Volume II Part 12 (1/2)
Some time before the convention it was suggested, with Marcy's approval, that the New York delegation should vote as a unit for d.i.c.kinson if he proved the stronger candidate outside the State, and, upon the same condition, a solid delegation should vote for Marcy.
This proposition did not reach d.i.c.kinson until his leading friends had committed themselves by a second choice; but, in speaking of the matter to Thurlow Weed ten years afterward, d.i.c.kinson said that had it come in time he would cheerfully have accepted it, adding that whatever may have been his opinion in 1852, he now knew it would have resulted in Marcy's nomination.
The disturbance among the New York delegates at Baltimore had its influence at Syracuse when the Democratic state convention a.s.sembled on September 1. Seymour was the leading candidate for governor, and d.i.c.kinson opposed him with a bitterness born of a desire for revenge.
The night before the convention Seymour's chances were p.r.o.nounced desperate. Whatever disappointments had come at Baltimore were laid at his door. Seymour made Ca.s.s' defeat possible; Seymour refused to help Buchanan; Seymour was responsible for a dark horse; Seymour filled Marcy's friends with hopes of ultimate victory, only to heighten their disappointment in the end. All these allegations were merely founded upon his steadfastness to Marcy, and he might have answered that everything had been done with the approval of a majority of the New York delegation. But d.i.c.kinson was no match for the Utica statesman.
Seymour's whole life had been a training for such a contest. As Roscoe Conkling said of him many years later, he had sat at the feet of Edwin Croswell and measured swords with Thurlow Weed. He was one of the men who do not lose the character of good fighters because they are excellent negotiators. Even the cool-headed and astute John Van Buren, who joined d.i.c.kinson in his support of John P. Beekman of New York City for governor, found that Seymour could cut deeply when he chose to wield a blade.[414] Seymour, moreover, gave his friends great satisfaction by the energy with which he entered the gubernatorial contest. When the first ballot was announced he had 59 votes to Beekman's 7, with only 64 necessary to a choice. On the second ballot, the Utican had 78 and Beekman 3. This concluded the convention's contest. Sanford E. Church was then renominated for lieutenant-governor, and the Baltimore platform approved.
[Footnote 414: ”Seymour was among the most effective and eloquent platform orators in New York. Less electrical than John Van Buren, he was more persuasive; less witty, he was more logical; less sarcastic, he was more candid; less denunciatory of antagonists, he was more convincing to opponents. These two remarkable men had little in common except lofty ambition and rare mental and social gifts. Their salient characteristics were widely dissimilar. Seymour was conciliatory, and cultivated peace. Van Buren was aggressive, and coveted war.”--H.B.
Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 178.]
The Whig state convention met at Syracuse on September 22 and promptly renominated Was.h.i.+ngton Hunt for governor by acclamation. Raymond wanted it, and Greeley, in a letter to Weed, admitted an ambition, while a strong sentiment existed for George W. Patterson. Hunt had veered toward Fillmore's way of thinking. ”The closing paragraphs of his message are a beggarly pet.i.tion to the South,” wrote George Dawson, the quaint, forceful a.s.sociate of Weed upon the _Evening Journal_.[415] But Hunt's administration had been quiet and satisfactory, and there was little disposition to drop him. He did not have the patience of Hamilton Fish, but he resembled him in moderation of speech.
[Footnote 415: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p.
218.]
William Kent, a son of the Chancellor, received the nomination for lieutenant-governor. Kent was a scholarly, able lawyer. He had served five years upon the circuit bench by appointment of Governor Seward.
He co-operated with Benjamin F. Butler in the organisation of the law school of the New York University, becoming one of its original lecturers, and was subsequently called to Harvard as a professor of law. Like his distinguished father he was a man of pure character, and of singular simplicity and gentleness.
The adoption of a platform gave the Whig delegates more trouble than the nomination of candidates. A large majority opposed the slavery plank of the Baltimore platform. But the Seward Whigs, having little faith in the ultimate result, accepted a general declaration that ”an honest acquiescence in the action of the late national convention upon all subjects legitimately before it is the duty of every Whig.” Horace Greeley suggested that ”those who please can construe this concession into an approval.”
