A Political History of the State of New York Volume III Part 33

He also admitted reform to be the princ.i.p.al issue, thanked Tilden for the little he had accomplished, severely castigated Bigelow for accepting place on the ca.n.a.l commission as a Republican and on the State ticket as a Democrat, and drew attention to Kelly as a bad man and to the extravagance of Democratic rule in New York City.

Throughout it all his treatment was characteristically bold, brilliant, and aggressive. "The bright blade of his eloquence with its keen satiric edge flashed defiantly before the eyes of the applauding audience,"[1485] and every period exhibited his profound sense of the duty of maintaining the ascendency of a party which to him promised best for the public.

[Footnote 1485: The _Nation_, October 28.]

With wisdom and sound argument Conkling had opposed inflation, and after the pa.s.sage of the bill on April 14, 1874, he had encouraged the President's veto. He had likewise advocated with no less fervour and sagacity the resumption of specie payment, which became a law on January 14, 1875. This service justly ent.i.tled him to the highest praise. Nevertheless, in his speech at Albany he failed to show that Republican success in 1875 would not mean a continuation of those things which helped a Republican defeat in 1874. Hostility to a third term and sympathy with a generous Southern policy were the conspicuous features of the Saratoga platform, and upon these issues he maintained a notable silence. His address was rather an appeal to the past--not an inspiring a.s.surance for the future, seeking pure administration. Of his personal honesty no one entertained a doubt, but for party ends he had failed to use his opportunities in exposing and correcting abuses.

To him the country under Republican rule, whatever its shortcomings, was in the safest hands, and he exhibited no sympathy with those whose great love for their party made them long to have it stand for civic righteousness, regardless of whom it might destroy.

As the campaign grew older Republicans cherished the hope of victory.

The break between Kelly and Morrissey had led to the formation of the Irving Hall Democracy. In this organisation all anti-Tammany elements found a home, and to test its strength Morrissey declared himself a candidate for the Senate in the fourth or old Tweed district, which usually recorded eleven thousand majority for Tammany. The Republicans promptly endorsed the nomination. This challenge had turned the whole city into turmoil. Morrissey's audacity in selecting the invincible stronghold of Tammany for his field of battle, throwing the glamour of a gloveless ring-contest over the struggle, brought into life all the concomitants of such a bout. Kelly, leaving his uptown home, personally led the Tammany forces, and on election day the paralytic, the maimed, and men feeble from sickness were brought to the polls.

Nevertheless, when the votes were counted Morrissey proved the winner.

Indeed, to the chagrin of Kelly and the alarm of the Democrats, Tammany candidates had fallen in every part of the city, their overthrow encouraging the belief that the State had been carried by the Republicans. Subsequently, when Bigelow's plurality of nearly fifteen thousand was established, it made defeat doubly disheartening.[1486] It put Tilden on a pinnacle. It left Conkling on the ground.

[Footnote 1486: Bigelow, 390,211; Seward, 375,401. Robinson, 389,699; Spinner, 376,150. Legislature: Senate: 20 Republicans, 12 Democrats.

a.s.sembly: 71 Republicans, 57 Democrats. Morrissey's majority, 3,377.

Dusenberre, Prohibitionist, total vote, 11,103.--Appleton's _Cyclopaedia_, 1875, p. 564.

Bigelow's majority in New York City was 17,013.--New York _World_, November 7, 1875.]

CHAPTER XXVI

DEFEAT OF THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE

1876

Much discussion of Conkling's candidacy for President followed the defeat of his party in 1875. The Union League Club, a body of earnest Republicans and generous campaign givers, declared for pure government and a reforming Executive. Several county conventions voiced a protest against pledged delegations, and _Harper's Weekly_, in order to divide Republicans more sharply into Conkling and anti-Conkling advocates, suggested, in a series of aggressive editorials, that a reform Democrat might be preferable to a Republican who represented the low tone of political honour and morality which exposed itself in official life. On the a.s.sembling of the State convention (March 22) to select delegates to Cincinnati, Curtis opened the way wider for a determined struggle. "The unceasing disposition of the officers and agents of the Administration to prost.i.tute the party organisations relentlessly and at all costs to personal ends," he said, "has everywhere aroused the apprehension of the friends of free government, and has startled and alarmed the honest ma.s.ses of the Republican party."[1487] This shot fired across the bow of the organisation brought its head into the wind.

