Volume II Part 26 (1/2)
This was published in the heat of party conflict and Democratic defeat, when writers a.s.sumed that a compromise, if any adjustment was needed, would, of course, be forthcoming as in 1850. A little later, as conditions became more threatening, the talk of peaceable secession growing out of a disinclination to accept civil war, commended itself to persons who thought a peaceful dissolution of the Union, if the slave-holding South should seek it, preferable to such an alternative.[634] But as the spectre of dismemberment of the nation came nearer, concessions to the South as expressed in the Weed plan, and, later, in the Crittenden compromise, commended itself to a large part of the people. A majority of the voters at the preceding election undoubtedly favoured such an adjustment. The votes cast for Douglas, Bell, and Breckenridge in the free States, with one-fourth of those cast for Lincoln, and one-fourth for Breckenridge in the slave States, making 2,848,792 out of a total of 4,662,170, said a writer in _Appleton's Cyclopaedia_, ”were overwhelmingly in favour of conciliation, forbearance, and compromise.”[635] Rhodes, the historian, approving this estimate, expresses the belief that the Crittenden compromise, if submitted to the people, would have commanded such a vote.[636]
[Footnote 634: Morgan Dix, _Memoirs of John A. Dix_, Vol. 1, p. 338.]
[Footnote 635: _Appleton's Cyclopaedia_, 1861, p. 700.]
[Footnote 636: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol.
3, p. 261, _note_.]
In the closing months of 1860, and the opening months of 1861, this belief dominated the Democratic party as well as a large number of conservative Republicans; but, as the winter pa.s.sed without substantial progress toward an effective compromise, the cloud of trouble a.s.sumed larger proportions and an alarmist spirit spread abroad. After Major Anderson, on the night of December 27, had transferred his command from its exposed position at Fort Moultrie to the stronger one at Fort Sumter, it was not uncommon to hear upon the streets disloyal sentiments blended with those of willing sacrifice to maintain the Union. This condition was accentuated by the action of the Legislature, which convened on January 2, 1861, with twenty-three Republicans and nine Democrats in the Senate, and ninety-three Republicans and thirty-five Democrats in the House. In his message, Governor Morgan urged moderation and conciliation. ”Let New York,” he said, ”set an example; let her oppose no barrier, but let her representatives in Congress give ready support to any just and honourable sentiment; let her stand in hostility to none, but extend the hand of friends.h.i.+p to all, cordially uniting with other members of the Confederacy in proclaiming and enforcing a determination that the Const.i.tution shall be honoured and the Union of the States be preserved.”
On January 7, five days after this dignified and conservative appeal, Fernando Wood, imitating the example of South Carolina, advocated the secession of the city from the State. ”Why should not New York City,”
said the Mayor, as if playing the part of a satirist, ”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 a nominal duty on imports, her local government could be supported without taxation upon her people.... Thus we could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free.... When disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master--to a people and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her commerce, taken away the power of self-government, and destroyed the confederacy of which she was the proud empire city.”[637]
[Footnote 637: Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, Lx.x.xI: p. 25, 26.
New York _Herald_, January 8.]
By order of a sympathising common council, this absurd message, printed in pamphlet form, was distributed among the people. Few, however, took it seriously. ”Fernando Wood,” said the _Tribune_, ”evidently wants to be a traitor; it is lack of courage only that makes him content with being a blackguard.”[638] The next day Confederate forts fired upon the _Star of the West_ while endeavouring to convey troops and supplies to Fort Sumter.
[Footnote 638: New York _Tribune_, January 8, 1861.]
The jar of the Mayor's message and the roar of hostile guns were quickly followed by the pa.s.sage, through the Legislature, of a concurrent resolution, tendering the President ”whatever aid in men and money may be required to enable him to enforce the laws and uphold the authority of the Federal Government; and that, in the defence of the Union, which has conferred prosperity and happiness upon the American people, renewing the pledge given and redeemed by our fathers, we are ready to devote our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honour.”[639] This resolution undoubtedly expressed the overwhelming preponderance of sentiment in the State,[640] but its defiant tone, blended with the foolish words of Wood and the menacing act of South Carolina, called forth greater efforts for compromise, to the accomplishment of which a mammoth pet.i.tion, signed by the leading business men of the State, was sent to Congress, praying that ”measures, either of direct legislation or of amendment of the Const.i.tution, may be speedily adopted, which, we are a.s.sured, will restore peace to our agitated country.”[641]
[Footnote 639: _Appleton's Cyclopaedia_, 1861, p. 700.]
[Footnote 640: ”The whole people in this part of the country are waiting with impatience for your a.s.sumption of the great office to which the suffrage of a free people has called you, and will hail you as a deliverer from treason and anarchy. In New York City all cla.s.ses and parties are rapidly uniting in this sentiment, and here in Albany, where I am spending a few days in attendance upon Court, the general tone of feeling and thinking about public affairs shows little difference between Republicans and Democrats.”--W.M. Evarts to Abraham Lincoln, January 15, 1861. Unpublished letter on file in Department of State at Was.h.i.+ngton.]
[Footnote 641: _Appleton's Cyclopaedia_, 1861, p. 520.]
