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 578-581. 3 Tribune, April 25. * Argus, April 25. 5 Argus, May 2. 6 Tribune, May 11. The project was subsequently abandoned when the committee reported that $750,000 would have to be raised to pay in coin both interest and principal due during that year to foreigners (Annual Report of the Chamber of Commerce for 1864, pp. 27, 28). 368 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [568 At this session, a concurrent resolution in favor of amend- ing the federal constitution to prohibit slavery was intro- duced by Mr. Carolus Bryant, 1 a New York City Democrat, evidently out of sympathy on this question with the mass of his party. The resolution was passed in the Assembly just before the adjournment, but the Senate failed to act upon the matter. 2 Politicians in and out of the Legislature were greatly in- terested in the solution of the metropolitan police commis- sion question. Seymour had hardly shown firmness in deal- ing with this subject. Notwithstanding the attempted re- moval of the Police Commissioners on the first day of his term 3 and despite later charges of a nature similar to those already described, and to which the Governor had given in June ten days to make answer, 4 the Commissioners had quietly retained their places, and had rendered most cred- itable services during the draft riot. 5 Their annual report for 1863 seems to have been the immediate cause of stirring the Governor to renewed action. 6 Speaking of the riot, the Commissioners said : " These violent proceedings had a political design and direction, and received encouragement 1 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 73J. 2 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1418 ; Herald, April 27. 3 Supra, p. 262. 4 Herald, June 5, 1863. These later charges are contained in the same issue. 5 Herald, Jan. 5. Seymour himself later declared that the riot was suppressed " mainly by the energy, boldness, and skill of the Police Department" (Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, p. 19). 6 Herald, Jan. 1. Though the order of removal (printed in the Herald, Jan. 3) gave as the ground for that act the charges mentioned above and said nothing about the passage in the report referring to the riot, yet the Argus (Jan. 6) said that the misconduct of the Com- missioners " was aggravated by the falsehood and impudence of their official report," and it then quoted the passages given above. 569] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 369 from newspapers and parties of influence and intelligence;" and they expressed satisfaction that, although their threat- ened summary ejection had given rise to cases of insubor- dination and although a " large portion of the force were of the same nationality and political and religious faith as the riotous mob," the police had acted as a unit during the disturbance. 1 Immediately after the appearance of this document, Seymour, although he had not carried out his promises to give the charges of the previous year a " fair and full trial " and a " thorough investigation," removed the Commissioners a second time and appointed others. The displaced officials, however, refused to vacate. 2 Thus, on the eve of another draft New York City was threatened with the ugly complications likely from a conflict over the control of the police — an experience which, in a different form, had produced dire results when Fernando Wood was mayor. The question was now taken up by the legislators, and a bill providing for a compromise in the shape of a bi-partisan police board was introduced. 3 The names of the two Democratic members caused in the ranks of that party a split in the Assembly * and a bitter family quarrel which was waged both in caucus 5 and on the floor of the Senate. 6 Tammany members desired these choice places for Elijah F. Purdy and Samuel Jones, a brother-in-law of Peter B. Sweeney. The up-State Democrats stood by Seymour in 1 Herald, Jan. 1, quoting from the report. 2 Reply of Commissioners Acton and Bergen to Governor Seymour, in the Herald, Jan. 3. 3 Herald, Jan. 20, 21 ; Tribune, Jan. 21 ; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 35. 4 Herald, Mar. 10, 12 ; Tribune, Mar. 10, 12. 5 Herald, Feb. 12 ; Tribune, Feb. 12. 6 Herald, Feb. 12, 13; Tribune, Feb. 13; Argus, Feb. 13. 370 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [570 his determination that two of his previous appointees, Bos- worth and McMurray, should get the positions. The Unionists acted together, and the bill was passed with the names of Bosworth, McMurray, Acton, and Bergen, the last two being commissioners whom the Governor had tried to remove. 1 Seymour accepted this measure, Acton remained president of the Board, Kennedy, who had been so severely denounced by the Democrats, continued as su- perintendent of the police, 2 and thus the matter came to a rather lame conclusion. 1 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 478; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 179; Herald, Feb. 16; Mar. 12. Bowen, the third of the former commissioners, had resigned before his removal to enter the army. * Herald, Mar. 16. CHAPTER XIV New York and the Presidential Nominations of 1864 The preliminaries of the presidential campaign of 1864 began in this State early. The Democratic State Conven- tion for the election of delegates to the national convention met on February 24th at Albany. 1 Besides two rival dele- gations from Kings County, there appeared as contestants from New York County Tammany, Mozart, and the Mc- Keon organization, the last named with the prestige of hav- ing recently smashed the combined Tammany and Mozart machines in the mayoralty election. 2 The settlement of this triangular fight was the most interesting event of the con- vention. The committee on credentials, after a long hear- ing, reported in favor of admitting all three delegations with six votes each. A scene of disorder followed. Mozart and McKeon accepted the compromise, though the former delegation had divided on the question of acting with Tammany in case the McKeonites were admitted — so close was the alliance between some of the leaders of the two Halls. Tammany, however, absolutely refused to accept the settlement proposed by the committee. Senator Fields, on behalf of the Tammany delegation, declared that the McKeon organization had no real strength, and that Tam- 1 The calling of the convention so early in the year by the state committee was, it seems, a victory over the peace faction in the com- mittee, who argued in favor of a later date (Herald, Jan. 28; Tribune, Jan. 30). a Herald, Feb. 23, 25. 571] 371 372 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [572 many could not consent to be placed on a footing of equality with it. Charging that McKeon was a member of a secret peace society, Fields described the issue as that of the sup- porters of the war versus those opposed to it. If Tammany should be rejected, he said, and the peace Democracy of Mc- Keon admitted, the effect could not be mistaken. This speech was interrupted by hisses, groans, yells, cries of " false," "You lie !" and applause. McKeon in reply admitted that he favored peace, but denied that his organization was for or against it; he charged Tammany with being traffickers for office, railroad jobbers, and allies of the Republicans. The audible approval reported for McKeon's avowal in favor of peace apparently indicated that a portion of the delegates strongly sympathized with such views. Finally, after more washing of Democratic dirty linen in public, the recommen- dation of the committee on credentials was unanimously adopted, whereupon the Tammany delegation left the hall. 1 In an attempt to avoid thereafter what had become a chronic nuisance at New York Democratic state conven- tions, a resolution was then adopted that delegates from New York City should be chosen in the future by assembly districts and not by the organizations like Tammany or Mozart as a whole. Another resolution, that those chosen to represent New York at the national convention should vote as a unit, was carried despite the opposition of the peace men. 2 As reported from committee, the roll of delegates to the national convention included neither of the Woods; and attempts to amend the list were side-tracked by the previous question. Horatio Seymour, Dean Richmond, Isaac Butts, 3 and August Belmont were chosen dele- 1 Herald, Feb. 25 ; Tribune, Feb. 25 ; Argus, Feb. 25, 26. 2 Herald, Feb. 25 ; Argus, Feb. 26. s Editor of the Rochester Union. 573] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 373 gates at large. Among the district delegates were Oswald Ottendorfer, John McKeon, Samuel J. Tilden, Amasa J. Parker, James S. Thayer, John A. Green, Sanford E. Church, and Washington Hunt. The convention adopted no resolutions whatever as to issues or as to preference with regard to candidates. 1 After the convention was over, the Tammany organ, the New York Leader, declared that the war Democracy must be rallied. 2 The Tammany Hall General Committee adopted resolutions approving the action of the Tammany delegates in withdrawing from the convention. 3 An ad- dress and declaration of principles was drawn up and con- sidered by the General Committee; and although it does not appear that this manifesto was adopted, it perhaps de- serves attention in view of the attitude of Mozart 4 and of the current speculations as to whether Tammany would call a rival state convention upon a war platform. 5 This document, while condemning the administration and its various measures and urging that the Democrats be re- stored to power, at the same time said : We believe that the Union and the Constitution can only be maintained by the exercise of superior force in overcoming this rebellion — that there can be no peaceful solution of this question . . . except through successful war or a shameful 1 Herald, Feb. 26; Argus, Feb. 26. 2 Extract printed in the Tribune, Feb. 29. s Tribune, Mar. 14; Herald, Mar. 14. 4 On January 2nd the Mozart General Committee had unanimously adopted the following : " Resolved, That the national democracy of New York are unqualifiedly opposed to the further prosecution of the war of emancipation and extermination, now being waged against the seceded States; and demand and will continue to demand negotiation, reconciliation and peace." — Advertisement in the Herald, Jan. 3. 5 Herald, Mar. 1. 374 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [574 surrender to the demands of Southern treason ... it cannot be denied that rebel emissaries in our midst are endeavoring to create a division of sentiment at the North to encourage the South and to prevent that concentration and energetic unity of action among the Union men of the country so essential to an early and successful issue of our national struggle. The Regency and not the Democratic party, the address continued, was represented in the Albany convention; and a protest was made against the action of that body. Further, the address said : " We believe that slavery, as a subject of political agitation, has passed from the politics of this coun- try; and that there should be but one party of patriotic men . . . devoted wholly to the restoration of the Union and the supremacy of the constitution, surrendering all subordinate issues." Finally, those of similar sentiments throughout the State were invited to communicate with the signers of the address, for the purpose of taking such steps in support of its principles as should be deemed proper. 1 This paper was the work of a clever though crafty and unscrupulous politician, Peter B. Sweeney ; 2 and perhaps, its significance was nothing more than an intended blow at Tammany's rivals, whom it was desirable to defeat and whose peace proclivities furnished a good point of attack. But if Tammany had not been controlled by placemen, im- portant developments might have resulted from her with- drawal and the admission of the peace advocates to the convention. , While the Democrats were thus distracted, a movement national in scope was beginning to make itself felt in the Union ranks in New York State. The old radical dissatis- 1 Printed in the Herald, Mar. 13. * Letter of Sweeney to the Editor, Herald, Mar. 16. 575] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 375 faction with the administration was passing from discon- tented words to action; and to counteract this, the friends of the President began to bestir themselves. On January 23rd, the Union Central Committee of the City and County of New York — a body composed of adherents of the Seward wing — unanimously passed a resolution recommending the renomination of Lincoln. 1 On January 27th, a conference was held at Albany, at which there were present a number of Unionist legislators, state officials, and others including Gerrit Smith and Lyman Tremain. Gerrit Smith offered resolutions of a radical character condemning some of the recent measures of the government. After discussion, however, these resolutions were tabled, and others endorsing the war and giving a general approval to the administra- tion were adopted. 2 Thus the radicals were apparently balked. About the same time, a number of wealthy and prominent Unionists of New York City sent out a circular to the " Loyal Citizens of the United States," lauding Lincoln and proposing that all in favor of his renomination should hold on February 22nd in their respective localities meetings to that end. 3 However, these demonstrations did not take place in New York City or elsewhere, for the move seems to have been regarded as premature. 4 At the beginning of February, " Lincoln Clubs " began to be formed in the various wards of the City. 5 Two associations having the same object were also organized there, one of them, the " Central Union Club " being especially active. Its 1 Tribune, Jan. 25. 2 Herald, Jan. 28, 29 ; Tribune, Jan. 30. 9 Circular printed in the Herald, Feb. 7. 4 Washington dispatch, Herald, Feb. 11. 5 Tribune, Feb. 3. 376 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [576 leading spirit was Simeon Draper, a politician of local note and later collector of the port. 1 In March the Kings County Republican General Committee endorsed Lincoln and his administration. 12 But the President's ad- herents obtained no such approval from the Legislature. While in other states — New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, Kansas, Cali- fornia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Maine, either the lawmakers or the Union members thereof or else a Union state convention had come out in favor of another term for the President, 3 New York took no action on this matter. In March, Assemblyman Brandreth, a young War Demo- crat, offered a resolution endorsing Lincoln ; but it was laid on the table 4 and no more was heard of it. 5 Meanwhile the friends of Chase and Fremont were not idle. The radicals, including the Tribune, generally urged that it was too early to select presidential candidates and that all Unionists ought for the time to devote themselves to the single aim of crushing the rebellion. In an editorial of February 23rd the Tribune virtually declared against Lincoln's renomination. It avowed the intention, however, of heartily supporting the Union candidates whoever they might be, and admitted that Lincoln had " well discharged the responsibilities of his exalted station " and that he was the first choice of a large majority of those who upheld the war. Yet, the editorial continued, the Tribune was opposed to two terms except " under the pressure of extraordinary circumstances . . . The practical question, then is this — 1 Tribune, Mar. 31, April 8; Herald, May 14. 2 Tribune, Mar. 2. 3 Tribune, Feb. 23; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, pp. 55-56. 4 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 416. 5 Herald, April 27. 577] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 377 Has Mr. Lincoln proved so transcendentally an able and admirable a President that all consideration of the merits, abilities or services of others should be postponed or fore- borne in favor of his reelection? We answer in the nega- tive." In March, a meeting in favor of the " Pathfinder " was addressed by Greeley. 1 The Independent about the same time published an article which, while mentioning no names, plainly indicated a pre- ference for some other than Lincoln. 2 The Post, like the other radicals, declared that the calling of the Union Na- tional Convention to meet on June 7th was a mistake. " Should our affairs continue to prosper," it said, " then Lincoln will continue in the favor he now enjoys. . . . But if . . . we shall encounter only reverses and calamities, would Mr. Lincoln then be the proper standard bearer of the loyal party ?" 3 Under date of March 25th, a petition to the National Executive Committee of the " Union and Republican Parties " asking that the national convention be deferred and that it be assembled not earlier than Sep- tember 1 st, was sent out from New York with a formidable list of signers; these included two-thirds of the Unionist members of the state Senate, also William Cullen Bryant, William Curtis Noyes, and George Opdyke. 4 In April, the fact of Chase's withdrawal from the presi- dential canvass became known. The question then turned to whether the radical strength could be concentrated on 1 Herald, Mar. 19 ; the Tribune of Mar. 18 printed at the top of its editorial columns an invitation to a meeting of friends of Fremont to consider the propriety of presenting his name as a presidential candidate. 2 Extract from the Independent, quoted by the Tribune, Feb. 18. 3 New York Evening Post, Mar. 21. The Tribune, up to the very meeting of the Baltimore convention, took a similar attitude. * Printed in the Herald, April 27. 378 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [578 Fremont. The two centers of the movement in his behalf were St. Louis and New York. 1 It was the Central Fremont Club of New York City that joined with the St. Louis radicals at the beginning of May in issuing the call for the Cleveland convention. 2 In the middle of May, there was issued another call for the same object, and among the New York men who signed this document 3 were state Comp- troller Robinson, Attorney-General Cochrane, ex-state Sena- tor Andrew J. Colvin, and Thomas B. Carroll, long a promi- nent and ardent anti-Weed man. When the convention assembled, Cochrane was chosen permanent chairman and made an eloquent address. 4 New York representatives favored Grant's nomination, 6 and there was read in the convention a letter from Comptroller Robinson advo- cating this step; 8 but the other delegations were for Fre- mont, and so the nomination went to him with Cochrane for his running mate. On June 4th, the Saturday before the Baltimore con- vention, a great mass-meeting in honor of General Grant was held in New York City. While the committee which managed the affair made no declaration of any ulterior motive and even invited Lincoln to attend, there was prob- ably back of the demonstration a purpose of influencing the coming convention in behalf of Grant's nomination for the 1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 30. 2 Tribune, May 6. None of the signers who came from New York were prominent in politics. 3 Printed in the Herald, May 18. * Herald, June 1. 5 Tribune, May 31 ; Herald, May 31 ; confirmed by the action of the New York delegates on the floor of the convention as reported in the convention proceedings, Herald, June 1. 6 Herald, June 1. 5 79] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 379 presidency. 1 Lincoln men, however, joined in and con- trolled the gathering, 2 and so the speeches and resolutions were of no political significance. 