Volume II Part 4 (1/2)
And, conceited as we all are, I think most men exceed him in the art of concealing from others their overweening faith in their own sagacity and discernment.”--Horace Greeley, _Recollections of a Busy Life_, p. 312.]
It was this overwhelming defeat that so depressed the Whigs, gathered at the Syracuse convention, as they looked over the field for a gubernatorial candidate to lead them, if possible, out of the wilderness of humiliation. Seward had declined a renomination. He knew that his course, especially in the Virginia controversy, had aroused a feeling of hostility among certain Whigs who not only resented his advancement over Granger and Fillmore, his seniors in years and in length of public service, but who dreaded his lead as too bold, too earnest, and too impulsive. The fact that the Abolitionists had already invited him to accept their nomination for President in 1844 indicated the extent to which his Virginia correspondence had carried him. So, he let his determination be known. ”My principles are too liberal, too philanthropic, if it be not vain to say so, for my party,” he wrote Christopher Morgan, then a leading member of Congress. ”The promulgation of them offends many; the operation of them injures many; and their sincerity is questioned by about all.
Those principles, therefore, do not receive fair consideration and candid judgment. There are some who know them to be right, and believe them to be sincere. These would sustain me. Others whose prejudices are aroused against them, or whose interests are in danger, would combine against me. I must, therefore, divide my party in convention.
This would be unfortunate for them, and, of all others, the most false position for me. And what have I to lose by withdrawing and leaving the party unembarra.s.sed? My principles are very good and popular ones for a man out of office; they will take care of me, when out of office, as they always have done. I have had enough, Heaven knows, of the power and pomp of place.”[318]
[Footnote 318: F.W. Seward, _Life of W.H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 547.]
With Seward out of the way, Luther Bradish was the logical candidate for governor. Fillmore had many friends present, and John A. Collier of Binghamton, alternating between hope and fear, let his wishes be known. But, as lieutenant-governor, Bradish had won popularity by firmness, patience, and that tact which springs from right feeling, rather than cold courtesy; and, in the end, the vote proved him the favourite. For lieutenant-governor, the convention chose Gabriel Furman, a Brooklyn lawyer of great natural ability, who had been a judge of the munic.i.p.al court and was just then closing a term in the State Senate, but whose promising career was already marred by the opium habit. He is best remembered as one of Brooklyn's most valued local historians. The resolutions, adhering to the former Whig policy, condemning Tyler's vetoes and indicating a preference for Clay, showed that the party, although stripped of its enthusiastic hopes, had lost none of its faith in its principles or confidence in its great standard-bearer.
The Democrats had divided on ca.n.a.l improvements. Beginning in the administration of Governor Throop, one faction, known as the Conservatives, had voted with the Whigs in 1838, while the other, called Radicals, opposed the construction of any works that would increase the debt. This division rea.s.serted itself in the Legislature which convened in January, 1842. The Radicals elected all the state officers. Azariah C. Flagg became comptroller, Samuel Young secretary of state, and George P. Barker attorney-general. Six ca.n.a.l commissioners, belonging to the same wing of the party, were also selected. Behind them, as a leader of great force in the a.s.sembly, stood Michael Hoffman of Herkimer, ready to rain fierce blows upon the policy of Seward and the Conservatives. Hoffman had served eight years in Congress, and three years as a ca.n.a.l commissioner. He was now, at fifty-four years of age, serving his first term in the a.s.sembly, bringing to the work a great reputation both for talents and integrity, and as a powerful and effective debater.[319] Hoffman was educated for a physician, but afterward turned to the law. ”Had he not been drawn into public life,” says Thurlow Weed, ”he would have been as eminent a lawyer as he became a statesman.”[320]
[Footnote 319: ”For four days the debate on a bill for the enlargement of the ca.n.a.ls shed darkness rather than light over the subject, and the chamber grew murky. One morning a tallish man, past middle age, with iron-gray locks drooping on his shoulders, and wearing a mixed suit of plain clothes, took the floor. I noticed that pens, newspapers, and all else were laid down, and every eye fixed on the speaker. I supposed he was some quaint old joker from the backwoods, who was going to afford the House a little fun. The first sentences arrested my attention. A beam of light shot through the darkness, and I began to get glimpses of the question at issue. Soon a broad belt of suns.h.i.+ne spread over the chamber. 'Who is he?' I asked a member.