In opening the canva.s.s of 1852, the Whigs attempted to repeat the campaign of 1840. Scott's record in the War of 1812 was not less brilliant than Harrison's, and if his Mexican battles were not fought against the overwhelming odds that Taylor met at Buena Vista, he was none the less ent.i.tled to the distinction of a conqueror. It was thought proper, therefore, to start his political campaign where his military career began, and, as the anniversary of Lundy's Lane occurred in July, extensive preparations were made for celebrating the day at Niagara Falls, the nearest American point to the scene of his desperate courage. The great meeting, made up of large delegations from nearly every Northern State, rivalled in numbers and in enthusiasm the memorable meetings of the Harrison campaign. To add to the interest, two hundred and twenty officers and soldiers of the War of 1812, some of whom had taken part in the battle, partic.i.p.ated in the festivities. Speakers declared that it inaugurated a new career of triumph, which might be likened to the onslaught of Lundy's Lane, the conflict of Chippewa, the siege of Vera Cruz, and the storm of Cerro Gordo; and which, they prophesied, would end in triumphant possession, not now of the Halls of the Montezumas, but of the White House of American Presidents. The meeting lasted two days. Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, acted as president, and among the speakers was Henry Winter Davis.
But this was the only demonstration that recalled the Harrison campaign. The drum and cannon did conspicuous work, flags floated, and speakers found ready and patriotic listeners, but the hearts of many people were not enlisted in the discussion of tariffs and public improvements. They were thinking of the fugitive slave law and its enforcement, and some believed that while speakers and editors were charging Pierce with cowardice on the field of Churubusco they did not themselves have the courage to voice their honest convictions on the slavery question. As election drew near signs of victory disappeared.
Conservative Whigs did not like the candidate and anti-slavery Whigs objected to the platform. ”This wretched platform,” Seward declared, ”was contrived to defeat Scott in the nomination, or to sink him in the canva.s.s.”[416] Horace Greeley's spirited protest against the fugitive slave plank gave rise to the phrase, ”We accept the candidate, but spit upon the platform.” Among the business men of New York City an impression obtained that if Scott became President, Seward would control him; and their purpose to crush the soldier seemed to centre not so much in hostility to Scott as in their desire to destroy Seward. Greeley speaks of this ”extraordinary feature” of the campaign. ”Seward has been the burden of our adversaries' song from the outset,” he writes; ”and mercantile Whigs by thousands have ever been ready not merely to defeat but to annihilate the Whig party if they might thereby demolish Seward.”[417] In answer to the charge of influencing Scott's administration, the Senator promptly declared that he would neither ask nor accept ”any public station or preferment whatever at the hands of the President.”[418] But this in nowise silenced their batteries. To the end of the canva.s.s Scott continued to be advertised as the ”Seward candidate.”
[Footnote 416: F.W. Seward, _Life of W.H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 188.
”Many thought: the voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. Seward was the political juggler, or Mephistopheles, as some called him, and the result was regarded as his triumph.”--James F.
Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p. 262. ”Some of the prominent Whig newspapers of Georgia declined to sustain Scott, because his election would mean Free-soilism and Sewardism. An address was issued on July 3 by Alexander H. Stephens, Robert Toombs, and five other Whig representatives, in which they flatly refused to support Scott because he was 'the favourite candidate of the Free Soil wing of the Whig party.'”--_Ibid._, p. 262.]
[Footnote 417: New York _Tribune_, October, 1852.]
[Footnote 418: _Seward's Works_, Vol. 3, p. 416. Date of letter, June 26, 1852.]
After the September elections, it became manifest that something must be done to strengthen Whig sentiment, and Scott made a trip through the doubtful States of Ohio and New York. Although Harrison had made several speeches in 1840, there was no precedent for a presidential stumping tour; and, to veil the purpose of the journey, recourse was had to a statute authorising the general of the army to visit Kentucky with the object of locating an asylum for sick and disabled soldiers at Blue Lick Springs. He went from Was.h.i.+ngton by way of Pittsburg and returned through New York, stopping at Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Lockport, Rochester, Auburn, Syracuse, Rome, Utica, and Albany.
Everywhere great crowds met him, but cheers for the hero mingled with cheers for a Democratic victory in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, indicating the certain election of Pierce in November. At Auburn, Seward referred to him as ”the greatest of American heroes since the Revolutionary age.” At Albany, John C. Spencer's presence recalled the distinguished services of Governor Tompkins and Chief Justice Ambrose Spencer in the War of 1812. ”It was these men,” said Scott, ”who were aware of the position on the frontier, that urged me on to achieve something that would add to the future honour of our country.” New York City received him with one of the largest ovations ever witnessed up to that time. He avoided politics in his speeches, insisting that he did not come to solicit votes. But he did not thereby help his cause or escape ridicule. Indeed, the ill-advised things said and done, created the impression that obtained thirty-two years later after the tour of James G. Blaine.