3 By the time that the Union State Convention met at Syracuse — May 24th — Lincoln's strength with the mass of the party was so apparent that the convention adopted by acclamation and with hearty cheering a resolution approving his administration, " recognizing his integrity and patriotic efforts to suppress the rebellion," and expressing " its pre- ference for his renomination." 4 Thurlow Weed, Horace Greeley, Henry J. Raymond, and Roscoe Conkling were the big lights in attendance. 5 The rivalry between the two wings of the party broke forth because of the presence of two delegations — both, however, represented as earnestly favoring a second term for Lincoln 6 — respectively chosen by the Seward and radical organizations of New York City. As the temporary chairman had the appointment of the com- mittee on contested seats, the struggle began over the selec- tion of that officer. Raymond nominated Chauncey M. De- pew; Richard Busteed, a radical, named Lyman Tremain. The latter won by six votes. The majority of the committee 1 Herald, June 2; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 50; Rhodes' History of the United States, iv, p. 469. 2 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 50. 3 Herald, June 5. Except for a casual reference by General Wal- bridge, Grant's name was not mentioned in connection with the presi- dency by any of the speakers. 4 Herald, May 26. Describing conditions just before the convention assembled, a dispatch said: "The sentiment in favor of the renomin- ation of Lincoln seems to be almost unanimous" (Herald, May 25). See also the resolutions adopted by the United Union Associations of the City of New York— evidently the radical organization.— Tribune, May 23. 5 Herald, May 25. 6 Ibid. 380 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [580 on contested seats reported in favor of seating both delega- tions from New York City, and this recommendation was adopted by a vote of 192 to 98 — apparently a defeat for the Seward faction. After the choice of the district delegates to the national convention and the passage of the Lincoln resolution, the convention balloted for the delegates at large, with the result that the four elected were Henry J. Raymond with 231 votes; Daniel S. Dickinson, 208; Lyman Tremain, 175; and Preston King, 135. Raymond and King be- longed to the Seward wing; Dickinson and Tremain to the opposing faction. The convention closed with a speech by Raymond in favor of Lincoln's renomination. 1 On the following day, a new organization within the Union party, a state committee of War Democrats, was formed. 2 The sentiment of those present on this occasion, including leading War Democrats from other states, was unanimously in favor of another term for Lincoln. 3 A meeting in the metropolis soon after resulted in the estab- lishment of a committee of the War Democrats of the City and County of New York, and in the adoption of resolu- tions calling for the renomination of Lincoln and urging the name of Daniel S. Dickinson for the vice-presidential nomi- nation. 4 A few days before the Union National Conven- tion assembled, the state committee of War Democrats adopted a resolution requesting the War Democracy of New York and of other states to rally at Baltimore for the purpose of furthering Dickinson's prospects. 5 1 Herald, May 26, 29. 2 Herald, May 26; Tribune, May 28. The Argus (May 30) de- nounced the committee as " a fraud and a humbug." The Albany Evening Journal (May 28) did practically the same; but there was a motive behind the denunciations of both of these papers. 3 Tribune, May 28. 4 Tribune, June 1. 5 Tribune, June 4. 581] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 38 1 The factional struggle in New York was now transferred to the Union National Convention, which met at Baltimore on June 7th. Thurlow Weed was on the ground, 1 attending to the task of defeating Dickinson, for whom a number of New York War Democrats were laboring, 2 and who was found to have great strength not • only in the New York delegation but also in those of other states. 3 Indeed, the principal struggle within the convention was over the vice- presidential nomination. The renomination of Lincoln be- ing quite certain on the eve of the convention, the vice- presidency would naturally go to the East; and the second place would probably have been conceded to the Empire State had the New York delegates reached an agreement. 4 But they could not harmonize their differences. As a War Democrat and as a citizen of New York, Dickinson had 1 Tribune, June 8; Herald, June 7. 2 Tribune, June 7. Weed called the Dickinson workers at Baltimore " a formidable and organized body of ultra abolitionists, ' loyal leaguers' and radical demagogues" (T. W. in Albany Evening Journal, June 11). 3 Herald, June 6, 7, 8. i Opposed to this, we have Alexander K. McClure's statement that Lincoln desired Johnson to be nominated for the vice-presidency and expressed such a wish {Recollections of Half a Century, p. 87; also Lincoln and Men of War Times, appendix) ; per contra, we have Lin- coln's reply to Nicolay (Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 72) and Nicolay's statement. Rhodes (History of the United States, iv, pp. 469, 470) says that Johnson was selected because he was a War Democrat and a border state man, but takes no stand as to the con- troversy over Lincoln's part. Neither does Rhodes make mention of the influence of New York politics or of Seward's position on the question. Bates' statement in " Lincoln in the Telegraph Office " (Century Magazine, vol. 74, p. 618) is also opposed to McClure's con- tention. That Johnson fulfilled both of the conditions mentioned by Rhodes, while Dickinson satisfied but one, does not preclude the strong probability that New York politics had a decided influence in the final choice. 382 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [582 desirable qualifications. But it was claimed that should the vice-president be a New Yorker, Seward would have to re- sign the secretaryship of state. 1 Hence, the adherents of Weed bent their energies toward keeping New York off the ticket. Moreover, the name of Daniel S. Dickinson was not a palatable one to the Weed men. The day before the convention assembled, the New York delegation caucused. After unanimously voting for the renomination of Lincoln and engaging in a long debate over the second place, a ballot was taken for the latter, re- sulting in 28 votes for Hamlin, 16 for Dickinson, 8 for Johnson, 6 for Tremain and a few scattering. The caucus then adjourned to the morrow. 2 On the 7th, a bitter struggle of three hours' duration occurred, in which Tremain and C. B. Cochrane spoke for Dickinson, while Preston King, George William Curtis, and Henry J. Ray- 1 This argument seems a strange one in view of the fact that the vice-president and the secretary of state came from the same state during a part, at least, of the administrations of Washington, John Adams and Polk, not to mention cases later than Lincoln's time. Yet, the current accounts (e. g. Herald, June 7 ; Tribune, June 9) are in- directly confirmed by Weed's statement that " a formidable and organ- ized body of ultra abolitionists, ' loyal leaguers ' and radical dema- gogues appeared at Baltimore, for the purpose, as they avowed, of procuring the nomination of Mr. Dickinson for Vice-President, that Mr. Seward might be excluded from the Cabinet" (T. W. in the Albany Evening Journal, June 11). According to the Herald dispatch, George William Curtis, in the caucus of the New York delegation, said " that the real question at issue had not been given yet, and it might as well be stated and met right here. If the Vice-President was taken from New York, it would prevent that State from having a member of the Cabinet." The same dispatch says : " Mr. Raymond, alluding to the fact that this was a move to break up the Cabinet, was taken [to task] by Mr. Tremain, who, in retort, declared that a change in the Cabinet would not be a very serious calamity ..." (Herald, June 8). a Herald, June 7. 583] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 383 mond opposed him. The ballot again resulted in no choice, Johnson receiving 32 votes, Dickinson 28, and Hamlin 6. 1 New York took a prominent part in the convention. One of its delegates, Senator Morgan, called the assemblage to order; the report of the committee on credentials was de- livered by another New Yorker, ex-Senator Preston King; a third, Henry J. Raymond, wrote the platform and was subsequently chosen chairman of the Union National Com- mittee; while a fourth, George William Curtis, wrote the letter of notification to Lincoln. The committee on cre- dentials recommended the exclusion of the delegates of any of the seceded states; but King, a Seward man, 2 moved to amend the report, which he himself had just rendered, by admitting the Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas delegates. 3 This strange proceeding was ascribed in the press to an arrangement between the Southern delegates and three or four Seward leaders, the latter agreeing to admit the Southerners in return for votes against Dickin- son; and it was also asserted that a bargain for the same end was made between the Seward men and the Ohio delegation. 4 The occurrences within the convention lent probability to these allegations. At any rate, the admis- sion of Tennessee's representatives, thereby rendering Andrew Johnson available, was an important step toward heading off Dickinson. The case of Tennessee being taken up first, the vote against this proposition was steadily increasing until New York gave forty-four votes in its favor; then Ohio gave forty-two, and subsequently surfi- 1 Tribune, June 8; Herald, June 8. 2 King usually if not always sided with the Weed-Seward faction during the period here treated, although his principles were apparently radical. 3 Tribune, June 10; Herald, June 9, 12. 4 Herald, June 9, 12. 384 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [584 cient changes were made to let Tennessee in. The ad- mission of Louisiana and Arkansas naturally followed. 1 When the time to nominate candidates for the vice-presi- dency came, Lyman Tremain presented Dickinson's name, making - an eloquent appeal which was received with en- thusiasm. 2 Had it not become apparent as the ballot pro- ceeded that Johnson would probably be successful, the latter would have had but 200 votes to 113 for Dickinson, 145 for Hamlin, 28 for Butler and 34 scattering. As a re- sult of changed votes, the ballot as announced gave John- son 492, Dickinson 17, and Hamlin 5/ Thus the friends of Seward won and the United States came to have Andrew Johnson for its chief executive. The national convention was followed by a controversy more bitter than ever before between Thurlow Weed and his opponents. The immediate occasion was an editorial in the New York Evening Post, wherein two of the resolu- tions adopted at Baltimore were spoken of as " a blow right between the eyes of the Secretary of State." Further, the editorial said : " By their cavalier treatment of the school of Weed, Cameron and the like, they [the convention] told him [Lincoln] pretty plainly to keep away from such fel- lows in the future; and we hope he will heed the warning." * Weed replied in the Albany Evening Journal. After re- buking the Post for its criticisms of the President — and the Post, it must be admitted, had passed judgment on Lincoln in rather outrageous terms, considering that it avowed itself a supporter of the administration — Weed went on to defend Seward. " Why this persistent persecution, blood hound tracking of an able, patriotic, unselfish, upright 1 Tribune, June 9. 2 Herald, June 9. * Ibid. * New York Evening Post, June 9. 585] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 385 statesman?" he asked. And he concluded with the asser- tion that " the wicked, homicidal slavery leaders would have failed to consummate their treason but for the aid received from their ' best friends,' the abolitionists of the North, Of course, the Post retorted, assailing Weed as father of the lobby at Albany and as a gridiron-railroad bill man- ager, and insinuating that he had acted corruptly at the be- ginning of the war in the chartering of the steamer " Cati- line " for the use of the government, 2 a transaction which had created a scandal. In reply, Weed not only defended the " Catiline " business, but declared that he was entirely disconnected with the affair. However, it appeared from his own statement that he had endorsed notes for John E. Develin, with which the latter had advanced money to the person who purchased the " Catiline " after it had been verbally chartered by the government agent; but, accord- ing to Develin, Weed did not know the object for which the notes were drawn. Weed was apparently wrought up by these charges. He struck back at each of his enemies. He accused an editor of the Post of being a prominent member of the Albany lobby, and affirmed that one of the Post's proprietors, Hen- derson, was guilty of corruption in the office of naval agent. This last allegation had some basis of truth, it seems; for not long after, Henderson was dismissed from office and arrested. 3 Then Weed turned upon ex-Mayor Opdyke. " This man," said Weed, " has made more money by secret partnerships in army cloth, blankets, clothing, and gun con- tracts than any fifty sharpers ... in the city of New 1 Albany Evening Journal, June 11. 2 New York Evening Post, June 13. 3 Herald, June 24. 386 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [586 York." He declared that Opdyke had denied all inter- est in a claim arising out of the destruction of a gun factory during the draft riot, that he might sit officially on the board which passed upon such matters, and subsequently, after an allowance of $190,000 had been made and paid by the City, a suit arose in the course of which Opdyke affirmed that he was the part owner of the property. Then Weed dis- cussed at length the financial dealings of Opdyke and David Dudley Field with General Fremont in the formation of the Mariposa mining company. And he concluded with an attack upon his most persistent and powerful adver- sary, the Tribune, by asserting that while that paper was falsely accusing him, the Tribune associates and corres- pondents were themselves making money out of government contracts, supplying the enemy through the New York custom-house (an incidental thrust at such anti-Weed men as Hiram Barney and Rufus Andrews), and engaging in cotton speculations. " It is alleged," Weed concluded, " that Mr. Greeley obtained Callicot's appointment, and shares profits with him. Of this I know nothing more than that a gentleman . . . informed me that drafts had come from Callicot to Mr. Greeley. But Camp . . . avows his connection with Mr. Greeley in cotton speculations." 1 The consequences of this scandalous quarrel on the eve of a most important political campaign evidently had no re- straining effect upon Weed. There was a whole crop of replies. Field wrote to the Post that the receipt of stock from Fremont was a counsel fee for real and necessary legal services and not, as Weed asserted, a part of a gratuity for promoting Fremont's political interests ; and he declared that Weed's attempt to adjust the value of his (Field's) work was sheer im- 1 Albany Evening Journal, June 18. 587] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 387 pertinence. 1 Opdyke, in an open letter, 2 contented himself for the time with a denial of Weed's charges, but promised to seek redress from the courts later. In the following December Opdyke carried out this threat in a libel suit which attracted widespread attention. 3 The Post said, along with much else : " It is an old trick with rogues to shout stop thief, and we suspect that T. W. is making a great outcry against the dozen or more respectable private individuals whom he so wantonly assails to divert attention from his own sinister course." 4 Greeley published the following curious editorial card : I, Horace Greeley, do solemnly declare . . . that I have been a partner in no contract, job, or undertaking of any sort, with, to, or for the Government of this State, or of the United States, since Abraham Lincoln became President; and that, except by the publication of advertisements in the Tribune at the usual and regular prices charged to advertisers generally, I have made no dollar of money out of either or any Govern- ment, whether by job, contract, commission or otherwise. (signed) Horace Greeley. 5 Greeley also wrote a letter to the Albany Evening Journal, in which he said : Mr. Editor, good and true men whom I love and honor have appealed to me not to distract the Union party by persisting in personal feuds with Mr. Weed. Years ago, T. W. and I 1 Printed in the Herald, June 23. 2 Printed in the Herald, June 22. 3 Herald, Sept. 6, Dec. 14 and the following days: Weed, Autobio- graphy, pp. 528-9. * New York Evening Post, June 20. 5 Tribune, June 25. 388 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 5 88 were daily associates and (as I thought) friends. We have since separated, simply and only because one of us has come to believe and practise systematically using legislators and legislation to advance personal interests and promote private ends. Whatever may be asserted, there is not, there never was, another serious ground of difference between us. The City Railroad bills of i860, the whiskey legislation of the present session, illustrate the whole matter. 1 This letter seems to have maddened Weed still more, and another epistle came from him, reiterating his former charges, attributing his separation from Greeley to the lat- ter's ambition, reproaching Greeley for his connection with Fourierism and the Maine laws. 2 reminding him of his will- ingness to let the cotton states withdraw from the Union, and scoring his war policy. 3 There followed open letters from Opdyke, 4 Benjamin F. Camp, 5 and David Dudley Field, 6 showing the extent to which the animosity had grown. Opdyke spoke of Weed as " a person whom I long since proved to be as reckless of truth as he is bankrupt of character, and whose moral sensi- bilities have become so blunted in the practise of his vocation as lobby chief that he seems to be no longer capable of dis- tinguishing between right and wrong." Field declared that Weed's " presence in our party has done more than that of any other man to demoralize it." The controversy died down for a while, but a month later found Greeley and 1 Tribune, June 24. 2 For Greeley's connection with Fourierism, see Linn's Horace Greeley, pp. 79-84; for his advocacy of the Maine laws, see ibid., p. 172. 3 Albany Evening Journal, June 25. 4 Herald, July 2. 5 Albany Evening Journal, June 28. 6 Herald, June 30. 589] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 389 Raymond engaged in an editorial war, couched however in more polite terms, on the subject of Greeley's efforts at Niagara to bring about peace between the North and the South. 1 Of course, those outside the Union ranks were pleased at these dissensions. The Herald printed one of the letters quoted above under the title: " Weed the Wash- erwoman of the Republican Party," 2 and declared that the " irrepressible conflict " between the two wings of the party had begun in earnest. 8 Then too, there were at this time differences within the loyal leagues. 4 And all this strife came on top of the dissatisfaction that culminated in the Wade-Davis manifesto. Weed, however, soon obtained a great triumph over his adversaries. Lincoln and Weed " naturally ' took to each 1 Tribune, Aug. 5; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 195. In December, Rufus F. Andrews wrote to Weed : " Why don't you enu- late the last virtue of Judas Iscariot and hang yourself?" and further on Andrews called Weed "an unscrupulous old liar" (Letter printed in the Herald, Dec. 12). 1 Herald, June 27. 3 Herald, June 14. The Albany Evening Journal (June 25) in an- swer to Greeley's complaints about the publication of Weed's letters, did not deny that they furnished ammunition to the enemy, but knew of no way to prevent it since Weed's opponents had begun the con- troversy. 