[Footnote 1487: New York _Tribune_, March 23, 1876.]

The Conkling managers had secured a majority of the delegates, whose desire to advertise an undivided sentiment for the Senator in New York manifested itself by a willingness to yield in the interest of harmony. Finally, their resolution to instruct the delegation to vote as a unit took the more modest form of simply presenting "Roscoe Conkling as our choice for the nomination of President." Curtis, refusing his a.s.sent, moved a subst.i.tute that left the selection of a candidate to the patriotic wisdom of the National convention "in full confidence that it will present the name of some tried and true Republican whose character and career are the pledge of a pure, economical, and vigorous administration of the government." This was an issue--not a compromise. It practically put Conkling out of the race, and after its presentation nothing remained to be done except to call the roll. At its completion the startling discovery was made that of the 432 delegates present only 363 had answered, and that of these 113 had boldly stood with Curtis. Equally impressive, too, was the silence of the 69 who refrained from voting. Thus it appeared that, after the whole office-holding power had worked for weeks to secure delegates, only 33 more than a majority favoured even the presentation of Conkling's name. It was recalled by way of contrast that in 1860, Seward, without an office at his command, had led the united Republican enthusiasm of the State.

Following the example of Seward's supporters at Chicago, the friends of Conkling at Cincinnati occupied an entire hotel, distributed with lavishness the handsome State badge of blue, entertained their visitors with a great orchestra, paraded in light silk hats, and swung across the street an immense banner predicting that "Roscoe Conkling's nomination a.s.sures the thirty-five electoral votes of New York." These headquarters were in marked contrast to the modest rooms of other States having favourite sons. No Blaine flag appeared, and only an oil portrait of Hayes adorned the Ohio parlours. A Philadelphia delegate, after surveying the Grand Hotel and the marchers, ironically remarked that "it was a mystery to him where the Custom-house got bail for all those fellows."[1488]

[Footnote 1488: New York _Tribune_, June 15, 1876.]

The appearance of Edwin D. Morgan, who called the convention to order, evoked long-continued applause. It recalled two decades of stirring national life since he had performed a like duty in 1856. Theodore M.

Pomeroy's selection as temporary chairman likewise honoured New York, and his address, although read from ma.n.u.script, added to his fame as an orator. In seconding the nomination of Bristow, George William Curtis, speaking "for that vast body of Republicans in New York who have seen that reform is possible within the Republican party," won his way to the convention's heart as quickly as he did in 1860, although each person present avowed, after Robert G. Ingersoll had spoken, that for the first time he understood the possible compa.s.s of human eloquence.[1489]

[Footnote 1489: _Official Proceedings of National Republican Conventions_, p. 292.]

Until the deciding ballot New York's part in the convention proved perfunctory. Beyond the sound of its music and the tread of its marchers neither applause nor good will encouraged its candidate.

Reformers regarded Conkling as the ant.i.thesis of Bristow, supporters of Morton jealously scowled at his rivalry, and the friends of Blaine resented his att.i.tude toward their favourite. Only Hayes's little band of expectant backers, hoping eventually to capture the New York delegation, gracefully accorded him generous recognition.[1490]

Conkling's support, beginning with ninety-nine votes, gradually fell off to eighty-one, when the delegation, without formally withdrawing his name, dropped him with not a word and divided between Blaine and Hayes, giving the former nine votes and the latter sixty-one.[1491] In fact, Morton and Conkling, the two political legatees of Grant, fared about alike, their strength in the North outside their respective States aggregating only six votes. The President, believing a "dark horse" inevitable, wrote a letter favouring Hamilton Fish.[1492]

[Footnote 1490: New York _Commercial Advertiser_, September 28, 1877.]

