Volume III Part 28 (2/2)
[Footnote 1375: Myers, _History of Tammany_, pp. 301, 305.]
[Footnote 1376: _Ibid._, pp. 261 and note, 300 and 301.]
[Footnote 1377: ”About the same time, and in adjoining city districts, two bosses entered upon public life. While Tweed was learning to make chairs, Kelly was being taught grate-setting. While Tweed was amusing himself as a runner with a fire engine, Kelly was captain of the Carroll Target Guard. Tweed led fire laddies and Kelly dragged about target-shooters upon the eve of elections. Both entered the Board of Aldermen about the same time. About the same time, too, they went to Congress. Within a few years of each other's candidacy they ran for sheriff. Tweed was defeated. Kelly was elected. While Kelly was making bills as sheriff, Tweed was auditing them in the Board of Supervisors.
Tweed became the Tammany boss, and Kelly succeeded him. Tweed fell a victim to his greed, Kelly escaped by the Statute of Limitations.”--New York _Times_, October 30, 1875.]
If any doubt had existed as to Greeley's treatment at Baltimore, it quickly disappeared on the a.s.sembling of the convention, for the question of nomination or indors.e.m.e.nt alone disturbed it. If it adopted him as its own candidate fear was entertained that Republicans would forsake him. On the other hand, it was claimed that many Democrats who could only be held by party claims would not respect a mere indors.e.m.e.nt. Southern delegates argued that if Democrats hoped to defeat their opponents they must encourage the revolt by giving it prestige and power rather than smother it by compelling Liberals to choose between Grant and a Democrat. The wisdom of this view could not be avoided, and after adopting the Cincinnati platform without change, the convention, by a vote of 686 to 46, stamped the Cincinnati ticket with the highest Democratic authority.[1378] Little heartiness, however, characterised the proceedings. Hoffman, in casting New York's vote, aroused much enthusiasm, but the response to the announcement of Greeley's nomination was disappointing. The _Tribune_ attributed it to the intense heat and the exhaustion of the delegates,[1379] but the _Nation_ probably came nearer the truth in ascribing it to ”boiled crow.”[1380] This gave rise to the expression ”to eat crow,” meaning ”to do what one vehemently dislikes and has before defiantly declared he would not do.”[1381]
[Footnote 1378: Of the 46 opposition votes, James A. Bayard received 6 from Delaware and 9 from New Jersey; Jeremiah S. Black 21 from Pennsylvania; William S. Groesbeck 2 from Ohio. There were 8 blanks.]
[Footnote 1379: New York _Tribune_, July 11, 1872.]
[Footnote 1380: July 11.]
[Footnote 1381: Century Dictionary.]
CHAPTER XXIII
DEFEAT AND DEATH OF GREELEY
1872
The Republicans of New York welcomed the outcome of the Democratic national convention. There was a time in its preliminary stages when the Liberal movement, blending principle and resentment, had a.s.sumed alarming proportions. Discontent with the Administration, stimulated by powerful journals, seemed to permeate the whole Republican party, and the haste of prominent men to declare themselves Liberals, recalling the unhappy division in the last State convention and the consequent falling off in the Republican vote, added to the solicitude. Moreover, the readiness of the Democrats to approve the principles of the Missouri reformers suggested a coalition far more formidable than the Philadelphia schism of 1866. That movement was to resist untried Reconstruction, while the Missouri division was an organised protest against practices in the North as well as in the South which had become intolerable to men in all parties. Gradually, however, the Republican revolt in New York disclosed limitations which the slim attendance at Cincinnati accentuated. Several congressional districts had been wholly unrepresented, and few prominent men had appeared at Cincinnati other than free-traders and Fenton leaders.
Such an exhibition of weakness had an exhilarating effect upon Republicans, who received the nomination of Greeley with derision.