4 Herald, July 7, for resolutions considered in the Kings County General Committee, attacking the Union League for favoring the nomination of some other than Lincoln; Herald, July 16, for an ac- count of an effort at the meeting of the state council of the Loyal Union League to suppress local councils favorable to the Seward- Lincoln interest. At this meeting, a resolution was adopted by the state council disapproving and repudiating the action of council no. 4 of Brooklyn in passing resolutions " nominating a candidate for the Presidency" (t. e. Lincoln), and "circulating the same among the councils of the State." The Herald correspondent at the Saratoga meeting of the state council, held on Aug. 3, reported similar discord between the Lincoln and Fremont men there (Herald, Aug. 7). 390 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [590 other ' from the very day they met," said Swett, " and their relations grew gradually more agreeable and friendly," the President frequently sending for Weed to consult him on important questions. 1 It was the practicality, the good sense, and the tact of the veteran New York politician which probably attracted Lincoln. Seward, too, Lincoln found congenial 2 — Chase becoming ever less so. More- over, the Weed faction in New York claimed to be the special friends of the President ; 3 and when Chase began to intrigue for the presidency, Weed apparently was able to convince Lincoln of the truth of that assertion. And yet. at the beginning of 1864, Weed contemplated opposing a second term for Lincoln. The old man evidently was get- ting ready to commit the same sort of treachery against the President that he once attempted against Fillmore. 4 In the 1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 295, quoting Swett; ibid., p. 288, quot- ing George E. Baker. 2 Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 358 ; F. W. Seward's Seward at Washing- ton, iii, p. 197. 3 Schucker's Chase, p. 477 ; the Albany Evening Journal of May 24th said : " Four-fifths of the offices of Customs and an equal proportion of the Internal Revenue Officers in the city of New York, are hostile to the President. Men holding sinecure offices in the Custom House are now secretly at work, throughout the State, for the Cleveland Convention." Weed wrote to David Davis : " They will all be against him [Lincoln] in '64; why does he persist in giving them weapons with which they may be able not only to defeat his renomination, but to destroy the government?" (Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 440). As Davis was one of Lincoln's most trusted counselors, this letter or its contents was probably brought to Lincoln's attention. 4 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 198. In a letter to Abram Wakeman, dated Oct. 13th, Weed said: "My reasons for desiring a change of Administration are known to those who have read what I felt con- strained to say since December, i860, ... It was this dread of ultra Abolition embarrassing Mr. Lincoln in the past, and threatening em- barrassment in the future, that induced me to hope for a change of Administration. I believed that a Democratic President, as earnest as Mr. Lincoln against the Rebellion, and exempted from the in- 591 ] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 391 spring of 1864, Weed wrote a letter to David Davis, who showed it to Lincoln, wherein was expressed the writer's dissatisfaction with Lincoln's course. Weed was evidently urgent for prompt action upon some matter — probably the patronage thus far possessed by his opponents. 1 Later, he wrote to Seward : " Knowing that I was not satisfied with the President, they came to me for cooperation ; but my ob- jection to Mr. Lincoln is that he has done too much for those who now seek to drive him out of the field." 2 During that same year, some of the men closest to Weed, including Raymond and Abram Wakeman, made a raid on Gideon Welles in an effort to get the latter to reorganize the Brooklyn Navy Yard for party purposes. 3 This pressure on the part of Weed and his followers and the danger of de- fection in that quarter were clearly appreciated by Lincoln; for the latter wrote to Chase that the appointment of Judge Hogeboom (long a prominent anti-Weed man 4 ) to be gen- eral appraiser " brought me to, and has ever since kept me at, the verge of open revolt. Now the appointment of Mr. Field would precipitate me in it, unless Senator Morgan, and those feeling as he does, could be brought to concur in it." 5 fluences which have beset and badgered him from the beginning, could prosecute the War more successfully; ..." (Printed in the Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 14). 1 Letter of Davis to Weed, printed in Barnes' Memoir of Weed, pp. 444-5. 2 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 366, quoting ms. letter of Weed to Seward. 3 "Diary of Gideon Welles," Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1909, pp. 356, 359, 361, 2,62. 4 He was one of those who took part in the conferences of anti- Weed men in 1861, mentioned above in chapter iv {Diary and Cor- respondence of S. P. Chase, American Historical Association Report for 1902, ii, pp. 485, 487). 5 Letter of Lincoln to Chase, in Warden's Chase, p. 613. 392 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [592 This last mentioned question of New York patronage was the occasion of Chase's resignation in June. The Sec- retary selected Maunsell B. Field to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of John J. Cisco as assistant-treasurer at New York City. Cisco was a holdover from the last ad- ministration, and Senator Morgan had already presented to Chase a complaint that there were among the clerks and officials under Cisco only about a half dozen Union men, and that the rest were Democrats. 1 Now, Morgan 2 vigor- ously and firmly opposed the nomination of Field, not only on the ground of unfitness but also for political reasons. Field was endorsed by some of the most honorable business men of the metropolis, including Jonathan Sturgis, Peter Cooper, Phelps, Dodge and Company, as well as by ex- Governor John A. King, Greeley, and others ; 3 and he had been recommended by Cisco, under whom he had formerly served before becoming assistant secretary of the treasury.* On the other hand, there is some evidence that Field, de- spite his talents, was not a suitable man for the office. 5 However this may be, the fact seems to have been that the Weed-Seward faction were determined to get hold not merely of the assistant-treasurership but also of the numerous sub- ordinate positions connected therewith. 6 Senator Mor- 1 Warden's Chase, p. 609, quoting Chase's diary. 1 That Weed was back of Morgan is indicated by Weed's writing to Fessenden, recommending for the position Morgan's choice (Warden's Chase, p. 623, citing Chase's diary). 3 Chase's memorandum for the President, in Schucker's Chase, p. 507. 4 Schucker's Chase, p. 484. 5 Chittenden's Recollections, p. 371 ; " Diary of Gideon Welles," At- lantic Monthly, Sept. 1909, p. 348: " I doubt if any one but Chase would ithink of him [M. B. Field] for the place [assistant treasurer at New York] . . . "; Rhodes' History of the United States, iv, p. 479. 6 Schucker's Chase, pp. 484-5; Hart's Chase, p. 315; "Mr. Morgan urged that the political result of his [Field's] appointment would be ex- tremely unfavorable to the Union party in New York" (Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 92. 593] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 393 gan proposed Richard M. Blatchford, Dudley S. Gregory, and Thomas Hillhouse. Chase was obdurate. Lincoln refused to displease Morgan in the matter. 1 " By accident rather than by any design of mine," the President was later reported to have said to Field, " the radicals have got possession of the most important offices in New York . . . Had I under these circumstances consented to your appointment, it would have been another radical triumph, and I couldn't afford one." 2 And so, though Cisco was persuaded to remain in office, Chase resigned. Where- upon Weed proclaimed in the Albany Evening Journal his great satisfaction, saying, " Heaven be praised for this gleam of sunshine ;" 3 and in a later letter, he wrote : The despotism from which I felt ... a sense of relief, is well understood at Washington. Mr. Chase, in the exercise of the vast patronage of his department, was a despot. . . . The organization of the New York Custom House is a living, burning disgrace. Mr. Chase had evidence of infamous prac- tices but refused to act. . . . He has known for three years that gross custom house dishonesty exists at Oswego. But he gave " no sign." . . . There are other and grave reasons for rejoicing that Mr. Chase is out of the Cabinet. He abolition- ized that Cabinet ; and if our government should be overthrown and our Union severed he, as the chief of a class to which Sumner, Greeley, Phillips, etc., etc., belong, will be responsible for the calamity. . . . Then came much more on the share of Chase and his fol- lowers in prolonging the war, uniting the South, dividing 1 Letter of Lincoln to Chase, in Schucker's Chase, p. 507. 2 Maunsell B. Field, Memories of Many Men, p. 300. 3 Albany Evening Journal, June 30. 394 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [594 the North, alienating the border states, etc., in regular Democratic style. 1 What Weed said about the New York custom-house apparently had a basis of truth. Even the Tribune ad- mitted that there had been abuses there — wastefulness and extravagance, the use of public money for partisan purposes, and the subjection of commerce to burdens; but the Tribune excused these evils by declaring that they were of long standing. 2 Since the beginning of the year, the pressure on the President to displace Collector Barney had been very strong, the latter not only having attempted to oppose the Weed-Seward faction, 3 but also having drawn down upon himself the displeasure of some influential anti-Weed men. 4 And so, in February, Lincoln wished Barney to resign and accept a diplomatic post ; 5 but Barney refused. Then too, the Collector's private clerk, A. M. Palmer, who was a member of the Union State Committee, was arrested and lodged in Fort Lafayette. Irregularities, moreover, were discovered in the office of one of Barney's chief subordin- ates, Henry B. Stanton, prominent as a leading radical; and he was dismissed. Finally, in September, Barney re- signed ; the surveyor of the port, Ruf us Andrews, who was a well-known radical, was removed; Simeon Draper was named for collector; Postmaster Wakeman succeeded An- drews ; and James Kelly was appointed postmaster. 6 1 Albany Evening Journal, July 16. 2 Tribune, Sept. 8. Schucker's Chase, p. 479, exculpates Barney and Palmer, though admitting the existence of irregularities. 3 C. R. Fish, " Lincoln and the Patronage," quoting Chase mss. (American Historical Review, viii, p. 62). 4 Warden's Chase, p. 601; Lincoln to Chase, ibid., p. 613; Hart's Chase, p. 218. 5 Lincoln to Chase, Warden's Cltase, p. 572 ; Schucker's Chase, p. 479. 6 Herald, Sept. 6, 17. 595] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 395 Draper, Wakeman, and Kelly were all good Weed men ; * and thus this important patronage, which Weed and his followers had so long coveted, was at last captured from his adversaries. In the Union State Convention, which assembled at Syracuse on September 7th, with Weed, Greeley, and Opdyke the notable personages present, 2 the anti-Weed faction had the greater strength. The admission by a vote of 150 to 120 of both delegations from New York City, 3 without reference to a committee and against the remon- strances of Abram Wakeman, 4 was apparently a radical victory. 5 When the convention gathered, it was almost a foregone conclusion that Congressman Reuben E. Fenton would be nominated for governor. 6 Fenton was of the radical wing, 7 but nevertheless had managed to obtain the 1 For Kelly's alleged snubbing of Weed, see p. 225, note 5 ; despite this incident Kelly was apparently a Weed follower. 2 Herald, Sept. 7. 3 The differences between the Unionist factions in New York City had already engaged the attention of the Union State Committee (Herald, July 28), and formed the principal point at issue between the two wings of the party at the Syracuse convention (Herald, Sept. 8; Tribune, Sept. 9). 4 Herald, Sept. 8. 5 Herald, Sept. 8. That this was a defeat for Weed is corroborated in a letter of Andrews to Weed (Herald, Dec. 12) in which the former said : " I had beaten you and your allies and myrmidons in the State Conventions of May and September 1864." •A Tribune editorial of August 30th said: "For Governor, we have seen but a single name publicly suggested — that of Reuben E. Fenton, . . . Unless there are adverse movements whereof we are unadvised, his nomination is already virtually assured." 7 "... it is his [Fenton's] ill-luck to be claimed by both factions " — Argus, Sept. 9. Yet an editorial in the same paper of September 8th stated that Fenton came from the same wing of the party as Wadsworth. Weed had not been on friendly terms with Fenton (Barnes* Memoir of Weed, p. 444). 396 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [596 support of Weed or at least acceptance by him. 1 Rev. Dr. Dix in his Memoirs of John A. Dix says that Weed, though anxious to have the General head the ticket, had " by a com- bination of untoward circumstances been placed in a posi- tion in which he was unable and unwilling to act." 2 Yet, on the floor of the convention a delegate brought forth once more Dix's name. It was hailed with applause. However, doubts were expressed as to whether Dix was willing to stand fully and without reserve on the party platform (though of course no one questioned his patriotism or loy- alty to the administration). Then too, it was announced that Dix had written that he could not accept the nomina- tion. 3 The Tribune subsequently stated editorially " Had he [Dix] simply said, ' I am of and with the Union party, and will serve it as it shall deem best,' he would have been nominated by acclamation." 4 Lyman Tremain also was nominated. The ballot resulted as follows: Fenton 2 47K '> Tremain 69 ; Dix 35^4. 5 This outcome was probably due to a division in the radical ranks between Fenton and Tremain, and to the support of the former by the Weed adherents. 6 The balloting for the nomination for lieuten- ant-governor resulted in that place going to an anti-Weed man, Thomas G. Alvord, who received 246 votes to 963/2 for Waldo Hutchins, 19 for Richard M. Blatchford, and 35 scattering. Both Alvord and Hutchins were radicals, 1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 444. 2 Dix's Memoirs of John A. Dix, ii, pp. 171, 173. 3 Herald, Sept. 8. This letter, addressed to Ward Hunt, is printed in the Tribune, Sept. 12. See also Dix's Memoirs of John A. Dix, ii, P- 173. * Tribune, Sept. 9. 5 Herald, Sept. 8. 6 Herald, Sept. II. 597] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 397 while Blatchford belonged to the Weed-Seward faction. The large majority of the first named was due to the fact that Hutchins was less acceptable to the Weed delegates, who accordingly changed from Blatchford to Alvord. 1 An- other indication of the strength of the anti-Weed men in the convention was the ballot on presidential electors at large. This resulted as follows: Horace Greeley 215, Pres- ton King igi]/2, Daniel S. Dickinson 143, Richard M. Blatchford 86, J. S. T. Stranahan 27, scattering 24, 2 Greeley and King being thus chosen. The resolutions which were adopted, strongly favored the continuance of the war until the rebels submitted, made a bid for the support of the soldiers by pointing to " the sig- nificant fact that not one State whose legislation is con- trolled by our political adversaries has authorized and en- abled our soldiers to vote," and emphasized the recent vic- tories of the Union armies. Seymour's record as governor, however, was not attacked. 3 As has been said, the peace men in New York State were very active during the summer of 1864, aiming to influence the action of the forthcoming Democratic National Con- vention. Fernando Wood was the leading spirit in this agitation. It was alleged by his enemies, both Democratic and Unionist, that the movement was simply an artifice of the Mozart chief to enable him to drive fresh bargains 4 — a likely accusation so far as Wood's own share was concerned, considering his past career. At this time Wood had need of all his cunning. His senatorial ambitions had been de- feated, both he and his brother Ben had been utterly dis- regarded at the Democratic State Convention, Mozart 1 Herald, Sept. 8. 2 Ibid. s Ibid. 4 Tribune, June 23 ; Herald, June 18, Aug. 22. 398 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [598 Hall had recently split into two rival organizations, 1 and John McKeon was a power at the New York City Hall. 2 In June, 1864, the state committee which had been created by Wood's mass peace convention in the previous year, assembled again. 3 The New York Copperheads kept in touch with those of other states, for leading peace Demo- crats from without were present on this occasion. At a similar consultation a month later, with such distinguished Copperheads as Voorhees of Indiana and Singleton of Illi- nois in attendance, it was resolved to hold another mass peace convention at Syracuse. 4 A few days later, Singleton and Congressman Brooks addressed a slimly attended peace meeting in New York City. 5 At the beginning of August, the Mozart Hall General Committee unanimously adopted resolutions declaring that " the masses of the Democratic party in this city and State are for peace, for an immediate cessation of hostilities, and for the instant inauguration of negotiations for ending the present war; and that we de- mand a platform favoring an armistice and a convention of States from the Chicago Presidential Convention." The resolutions further instructed such delegates as belonged to the Mozart General Committee and recommended to the rest of the New York delegation to vote for no man for the presidential or vice-presidential nomination who favored 1 Herald, Aug. 4, 6. An advertisement in the Herald of August 4th stated that at a meeting of the Regular Mozart Hall General Com- mittee, it was resolved " That we revoke the power delegated to a special committee of five to dispense the patronage of Mozart Hall, and which has been exercised only by one man to the detriment of the party." 2 Herald, Aug. 22. s Herald, June 22 ; Tribune, June 22, 23. 4 Tribune, July 23. ''Herald, July 27; Tribune, July 27. 599] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 399 " the further prosecution cf this useless, bloody and ruin- ous war." x The mass peace convention met at Syracuse on August 1 8th. The attitude of the Argus toward this body shows how far the Regency wing — the main body of Democrats in the State — had progressed toward Copperheadism. Be- fore the editor discovered that this movement was to be used as a lever to work against the Regency, the Argus spoke of the convention and its objects in a sympathetic tone. An editorial said : It has been the custom of the Republicans ... to denounce men who talked about peace, but that time has now gone by. . . . Out of the afflictions of the country, the conviction has grown upon their [the people's] minds, that there must at some time be an end of war — that peace can never return to us except by a conference between those engaged in deadly conflict — that it would be honorable to us — honorable to both belligerents, under a suspension of hostilities, to freely confer together through the medium of a National Convention, con- cerning the possibility of terminating this strife and of restor- ing fraternal relations on the basis of a continuance of the Federal Union. 