[Footnote 1491: Conkling's votes came from the following States: California, 1; Florida, 3; Georgia, 8; Michigan, 1; Mississippi, 1; Missouri, 1; Nevada, 2; New York, 69; North Carolina, 7; Texas, 3; Virginia, 3. Total, 99. George William Curtis refused to vote for Conkling.

Seven ballots were taken, as follows:

Blaine 285 296 293 286 308 351 Bristow 113 114 121 126 111 21 Morton 124 120 113 108 85 Conkling 99 93 90 84 81 Hayes 61 64 67 68 113 384 Hartranft 58 63 68 71 50 Jewell 11 Wheeler 3 3 2 2 2 2

On the final ballot the following New York delegates voted for Blaine: William H. Robertson, Westchester; James W. Husted, Westchester; Jacob Worth, Kings; John H. Ketcham, Dutchess; Jacob W. Haysradt, Columbia; James M. Marvin, Saratoga; Stephen Sanford, Montgomery; Amos V.

Smiley, Lewis, and James C. Feeter, Herkimer.]

[Footnote 1492: John Russell Young, _Around the World with General Grant_, Vol. 2, p. 275.]

For Vice-President the convention turned to New York. Stewart L.

Woodford was the choice of the delegation. In presenting Conkling's name his oratorical power had won admiration, while delegates from Ohio, Indiana, and other Western States, where his voice had been heard in opposition to Greenbackism, did not forget his unselfish devotion, nor the brilliant rhetoric that clothed his unanswerable arguments. But the Blaine States manifested genuine enthusiasm for William A. Wheeler, a man of pure life, simple habits, ripe culture, and sincere and practical principles, who had won the esteem of all his a.s.sociates in Congress. To add to his charm he had a good presence and warm family affections. He possessed, too, a well-earned reputation for ability, having served with credit in the Legislature, in Congress, and as president of the const.i.tutional convention of 1866-7. Conkling thought him "not very well known."[1493] Nevertheless, he had been mentioned for President, and throughout the long and exciting contest two delegates from Ma.s.sachusetts kept his name before the convention. George F. h.o.a.r, afterward the distinguished Ma.s.sachusetts senator, became especially active in his behalf, and James Russell Lowell called him "a very sensible man."[1494] Outside delegations, therefore, without waiting for New York to act, quickly exhibited their partiality by putting him in nomination.[1495] Later, when the Empire State named Stewart L. Woodford, the situation became embarra.s.sing. Finally, as the Wheeler vote rapidly approached a majority, the Empire delegation, to escape being run over again, reluctantly withdrew its candidate.[1496] The roll call, thus abruptly discontinued, showed Wheeler far ahead of the aggregate vote of all compet.i.tors, and on motion his nomination was made unanimous.[1497]

[Footnote 1493: New York _Herald_, June 17, 1876.]

[Footnote 1494: h.o.a.r, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 244.]

[Footnote 1495: Wheeler's name was presented by Luke P. Poland of Vermont, and seconded by S.H. Russell of Texas, and Henry R. James of New York (Ogdensburg). Thomas C. Platt presented Woodford.

"Wheeler very much disliked Roscoe Conkling and all his ways. Conkling once said to him: 'If you will join us and act with us, there is nothing in the gift of the State of New York to which you may not reasonably aspire.' To which Wheeler replied: 'Mr. Conkling, there is nothing in the gift of the State which will compensate me for the forfeiture of my own self-respect.'"--h.o.a.r, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 243.]

[Footnote 1496: "It was not to the credit of the New York delegation that Wheeler was obliged to look to other States for his presentation and support."--Utica _Herald_, June 17.]

[Footnote 1497: With fifteen States and Territories to be called, the vote stood as follows: Wheeler, 366; all others, 245.]

The rank and file of the party, exhibiting no discouragement because of the outcome at Cincinnati, sought a strong candidate to head their State ticket.[1498] To those possessing the reform spirit William M.