On January 18, a meeting of the merchants of New York City, held in the Chamber of Commerce, unanimously adopted a memorial, addressed to Congress, urging the acceptance of the Crittenden compromise. Similar action to maintain peace in an honourable way was taken in other cities of the State, while congressmen were daily loaded with appeals favouring any compromise that would keep the peace. Among other pet.i.tions of this character, Elbridge G. Spaulding presented one from Buffalo, signed by Millard Fillmore, Henry W. Rogers, and three thousand others. On January 24, Governor Morgan received resolutions, pa.s.sed by the General a.s.sembly of Virginia, inviting the State, through its Legislature, to send commissioners to a peace conference to be held at Was.h.i.+ngton on February 4. Nothing had occurred in the intervening weeks to change the sentiment of the Legislature, expressed earlier in the session; but, after much discussion and many delays, it was resolved, in acceding to the request of Virginia, that ”it is not to be understood that this Legislature approves of the propositions submitted, or concedes the propriety of their adoption by the proposed convention. But while adhering to the position she has heretofore occupied, New York will not reject an invitation to a conference, which, by bringing together the men of both sections, holds out the possibility of an honourable settlement of our national difficulties, and the restoration of peace and harmony to the country.”
The balloting for commissioners resulted in the election of David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S. Wadsworth, James C.
Smith, Amaziah B. James, Erastus Corning, Francis Granger, Greene C.
Bronson, William E. Dodge, John A. King, and John E. Wool, with the proviso, however, that they were to take no part in the proceedings unless a majority of the non-slave-holding States were represented.
The appearance of Francis Granger upon the commission was the act of Thurlow Weed. Granger, happy in his retirement at Canandaigua, had been out of office and out of politics so many years that, as he said in a letter to the editor of the _Evening Journal_, ”it is with the greatest repugnance that I think of again appearing before the public.”[642] But Weed urged him, and Granger accepted ”the flattering honour.”[643] Thus, after many years of estrangement, the leader of the Woolies clasped hands again with the chief of the Silver-Grays.
[Footnote 642: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p.
317.]
[Footnote 643: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p.
318.]
Though a trifling event in itself, the detention of thirty-eight boxes of muskets by the New York police kept the people conscious of the strained relations between the States. The owners.h.i.+p of the guns, left for s.h.i.+pment to Savannah, would ordinarily have been promptly settled in a local court; but the detention now became an affair of national importance, involving the governors of two States and leading to the seizure of half a dozen merchant vessels lying peacefully at anchor in Savannah harbour. Instead of entering the courts, the consignor telegraphed the consignees of the ”seizure,” the consignees notified Governor Brown of Georgia, and the Governor wired Governor Morgan of New York, demanding their immediate release. Receiving no reply to his message, Brown, in retaliation, ordered the seizure of all vessels at Savannah belonging to citizens of New York. Although Governor Morgan gave the affair no attention beyond advising the vessel owners that their rights must be prosecuted in the United States courts, the s.h.i.+pment of the muskets and the release of the vessels soon closed the incident; but Brown's indecent zeal to give the episode an international character by forcing into notice the offensive a.s.sumption of an independent sovereignty, had much influence in hardening the ”no compromise” att.i.tude of many Northern people.
Nevertheless, the men of New York who desired peace on any honourable terms, seemed to grow more earnest as the alarm in the public mind became more intense. South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi had now seceded, and, as a last appeal to them, a monster and notable Union meeting, held at Cooper Inst.i.tute on January 28 and addressed by eminent men of all parties, designated James T. Brady, Cornelius K. Garrison, and Appleton Oaksmith, as commissioners to confer with delegates to the conventions of these seceding States ”in regard to measures best calculated to restore the peace and integrity of this Union.”[644] Scarcely had the meeting adjourned, however, before John A. Dix, as secretary of the treasury, thrilled the country by his fearless and historic dispatch, ”If any one attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot.”
[Footnote 644: _Appleton's Cyclopaedia_, 1861, p. 520.]
Dix had brought to the Cabinet the training of a soldier and of a wise, prudent, sagacious statesman of undaunted courage and integrity.
With the exception of his connection with the Barnburners in 1848, he had been an exponent of the old Democratic traditions, and, next to Horatio Seymour, did more, probably, than any other man to bring about a reunion of his party in 1852. Nevertheless, the Southern politicians never forgave him. President Pierce offered him the position of secretary of state, and then withdrew it with the promise of sending him as minister to France; but the South again defeated him. From that time until his appointment as postmaster of New York, following the discovery, in May, 1860, of Isaac V. Fowler's colossal defalcation,[645]
Dix had taken little part in politics. If the President, however, needed a man of his ability and honesty in the crisis precipitated by Fowler's embezzlement, such characteristics were more in demand, in January, 1861, at the treasury, when the government was compelled to pay twelve per cent. for a loan of five millions, while New York State sevens were taken at an average of 101-1/4.[646] Bankers refused longer to furnish money until the Cabinet contained men upon whom the friends of the government and the Union could rely, and Buchanan, yielding to the inevitable, appointed the man clearly indicated by the financiers.[647]