2 Two days later, the same journal declared that it " did not wonder . . . that the Peace Party was inspirited and en- couraged by the revolting aspects which Mr. Lincoln's course, his general mal-administration, and the resulting failures of our army, had lent to the war question, and by the reaction of public sentiment against him." 3 If the Argus did not here pronounce the war a failure, it plainly showed that it was not inclined to disagree with those who 1 Herald, Aug. 5. 1 Argus, Aug. 18. 3 Argus, Aug. 20. 4 00 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [600 thought so, provided only that they acted under the leader- ship of the state organization. At the convention it was evident that the Copperhead strength was not limited to the metropolitan district; for large delegations from the cities in the central part of the State were reported as present. Crowds gathered at two open air assemblages in the afternoon. At the evening meeting, the hall was packed. The principal attractions were Vallandigham, ex-Governor Weller of California, and Fernando Wood. Vallandigham received an enthusiastic welcome and his thoroughgoing peace speech of more than an hour's length was listened to with attention and received with applause. An ultra peace address and a series of reso- lutions were presented and adopted, though there was some doubt as to whether the next to the last resolution was carried or not. 1 This provided for a committee to go to the Chicago convention, there to represent and advocate the opinions of the New York peace Democracy. Those who engineered the affair declared that this resolution had been adopted, and the committee including Fernando Wood was duly appointed. In fact, Wood apparently was playing a game but slightly different from that which he tried to use at Charleston four years before. The other resolutions ex- pressed the belief that it was the duty of the coming Chicago convention to give expression to this beneficent spirit of peace and to de- clare as the purpose of the Democratic party, if it shall recover power, to cause this desolating war to cease by the calling of a national convention, in which all the States shall be repre- sented in their sovereign capacity, that to this end an immediate 1 Herald, Aug. 19, 26 (containing a letter of S. T. Suit, secretary of the peace delegation to the editor of the World, denying that the resolution in question was stricken out). 6oi] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 401 armistice shall be declared. . . . That if in the platform and candidates of the Chicago Convention the now pervading peace sentiments of the country shall be disregarded, and that body shall place another war candidate and platform before the people, . . . there will be no real issue to decide at that election. Further, they condemned at great length the actions of the administration as arbitrary and despotic, and asserted that the reply of the President to Messrs. Clay and Holcomb 1 was an official avowal that the object of the war is not for the restoration of the Union, but the destruction of slavery in the Southern States or permanent separation, and furnishes un- mistakable evidence that the party now in power have deluded the people into the granting of unlimited means and money for . . . preserving the Union, which they have used and are still using for the base end of overthrowing State institutions, advancing party interests and establishing them in permanent despotic power. Finally, a state committee was designated. 2 On the other hand, there was an organized movement in New York, led by Hiram Ketchum, Jr., in behalf of the nomination of McClellan. As early as March 17th a crowded and enthusiastic mass-meeting, presided over by Amos Kendall, postmaster-general under Jackson, was held at Cooper Institute with this object in view. 3 But the local politicians of prominence held aloof. 4 By the beginning 1 Cf. supra, p. 342, note I. 2 Herald, Aug. 19; Argus, Aug. 20. 3 Herald, Mar. 18; Tribune, Mar. 18. 4 At a McClellan meeting in New York City in August, Hiram Ketchum, Jr. stated that "when they commenced to organize Mc- 4 02 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [602 of summer, McClellan ward organizations and a central executive committee had been formed. 1 These men co-' operated with McClellan advocates of other states in taking steps toward the holding of a convention of the " conserva- tive " voters of the country at Chicago on July 2nd,- in- tending of course to influence the Democratic National Con- vention called to meet two days later at the same place. Upon the postponement of the latter body to August 29th, the date of the " Union Conservative National Conven- tion " was fixed for August 27th. 3 In August McClellan meetings were held by the various ward associations of New York City; 4 and on the evening of August 10th a monster demonstration took place in Union Square. Here again, among those who addressed this gathering, men of political prominence, with the exceptions of John B. Haskin, Isaiah Rynders, and Hiram Ketchum, were conspicuous by their absence. 5 Later, Ketchum was appointed by the McClellan State Central Committee to proceed to Chicago to further McClellan's nomination. 6 Thus far Tammany Hall had Clellan clubs in the City of New York, there was hardly a politician but what shook his head and said that it was no go. After they had gained a little strength, a meeting was held in Cooper Institute, but not a single man of political eminence could be found in the city to act as president, so that the committee were obliged to import Amos Kendall from Washington" {Herald, Aug. 11). 1 Herald, June 16. 2 Ibid. s Herald, June 26. * Herald, Aug. 5, 6, 9. 5 Herald, Aug. n ; Tribune, Aug. II. The Herald estimated the num- ber present as not less than one hundred thousand ; the Tunes at thirty thousand; the Sun at least sixty thousand; the Journal of Commerce seventy-five thousand. The Tribune, while admitting that it " was a large meeting," thought that this demonstration was not half so large as the war meeting following the fall of Fort Sumter (Tribune, Aug. 12. 6 Herald, Aug. 18. 603] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 403 been silent; but just before the convention her General Committee enthusiastically and unanimously adopted reso- lutions in favor of McClellan. 1 About a week before the delegates gathered in Chi- cago, the Argus came out with an authoritative announce- ment that Governor Seymour would not be a candidate for the presidency. 2 Yet, when the convention met, the peace men led by the two Woods revived the talk of naming Seymour with the intention probably of using him to kill off McClellan. 3 Around the hotels the anti-McClel- lanites talked much, and betting by outsiders that McClellan would not be nominated was lively. 4 Dean Richmond, however, was firm for the General, 5 and a majority of the New York delegation was for him. 8 On Saturday, August 27th, the delegation caucused and organized. Sev- eral of the members having been delayed by the railroads, the McClellan supporters sought to fill the vacancies and to take an informal ballot on a candidate for the presiden- tial nomination. These steps were stoutly opposed by Cozans and McKeon of New York City. Governor Sey- mour favored postponing a vote in order that further con- sultation might be held; while beseeching his friends to abandon further thought of his own name and acknowl- edging the unequaled popularity of McClellan, he sug- gested Judge Nelson and James Guthrie as men whose ex- perience perhaps fitted them better for the office than Mc- 1 Herald, Aug. 27 ; Tribune, Aug. 29. 2 Argus, Aug. 19. 3 Herald, Aug. 28, Sept. 5 ; dispatch to the World, Aug. 29, signed M. M. (probably Manton Marble) ; Argus, Aug. 30. 4 Herald, Sept. 5 ; Tribune, Sept. 5. 5 Herald, Aug. 28. 6 Herald, Aug. 28, 29; Tribune, Aug. 31. 4 04 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [604 Clellan's. Samuel J. Tilden followed with a long speech. He declared that Nelson was too old and Guthrie not popu- lar; Seymour's withdrawal having been reiterated, he (Tilden) should vote for McClellan. The supporters of the General had shown their overwhelming superiority by defeating a resolution offered by one of the anti-McClellan men; but in deference to the wishes of the minority, the delegation adjourned to Monday. 1 This prolonged session of the New York delegation with- out taking a vote for a candidate revived the hopes of the opponents of McClellan that New York might give a complimentary vote to Seymour. 2 Though the delega- tion of every state, save New York, Kansas, and Iowa had now caucused, with the result that McClellan had a majority in all except Ohio, yet if New York stood (by Seymour, McClellan could hardly obtain the neces- sary two-thirds vote. Yet this by no means meant that Seymour would be nominated — a fact which the Regency leaders doubtless considered. On the following Monday morning the New York delegation again met. Seymour made a speech declaring that he had no idea of allowing the use of his name for the presidential nomination. A ballot was then taken, resulting in McClellan receiving 55 votes, Judge Nelson 9, Guthrie I, and Charles O'Conor i. 1 On the same day, the convention was called to order by August Belmont. Governor Seymour was chosen presi- dent of the assemblage, and on taking the chair made a long 1 Special dispatch to the New York World, Aug. 29, signed M. M. (probably Manton Marble). 2 Herald, Aug. 29. 3 Herald, Aug. 30, corrected by correspondence published in the Herald, Sept. 5. 605] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 405 speech embodying sentiments to which he had so often given utterance since the beginning of the war. 1 No ballot for the presidential nomination was taken during the first day's session, though several bitter speeches against McClellan were made. Meanwhile, Samuel J. Tilden was said to have fought strenuously in the committee on resolutions against Vallandigham and the extreme peace men. 2 Vallandigham himself subsequently boasted that he had carried the second resolution of the platform — the one declaring the war a failure — through the sub-committee and the committee " in spite of the most desperate and persistent opposition on the part of William Cassidy, editor of the Albany Argus, and his friends." 3 On that night the peace men, including Harris and Long of Ohio, the two Woods, and the committee from the Syra- cuse peace convention, worked hard to prevent McClellan's nomination. An anti-McClellan demonstration was held, and efforts were made to unite upon Seymour those who were against the General. 4 The former, however, refused under any circumstances to permit his name to be used. 5 Yet, when the ballot in the convention was taken, some dele- gates gave their votes for him; but the Governor directed that they be announced as having been cast for Seymour of Connecticut. 6 In the selection of the vice-presidential candidate, New York's action was decisive. On the first ballot, Guthrie of Kentucky led. He probably would 1 Herald, Aug. 31. 2 Herald, Sept. 5 ; Cook's Life of Tilden, p. 82. 8 Letter of Vallandigham, dated Oct. 22, 1864, printed in the Herald, Oct. 27. The Argus denied the allegation of Vallandigham. It said, " Mr. Cassidy took no part in the matter" (Argus, Oct. 28). 4 Herald, Aug. 31, Sept. 1. 5 Herald, Sept. 1 ; Tribune, Sept. 5. 6 Herald, Sept. 1 ; Tribune, Sept. 5. 4 o6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [606 have been nominated, but for the fact that the New York delegation, in order to appease those dissatisfied with the choice of McClellan for first place, changed to Pendleton on the second ballot. 1 Pennsylvania followed New York's example; and thus in addition to the platform, the Demo- cratic ticket was handicapped with a candidate of peace pro- clivities. Since it does not appear that Dean Richmond or his representatives made any fight outside of the committee against the platform or against the nomination of Pendle- ton, it can scarcely be claimed that the New York leader exhibited on this occasion any great political sagacity. 1 Herald, Sept. 5 ; Tribune, Sept. 5 supports this indirectly. CHAPTER XV The Defeat of the Peace Party That the Unionists of this State did not suffer from their dissensions as much as might have been expected, was due to the overshadowing nature of the issues arising from the war. At the same time that the Copperhead press of the metropolis was spreading incendiary sentiments, while the peace advocates were active and many Southern men and women were in New York City, 1 Governor Seymour's ac- tions during the spring and summer of 1864 were such as to make administration supporters realize the necessity of lay- ing aside factional quarrels. Two judges of the New York Supreme Court had already rendered decisions holding that the state tribunals had the right to inquire into the legality of detention in the case of a soldier in the federal service, for whose discharge a writ of habeas corpus had been issued by a state court. 2 Would Seymour support the judiciary with force, if necessary? In the case of the draft, he privately admitted that forcible resistance would aid rather than embarrass the government. 3 Moreover, we are now in a position to see that his whole nature was disinclined to violence, however much he might have desired to bring to a clear issue of law the questions wherein he opposed the 1 Tribune, July 26, as to Southerners in New York City. 2 Argus, Aug. 26; Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, pp. 488, 489. 3 Letter of Seymour to Tilden, dated Aug. 6, 1863, in Letters and Literary Memorials of Samuel J . Tilden, i, p. 184. 607] 407 4 o8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [608 administration. But at the time, men did not perceive all this. And Seymour's official acts more than once placed him on the verge of that attitude which loyal people feared and Copperheads hoped for. The seizure of the New York World and the New York Journal of Commerce x on the 19th of May and the arrest of their editors produced great indignation among Demo- crats. The Albany Argus fumed. " It behooves citizens of the State," it said in one editorial, " to consult, in a time like this, in regard to what action shall be taken — not what words shall be uttered — to protect their rights." 2 Sey- mour directed the district attorney of New York County, A. Oakey Hall, to inquire into the facts connected with the occurrence and to prosecute any one who had acted illegally. The Governor said that his proclamation at the time of the draft riot, giving warning that " the laws of the State must be enforced, its peace and order maintained, and the prop- erty of its citizens protected at every hazard," was not intended merely for that occasion or against any particular class of men. Any action against the editors of the sup- pressed papers outside of legal procedure was criminal. Our soldiers in the field will battle in vain for constitutional liberty if persons or property or opinions are trampled upon at home. . . . They must not find when they come back that their personal and fireside rights have been despoiled. In addition to the general obligation to enforce the laws of the land, there are local reasons why they must be upheld in the city of New York. If they are not, its commerce and great- ness will be broken down ; and the Governor enlarged upon this congenial theme and 1 For this incident, see Rhodes' History of the United States, iv, p. 468. 2 Argus, May 23; also Argus, May 25, 26, for editorials, articles, etc., denouncing the seizure. 609] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 409 upon the fourth and fifth amendments to the constitution of the United States. He concluded that the state and local authorities must repel the ruinous inference that such arbi- trary actions could be tolerated in New York. " In mak- ing your inquiries, and in prosecuting the parties implicated, you will call upon the sheriff of the county and the heads of the police department for any needed assistance. The failure to give this by any official under my control will be deemed a sufficient cause for his removal." 1 A Democratic judge, Russel, instructed the grand jury that, if the laws of the State in reference to the protection of person and property had been violated, the parties con- cerned, no matter what their station, must answer for the wrong; nor could any order of the President of the United States or other official be any protection to those executing it; if those who took and maintained forcible possession of the newspaper establishments numbered three or more, they were liable as for a riot. 2 The grand jury, however, re- fused to bring in an indictment, declaring that it was in- expedient to inquire into the subject. 3 Seymour promptly enjoined upon District Attorney Hall to lay the matter before a proper magistrate. 4 Hall accord- ingly went before Judge Russel and formally accused Gen- eral Dix and his subordinates concerned in the seizure, of kidnapping, inciting a riot, and forcibly entering and detain- ing property. 5 Russel thereupon granted warrants for the arrest of General Dix and others. 6 Dix's counsel announced that the General was willing to submit himself to the civil 1 Seymour .to District Attorney Hall, printed in the Herald, May 25. 2 Herald, June 14. 3 Herald, June 25 ; letter of Seymour to Hall, Herald, July 2. 4 Letter of Seymour to Hall, printed in the Herald, July 2. 5 Herald, July 2. 6 Ibid. 4 io NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [610 authorities; 1 but subsequently Lincoln directed Dix not to relieve himself of his command during the war or to per- mit himself to be deprived of his liberty because of obeying a military order of the President. 2 Seymour now wrote to the District Attorney to enforce the laws of the State irrespective of the orders of the President. 3 Argument was heard in court, Dix's counsel, Edwards Pierrepont and William M. Evarts, pleading the act of March 3, 1863 as protecting their client. Judge Russel's decision referred the case again to the grand jury, 5 and that was as far as the matter went. The Governor, after so much bluster, once more disappointed the Copperheads. Whatever political capital the Democrats might have gotten by the arbitrary suppression of the two newspapers was probably lost by a weak endeavor in the midst of a civil war to arrest and pun- ish the military commander of the district for obeying the orders of his official superior. The Governor's course in connection with the President's call on New York State for 12,000 one hundred days men 6 to aid in repelling Early was not what it ought to have been. True, Seymour had been most wrongfully blamed for leav- ing New York City unprotected by ordering its militia to Pennsylvania in 1863 an ^ the outrageous accusation had been made that he had done this as part of a Copperhead conspiracy to leave the draft rioters full play. 7 It was also 1 Herald, July 2. 2 Herald, July 7. 3 Herald, July 8. 4 Herald, July 10 ; for this act, cf. supra, p. 346. 5 Herald, Aug. 7. 6 For the hundred days men, see Rhodes' History of the United States, iv, p. 498, note 5. 7 Supra, p. 322. As a sample, the following from a Tribune editorial of July 9th may be quoted : " It is quite time that the eminent friend of these rioters should get up another diversion in favor of Jeff Davis & Co., and manage it better than the last was engineered." 6n] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 4I i true that the Union legislators had shown a distrust of the Governor by not providing appropriations for an increase in the militia. Then too, there was some danger of rebel in- vasion from Canada. Moreover, most of the state forces were in New York City and Brooklyn and it was necessary to guard against further outbreaks like that of the previous year. Yet, it seems that Seymour had a sufficient number of regiments at his disposal to have been able, without danger of domestic disturbance, to have ordered some of them to the front. 