'Michael Hoffman,' was the reply. He spoke for an hour, and though his manner was quiet and his diction simple, he was so methodical and lucid in his argument that, where all had appeared confused before, everything now seemed clear.”--H.B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 173.]
[Footnote 320: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 1, p.
34.]
The Albany Regency, as a harmonious, directing body, had, by this time, practically gone out of existence. Talcott was dead, Marcy and Silas Wright were in Was.h.i.+ngton, Benjamin F. Butler, having resigned from the Cabinet as attorney-general, in 1838, had resumed the practice of his profession in New York City, and Van Buren, waiting for another term of the Presidency, rested at Lindenwald. The remaining members of the original Regency, active as ever in political affairs, were now destined to head the two factions--Edwin Croswell, still editor of the Albany _Argus_, leading the Conservatives, with Daniel S. d.i.c.kinson, William C. Bouck, Samuel Beardsley, Henry A.
Foster, and Horatio Seymour. Azariah C. Flagg, with Samuel Young, George P. Barker, and Michael Hoffman, directed the Radicals. All were able men. Bouck carried fewer guns than Young; Beardsley had weight and character, without much apt.i.tude; Foster overflowed with knowledge and was really an able man, but his domineering nature and violent temper reduced his influence. Seymour, now only thirty-two years old, had not yet entered upon his ill.u.s.trious and valuable public career; nor had Daniel S. d.i.c.kinson, although of acknowledged ability, exhibited those traits which were to distinguish him in party quarrels. He did not belong in the cla.s.s with Marcy and Wright, though few New Yorkers showed more indomitable courage than d.i.c.kinson--a characteristic that greatly strengthened his influence in the councils of the leaders whose differences were already marked with asperity.
Success is wont to have magical effects in producing a wish to put an end to difference; and the legislative winter of 1843 became notable for the apparent adjustment of Democratic divisions. The Radicals proposed the pa.s.sage of an act, known as the ”stop and tax law of 1842,” suspending the completion of the public works, imposing a direct tax, and pledging a portion of the ca.n.a.l revenues as a sinking fund for the payment of the existing debt. It was a drastic measure, and leading Conservatives, with much vigour, sought to obtain a compromise permitting the gradual completion of the most advanced works. Bouck favoured sending an agent to Holland to negotiate a loan for this purpose, a suggestion pressed with some ardour until further effort threatened to jeopardise his chance of a renomination for governor; and when Bouck ceased his opposition other Conservatives fell into line. The measure, thus un.o.bstructed, finally became the law, sending the Democrats into the gubernatorial campaign of 1842 with high hopes of success.
By accident or design, the Democratic state convention also met at Syracuse on October 7. William C. Bouck and Daniel S. d.i.c.kinson had been the candidates, in 1840, for governor and lieutenant-governor, and they now demanded renomination. The Radicals wanted Samuel Young or Michael Hoffman for governor; and, before the pa.s.sage of the ”stop and tax law,” the contest bid fair to be a warm one. But, after making an agreement to pledge the party to the work of the last Legislature, the Radicals withdrew all opposition to Bouck and d.i.c.kinson. In their resolutions, the Democrats applauded Tyler's vetoes; approved the policy of his administration; denounced the re-establishment of a national bank; opposed a protective tariff; and favoured the sub-treasury, hard money, a strict construction of the Const.i.tution, and direct taxation for public works.