Evarts appealed as a representative leader. He had indicated no desire to hold public office. Indeed, it may be said that he always seemed disinterested in political conditions so far as they affected him personally. Although his friends thought the old supporters of Seward, if not Seward himself, had failed to sustain him for the United States Senate in 1861 as faithfully as he would have supported the Secretary of State under like conditions, there is no evidence that he ever found fault. When in Hayes' Cabinet and afterwards in the Senate (1885-91), he did not take or attempt to take, either in the counsels of his party or of his colleagues, the leadership for which he was admirably fitted. It is doubtful, in fact, if he ever realised the strong hold he had upon the respect and admiration of the country. But the people knew that his high personal character, his delightful oratory, his unfailing wit and good-nature, and his great prestige as a famous lawyer of almost unexampled success commended him as an ideal candidate. Conspicuously among those urging his candidacy for governor in 1876 appeared a body of influential leaders from the Union League and Reform clubs of the metropolis, calling themselves Independents.

The Liberals, too, added voice to this sentiment.[1499]

[Footnote 1498: The Republican State convention met at Saratoga on August 23.]

[Footnote 1499: Although many prominent Republicans who voted for Greeley in 1872 had previously renewed their allegiance, the Liberals as an organisation did not formally coalesce with the Republican party until August 23, 1876. On that day about 200 delegates, headed by John Cochrane and Benjamin F. Manierre, met in convention at Saratoga, and after accepting Hayes and Wheeler as the exponents of their reform principles, were invited amidst loud applause to seats in the Republican State convention.]

If the candidate could not be Evarts, the same elements evidenced a disposition to support Edwin D. Morgan, who had shown of late a disturbing independence of the machine. Of the other aspirants William H. Robertson presented his usual strength in the Hudson River counties.

Alonzo B. Cornell was the candidate of the organisation. Evarts had ill.u.s.trated his independence in accepting office under President Johnson, in criticising the Grant administration, and in protesting against the Louisiana incident. Robertson, in voting for Blaine, had likewise gone to the outer edge of disloyalty. Nor did Morgan's att.i.tude at Cincinnati commend him. His ambition, which centred in the vice-presidency, left the impression that he had cared more for himself than for Conkling. Under these circ.u.mstances the Senator naturally turned to Cornell, an efficient lieutenant, who, having encountered heavy seas and a head wind, hoisted the signal of distress and waited for Conkling's coming. The Senator, however, did not appear. His rooms were engaged, his name was added to the hotel register, and Cornell's expectant friends declared that he would again capture the convention with his oratory; but Conkling, knowing that in political conventions the power of oratory depended largely upon pledged delegations, prudently stayed away. Besides, he was not a delegate, his partisans in Oneida having been put to rout. This forced the withdrawal of Cornell, whose delegates, drifting to Morgan as the lesser of two evils, nominated him on the first ballot.[1500] Evarts was too great a man to be lifted into national prominence.

[Footnote 1500: Whole number of votes cast, 410. Necessary to a choice, 206. Morgan received 242; Evarts, 126; Robertson, 24; Martin, 1; Townsend, 18.]

For lieutenant-governor, Sherman S. Rogers of Erie and Theodore M.

Pomeroy of Cayuga entered the lists. Encouraged by the folly of a few rash friends, Cornell also allowed his name to be presented, "since he had been grievously wronged," said his eulogist, "in the dishonest count of 1868."[1501] Cornell had adroitly extricated himself from humiliating defeat in the morning by a timely withdrawal, but not until George William Curtis declared his nomination "the most dangerous that could be made," and William B. Woodin of Cayuga had stigmatised him, did he fully appreciate his unpopularity as the representative of machine methods. Woodin's attack upon Cornell undoubtedly weakened Pomeroy. It possessed the delectable acidity, so reckless in spirit, but so delightful in form, that always made the distinguished State senator's remarks attractive and diverting.

Although whatever weakened Pomeroy naturally strengthened Rogers, it added greatly to the latter's influence that he represented the home of William Dorsheimer, whom the Democrats would renominate, and in the end the Buffalonian won by a handsome majority.[1502]

[Footnote 1501: New York _Tribune_, August 24.]

[Footnote 1502: The ballot resulted: Rogers, 240; Pomeroy, 178.

Necessary to a choice, 210.