1 He sent eight hundred men and designated as the remainder of the quota seven other regiments as yet but little more than skeleton organizations and hence having 1 Both the Albany Evening Journal and the Argus defended Seymour on this occasion. The former claimed that there were but 15,000 militia in the State, of which 9,000 at least were in New York City and Brooklyn ; that they were " distributed through skeleton regi- ments " and could hardly be made available except in a few cases, un- less the regiments were consolidated or filled up (Albany Evening Journal, July 9). The New York City papers, however, gave no hints that such was the state of the militia there. During 1863, eigh- teen regiments had been organized and completed {supra, p. 361). The Argus in defense of the Governor said : " Why did not the President announce that troops were wanted for the special duty of repelling the invasion and guarding Washington? Doubtless any number of volun- teer militia could have been raised and sent forward ere this for such a special purpose. But no such assurance has been given. Men were called for one hundred days, and to the inquiry whether thirty day men would be received it was answered, ' they would be of no use to General Grant.' They certainly would be of use in defence of the Capital against this raid; but they would not be available to the front [sic] in the campaign against Richmond. There is no question that the militia have misgivings and hesitations on this point. Most of the regiments would hasten to the defence of the Capital ; but many of them would hesitate to volunteer for one hundred days against Richmond." Even if all the facts were as the Argus stated, still Seymour does not appear in this affair as an ardent supporter of the government. Morton or Curtin would hardly have acted as Sey- mour then did. 4 i2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [612 first to fill up their ranks. 1 He also issued another procla- mation, 2 appealing to the people of New York to join the National Guard. " Unless this is done at once," he said, " I cannot respond to the call now made by the President ;" and then came a constitutional essay on the value of militia. At that time, the Confederates were close to Washington! Seymour's order to increase the militia by 75,000 un- fortunately was issued at about the same time that he took his decided stand against General Dix. Consequently, the Governor did not escape suspicions that he desired this large body of troops to defend the sovereignty of the State of New York against the national government. The hopes of the Daily News were apparently revived by the Gov- ernor's action. The News said : Our State sovereignty has been insulted and assailed so often with impunity, that most of our citizens had given up all hope of protection from the State Executive. We believe, how- ever, that Governor Seymour has finally become impressed with a sense of the necessity for his official interference in behalf of the interests of the Commonwealth. 3 One of Seymour's brigadiers, John A. Green, once chairman of the Breckinridge State Committee and a notorious Cop- perhead, issued a general order in response to the Gover- nor's call for militia, in which he said : In addition to the dangers of invasion from without and of popular discontents at home, we have been warned by recent events of the still greater danger of arbitrary encroachments upon our liberties as citizens. The laws of New York have already been deliberately set at defiance. Men have been in- 1 Herald, July 13. 2 Printed in the Herald, July 14. 3 New York News, quoted by the Tribune, July 14. 613] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 413 carcerated without warrant of law ; their property seized ; the freedom of the press has been unlawfully restrained by the armed hand; . . . We must be prepared for all emergencies while there is yet time. 1 In the end, New York's quota was not sent to the front in time to be of service. A dispute arose between Seymour and the war department as to whether the men forwarded in response to this call would be liable to the coming draft ; and the Governor, not liking the decision made at Wash- ington, withheld the troops. 2 The new draft in the autumn of 1864 caused a recur- rence of seditious editorials in the Copperhead press, 3 and still worse, more friction between the war department and Seymour. It was the same old difference over the en- rolment and the quotas. 4 One thing which the Governor emphasized was coming to be appreciated by adherents of the administration too, and that was the burden of taxation caused by the excessive quotas. 5 Chairman Blunt of the New York County Volunteer Committee, late Union candidate for mayor, and ex-Mayor Opdyke agreed that the enrol- ment in New York City was very imperfect and that the 1 Tribune, July 14, quoting the Syracuse Courier. 2 Herald, July 26, 28, 29; Tribune, July 29; confirmation of this in the opinion of the Solicitor of the War Department, printed in the Tribune, Aug. 5; the Annual Report of the Adjutant General of the State of New York 1865, i, p. 202 states that only two regiments of the National Guard were mustered at this time into the service of the United States for the term of one hundred days, for duty in the field ; they numbered in all 994. 3 E. g. New York Neivs of August 12th, quoted by the Tribune, Aug. 13. 4 Letter of Seymour to Stanton, printed in the Herald, Aug. 7 ; letter of Provost Marshal General Fry to Stanton, printed in the Tribune, Aug. 19. 5 Letter of Seymour to Stanton, Herald, Aug. 7. 4 i4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [614 demands made upon it were consequently disproportionate. 1 These gentlemen were both radical Unionists. The New York County Union Central Committee, composed of Sew- ard adherents, sent a delegation to Washington to en- deavor to have New York credited with the men enlisted as sailors and marines. 2 The folly of the Democrats in denouncing the three-hundred-dollar exemption clause now began to be felt. That provision had been repealed, and hence the price of substitutes rose enormously. 3 The war department rejected the proposal to appoint a commis- sion to adjust quotas, similar to that granted in the pre- vious year, on the ground that the law did not permit such an act. 4 Yet, in the end, New York City and Brook- lyn wholly escaped this draft. Supervisor Blunt with great labor compiled a list of the naval enlistments from New York since 1861, numbering 25,908, for which no allow- ance had been made. The government allowed this claim. New York City was credited with about 18,000 men, Brooklyn with about 6,000, and the rest of the State with the remainder. Thus New York City's quota was filled. 5 Possibly the administration accepted this way out of a situation which involved important political difficulties. 6 We have seen that the New York delegation to the 1 Letter of Blunt to Fry, printed in the Herald, Aug. 10; remarks of Opdyke at a Chamber of Commerce meeting, Herald, Sept. 2. 2 Tribune, Aug. 25. 3 Herald, Aug. 22. 4 Letter of Seymour to Stanton, printed in the Herald, Aug. 7 ; Stanton's reply, printed i n the Tribune, Aug. 15. 5 Herald, Sept. 5, 10 ; letter of Blunt to Seymour and Townsend, printed in the Herald, Sept. I. 6 Under date of August nth, Seward wrote to his wife: "Very many loyal men counsel us to yield the draft, through fear of civil war at the North." — F. W. Seward's Seward at Washington, iii, p. 239. 615] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 415 Democratic National Convention of 1864 was noteworthy in that Tammany Hall was without representation in it. At the ensuing state convention, which met at Albany on September 14th, the Wigwam leaders resumed their seats in the councils of the Democracy. The advantages to the Regency from a divide et impera policy were self-evident; and on the other hand, though the charges made against the Tammany managers of being place barterers and of form- ing a close corporation were not without truth, yet it was manifest that mushroom rival organizations were increas- ing so rapidly among the Democrats of the metropolis that the party was being seriously weakened. Accordingly, there being no less than six sets of contestants from New York City, the committee on credentials reported a reso- lution acknowledging Tammany Hall as the regular Demo- cratic organization and the Tammany delegates as the regu- larly elected ones, awarding them nine votes — more than half of those cast by New York County — and admitting the other delegations with one or two votes apiece. This con- cession was not satisfactory to Tammany's opponents ; con- sequently the McKeon, the old Mozart, the new Mozart, and one of the German delegations withdrew when the resolu- tion of the committee was adopted. Thus, the field was left practically to Tammany. 1 Not only was Fernando Wood powerless, but his entrance upon the convention floor was greeted with hisses. 2 Never- theless, the applause which the speech of the temporary chairman, Marshall B. Champlain, met with showed to what an extent the New York Democracy had pro- gressed toward Wood's ideas. 3 After the settlement of the 1 Herald, Sept. 16; Argus, Sept. 16. 2 Herald, Sept. 15. 3 Champlain said in part : " There is a deep conviction pervading the 4I 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [616 New York City contest, the convention proceeded peace- ably. The report of the committee on electors, naming William Kelly of Dutchess and Washington Hunt of Niagara for electors at large, was accepted without dissent. 1 The adoption by acclamation of the report of the committee on resolutions followed. The platform was equivocal in character. After endorsing McClellan and Pendleton, it de- clared, in an attempt to harmonize opposite ideas, that " the patriotic principles declared by the National Democratic Convention, as nobly and eloquently expounded by its can- didate for the Presidency, in his recent letter of acceptance, embody a line of policy upon which alone the American people can restore the Union." Again, the platform faced both ways when in the same resolution it approved Mc- Clellan's pledge that he would, if elected, " exhaust all the resources of statesmanship to secure peace, reestablish the Union, and guarantee for the future the rights of every State," and coupled this endorsement with the Jacksonian declaration that " the Union must be maintained at all hazards." Other resolutions affirmed that the Democratic party of New York State was " unalterably opposed to the rebellion," denounced at length the administration of Abra- hearts of the people that the administration in power is incapable of restoring the Union or saving the country. A great and confiding people have poured out their blood like water and given their treasure without stint. . . . Yet, for the want of wisdom and ability to turn these achievements [of the army and navy] to the pacification of the country, they are lost. . . . We must cooperate, then, with the great conservative party of the nation to sweep away the barrier and throw the doors wide open, for the States at the South to return to their allegiance to the Union, with all their rights under the constitution, as the first step towards peace and concord." True, the speaker in- sisted upon the preservation of the Union — but not by war, if it could not be saved otherwise (Herald, Sept. 15; Argus, Sept. 15). 1 Herald, Aug. 16; Argus, Sept. 16. 617] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 4^7 ham Lincoln, and thanked the soldiers and sailors. Lastly, it was resolved that to Governor Seymour the gratitude of the democracy is ever due. They can never forget that it was he who, in the midst of our disasters and in the face of an overbearing adversary, was foremost in uplift- ing the banner of constitutional liberty, which he has since borne unsullied through every battle. That it was he who by his wisdom arrested public discord, by his firmness re- pelled aggressions upon State rights and personal liberty, and by the purity of his public life and the elevation of his pur- poses, exhibited, in the midst of general corruption and fac- tiousness, the highest qualities of a statesman and a patriot. 1 The last resolution was hailed with enthusiasm. It was then that the surprise of the occasion occurred. Before the convention met, it had been announced by the Gov- ernor's friends that he would not accept a renomination. 2 While there was no doubt that the majority of the dele- gates would have favored Seymour being named again but for his positive stand against such action. 3 the result was that those most frequently mentioned for the head of the ticket by the gathering politicians were Judge William F. Allen, Judge Amasa J. Parker, and William Kelly of Dutchess. 4 The resolution quoted above, however, up- set the previous calculations. A delegate moved that Hora- tio Seymour be nominated for governor by acclamation. This proposal took the convention by storm, the motion being carried with cheers. Another delegate thereupon an- nounced that he was authorized to say that Governor Sey- 1 Herald, Sept. 16. 2 Argus, Sept. 15. 3 Tribune, Sept. 14; Herald, Sept. 17; Argus, Sept. 15, said that a number of delegates had been instructed to support Seymour for renomination. * Herald, Sept. 14. 4 i8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [618 mour positively declined a renomination and begged leave to withdraw his name. The cries of the convention mem- bers showed that they would not hear of this. Mr. South- worth of Oneida — Seymour's county — then said that in company with the other Oneida delegates, he had called upon the Governor within the preceding hour, and that Seymour absolutely refused to run again. The Seymour enthusiasm, however, was not to be stemmed. A motion that a committee be appointed to wait upon the Governor and notify him of his nomination was carried. This committee in due time reported that Seymour thought that in view of his impaired health and the demands of his private business, the party ought not to press a nomi- nation upon him, and that therefore he asked the convention to designate some one else; but if the convention insisted upon his being the candidate, he " did not feel at liberty at this hour of our country's peril " to forbid the use of his name. These last words settled the matter, and Seymour was declared the nominee. 1 The remaining nominations, in- cluding that of David G. Floyd Jones for lieutenant-gover- nor, were then made by acclamation. 2 Those who disliked Seymour declared that the whole affair was a prearranged trick, a nomination ostensibly merely complimentary but se- cretly intended to be accepted. 3 It may have been a strata- gem on the part of a few delegates, 4 but there is no evidence 1 Herald, Sept. 16; Argus, Sept. 16. The Argus report differs as to the reply of Seymour. The Argus gives it thus: "But, added Mr. Farnwell, he [Seymour] did not say he would not run." 2 Herald, Sept. 16 ; Argus, Sept. 16. 3 Herald, Sept. 16. An editorial in the same paper of September 17th said: "He [Seymour] tried to get the nomination at Chicago by the same tricky means he has secured it at Albany." See also Tribune editorial, Sept. 19. 4 Even before the nomination, the Herald of September 14th contained in a dispatch dated the 13th the following: "There is some talk of 619] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 419 or likelihood that it was artfully planned by the Regency or by the Governor. 1 However, as a correspondent well said, " Seymour's worst failing is that he never says directly yes or no." The campaign in New York opened with the usual rati- fication meetings directly after the nominations of Lincoln and Fremont. 2 The alarming apathy in the Union ranks during July and August was shown by the absence of de- monstrations of size. Near the end of the latter month, Raymond wrote from New York to Lincoln : " This State, according to the best information I can get, would go 50,000 against us to-morrow ;" 8 and at the same time Weed in a letter to Seward pronounced Lincoln's election an im- possibility, declaring that no one in New York doubted the result. 4 Raymond was so despondent that he was ready to steal the Democratic fire — to send commissioners to Richmond to treat for peace on the basis of the Union. Congressman Sedgwick, writing from Syracuse, despaired giving Governor Seymour a complimentary vote by nominating him with the understanding that he will decline in a speech to the Con- vention. Some opposition is manifested to this plan under the idea that the move is only a trick to place Seymour in the field again; but this is met by those who pretend to speak the Governor's views with the positive declaration that Governor Seymour will not accept . . . upon any contingency." 1 The Herald special correspondent attributed the nomination to the machinations of John A. Green. " Richmond acknowledges the de- feat and declared to Green that it was ' damned well done.' " 2 Herald, June 10, 14, 16, 28 ; Tribune, July 6. 3 Nioolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 218. 4 Ibid., ix, p. 251. At the same time, J. M. Forbes in a letter to Gus- tavus V. Fox reported Weed as desperate and Raymond as giving intimations which showed that he was ready to make peace (Hughes' Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, ii, p. 102). Swett wrote to his wife, September 8th, about the alarming depression in New York (Tarbell's Lincoln, ii, p. 202). 4 20 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [620 of Lincoln's reelection. 1 A.s is well known, prominent radi- cals at a meeting in New York City began operations to bring about Lincoln's withdrawal and another nomination, continuing these efforts from mid-August to the latter part of September. Greeley, Godwin, David Dudley Field,. Tilton, Opdyke, and Noyes were among the New Yorkers who took part in this movement. A call for a convention to meet at Cincinnati was privately circulated ; letters of inquiry were written to Unionists of other states; and Greeley for the Tribune, Parke Godwin for the Post, and Tilton for the Independent sent a similar missive to the governors of loyal states. While these steps were aided by the sym- pathy and in some cases by the participation of prominent men outside of New York, yet the attempts to feel the party pulse failed to show that another nomination for the presi- dency would meet with proper support. 2 After the Chicago convention, the political situation in New York was stirred up; and from September on, very large meetings with abundant enthusiasm on both sides were reported from all over the State. McClellan's nomination was received with joy by the great majority of New York Democrats. In New York City a large ratification meet- ing under Tammany's auspices was held in City Hall Park immediately upon the arrival of reliable news of the action of the convention; 3 Tammany Hall was brilliantly illumin- ated and decorated ; while along the East and North Rivers, bonfires around which crowds gathered were lighted. 4 In 1 Hughes' Letters dnd Recollections of John Murray Forbes, ii, p. 101. 2 New York Sun, June 30, 1889; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 366; letter of Swett, Tarbell's Lincoln, ii, p. 202; Pearson's Andrew, ii, pp. 159, 160; Linn's Greeley, p. 202. a Herald, Sept. 1. 4 Ibid. 62 1 ] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 421 Albany two salutes of two hundred guns each were fired, a procession formed, fireworks set off, and a meeting held on the steps of the Capitol. Similar demonstrations took place at Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Ogdensburg, Buffalo, Poughkeepsie, Kingston, Lockport, Troy, and many smaller places in the State. 