In this frame of mind the friends of the Administration, meeting in State convention at Elmira on May 15, sent a delegation to Philadelphia, headed by the venerable Gerrit Smith, which boasted that it was without an office-holder. Three weeks later the Republican national convention, amidst great enthusiasm, unanimously renominated Grant for President. A single ballot sufficed also for the selection of Henry Wilson of Ma.s.sachusetts for Vice-President.[1382] The platform, to offset the Liberals' arraignment, favoured civil service reform, the abolition of the franking privilege, the prohibition of further land grants to corporations, an increase in pensions, and ”the suppression of violent and treasonable organisations” in the South.
[Footnote 1382: Wilson received 364-1/2 votes to 321-1/2 for Colfax of Indiana, who had declared his intention to retire from public life.
When, later, he changed his mind, Wilson possessed the advantage.]
At their State convention, held in Utica on August 21, Republicans felt no fear of factional feuds since the aggressive Fenton leaders had pa.s.sed into the Liberal camp. But reasons for alarm existed. The election in 1871, carried by the inspiration of a great popular uprising in the interest of reform, had given them control of the Legislature, and when it a.s.sembled honest men rejoiced, rogues trembled, and Tweed failed to take his seat. The people expected the shameless Erie ring and its legislation to be wiped out, corrupt judges to be impeached, a new charter for New York City created, the purity of the ballot-box better protected, ca.n.a.l management reformed, and a variety of changes in criminal practice. But it proved timid and dilatory. At the end of the session the Tweed charter still governed, the machinery of the courts remained unchanged, and reforms in ca.n.a.l management, in elections, and in the city government had been sparingly granted. In cases of proven dishonesty its action was no less disappointing. It allowed a faithless clerk of the Senate to resign without punishment;[1383] it permitted the leaders of the Tammany ring to continue in office; it decided that a man did not disqualify himself for a seat in the Senate by taking bribes;[1384] and it failed to attack the Erie ring until the reign of Jay Gould was destroyed by the bold action of Daniel E. Sickles.[1385] Never did a party more shamelessly fail in its duty. Even credit for the impeachment of the Tweed judges belonged to Samuel J. Tilden. ”That was all Tilden's work, and no one's else,” said Charles O'Conor. ”He went to the Legislature and forced the impeachment against every imaginable obstacle, open and covert, political and personal.”[1386]
[Footnote 1383: New York _Tribune_, February 15, 1872.]
[Footnote 1384: _Ibid._, April 11.]
[Footnote 1385: For narration of this _coup de main_, see Morgan Dix, _Life of John A. Dix_, Vol. 2, pp. 163-167.]
[Footnote 1386: _The Century_, March, 1885, p. 734.]
Such a record did not inspire the party with confidence, and its representatives looked for a head to its State ticket who could overcome its shortcomings. Of the names canva.s.sed a majority seemed inclined to William H. Robertson of Westchester. He had been an a.s.semblyman, a representative in Congress, a judge of his county for twelve years, and a State senator of distinguished service. Although prudent in utterance and somewhat cautious in entering upon a course of action, his indefatigable pursuit of an object, coupled with conspicuous ability and long experience, marked him as one of the strong men of New York, destined for many years to direct the politics of his locality.
Nevertheless, a feeling existed that his course in the Senate had lacked force. The New York _Times_ severely criticised it, regarding him too much of a tenderfoot in pus.h.i.+ng the reform movement, and on the eve of the convention it opposed his candidacy.[1387] The _Times_, then the only paper in New York City upon which the party relied with confidence to fight its battles, exerted an influence which could scarcely be overrated. However, it is doubtful if its opposition could have avoided Robertson's nomination had not the name of John A. Dix been sprung upon the convention. It came with great suddenness. No open canva.s.s preceded it. Thurlow Weed, who had proposed it to nearly every convention since 1861, was in Utica, but to Henry Clews, the well-known banker, belonged the credit of presenting it ”on behalf of the business men of New York.” The captivating suggestion quickly caught the delegates, who felt the alarming need of such a candidate, and the audience, rising to its feet, broke into cheers, while county after county seconded the nomination. One excited delegate, with stentorian voice, moved that it be made by acclamation, and although the Chair ruled the motion out of order, the withdrawal of Robertson's name quickly opened a way for its pa.s.sage.
[Footnote 1387: August 21, 1872; New York _Tribune_, August 22.
<script>