The campaign that followed stirred no enthusiasm on either side. The Whigs felt the weight of the ca.n.a.l debt, which rested heavily upon the people; and, although many enthusiastic young men, active in the organisation of Clay clubs and in preparing the way for the Kentucky statesman in 1844, held ma.s.s-meetings and read letters from their great leader, New York again pa.s.sed under the control of the Democrats by a majority of nearly twenty-two thousand.[321] It was not an ordinary defeat; it was an avalanche. Only one Whig senator, thirty Whig a.s.semblymen, and nine or ten congressmen were saved in the wreck.
”I fear the party must break up from its very foundations,” Fillmore wrote Weed. ”There is no cohesive principle--no common head.”[322]
[Footnote 321: William C. Bouck, 208,072; Luther Bradish, 186,091.--_Civil List, State of New York_ (1887), p. 166.]
[Footnote 322: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p.
96.]
Seward took no such pessimistic view. He had the promise of the future in him, a capacity for action, a ready sympathy with men of all cla.s.ses, occupations, and interests, and he saw rays of light where others looked only into darkness. ”It is not a bad thing to be left out of Congress,” he wrote Christopher Morgan, depressed by his defeat. ”You will soon be wanted in the State, and that is a better field.”[323] Seward had the faculty of slow, reflective brooding, and he often saw both deep and far. In the night of that blinding defeat only such a nature could find comfort in the outlook.
[Footnote 323: F.W. Seward, _Life of W.H. Seward_, Vol. 1, p. 627.]
CHAPTER V
DEMOCRATS DIVIDE INTO FACTIONS
1842-1844
From the moment of William C. Bouck's inauguration as governor, in January, 1843, Democratic harmony disappeared. It was supposed the question of ca.n.a.l improvement had been settled by the ”stop and tax law” of 1842, and by the subsequent agreement of the Conservatives, at the Syracuse convention, in the following October. No one believed that any serious disposition existed on the part of the Governor to open the wound, since he knew a large majority of his party opposed the resumption of the work, and that the state officers, who had viewed his nomination with coldness, were watching his acts and critically weighing his words.
But he also knew that his most zealous and devoted friends, living along the line of the Erie, Black River, and Genesee Valley ca.n.a.ls, earnestly desired the speedy completion of certain parts of these waterways. In order to please them, his message suggested the propriety of taking advantage of the low prices of labour and provisions to finish some of the work. He did it timidly. There was no positive recommendation. He touched the subject as one handles a live electric wire, trembling lest he rouse the sleeping opposition of the Radicals, or fail to meet the expectation of friends. But the recommendation, too expressionless to cheer his friends and too energetic to suit his opponents, foreshadowed the pitfalls into which he was to tumble. He had been the first to suggest the Erie enlargement, and he knew better than any other man in the State how important was its completion; yet he said as little in its favour as could be said, if he said anything at all, and that little seemed to be prompted, not so much for the good of the State, as to satisfy the demands of ardent friends, who had contributed to his nomination and election.
Severe criticism of the message, by the radical press, quickly showed that not even a temporary reconciliation had been effected by the act of 1842. Had the Governor now been sufficiently endowed with a faculty for good management, he must have strengthened himself and weakened his enemies with the vast amount of patronage at his command. Not since the days of Governor Lewis, had the making of so many appointments been committed to an executive. The Whigs, under Seward, had taken every office in the State. But Bouck, practising the nepotism that characterised Lewis' administration forty years before, took good care of his own family, and then, in the interest of harmony, turned whatever was left over to the members of the Legislature, who selected their own friends regardless of their relations to the Governor. There is something grim and pathetic in the picture of the rude awakening of this farmer governor, who, while working in his own weak way for harmony and conciliation, discovered, too late, that partisan rivalries and personal ambition had surrounded him with a cordon of enemies that could not be broken. To add to his humiliation, it frequently happened that the nominations of those whom he greatly desired confirmed, were rejected in the Senate by the united votes of Radicals and Whigs.