1 All this had a reactive effect upon Mc- Clellan's opponents. The Chicago resolutions especially braced up the Unionists. Fremont withdrew, and soon both the radicals and their journals heartily supported Lincoln. Thereafter, with the exception of a very vicious attack upon Lincoln delivered by Wendell Phillips before a great Cooper Institute audience a week before the elec- tion, 2 there were no discordant voices in the Union ranks in New York State. On the other hand, a large number of Democrats felt that the peace plank adopted at Chicago was a great handi- cap. The Herald day after day in leading editorials urged McClellan to rebuke the " disloyal platform." 3 Hence the General's letter of acceptance 4 was received with much satis- faction by the major portion of the party in this State. The World thus expressed their sentiments: Thank God for a purified, regenerated, disenthralled, Demo- cratic party! Thank God that every burden is lifted from its back, every impediment from its victorious path ! The men who have been the curse of the party have gone out of the party. Close up the ranks ! . . . Now we go into the Novem- ber fight without a flaw in our armor. . . . 5 1 Herald, Sept. i ; Argus, Sept. 2. 2 Herald, Oct. 27. 3 E. g. Sept. 3, 4. * For McClellan's letter, see the Annual Cyclopcedia for 1864, p. 794. 5 New York World, Sept. 12. 422 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [622 The letter, however, also provoked a troublesome minority. The Daily News said : The States Rights doctrine that demands every true and faith- ful Democrat raise his voice against a war for the subjugation of sovereign States, is recognized practically in the enuncia- tion of principles laid down by the Chicago Convention ; but is, on the other hand, directly repudiated in General McClellan's avowal of his determination, if elected, to compel the sov- ereignties of the South to submit to his will by force of arms. The man nominated to represent its principles is therefore no longer the nominee of the Chicago Convention. ... he has therefore no claim on the support of the Democracy as such. General McClellan's voice is for war. Principle, feeling, con- sistency, every suggestion of patriotism, statesmanship, and self-respect forbid us, therefore, from giving him our support. 1 The News further declared that the Democrats " must seek a candidate who will stand upon their platform;" and to that end, it suggested that the Chicago convention be called together again. 2 About the same time a conference of peace men was held at the St. Nicholas Hotel in New York City. A resolution to hold a convention at Cincinnati was passed ; 3 but upon unfavorable indications as to support from Ohio, the resolution was rescinded. 4 Ben Wood maintained his hostility to McClellan. Smaller peace pap- ers yielded. The size of the Democratic vote in New York State shows that the threatened split in the Democratic ranks — if indeed, the Wood followers were strong enough to bring about such a condition — did not occur. The vari- 1 New York News, quoted by the Tribune, Sept. 13. 2 New York News, quoted by the Herald, Sept. II. 3 Herald, Sept. 15; Tribune, Sept. 15; letter of Alexander Long of Ohio, printed in the Tribune, Oct. 10. 4 Letter of Long, Tribune, Oct. 10. 623] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 423 ous factions in New York City, however they differed in local nominations, united in hearty support of the presiden- tial and state tickets. 1 Most potent, here as elsewhere, in changing the tide in favor of the Unionists were the successes of the army and navy during the autumn. Even Governor Seymour was roused by the occupation of Atlanta and by Farragut's achievement at Mobile to order flags to be displayed from all public buildings and one hundred guns to be fired ; 2 while the New York City Common Council, both branches of which were Democratic, took similar action. 3 Both Unionists and Democrats rejoiced from patriotic motives. But Unionists might well be doubly jubilant, as the effect of the victories on the prospects of the Chicago ticket was at once realized. Then came the October elections with re- sults most encouraging for Lincoln. Fire upon the Democrats was opened from another quarter, the War Democrats. At the end of October, there was issued a call for a convention and mass-meeting of the Democracy opposed to the Chicago platform, to meet at Cooper Institute on November 1st. This document was honored with such signers as John A. Dix, Edwards Pierrepont, A. T. Stewart, Peter Cooper, Robert B. Roose- velt, and Moses Taylor ; it was also signed by committees in behalf of the State Committee of the War Democracy of 1 Thus the great McClellan demonstration of September 17th was held under the auspices of a committee in which were represented the Constitutional Union General Committee, the Mozart Hall Gen- eral Committee (Fairchild, chairman), the other Mozart Hall General Committee (Ray, chairman), the New York Democratic Committee (the McKeon organization), the McClellan Union Executive Com- mittee, the Democratic Union Association, two German Democratic committees, and the Tammany Hall General Committee (advertise- ment in the Herald, Sept. 11). See also Herald, Oct. 29. 2 Tribune, Sept. 7; Argus, Sept. 7. 8 Tribune, Oct. 1. 4 2 4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [624 New York State and the War Democratic General Com- mittee of the City of New York, and by a number of gen- tlemen from other states. 1 This convention and mass-meet- ing were duly held, the latter crowding Cooper Institute to excess and calling forth great enthusiasm. 2 A few days later, a similar demonstration by War Democrats was held in Brooklyn. 3 There was very little mention of Wide Awake clubs in New York State during the campaign of 1864. Instead, there were War Eagles, Lincoln and Johnson Associations, and Union Associations. 4 Immediately preceding the elec- tion, a large Democratic torchlight procession in New York City was reviewed by General McClellan from the Fifth Avenue Hotel; but he made no speech. 5 Earlier, Pendle- ton was serenaded and addressed the gathering. 6 Neither of the Union candidates spoke in New York State. How- ever, as might have been expected from the imposing lists of speakers in this State during the preceding off years, very many distinguished men addressed New York Union cam- paign meetings in 1864, not only in the cities but also in the towns and large villages. On the whole, the Democratic array was far less notable. Governor Seymour especially bore a great part of the burden, speaking almost daily from the middle of October down to the election and from one end of the State to the other. 7 1 Printed in the Herald, Nov. 1. 2 Herald, Nov. 2. 3 Herald, Nov. 6. 4 Under date of September 22nd, the Tribune has the first mention of a Wide Awake club during the campaign. See on this point, ad- vertisement in the Tribune of Nov. 2 ; account of Brooklyn torchlight parade in Tribune, Nov. 1 ; Herald, Nov. 5. 5 Herald, Nov. 6 ; Tribune, Nov. 7. 6 Herald, Oct. 25 ; Tribune, Oct. 25. 7 See lists of speakers in the Argus during October; also editorial, Nov. 21. 625] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 425 In New York State, the canvass of 1864 was largely a continuation and a culmination of the three previous con- tests. The Democrats again claimed to be the upholders of the constitution ; they still talked of the perversion of the war by their opponents; they again assailed the arbitrary actions and usurpations of the government, the corrup- tion and extravagance at Washington, the fatuity of con- fiscation, forcible emancipation, and a war of subjugation. Increased attention was now given to the national debt and to the depreciated paper money, and the calamities impend- ing therefrom were vividly described. 1 A special appeal was made to the taxpayer. " Half a Million Dollars a Week ! Something for Tax Payers to Consider!" was the heading of an Argus editorial in which was estimated the cost of the support of " pauperized negroes by the administration." z The increased price of commodities was thus set forth by the same journal : The laboring classes were promised great blessings under the reign of Lincoln. The result is a cheerful one. They can buy Common sheeting at 75 cts. a yd. Calico, 45 cents. Sugar, 33 cents. Molasses, $1.25. Tea, $2. Coffee, 70 cents. Butter, 55 to 60 cents. Potatoes, $2 a bush. Pork, 25 cents per lb. Boots, $7.50 a pair. Pepper and spices, $1 per lb. Thread, 20c. a spool, and almost every other article in the same ratio. If he [Lincoln] is reelected, we suppose they will be double the above prices. Let every poor man hurrah for Lincoln ! 3 1 Unionists answered this by declaring that the Democrats exagger- ated and by pointing to the enormous resources of the North. 2 Argus, Sept. 21. 3 Argus, Sept. 23; similar editorial paragraph on "Lincoln prices," Argus, Nov. 8. 426 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [626 An Argus article was entitled : "Albany County Debt ! Taxes ! Taxes ! Taxes ! More than half the value of the county and city absorbed. Can we afford to prosecute an ' Abolition War!' " l Democrats also made use of the im- pending draft. . Future calls were predicted, along with further debt and taxation necessitated by such demands. 2 The administration had promised since the beginning of the war, said the Argus, that each call for troops would be the last ; in order to keep the Federal forces in the field up to their strength at the time, 800,000 men would have to be furnished during the next year; and the conclusion was drawn that more conscriptions would come. " A vote for Lincoln is a vote for more drafts." 3 The Unionists, on the other hand, once more appealed to the loyalty of the people ; they again claimed a non-partisan character; the leaders of their adversaries were repeatedly denounced as traitors or as having disloyal leanings. Voters were impressed with the danger of changing the government at such a time. They were exhorted not to reestablish the rebels in power. They were urged to see that there was no firing upon the rear of the army. The Democracy at Chicago was coupled with the Democracy at Richmond. It was declared that McClellan's nomin- ation was hailed with cheers by the rebel armies and had caused an advance of the rebel loan; that his nomination was received with approval by rebel newspapers and by the hostile foreign press; that the result of the election would influence the attitude of England and of France toward this country; that Democratic success was the only hope of the 1 Argus, Nov. 8. Similar editorials or editorial articles in the same paper, Oct. 5, 6, 7, Nov. 3, 5. 3 Argus, Sept. 30, Nov. 8. 3 Argus, Oct. 25. 627] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 427 rebels and rebel victories the only hope of the Democratic party; and that McClellan, if elected, would be a tool in the hands of traitorous leaders like the Woods and Val- landigham. Seymour's administration of the state government was again an issue, 1 though not as prominent as the year be- fore. Fenton, on the other hand, was assailed because of his abolition record and for voting against the compromise amendments to the constitution in 1861. 2 Slavery and free labor were, of course, discussed; but some Unionist speak- ers evidently avoided that topic, for Theodore Tilton ex- pressed his regret that so many voices speaking for the Union cause were silent on the question of slavery. 3 There were many, however, like Schurz, Greeley, Bryant, Field, Beecher, Sumner, and Andrew, who addressed New York audiences and who were not afraid of the subject. The Arguelles case, 4 Lincoln's ten per cent plan of reconstruc- tion, his employment of negro troops, and especially his " To whom it may concern " letter, laying down the aboli- tion of slavery together with the restoration of the Union as conditions of peace, 5 were new points of attack by the 1 E. g. speech by Eliott F. Shepard (Tribune, Oct. 10) ; by Tremain (Tribune, Oct. 21); by Busteed (Tribune, Oct. 27); Albany Evening Journal editorial, Sept. 9. Defense of Seymour, Argus, Nov. 5. 2 Argus, Sept. 20, 22, Oct. 11, 13. 3 Tribune, Oct. 12. 4 For details ot this incident, see Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lin- coln, ix, p. 44 et seq. 5 The Argus reprinted the letter under the heading, " Lincoln's Plat- form." Weed felt that this argument was a telling one against Lincoln (Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 251). So too did Raymond, ibid., ix, p. 218. The Albany Evening Journal devoted many editorials to showing that the abolition of slavery was not a condition of peace. Seward answered the Democrats by inquiring, " When and where have the insurgents offered him [Lincoln] peace on the basis 4 28 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [628 Democrats. Again, McClellan's record and the adminis- tration's treatment of him had been an issue in the state election of 1862; more attention was now given to this topic. " Two years of war," said Henry Ward Beecher, " and we have conquered half the rebel territory, hold the keys of the whole, and have nearly destroyed the military strength of the Rebellion in the field. All this in two years of war." " Four years you mean," said a bystander. " No," responded Mr. Beecher, " I said two years of war. In the first two, General McClellan was in command." * At a Cooper Institute mass-meeting of Unionists, a promi- nent feature was a large log, labeled " McClellan orator — recently from Manassas Junction, — of the Quaker or- der." 2 Because of McClellan's letter of acceptance, Union- ists attacked him as trying to stand upon both a war and a peace platform. Pendleton's congressional record was warmly assailed. On the other hand, Democratic orators found a favorite theme in contrasting McClellan's achieve- ments with those of his successors to ^he disadvantage of the latter. Of course, the Chicago platform was the chief issue of the campaign. The Democrats claimed that they and they alone could reestablish peace and the Union. The people " were deeply concerned," said Seymour, to find that after three years of bloody struggle so little prog- ress had been made in restoring peace. ... It is not only our right but our duty to inquire why it is, after we have expended of the integrity of the Union?" {Herald, Sept. 7). Greeley asked, " Has any man ever heard an authentic declaration from the iRebel government or anybody representing it, that they would sooner submit if Slavery were restored than if it were not?" {Tribune, Sept. 13). 1 Tribune, Oct. 25. 2 Herald, Sept. 28; Tribune, Sept. 28. 629] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 429 more than $2,000,000,000, after we have given to this adminis- tration more than 2,000,000 men, that so far from the country being restored to its former condition, we are told that re- bellious discontent has travelled northward, . . . Why is it that there has been an utter failure in bringing this war to a successful end? It must be the fault of government or fault of those who have borne arms in support of our flag; . . . Now who will dare to say that is due to the brave men who have battled so fearlessly? . . . They have done enough if their efforts had been followed by a wise statesmanship to restore peace to this land. One year ago, after Gettysburg and Vicksburg, when we had sealed Charleston and Mobile, and held New Orleans, had there been wisdom enough at Wash- ington to avail themselves of the advantage gained by brave men in the battle-field, to-day we should have been living in peace under a restored Union. ... I charge then, here, that the disgraceful failure ... is due and due alone to the ad- ministration ; . . . * On the other hand, the peace plank furnished the Union- ists with ammunition which they used vigorously and ef- fectively. They pointed out the progress in subduing the rebellion which had already been made; they emphasized the suicidal impolicy of the program proposed by their opponents; they asserted that the adoption of such a plan would mean a return to the imbecile truce of Buchanan's ad- ministration; they insisted that an armistice could lead only * to the recognition of the Confederacy's independence; and 1 Tribune, Sept. 9. The Argus presented the great issue of the cam- paign as peace or war (Argus, Sept. 13, Nov. 8). At the same time, it insisted that the Democrats would not consent to disunion (Argus, Sept. 12). Still later, when the tide was evidently turning against the Democrats, the Argus found it advisable to repudiate Vallandigham (Argus, Oct. 19). But, as before, nothing was said of what the Democrats would do if the South refused the overtures for peace accompanied by a restoration of the Union. 430 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [630 they asked, were all the treasure and all the blood already- spent to go for naught. What would be the fate of the Southern loyalists and of the enlisted negroes, should the Democracy accomplish the ends it sought? As in the pre- vious years, a strong argument advanced by Unionist speak- ers was the question whether the Confederates, in view of their repeated declarations to the contrary, would accept peace with a restoration of the Union ; and it was again de- clared that the war could not be ended through new compro- mises but only through the suppression of the rebellion by force. 1 The most cogent arguments for the Union ticket, however, were the military victories of the North during the autumn. Nor were the efforts of some Democrats to con- vince the public that the truth was being concealed and that in reality more reverses had been suffered 2 of avail. The 1 The weakness of the Democratic position was illustrated by a speech of A. Oakey Hall, wherein he said : " Don't ask me what we will do when in power. Circumstances will rectify all defects and mistakes of Lincoln if they are controlled by any other" (Herald, Sept. 1). 2 E. g. Samuel J. Tilden : " The reported successes of the Union arms lately were doubtful" (Tribune, Nov. 1) ; Charles J. Ingersoll : "the terrible disasters to our Union arms, which have been denominated victories" (Tribune, Oct. 22). "We are now rejoicing over a victory won over the enemy. But where? In the valley of the Shenandoah, almost up to the Pennsylvania line, at a point from which the enemy retreated nearly four years ago" (Argus, Sept. 23). "The studied silence of Stanton, and the systematic concealment or perversion of intelligence from the armies, does not wholly shut out from public view the dangers of the situation." The editorial then went on to quote the Chicago Times as showing the failure of Grant's operations on the James. " The position of Sherman at Atlanta," it continued, " is one of great danger and difficulty. In order to reinforce him . . . the armies west of the Mississippi have been depleted of their strength. The consequence is that the Confederates have overrun Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri" (Argus, Oct. 18). An editorial in the same journal of November 5th said : " It can no longer be concealed that General Grant . . . has been repulsed with fearful loss. . . . Hood is advancing North, through Tennessee; and General Sherman's capture 631] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 431 names of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Farragut were constantly used by Unionist speakers with a certainty of evoking enthusiasm. This election, unique among our quadrennial contests in that it took place during a civil war, with a large absentee soldier vote, with numerous bodies of troops stationed at various points in the North, and with lurking fears of rebel conspiracies, was naturally not wanting in excitement. Be- fore the summer was over, the McClellan Minute Men of New York State had been accused of being connected with the Copperhead plots of the Northwest. This accusation brought forth indignant denials ; 1 but in October, Judge- Advocate-General Holt's report on the Knights of the Golden Circle and like organizations lent official weight to the charge. 