Though the Democrats at first accepted Franklin Pierce as they had received James K. Polk, coldness and distrust gradually disappeared.
At Tammany's Fourth of July celebration, the presence of the prominent leaders who bolted in 1848 gave evidence of the party's reunion. The chief speaker was John Van Buren. Upon the platform sat John A. Dix, Preston King, and Churchill C. Cambreling. Of the letters read, one came from Martin Van Buren, who expressed pleasure that ”the disturbing subject of slavery has, by the action of both the great parties of the country, been withdrawn from the canva.s.s.” Among the editors who contributed most powerfully to the Free-soil movement, William Cullen Bryant now supported Pierce on the theory that he and the platform were the more favourable to freedom.[419] John Van Buren's s.p.a.cious mind and his genius for giving fascination to whatever he said convulsed his audience with wit and thrilled it with forceful statements. The country, he declared, was tired of the agitation of slavery, which had ceased to be a political question. It only remained to enforce in good faith the great compromise. He a.s.serted that trade was good and the country prosperous, and that the Democratic party had gained the confidence of the people because it was a party of pacification, opposed to the agitation of slavery, insistent upon sacredly observing the compromises of the Const.i.tution, and certain to bring settled political conditions.
[Footnote 419: ”The argument of the _Post_, that the Democratic candidate and platform were really more favourable to liberty than the Whig, was somewhat strained; the editor failed to look the situation squarely in the face. He was, however, acting in perfect harmony with the prominent New York Democrats who had, four years previously, bolted the regular nomination. Salmon P. Chase, although still a Democrat, would not support Pierce, but gave his adherence to the Free-soil nominations, and tried hard, though in vain, to bring to their support his former New York a.s.sociates.”--James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 264-65.]
Prince John proved himself equal to the occasion. If no longer the great apostle of the Free-soilers he was now the accepted champion of the Democracy. He had said what everybody believed who voted for Pierce and what many people thought who voted for Scott. There is no doubt his speech created an immense sensation. Greeley ridiculed it, Weed belittled it, and the Free-soilers denounced it, but it became the keynote of the campaign, and the Prince, with his rich, brilliant copiousness that was never redundant, became the picturesque and popular speaker of every platform. There were other Democratic orators.[420] Charles O'Conor's speeches were masterpieces of declamation, and James T. Brady, then thirty-seven years old, but already famous as one of the foremost criminal lawyers of the time, discovered the same magnetic eloquence that made him almost irresistible before a jury. His sentences, rounded and polished, rolled from his mouth in perfect balance. Van Buren was kaleidoscopic, becoming by turn humourous, sarcastic, gravely logical, and famously witty; Brady and O'Conor inclined to severity, easily dropping into vituperation, and at times exhibiting bitterness. Van Buren's hardest hits came in the form of sarcasm. It mattered not who heard him, all went away good-natured and satisfied with the entertainment. There were moments when laughter drowned his loudest utterances, when silence made his whispers audible, and when an eloquent epigram moistened the eye.
[Footnote 420: John A. Dix spoke in the New England and the Middle States. From October 11 to 29 he made thirteen speeches ”in the great canva.s.s which is upon us.”--Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol.
1, pp. 269, 271.]
The election proved a Waterloo to the Whigs. Twenty-seven States gave majorities for Pierce, only four were for Scott. Seymour ran 22,000 votes ahead of Hunt.[421] In the a.s.sembly the Democrats numbered eighty-five, the Whigs forty-three. Of the thirty-three congressmen, the Democrats elected twenty-one, the Whigs ten, the Free-soilers and Land Reformers one each. It was wittily said that the Whig party ”died of an attempt to swallow the fugitive slave law.” The election of Pierce and Seymour surprised none of the Whig leaders. Thurlow Weed, convinced of the hopelessness of Whig success, went off to Europe for six months preceding the campaign. The _Tribune_ talked of victory, but in his private correspondence Greeley declared that ”we shall lose the Legislature and probably everything at home.”