2 However we estimate Holt's credulity to-day, of Atlanta is rendered a fruitless victory, . . . General Price has oc- cupied Missouri, and nearly all the Trans-Mississippi region is in the hands of the Secessionists. . . . New privateers have been launched upon the ocean, to afflict our commerce, and mock at our flag." 1 " We have received a perfect flood of letters from individuals con- nected with the organization of Minute Men in this city denying in toto all connection with the Northwestern conspiracy." — Herald, Aug. 1. 2 The report said that the McClellan Minute Guard " would seem to be a branch of the Order of American Knights, having substantially the same objects to be accomplished, . . . The ' McClellan Minute Guard,' as appears from a circular issued by the Chief Secretary at New York in March last, is organized upon a military basis ... It is composed of companies, one for each election district, ten of which constitute a ' brigade ' . . . The whole is placed under the authority of a ' commander-in-chief.' A strict obedience on the part of members to the orders of their superior is enjoined. . . . the force of the order ... is stated to be ... in New York, about 20,000." The report was published in the Tribune, Oct. 17. R. F. Stevens, chief secretary of the McClellan Minute Guard in a letter to the editor of the World denied that the organization was of a secret or traitorous nature or that it was connected with the Order of American Knights; the Guard was, he declared, "an association for political work" (Letter quoted in McPherson's Political History of the United States during the Great Rebellion, p. 446). 432 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [632 the effect then can hardly be doubtful. It must have lent color in the minds of thousands of Unionists to the accusation so frequently expressed in the Unionist press and by Union- ist stump speakers that the opposition was disloyal. Holt's report was ridiculed by the Democrats ; 1 but in the second half of October they in turn waxed indignant over the election " outrages " on the part of their opponents in In- diana and in the border states. 2 As the campaign pro- gressed, threats of violence in case of interference with an untrammeled ballot became common on the part of Demo- cratic speakers. Ex-Judge Dean, late Democratic nominee for speaker of the assembly, was reported to have said at a Democratic ratification meeting: In Missouri, Kentucky and Delaware it would not be a free fight, and lest the same thing should be attempted here, he proposed that in all the wards they should form white-boy clubs ; and if any man came to the ballot boxes to prevent them casting their votes freely, let the white boys take care of him, put him where he belongs, hang him. 3 At the end of October occurred the revelations of alleged frauds in connection with the soldiers' ballots. Both sides sent agents to the camps in order to procure these votes. 4 One Ferry, New York State agent at Baltimore, as well as Edward Donohue and two others, Democratic voting 1 Argus, Aug. 2, 3, Oct. 19. 2 Argus, Oct. 20, 21, 22, 24, Nov. 3, 4. 3 Tribune, Sept. I. Similar appeals, though not so strong, were made during the campaign' by Judge Comstock, Representative Chanler, C. J. Ingersoll, and John McKeon. 4 Tribune, Oct. 27. A power of attorney had to be executed by the soldier desiring to vote. Hence the necessity of employing agents to visit the camps (Circular of the Union State Committee, Herald, July 28). 633] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 433 agents, were arrested by the provost marshal at that city on the charge of impersonating officers and soldiers in the army of the United States, and as such forging on ballots and on the required accompanying affidavits the names of those in that service. 1 At the same time, Colonel Samuel North, New York State agent at Washington, as well as Major Levi Cohen and Edward Jones, two subordinate offi- cials at the state agency, were arrested on similar charges. The office was closed, and the soldiers' ballots ready to be deposited were seized. 2 Ferry pleaded guilty con- fessing to have signed the names of a number of soldiers and accusing Donohue of affixing the required officer's name. 3 Donohue at first denied complicity, and telegraphed for aid to Peter Cagger and to Sanford E. Church. 4 Later Donohue confessed to having signed blanks with the name of " C. S. Arthur, captain and aid-de-camp," but claimed that no offence was committed inasmuch as there was no officer by that name in the service of New York State or of the United States. 15 In the press dispatches, it was alleged that several dry-goods boxes of forged votes for the Demo- cratic national and state tickets had been forwarded to New York. 6 Further, the Unionists were worked up over the dis- covery of a letter from Donohue to General Farrell of Gov- ernor Seymour's staff, which read : " I send you ... a number of ballots for your county. I have made out a number from the list you sent me ... I guess you have enough. Fearing that you might not, I enclose envelopes and powers of attorney sworn to; you can fill them up for Columbia or any other county." 7 1 Herald, Oct. 28. i Ibid. 3 Ibid. * Ibid. 6 Herald, Oct. 29. 6 Herald, Oct. 28. 7 Herald, Oct. 29. 434 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [634 Of course, the Unionists sought to make the utmost party- capital out of this incident. The Tribune contained long editorials against the alleged frauds under such captions as " The Crime against the People," " Democratic Ballot- ing among the Dead Soldiers," " Call the Roll Instantly;" and it advocated the immediate organization throughout the State of " Vigilance committees, composed of men of nerve and familiar with their districts." 1 Beecher called the frauds monstrous. 2 The Union State Committee issued an address, 3 giving the " details of this gigantic attempt at fraud," and declaring that the men who attempted these frauds are the confidants and em- ployes of Governor Seymour, Peter Cagger, August Bel- mont, and other leaders of the Copperhead party. The in- formation by which they were enabled to give the names of soldiers and the companies and regiments to which they be- longed could only have been obtained from the Adjutant-Gen- eral's office of this State, . . . The places where these papers were forged, and from whence they were issued, were the offices of the State agents appointed by Governor Seymour at Baltimore and Washington. The persons to whom the forged documents are known to have been sent are Peter Cagger and General Farrell. The Democratic press and stump speakers were indignant at the arrests. It was all a " Lincoln Plot." They claimed that the witnesses were perjured and that the stories were 1 Tribune, Oct. 29; the Albany Evening Journal (October 29th) spoke of the " infamous plot " and of this " attempted pollution of the ballot-box and this desecration of the grave." " The crime confessed !" it exclaimed. " Not a loop to hang a doubt upon! To deny the fraud now is to be a party to it." The issue of November 1st was largely occupied with editorials on the frauds. 2 Tribune, Nov. 7. 8 Printed in the Tribune, Nov. 3. 635] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY .435 manufactured to prevent McClellan ballots from being cast. Counter charges of fraud were made and it was declared that unfair obstacles had been placed in the way of Demo- cratic agents. 1 The Argus matched the Tribune editorials with one headed, " The Great Crime against the Soldiers." It asserted that men in the army were voting by tens of thou- sands for McClellan and Seymour when the administration seized the ballots and arrested the agents ; and the voters of New York were urged " to vindicate the rights of the sol- diers and the cause of Republican government." 2 "In the his- tory of outrage and crime which make up the black chronicle of a Lincoln Administration," said another edi- torial, " there is no darker deed than this ! It reveals the terror and desperation of the Washington junto." 3 Governor Seymour issued a proclamation appointing three prominent Democrats, Amasa J. Parker, William F. Allen, and William Kelly, commissioners on behalf of the State of New York to proceed to Washington, inquire into the facts and circumstances of the arrests and take such action ... as will vindicate the laws of the State and the rights and liberties of its citizens, to the end that . . . all attempts to prevent soldiers from this State in the service of the United States from voting, or to defraud them, or ta coerce their action in voting, or to detain or alter the votes already cast by them . . . may be exposed and punished. 4 The commissioners, on arriving at Washington, protested against the jurisdiction assumed by the United States in the case. They obtained the seized ballots, but they failed to 1 Argus, Oct. 29, Nov. 1, 2, 5; New York World, Oct. 29; Tribune, Oct. 29, 31; Herald, Oct. 30, Nov. 1 (speech of Recorder Hoffman). 2 Argus, Oct. 29. 3 Argus, Oct. 28. 4 Herald, Oct. 31. 436 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [636 secure the release of North, Cohen, and Jones, or even the postponement of their trial until after the election. 1 The commissioners' report, published in the press two days before the election, declared that while there might have been irregularities, they had found no evidence that any frauds had been committed by any person connected with the New York agency. The document also contained a harrowing account of the treatment of the prisoners, which must have fed Democratic indignation against the arbitrary actions of the administration. 2 Orders issued by General Dix, who commanded the De- partment of the East, were of a nature to add to the pre- vailing excitement. Under date of October 28th 3 he stated that he had received satisfactory information that rebel agents in Canada designed to send into the United States large numbers of refugees, deserters and enemies of the gov- ernment to vote at the approaching election, and that he was determined to guard the purity of the elective franchise against the threatened outrages ; every such person was to be arrested, provost marshals were directed to exercise all pos- sible vigilance, and all persons from the insurgent states were required forthwith to report themselves for registry. In a letter of October 29th, Senator Morgan wrote to Stanton both at the request of others and in accordance with his own judgment, desiring that three thousand troops be sent to 1 Report of the New York Commission, published in the Herald, Nov. 5. 2 Donohue and Ferry were convicted by a military commission and sentenced to imprisonrrlent for life (Tribune, Nov. 2). The trial of Colonel North dragged on for some time. Finally, he as well as Cohen and Jones were acquitted and released (Croly's Seymour and Blair, pp. 135, 136. Confirmed as to Colonel North by the Annual Cyclopedia for 1864, p. 588. An attempt to have the manuscript records consulted in order to corroborate the above, was unsuccessful.) s Printed in the Herald, Oct. 29. 637] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 437 New York immediately. 1 Stanton had already urged on Grant the advisability of such a move. 2 The troops conse- quently were sent, and Butler was selected for the immediate work in hand. 3 On November 2nd, Dix issued to all pro- vost marshals in his department further orders similar to those of October 28th ; he also directed that no military force be stationed at or in the vicinity of any of the polls, and that there be no interference whatsoever with the exercise of the right of suffrage, but if the civil authorities called upon provost marshals to aid in keeping the peace, the latter were authorized to do so, acting in strict subordination to the former. 4 Seymour apparently was uneasy because of Dix's order. On November 2nd the Governor issued a proclamation, 8 referring to " the painful and exciting doubts in the minds of many with regard to the free and untram- melled exercise of the elective franchise " ; he appealed to men of all parties to aid in the allayment of undue excite- ment and to " avoid all measures and language which tend to strife or disorder." " There are no well grounded fears," the proclamation went on, " that the rights of the citizens of New York will be trampled upon at the polls. The power of this State is ample to protect all classes in the free exercise of their political duties." Sheriffs and other officials were directed to take care that every voter should have a free ballot and they were especially enjoined to see that 1 Letter of Morgan to Stanton in Gorham's Stanton, ii, p. 157. 2 Letter of Stanton to Grant and Grant's reply in Gorham's Stanton, ii, pp. 156-7. 3 Butler's Book, pp. 754, 757, 1097. Two regiments were sent to Buffalo, and one hundred men to Watervliet (Butler's Book, p. 1094). * Printed in the Tribune, Nov. 4. 5 Printed in the Herald, Nov. 3. 438 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [638 no military or other organized forces shall be allowed to show themselves in the vicinity of the places where the elections are held, with any view of menacing or intimidating citizens in attending thereon. Against any such interference they must exercise the full force of law, and call forth, if need be, the power of their districts. The assignment of Butler to the command of the federal soldiers stationed in New York State increased the ire of the Democrats. 1 Butler also issued, on the eve of the election, a warning order against fraudulent voting. 2 Besides the tense feeling produced by these pronuncia- mentos on each side, there were fears of rebel raids at Buffalo and Oswego. 3 Moreover, the press published a dis- patch 4 from Secretary Seward to Mayor Gunther warning the latter of a conspiracy to set fire to the principal cities of the North on election day. Finally, an attempt was made to force the price of gold up to 300, the idea being to asso- ciate the possible success of the Union ticket with higher prices, more paper money, and a prolongation of the war. To foil this plot, the Assistant Treasurer at New York City was authorized to sell gold, and this he did from October 31st until just before election. 15 The critical day passed off quietly. The federal troops, 1 " We will not characterize as it deserves the conduct of the Ad- ministration in sending to New York on the eve of the election a man like Butler . . . his career in the army is calculated to arouse bitter indignation !" — Argus, Nov. 8. Some supporters of the administration, including Weed, doubted the expediency of sending Butler to New York at that time (Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 374). 3 Printed in the Herald, Nov. 7. 3 Tribune, Nov. 7; letter, dated Aug. 9, 1864 to Governor Seymour, signed by Mayor Fargo of Buffalo, Millard Fillmore and others (Fillmore Papers, ii, p. 429). 4 Printed in the Herald, Nov. 4. 5 Fessenden's Life of Fessenden, i, p. 355 ; Butler's Book, pp. 762, 767, 1095, 1096, 1098. 639] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 439 while in readiness, were kept away from the polls ; * the sheriffs had no cause to call " upon the power of their dis- tricts ;" deserters and rebels, if any were at hand, were ap- parently frightened by the vigilance of Dix and Butler. 2 Supporters of the administration had cause for satisfaction in the election of an increased number of Union congressmen from New York State, including Henry J. Raymond, Wil- liam Earl Dodge, Calvin T. Hulburd, and Roscoe Conkling. Unionists might well rejoice in the retirement from New York City's delegation of some of the principal Copperhead members of Congress : Fernando and Benjamin Wood, James Brooks, and Anson Herrick. 3 The results of the presidential contest, so far as New York State was con- cerned, were not such an endorsement of the administration as its adherents hoped for. Indeed, so close did the re- spective candidates run, that for several days after the election, the Argus claimed a Democratic majority in this State.* At the end of the month, the same journal daily repeated the charge that soldiers' ballots for the Democratic candidates were being systematically detained, and that the State had been carried for the administration by fraud. 5 Although those in the federal military service voted this year, Lincoln won New York by less than 7,000 and Fen- ton by less than 9,000.* 1 For Butler's ingenious scheme, see Butler's Book, p. 759. 2 Tribune, Nov. 9; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 374. 3 Brooks was sworn in at the opening of the Thirty-ninth Congress, but was later unseated. The delegation as finally constituted showed a gain of six Unionists. 4 Argus, Nov. 10, 11, 12. As late as the 12th, a leading editorial in that paper was headed, " The State — Mr. Fenton to be counted in." 5 E. g. Argus, Nov. 24. The Albany Evening Journal (Nov. 19) in reply said that since the election, soldiers' votes had probably been received at almost every post office in the country; but it denied that these votes or even a majority of them were Democratic. 8 Albany Evening Journal Almanac for 1865. 44 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [640 The astonishingly large Democratic vote was probably due in part to the very numerous pre-election naturalizations in New York City ; * and perhaps, the Tribune's accusations of wholesale frauds in the lower wards 2 were not un- founded. Nevertheless, that the administration had lost strength is shown by the very slight increase in the vote for Lincoln in 1864 over that in i860, while the Democratic vote for McClellan was about 60,000 more than that cast for the fusion electors in i860. To account for the loss, there are no charges of treachery in the Union camp as in 1862. Thurlow Weed had now routed his adversaries from the federal patronage and worked heartily for Lin- coln. 3 After the collapse of the Fremont boom, the radicals did so too. Repeated military and naval victories for the North in the autumn of 1864 eliminated another factor which had told against Wadsworth. The apathy in the Unionist ranks disappeared long before the election, and their campaign was just as vigorous as that of the Demo- crats. During the preceding twelvemonth, the government had done nothing to provoke an upheaval of public opinion 1 Tribune, Oct. 27 : " For the past three weeks the Superior Court and the Court of Common Pleas have been daily engaged in rushing through new voters from 9 a. m. to 3 p. m. . . . It is estimated that by Saturday night no less than 15,000 new voters will be added to the electoral strength of the City." The Tribune of November 9th esti- mated the number of such new voters at 25,000 to 30,000. The Herald of October 29th said: "There will be by the day of election from fifteen to twenty thousand foreigners naturalized." Some share in the result, perhaps, may be attributed to the large numbers of men from the Southern states who had become residents of New York City {Herald, Oct. 29). ' 2 Tribune, Nov. 9. s " . . . when the Presidential campaign was commenced he [Weed] hired a suit of rooms at the Astor House, adjourning those occupied by the Republican State Committee, and personally superintended the affairs of that body " — Herald, Dec. 14. 641] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 441 on the slavery question, nor had it entered upon any general course of arbitrary actions such as might have weakened the Unionist strength shown in 1863. The heavy McClel- lan vote, other than that due to naturalization and fraud, must then be attributed to the popularity of the General, weariness with the war, its burdens, its high prices, and its drafts, and lastly to the fact that many saw no reasonable prospect of a restoration of the Union without a change in the policy of the administration and hence a change in the administration itself. CONCLUSION During the Civil War, the administration at Washing- ton waged a twofold contest, political in the North — to secure the support of public opinion — as well as mili- tary in the South. Leading men of that time, both civilians and soldiers, frequently expressed the opinion that victory in the political field was of no less consequence than success in battle, and such assertions were not unfounded, since the defeat of the opposition in the elections meant the upholding of the administration by the people and state governments of the North. In few or none of our commonwealths was this support of more importance or more difficult to retain than in New York. However pleas- ant it might be if history could show us a united people, laying aside party strife and patriotically sustaining the government in its efforts to subdue the rebellion, the pic- ture, so far as New York is concerned, is true only for the few months following the attack upon Fort Sumter. Save during that period and, to a much less degree, in the early part of 1862, politics in New York were at a heat that has seldom been exceeded. This condition in the principal commonwealth of the Union can hardly have been without a very great influence on the growth of an opposition to the national administration in other states. The Civil War gave a tone to New York politics. Be- ginning with 1861, the political situation in this State dur- ing the war presents two main features, both existing in the shape of tendencies before that date but after it becom- 442 [642 643] CONCLUSION 443 ing well marked and almost universal characteristics. In the first place, state politics turned exclusively on national questions, while administrative matters of a more local na- ture, such as had formerly caused political divisions, quite disappeared as subjects of partisan alignment. Secondly, the opposition to Thurlow Weed, led by Greeley, grew into a strong faction; the struggle between the Weed and Greeley adherents continually gave color to events within the Republican party and its successor the Union party within the State; and in this contest, the opposing ranks developed into radical and conservative wings. Thus, those who upheld the national administration in New York were not only weakened by the existence of a strong opposition party but also embittered by internal feuds. For the latter, Thurlow Weed was largely charge- able. Magnificent politician though he was, genuine lover of his country, he — whether through Seward's fault or his own — mistakenly reversed his former course to enter upon his border state policy ; and in his hatred of abolitionists, he at times during the war approached quite close to Demo- cratic ground. Weed in his worship of the god of expedi- ency lost a rare chance of rising to the elevation of a states- man. Had his influence been removed, there is little or nothing to show that the administration supporters in this State would have split into radical and conservative wings. At least, his evil genius was responsible for the extent of the division. It was, then, quite natural that Weed, Seward, Raymond, and their followers passed over to the side of Andrew Johnson in 1866, while their opponents supported the congressional majority. The foundation for that schism, so far as this State was concerned, was laid in the factions of war times. One effect of the war was the amalgamation of the old time " hards " and " softs " of the Democracy and the 444 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [644 decaying remains of former third parties. In so great a heat, where the appeal to unite in behalf of country was so urgent, one may wonder that the fusing process was not carried further, that partisan strife was not hushed, that all did not join in presenting a solid front to the South. The importance of this was thoroughly realized at the time. The degree to which the North would be weakened in com- parison with the unanimity in the greater part of the South was well understood. It was from such considerations that the Union party took its inception. Beginning with joint action by a People's State Convention and a Republi- can State Convention in nominating a Union state ticket in 1 86 1, the movement progressed by the harmonious steps taken by administration supporters in the Legislature to a Republican-Union State Convention in 1862; in 1863, the name Republican was entirely dropped, and the party was spoken of under the designation Union until after the end of the war. Along with this change went an absorption of War Democrats. The mass of the Democrats, however, refused to go into the Union party. For this, the leaders and especially the Regency were to blame. Had their action in September, 1 86 1, been the reverse of what it was, it is not unreasonable to suppose that political contention in New York might have been stilled until the middle of the next year if not longer. The soundness of this presumption is supported by the un- questionable fact that the majority of the Democrats of New York had no real love for slavery. But the influence of party was too strong and the vision too narrow for those in control of the machinery to rise so high. Thus the latter deliberately rejected the proffer of their oppon- ents to unite in sustaining the government. Instead, they entered the path of an opposition in the midst of a gigantic national struggle for life, at the same time affirming with 645] CONCLUSION 445 varying intensity and provisos from time to time their in- tention to uphold the government in suppressing the rebel- lion. This program was thoroughly inconsistent. To sup- port the war and at the same time to condemn with the most intemperate criticism the administration which must carry on the war, as well as its measures for subduing the enemy, was pulling in contrary directions. It was but natural that the New York Democracy drifted toward the position of the Copperheads. The prediction was frequently made during those times that because of their opposition to a government striving to preserve the nation, the Democrats would meet with the fate of the Federalists. Yet the New York Democracy emerged from this period as strong as it went in if not stronger. The comparatively moderate course which it pursued, however illogical, probably helped to save it.. Extremists like the Woods were held in check by such men as Richmond and Church who favored the prosecution of the war, and by cautious counselors like Seymour who saw the danger of pronouncing against it. And so the Democrats, claiming to be a genuine war party, won the election of 1862. Governor Seymour was a patriot, but not a statesman of the higher type. It is true that he did not fulfill the direst predictions of his opponents by refusing support to the national government. He did not resort to violence in protecting state rights. But he was perilously near to that. The harmony which prevailed between the state officials and those at Washington until 1863 and which was so necessary to bring the contest to a successful termina- tion, was to a great extent absent during Seymour's admin- istration, and that condition was not due to Lincoln or his assistants. The climax came with the draft riot. The share of the Democratic leaders and press, Seymour in- cluded, in arousing the fierce resistance to the act for en- 44 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [64.6 rolling and drafting cannot be doubted, though the con- clusion took a different direction from what Seymour and all but the most sanguinary Copperheads intended. From the controversy over the conscription Seymour emerged the smaller, while Lincoln's tact and firmness gave renewed proof of his statesmanship. The Unionists won back the State, and fortified their hold by giving the ballot to the soldier. So great, however, were the internal dissensions in the party, so strongly intrenched were the Democrats in the local offices in the extreme southern counties, so promising was their outlook for controlling the spoils in the future, that in 1864 Lincoln carried the State by only a very small majority. The Unionists, or as they were soon after once more called, the Republicans, lost as a party in this State the legitimate fruits of the war; the Democrats came forth from it hopeful and powerful ; and New York continued to be a well-contested battle ground. At the close of the war, then, we find in New York State a Union party composed of the supporters of the national administration confronting its enemies united in the Demo- cratic organization. The remnants of third parties had dis- appeared. Moreover, the eld divisions between Douglas and Breckinridge followers had been healed, and no more was heard of " hards " and " softs." So that outside of the metropolis the Democracy had gained unity since i860; but this weakened the checks upon the power of the up-State leaders. Thus, while Tammany was still able to contend with the Regency, Mozart had been split into fragments, and the days when it was able to fight on a plane of equality with its rivals were over. At the end of the war, Dean Richmond's ascendency was undiminished. Seymour's in- fluence had greatly increased. Although Fernando Wood was again to sit in Congress during the ten years fol- lowing 1867, he had ceased to be the important factor in 647] CONCLUSION 447 New York politics that he was in i860. By 1865, Tweed and Sweeney had come to the front in Tammany. The strife which in i860 already showed its head in the Republican ranks of New York State persisted and grew in the successor of that party, so that the close of the war found the Unionists there sharply arrayed in two camps. These dissensions arose not merely from antago- nism to Weed but also from differences over the questions arising out of the war. By 1865 what may be termed the first series of such issues, in contradistinction to those re- lating to construction, had been settled by the course of events in favor of the anti-Weed faction. Weed was still of influence in the party, but his power had been greatly shaken if not eclipsed during the period here considered. Though Seward was as yet looked upon as the head of the conservatives and was very probably consulted by Weed, the Secretary was apparently no longer active in state politics at the end of the war. Raymond had grown in political stature. While the later prominence of Fenton and Conkiing had not fully appeared at the beginning of 1865, and the radical wing was still more or less guided by Greeley, never- theless in personal leadership as in political issues the way had been prepared for the triumph of that faction; for within a short time from that date Seward, Weed, and Ray- mond all were overthrown on the question of supporting President Johnson, and Fenton constructed a radical ma- chine which controlled the State. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE No attempt at a complete bibliography has been made here; there is merely an endeavor to indicate the main groups of material on the subject. A. Newspapers. These constitute the principal sources of information on New York politics during the war. I have made use especially of the following: i. The Albany Argus. 2. The Albany Evening Journal. 3. The New York Tribune. 4. The New York Herald. These four papers were among the dozen or so which had reporters at the sessions of the legislature. The Albany papers in particular published very full reports of the legislative proceedings and debates. Moreover, both the Argus and the Evening Journal had great influence with the up-State press, and probably were very widely copied. The two New York City papers were selected as representatives of opposite political faiths. The Herald, while containing more information on politics than the Tribune, must be used with greater caution. B. Public documents. Messages from the Governors. Edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Vol. v. Albany, 1909. New York State Assembly Journal, 1860-1864 inclusive. Albany, 1861-5. New York State Senate Journal, 1860-1864 inclusive. Albany, 1861-5. Report of the Adjutant General of the State of New York for 1864 and 1865. Albany, 1864-5. Useful for the relations of Seymour and the federal authorities. Report of the Select Committee of the Board of Aldermen ap- pointed to investigate the Ring Frauds. New York, 1878. C. Works, letters and speeches of contemporary statesmen and POLITICIANS. Belmont, August. Letters, Speeches and Addresses. New York, 1890. Bigelow, John. Retrospections of an Active Life. New York, 1909. 448 [648 649] BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 449 Boutwell, George S. Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Af- fairs. New York, 1902. Buchanan, James. Works. Edited by J. B. Moore. Philadelphia, 1908-1911. Chase, Salmon P. Diary and Correspondence. (American Histor- ical Association Report, 1902, vol. ii.) Washington, 1903. Cochrane, John. " The Charleston Convention." Magazine of American History, vol. xiv. New York, 1885. Cochrane was a leading member of the New York delegation. Dickinson, Daniel S. Speeches, Correspondence, etc. Edited by John R. Dickinson. New York. 1867. Greeley, Horace. Recollections of a Busy Life. New York, 1868. Lincoln, Abraham. Complete Works. Edited by John G. Nico- lay and John Hay. Gettysburg Edition. New York, 1905. Vol- ume vi is especially useful for the subject here treated. Schurz, Carl. Reminiscences. New York, 1907-8. Volume ii con- tains one or two items relating to New York political history. Seymour, Horatio. Public Record. By T. M. Cook and T. W. Knox. New York, 1868. Tilden, Samuel J. Letters and Literary Memorials. Edited by John Bigelow. New York, 1908. Volume i contains some ma- terial used here. However, it has astonishingly little on Tilden's political career during the war. Weed, Thurlow. Autobiography. Boston, 1884. Very useful, though not very full for the years 1860-1864. Welles, Gideon. "Diary." Atlantic Monthly, vols, ciii, civ. Boston. 1909. Welles, Gideon. Lincoln and Seward. New York, 1874. White, Andrew D. Autobiography. New York, 1905. D. Biographies. Most of the books listed below contain very little on the subject of this monograph, but in some of them that little consists of source ma- terial in the shape of letters. Bancroft. Frederic. Life of William H. Seward. New York, 1900. Barnes, T. W. Memoir of Thurlow Weed. Boston, 1884. Bigelow, John. Life of Samuel J. Tilden. New York, 1895. Burt, Silas W. My Memoirs of the Military History of the State of Neznt York during the War for the Union, 1861-1865. Albany, 1002. Butler, Benjamin F. Butler's Book. Boston, 1002. Useful for the election of 1864 in New York. Cary, Edward. George William Curtis. Boston, 1894. 450 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE [650 Cornell, Alonzo B. Ezra Cornell. New York, 1884. Croly, David G. Seymour and Blair. New York, 1868. A cam- paign biography. Curtis, George Ticknor. Life of James Buchanan. New York, 1883. Coleman, Mrs. Chapman. Life of John J. Crittenden. Philadel- phia, 1873. Dana, Charles A. Recollections of the Civil War. New York, 1898. Dix, Morgan. Memoirs of John A. Dix. New York, 1883. Fessenden, Francis. Life and Public Services of William Pitt Fessenden. Boston, 1907. Field, Henry M. Life of David Dudley Field. New York, 1898. Except for the part played by Field at the Chicago convention, this book has nothing on his political career during 1860-4. Godwin, Parke. A Biography of William Cullen Bryant. New York, 1883. Gorham, George C. Life and Public Services of Edwin M. Stan- ton. Boston, 1899. Hart, Albert Bushnell. Salmon Portland Chase. Boston, 1899. Hughes, Sarah Forbes. Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes. Boston, 1899. Ingersoll, L. D. Life of Horace Greeley. Chicago, 1873. The author was a delegate to the Republican National Convention of i860. Linn, William A. Horace Greeley. New York, 1903. McCabe, James D., Jr. The Life and Public Services of Horatio Seymour . . . [and] of Francis P. Blair, Jr. New York, 1868. A campaign biography. McClure, Alexander K. Abraham Lincoln and Men of War-Times. Philadelphia. 1892. Merriam, G S. Life and Times of Samuel Bowles. New York. 1885. Nicolay, John G and Hay, John. Abraliam Lincoln. A History. New York, 1890. Volumes vii, viii and ix are of use for the sub- ject here treated. Ogden, Rollo. Life and Letters of Edwin Lawrence Godkin. New York, 1907. Pearson, H. G. Life of John A. Andrew. Boston, 1004. Sanborn, Alvan F. Reminiscences of Richard Lathers. New York' 1907. Schuckers, J. W. Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase. New York, 1874. Warden, Robert B. An Account of the Private Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase. Cincinnati, 1874. 6 -j BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 45 1 E. Histories. Alexander, De Alva S. Political History of the State of New York New York, 1906, 1909. Volumes ii and iii partly relate to the period here considered. They form the only account hitherto published. Alexander .writes in a very interesting manner and » excellent in his personal descriptions. He is, however, too much inclined to rely upon the New York Herald and at other times upon the recollections of Chauncey M. Depew as to what hap- pened between forty and fifty years ago. Very many of Alex- ander's pages are devoted to occurrences in the field of national politics, descriptions of which can be found in other histories and biographies. Alexander ignores the formation of the Union party in New York. , Breen, Matthew P. Thirty Years of New York Politics. New York, 1899. ... _ , . Davenport, John I. The Election and Naturalization Frauds in New York City. New York, 1881. Fish, Carl Russell. " Lincoln and the Patronage. American His- torical Review, vol. viii. Lancaster, 1902. Fry, James B. New York and the Conscription of 1863. Mew York, 1885. . , , Q ,, r „ Halstead, Murat. National Political Conventions [of 1800J. Co- lumbus, i860. t»«-i. M Lincoln, Charles Z. Constitutional History of New York. Roches- MyeVcustavus. History of Tammany Hall New York, 1901^ Read, J. Meredith. " Military Affairs of New York State in 1861. Magazine of American History, vol. xiv. Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States New York 1893-1004. Volumes ii, iii, iv and v are of use for the subject here considered. Weeden William B. War Government, Federal and State m Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Indutna i&i-S- Boston, 1006. Very unfair to Northern Democrats and espec- ially to Seymour. F. Miscellaneous. Albany Evening Journal Almanac, 1861-5. Albany, 1861-5. American Annual Encyclopaedia, 1860-4. New York 1861-5. Case of De Witt C. Little John against Horace Greeley. New York, 1861. Tribune Almanac, 1861-5. New York, 1861-5. VITA The author of this dissertation was born in New York City in 1880. After being graduated from grammar school, he studied at the College of the City of New York, receiving the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1899. He was enrolled as a graduate student at Columbia University during the years 1899-1901, and after studying under Professors Osgood and Seligman received the degree of Master of Arts in 1901. During 1902, he was a student at the sem- mer session of Cornell University. In 1905-7, he was in residence at Columbia as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, taking courses given by Professors Burgess, Dunning, Osgood, Robinson, Shepherd, and Sloane, and attending the seminars of Professors Dunning and Osgood. He taught in the elementary schools of New York City from 1899 to 1905 and from 1906 to T908. Since March, 1908, he has been a teacher of history in the Brooklyn Boys' High School. -153 vT • -V < ' \